This past Monday, the day on which we celebrated Martin Luther King, Jr., I spoke of some who did him harm. I wrote: “’Conservatives’ like J. Edgar Hoover, George Wallace and Bull Connor have long been denounced, and are now only mentioned with disgust.”
I received a lot of enthusiastic commentary to my post. Queer Conservative was vociferous. He listed Democrats who had said or done racist things, and pointed out the racism of Cynthia McKinney's father and of a lieutenant of Al Sharpton's, as well as listing Democrats who had voted against the civil rights act 40 years ago.
His point seems to be that there have been, and undoubtedly still are, racists in the Democratic party. He is right.
The Republican party also has had, and still has racists amongst its supporters. But there is a big distinction to be made - the Republican party is a racist institution. The Democratic party is not.
I know that it is not "politically correct" to call the right racist, but in fact they gain and maintain power by being racist. I just hope people like the queer conservative still have a mind open enough to read on, and to try to find objective sources to confirm, or repudiate what follows.
Shortly after the War Between the States, the Democratic party was the one devoted to oppressing black people. Lincoln had been a Republican, and the wounded white South flocked to the Democrats. Since then, things have changed.
In 1948, that happy warrior, Hubert Humphrey managed to get a civil rights plank into the Democratic platform. Strom Thurmond, then a Democrat, stormed out of the convention and left the party. He was one of the first in a long line of racist Democrats who ran to the GOP.
(First he ran for President as a rabid segregationist "Dixiecrat", and Trent Lott is still suffering for it.)
After LBJ finally pushed the civil rights bill through Congress in 1964, Nixon saw an opportunity. He developed his "Southern Strategy" to lure racist Democrats to the GOP. It was wildly successful, and the deep South has voted pretty solidly for the GOP in presidential campaigns ever since. Racist Democrats became racist Republicans.
The strategy has become more subtle over the years, but it is still very much alive. In 1981, the famed Republican strategist (as well as friend and teacher of Rove and W.), Lee Atwater explained it: "You start out in 1954 by saying 'Nigger, nigger,nigger.'By 1968 you can't say 'nigger' - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights, and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites."
"States' Rights" was the theme of one of the first speeches Reagan gave after winning the Presidential nomination. He spoke in Philadelphia, Mississippi, whose only claim to fame was the murders of three civil rights workers in 1964. He wanted to be sure that his meaning wasn't too "abstract."
With G.H.W. Bush's candidacy Willie Horton was the vehicle chosen to make the racist message clear. As Roger Ailes, now with Fox but then a Republican media consultant, put it: their only question was "whether to depict Willie Horton with a knife or without it." Atwater promised that "by the time this election is over, Willie Horton will be a household name."
Like father like son. After W's poor performance in New Hampshire, he was a little desperate heading into the South Carolina primary. Fearing that his refusal to condemn the flying of the Confederate Flag over the state capital was too "abstract," W notched it up a level. He gave a speech about those values he shared with his audience at Bob Jones University; a school with a long history of racism and a ban on interracial dating. Kathleen* Katharine Harris's suppression of the black vote in 2000, as well as the intentionally long waits African Americans had to endure in order to vote in 2004 in Ohio, are indications of how vital racism remains to GOP strategy.
Please note that I am not saying that W is a racist. Nor am I saying that all Republicans are racist. I have no way of looking into the heart of W or of any party member. But their inner feelings matter little. After all, Strom Thurmond, fervent segregationist, believed in 'integration' when it came to his own maid - he fathered a daughter with her. It is their actions that count.
In their last two conventions, the Republicans have tried to act like a party of inclusion. It seemed that there were more African-Americans on the stage, than there were black delegates. If in fact the GOP is changing and is serious about trying to attract black voters, they will need to be honest about their recent past, and to stop broadcasting racist messages that appeal to the least amongst us.
*Queer Conservative pointed out my error as to the woman's first name.
Ok, we'll assume Ms. Harris is fine with Kathleen. A very nice name also. She suppressed the black vote in 2000?
I'm begging you. Continue to believe that All Gore won the presidency and that Ms. Harris suppressed the vote. I do not ask you to prove this to be true, I only ask that you continue to believe it.
