36 thoughts on “Racist Democrats

  1. Jim

    The Democratic party had a terrible record on civil rights until the 1960s. The Republican party was heroic in the 1860s and early 1870s, had little to brag about from 1876 to 1954 or so, helped Democrats pass important civil rights laws in the 60s, and then pivoted to harness the backlash in the 70s and 80s.

    The names of the two major parties have stayed the same for 150 years, but their positions and voting bases have changed dramatically.

    1. Karl Hallowell

      The Democrat still have a terrible record on civil rights. And as usual, I find it interesting how obsessed you are over ethnicity issues. I guess you got some quality brainwashing when you were young.

    2. Al

      The Democrats used to think that Americans of African decent actually needed the assistance of an overlord to clothe, house, educate and employ them.

      Today’s Democrats, … well, finish the sentence as you feel appropriate. I wouldn’t want to be putting words in anyone’s mouth.

    3. Jim

      On the subject of party histories, I will say that the GOP has an advantage in the naming of their party gatherings. I’d feel good attending a “Lincoln Dinner”, and queasy attending a “Jackson and Jefferson Dinner”. Hopefully at some point the Democratic Party will drop Jackson from that position of honor, and replace him with Roosevelt.

        1. Jim

          Roosevelt certainly wasn’t perfect, but he was much better than Jackson.

          The GOP definitely has the best president in Lincoln, but after him the pickings are slim. Reagan? Coolidge? Teddy Roosevelt?

          1. Karl Hallowell

            Roosevelt certainly wasn’t perfect, but he was much better than Jackson.

            Which Roosevelt are we speaking off, Theodore or that other guy?

          2. Leland

            Reagan?

            You mean the President that signed the law that acknowledged the civil liberty violations of Roosevelt and offered reparations? Seems far better than Roosevelt. Oh yeah, same Reagan that brought down the Soviet Juggernaut that Roosevelt promoted. Wait, same Reagan that freed Germany from Communist rule and made it whole. The same Germany Roosevelt gave over to communism to split.

    4. wodun

      “The names of the two major parties have stayed the same for 150 years, but their positions and voting bases have changed dramatically.”

      Sorry buddy but the Republicans haven’t changed when it comes to race and the base isn’t magically now racist just because Democrats like to racially stereotype them.

      The most bigoted people I have ever met have been liberals but then again I live in a blue state.

      1. Jim

        Of course the GOP has changed with regard to race. Eisenhower sent troops to desegregate schools, and Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act. Eisenhower and Nixon (1960) got over 30% of the black vote, Goldwater got 6%, and no Republican since has gotten over 15%. Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms became Republicans because the Democratic Party’s positions on civil rights moved away from them, and the Republican Party’s moved towards them.

        1. wodun

          “Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms became Republicans because the Democratic Party’s positions on civil rights moved away from them,”

          Maybe those two individuals changed and were no longer comfortable with the racist Democrats? Look at the number of racist Democrats from that ere who stayed Democrats.

          Heck, just look at the racist comments from Hillary, Biden, and Obama. You may say those comments don’t make them racists and I would probably agree with you but why should I when you will not grant other people that forbearance?

          “and no Republican since has gotten over 15%.”

          That doesn’t mean Republicans are racist although Democrats have been very successful in using racist stereotypes against Republicans. Just look at the last election and “micro targeting”.

          If it wasn’t for Republicans, there would be zero civil rights legislation. And the Republicans didn’t all of a sudden turn racist after they spent over a hundred years fighting against the racism of the Democrat party.

          It is fine if Democrats also want to not be racist but they should accept that other people are also not racist. In order for Democrats to not be racist, they don’t need to create an other that is the racist enemy, which is exactly what they have been doing.

          1. Jim

            Maybe those two individuals changed and were no longer comfortable with the racist Democrats

            You are surely joking.

          2. wodun

            Whatever your views on whether a couple people in the Republican party were racists, there are many examples in the Democrat party as well and as the article pointed out, Democrats in the South continued electing Democrats.

            If a couple of people’s beliefs can define the rest of the group, as you are trying to do, then what does that say about Democrats who have many people in top leadership positions that have expressed racist views and made racist comments?

            And if you would like to say that Democrats who were very racist decades ago can change, why not allow other people who are not Democrats to do the same?

            I will go back to this point, in order for Democrats to not be racists, they don’t need an other to hold up as racist to fight against but that is exactly what they have been doing and it is an ugly form of politics. False accusations of racism are just as bad as actual racism especially when those accusations are based on skin color.

  2. Rand Simberg Post author

    The Democrat Party has had a terrible record on civil rights since the sixties as well. Its policies have been devastating for blacks, and freedom.

      1. Rand Simberg Post author

        They know their lives suck, even if they believe the Democrats’ lies about the reasons. It helps, of course, in that regard, to “educate” them in the public-school system.

        1. Jim

          You’re claiming, in the words of Jon Chait, “a mind-blowing level of false consciousness at work among the African-American community.” If today’s Democratic Party is worse for blacks, it’s pretty amazing that it’s gotten 90+% of blacks to believe the opposite.

