Freewill
Platinum Member
- Oct 26, 2011
- 31,158
- 5,073
- 1,130
- Thread starter
- #41
Nixon's strategy did not target the racists and the racists didn't leave the party of slavery for the party of Lincoln.
And I think Nixon's record is testimony of the good he did for blacks, or tried to do. Reagan had a better record then Obama. Bush was and is loved in Africa. How perception is ever going to change I am not sure. I have always maintained that blacks are not stupid. I always thought they have to know they are being lied to. But when you think about it what choice have they been offered by the democrats? They have been fed gloom and doom if they leave the party. When in fact the Republican party has done nothing to harm them and everything to help them. So guys like this pastor has to make up lies, as he clearly has done.
bullshit
Africa? How does helping people in Africa because of religious beliefs, help American Blacks?
The GOP ::::::::::::::::::::::;
It was called "the southern strategy," started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue -- on matters such as desegregation and busing -- to appeal to white southern voters.
Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, this morning will tell the NAACP national convention in Milwaukee that it was "wrong."
"By the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out," Mehlman says in his prepared text. "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."
Double BS. The implication of the pastor was the the right didn't like blacks. Certainly if that were the case then Bush wasn't gonna help them in Africa, he would have no reason to, they don't vote. Not that the left will ever give anyone credit for anything other then their own party.
The educating of you people on the Nixon Southern Strategy gets pretty damn tireing. Here is an article from one who should know.
The Neocons and Nixon's southern strategy
The Dixiecrats did not become Republicans, after their failed Presidential attempt they went right back home to the Democrat Party.
Here, you can also read this:
The Southern Strategy
This bias is evident also in how differently they treat the long Democratic dominance of the South. Carter and the Black brothers suggest that the accommodation of white racism penetrates to the very soul of modern conservatism. But earlier generations of openly segregationist Southerners voted overwhelmingly for Woodrow Wilson's and Franklin Roosevelt's Democratic Party, which relaxed its civil rights stances accordingly. This coalition passed much of the New Deal legislation that remains the basis of modern liberalism. So what does the segregationist presence imply for the character of liberalism at its electoral and legislative apogee? These scholars sidestep the question by simply not discussing it. This silence implies that racism and liberalism were simply strange political bedfellows, without any common values.
But the commonality, the philosophical link, is swiftly identified once the Democrats leave the stage. In study after study, authors say that "racial and economic conservatism" married white Southerners to the GOP after 1964. So whereas historically accidental events must have led racists to vote for good men like FDR, after 1964 racists voted their conscience. How convenient. And how easy it would be for, say, a libertarian conservative like Walter Williams to generate a counter-narrative that exposes statism as the philosophical link between segregation and liberalism's economic populism.
Yet liberal commentators commit a further, even more obvious, analytic error. They assume that if many former Wallace voters ended up voting Republican in the 1970s and beyond, it had to be because Republicans went to the segregationist mountain, rather than the mountain coming to them. There are two reasons to question this assumption. The first is the logic of electoral competition. Extremist voters usually have little choice but to vote for a major party which they consider at best the lesser of two evils, one that offers them little of what they truly desire. Segregationists were in this position after 1968, when Wallace won less than 9% of the electoral college and Nixon became president anyway, without their votes. Segregationists simply had very limited national bargaining power. In the end, not the Deep South but the GOP was the mountain.
Second, this was borne out in how little the GOP had to "offer," so to speak, segregationists for their support after 1968, even according to the myth's own terms. Segregationists wanted policies that privileged whites. In the GOP, they had to settle for relatively race-neutral policies: opposition to forced busing and reluctant coexistence with affirmative action. The reason these policies aren't plausible codes for real racism is that they aren't the equivalents of discrimination, much less of segregation.
Why did segregationists settle for these policies rather than continue to vote Democratic? The GOP's appeal was mightily aided by none other than the Democratic Party itself, which was lurching leftward in the 1970s, becoming, as the contemporary phrase had it, the party of "acid, amnesty, and abortion." Among other things, the Democrats absorbed a civil rights movement that was itself expanding, and thus diluting, its agenda to include economic redistributionism, opposition to the Vietnam War, and Black Power. The many enthusiasms of the new Democratic Party drove away suburban middle-class voters almost everywhere in the country, not least the South.
Given that trend, the GOP did not need to become the party of white solidarity in order to attract more voters. The fact that many former Wallace supporters ended up voting Republican says a lot less about the GOP than it does about segregationists' collapsing political alternatives. Kevin Phillips was hardly coy about this in his Emerging Republican Majority. He wrote in 1969 that Nixon did not "have to bid much ideologically" to get Wallace's electorate, given its limited power, and that moderation was far more promising for the GOP than anything even approaching a racialist strategy. While "the Republican Party cannot go to the Deep South"meaning the GOP simply would not offer the policies that whites there seemed to desire most"the Deep South must soon go to the national GOP," regardless.
The Claremont Institute - The Myth of the Racist Republicans
If you are more visual try this:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xryXpK042pQ&sns=em]Examining Black Loyalty to Democrats - YouTube[/ame]