Posted by: Rick | January 20, 2006 at 11:34 PM
No need to be bothered by any facts right? Just as long as you "believe" it be true. "Feelings" are just as good as facts right? No need for "proof" right? Get real dickwad.
Posted by: Queer Conservative | January 21, 2006 at 12:22 AM
Once again you prove yourself to be one of the biggest liberal jizz swallowers I've ever encountered.
I agree. Keep believing in the supposedly oppressed black voters that nobody could produce.
Posted by: ThatGayConservative | January 21, 2006 at 05:12 AM
Thanks for correcting my mistake about Ms Harris. I'm also glad that there was nothing of substance that you found wrong.
Posted by: bbbustard | January 21, 2006 at 08:09 AM
I brought to your attention the first name of Ms. Harris. That's okay. Not looking for any kind of credit.
You say that Ms. Harris suppressed the vote as if it were a truth. There is no evidence that it ever occurred either in Florida or in Ohio in 2004. It is this simple mythology that your side has created to offer as an excuse for defeat. It is foolish. That you cling to such things is good news for my side. It causes you to not focus on things that might actually improve your position.
This great nation is completely dependant on the robust debate between two healthy political parties. (The founders carefully constructed an environment where a multi party system would not likely evolve. See Italy and Spain as evidence of this folly.) Perhaps you have yet to notice, but your side is losing. You have provided two presidents since the election of Johnson in 1964. One could make a rational argument that one of those Presidents, Carter, was a country reacting to Watergate. This argument would be difficult to refute. You'll recall that the Republican candidate pardoned Nixon. You have lost the Senate and the House of Representatives. You have lost governorships in a majority of states that you once held in a death grip. The Democratic party was once the proud home of Pittsburgh and Birmingham steelworkers and New York City firefighters. It is now the home of George Soros, Cher, Ted Kennedy, Maxine Watters, Cynthia McKinney, Al Franken et al. Yet all you can muster are these pathetic myths that you lean on. Look inwardly to the language you employ. Halliburton, Bushitler, Nazis, Fascism and on and on. If your side ever had anything serious to say, it would be lost in this background noise of nonsense. Your party is fundamentally broken. It has retreated to tiny red islands. It offers nothing. No ideas. No leadership. No vision. Nothing! Leave social security alone. Don't make eye contact with the terrorists. Corporations are evil. Coexist. It's all our fault. We are too arrogant. We had it coming. Nothing! !
If you are a serious man, your efforts would be more wisely spent in introspection. Fix what is broken. We will not do it for you. You are not an enemy. America needs both of our sides. When you find the folly on that side has become unbearable, you will be welcome here.
Pax tecum.
Posted by: Rick | January 21, 2006 at 09:05 PM
I love it when asshole northerners bloviate about southern politics.
If what you allege is true, it wouldn't have taken so long for these southern states to get Republican governors for the first time in decades, almost a cuntury and a half in several states. If what you allege is true, Mississippi and Louisiana would have had Republican governors a long time ago.
Fact is, the "Democrats", by words and by deeds, are far more racist than any Republican could ever hope to be if he wanted to. One can look at post-Katrina New Orleans to see the blatant failure of liberalism and the oh so subtle racism of the "Democrats". If what liberals claim is true, there would have been ZERO poverty in Louisiana and New Orleans should have been a shining example of prosperity for the rest of the world to follow.
We'll have to save Louisiana/"Democrat" corruption for another day. Huey "Share Our Wealth" Long was dyed in the wool Democrat.
Posted by: ThatGayConservative | January 21, 2006 at 11:32 PM
Dear TGC -
I'm a pretty un-experienced blogger, but there might be some advice that I could give you.
An evening with Jack or Evan is great fun, but not great for blogging
It is not a "cuntury and a half" since the passage of the civil rights legislation of 1964.
Your reference to the poverty in Louisiana is equally silly. Because a bad outcome occurred on someone's watch,little is proven. The Republicans have contolled the White House for most of the last half century - are they to blame for Osama, for Chavez?
Huey Long died in 1935. FDR called him of he most dangerous men in the county.
It is quite different from the way that the evangelical right deals with the Phelps operation,
Posted by: bbbustard | January 23, 2006 at 07:43 PM