          1. Al

            “I’ll give you free clothing, free housing, free education, and guarantee a job.”

            It was a pretty lie then. It’s still a pretty lie now.

          2. Gregg

            “Sustained lies and maleducation will do that.”

            As will constant race baiting, and beating on the drums telling blacks they are victims of fat cat white people – as practiced by hour by hour day by day Democrats.

            You gotta hand it to the libs – they’ve found a way to keep the slaves on the plantation and blame the emancipators for their plight.

            We live in a society where a lot of the people find comfort in calling themselves victims.

          3. Karl Hallowell

            a mind-blowing level of false consciousness at work among the African-American community

            What’s “mind-blowing” about it? How do indicators for knowledge fare among the African-American community? How many graduate from high school and college? How many serve prison sentences? How many have jobs?

  3. newrouter

    , had little to brag about from 1876 to 1954

    not like the demonrats whose bragging rights include: segregating the fed work force, interning citizens, stopping anti lynch laws et al

    1. Jim

      There’s no question that the Democrats were much, much worse than the Republicans on the issue of civil rights during that period.

  4. Andrew W

    I don’t see a lot of point in dragging up ancient history to promote current pride or scorn for this or that party, those who advance those ancient policies are dead, including most of the the policy makers from 1968.

    1. Rand Simberg Post author

      Correcting lies is not “dragging up ancient history.” Particularly when it’s not particularly “ancient.” It is very relevant to current politics.

      1. Jim

        It is very relevant to current politics.

        The odds that one party, of two, would consistently be the better party for 150 years, is very low. Politicians are opportunistic, and shift their positions to reflect changes in the electorate. Some of the issues that separated the parties in the past — Prohibition, anti-Catholicism, free silver — don’t register in our politics today, and of course the parties of a century ago had no position on gay marriage, drones, or Internet regulation. Proving that one party was better than another at some point in the past tells you very little about current politics.

        Both parties have changed their positions and voting base dramatically over time. The GOP was started by ex-Whigs, and they kept the Whig focus on government intervention in the economy (e.g. “internal improvements” like canals and the transcontinental railroads). If Lincoln was around today he’d be pushing high-speed rail; the modern GOP has a different position. Charles Sumner and Jesse Helms were leading GOP senators a century apart, and it’s hard to imagine anything that they’d agree about. Similarly John Calhoun and Hillary Clinton. You don’t even need to go back that far — Nelson Rockefeller would be completely out of place in today’s GOP, and James Eastland would have no place in today’s Democratic Party.

        1. George Turner

          If Lincoln was around today he’d be pushing high-speed rail

          Yes, but then we’d tell him about aeroplanes and automobiles and he’d realize that in the modern age riding a train for anything other than fun is more moronic than riding a horse to work.

  5. Bilwick

    “The names of the two major parties have stayed the same for 150 years, but their positions and voting bases have changed dramatically.”

    Hey, Baghdad Jim is right for once! The party of Jefferson and Jackson used to be more or less against the Omnipoent State; then the State-fellators like Jim took it over.

  6. George Turner

    Jim, blacks vote Democrat for the reasons Johnson laid out:

    These Negroes, they‘re getting pretty uppity these days and that‘s a problem for us since they‘ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we‘ve got to do something about this, we‘ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.” – LBJ

    So they did that, and after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act (he and the Southern Democrats had voted against every civil rights bill up through the 1957 and 1960 bills) he said, “I’ll have those nig**rs voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” It worked, and the Democrats pretended that they’d never been racist, having a massive and urgent need for racial cover.

    But their voting didn’t change. The South didn’t swing Republican in Congressional races until 1994, when Newt Gingrich turned the tide against Bill Clinton in Clinton’s first mid-terms. By then, the average Southern segregationist Democrat voter from the mid 1950′s had died, going to their graves as racist and Democrat as ever.

  7. Gregg

    “Now we‘ve got to do something about this, we‘ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

    Game, set, match.

    Jim loses again.

  8. Fletcher Christian

    On the subject of high-speed rail, my take on it is that the concept hasn’t gone far enough.

    One of the things that effectively slows down air travel is the long ride (usually by road) to the airport before you even get started. This is necessary, because it is usually thought that landing an airliner in the middle of a city is a bad idea.

    A method that does work (at least in pilot schemes), could neatly bridge the speed gap between rail and air (300 mph, typically) and could have termini in the middle of cities is the one nobody seems to be talking about – maglev.

    1. Al

      On the subject of high-speed rail, my take on it is that the concept hasn’t gone far enough.

      The issue with most of the rail proposals is that they’re made be people who (a) think all government spending is a good thing, and (b) think the government providing jobs is a good thing.

      That is: They look plausible in the abstract, when one isn’t paying attention to the details of how they’re actually implemented.

      Given a choice between “Creates 1000 jobs, can run at an actual profit” and “Creates 5000 jobs, costs 10x the other one, and subsidized $15/person-trip”, we seem to always end up with the latter choice.

      Anyway, before we get to serious maglev-anywhere, we’ll have self-driving cars. Which will also be racist, naturally.

Comments are closed.