Is There Any Evidence That The Right-Wing Is Racist?

I posted a thread on here a while ago on government unions, and the responses made a lot of sense and even changed my mind on the issue, so I figure I do it again, especially since it's way easier just sifting through the vast amount of threads on racism. I looked at a lot of accusations of racism at the party, and a lot of it really doesn't seem to be anything but smear tactics, like saying that Socialist/Communist/Nazi/etc. is a codeword for 'n-word' (or the N-Word as some might call it). It sounds more like polarizing rhetoric rather than racial rhetoric, especially when you consider the fact that there are some on the Left that do the same thing. Plus, Obama isn't the only democrat to be called those words.

Another instance of this is when opponents use the lack of minorities as evidence, and then writing off the minorities that are associated with the Right as "uncle toms" "house 'n-word's" and so on. Even if they were more diverse, they would probably still be written off as "uncle toms" and "house 'n-word's" just like they are now. In fact, there are even some people that attribute critcism of Obama from this party to the color of his skin, even though it's much more likely that he's a democrat. In fact, when haven't the Right criticized a democrat?

Summarizied version:
1. Polarizing Rhetoric from the Right is sometimes regarded as coded racism by opponents, even though these accusations have been directed at white left-wingers as well; In addition, the left also does the same.
2. Lack of Diveristy has been used as evidence for racism, even though if this wasn't the case, they would still be considered racist, as minorities who associate themselves with the GOP/Tea Party are often regarded as traitors to their own race.
3. Right-Wing Critics of Obama are sometimes regarded as racist, even though one could easily argue that this is because of his party affiliation, and not his race. Just like with the Polarizing Rhetoric, the same has been done to white left-wingers as well.

Note: This is not a "who's more racist" thread. This is a thread about about whether or not the racial criticism of Right-Wingers has some legitimacy or not. If you want to talk about how racist the democrats supposedly are, or how the left is supposedly being bombarded with racial accusations, then go make your own thread about it.

Accusations of racism are legitimate in some people, but certainly not all. I think the larger cause of these accusations, though, is that there are many are called racist because they tend to generally dislike policies like Affirmative Action and such.

reply to post by technical difficulties


Are there racists on the right side? Yes (example: KKK)
Are there reacists on the left side? Yes (Black Panthers)


Its that simple. This isnt rocket science. Both sides are guilty period.

Stop making issues up. Such as class and race warfare.

Focus on policies and the country will be better off.






Vote Herman Cain

So long as there remains specialized treatment for blacks in america promoted by their own race for the sole purpose of segragating themselves from the rest of civilization, then there will be racisim, regardless of their political affiliation.

I'm talking about the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Shelia Jackson-Lee, etc., etc., etc., and the organizations such as The NAACP, The Congressional Black Caucus, The United Negro College Fund, Affirmative Action, so on and so fourth, which polarize the white and black communities against one another.

Originally posted by kellynap43



Vote Herman Cain

This is the evidence that will disprove that many on the right are racist. If they vote for Herman Cain, for either president or vice-president, calling the right racist will be false.
If they don't vote for him, well I think it's more evidence that many on the right are racist.

Note, I'm not saying everyone on the right is racist...just many, probably not the majority.

As it stands now, IMO there are many racists on the right, even if they deny it. Actions speak louder than words.

As someone who leans left, but respects the views of the right, I disagree with affirmative action. People should get a job based on their qualifications, not the color of their skin.
I think many on the right are racist because of their intense hatred of Obama. While the majority probably just disagree with his policies, you can't deny that many of the more vocal conservatives are so vocal because "there's a $%^&&& in the white house."

Perhaps the answer you are seeking is embedded in this interesting; if rather lengthy article/ discussion by libs themselves on the democratic parties use of "racism":
(I'd quote more but got my pee-pee slapped for that recently).

Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Why Liberals Are Lame: McCarthyite Identity Politics as Cover for Bankrupt Policies

The latest desperate strategy of Obama’s spin-meisters highlights the rot at the core of the Democratic party: the heavy handed use of identity politics as a cover for neoliberal policies that betray the very groups the party purports to represent.

As Obama’s poll ratings continue to deteriorate, Melissa Harris-Perry, professor of political science at Tulane, argued that the reason white liberals were abandoning him was racism. (Earth to Obama: trying to make your base feel guilty, particularly when YOU are the one who ought to feel guilty, is not going to do you any good).

She doesn’t even bother to make a real argument. She starts by citing some studies on voter bias which have no connection to Obama’s situation, and with a straight face tries to fob off this astonishing thesis:

I believe much of that decline can be attributed to their disappointment that choosing a black man for president did not prove to be salvific for them or the nation. His record is, at the very least, comparable to that of President Clinton, who was enthusiastically re-elected.

Oh, come on. You call yourself a political scientist? When Clinton got in big time trouble in the polls, he took aggressive corrective action, firing staffers (including Hillary as co-president), changed many of his policies, and became fixated on job creation. The economy was beginning to boom in 1996 when he was up for reelection. Whether you attribute that to dumb luck of how Presidential elections mapped against economic cycles versus sound policy moves, Clinton faced voters when most had reason to think their personal prospects were on the rise.

By contrast, as Obama’s economic policies have failed to pull the economy out of its crisis-induced deep malaise, he has done nothing different save get more pissy and double down on his failed strategy of selling out the middle class. His recent, and no doubt desperation-induced effort to rekindle the support of his badly abused base via gestures like a millioniares’ tax, are likely to go the way of past promises of change: they will be watered down to thin gruel so as not to ruffle his moneyed backers.

It is remarakbly disingenuous for Harris-Perry to contend that dissatisfaction with Obama results from racism, as opposed to (among other things) ineffective policy responses to substantial and widespread economic stress. (emphasis added is mine)

Although this article is not worth taking seriously on its (de)merits, it has nevertheless created a bit of a firestorm, proving that the scurrilous use of the race card is an attention-getter. A good drive-by kneecapping comes from Corey Robin:

www.nakedcapitalism.com...

the rather long discussion in the "comments" is worth reading also for a glimpse inside the democratic party "struggles" with its own racismi.e. votingfor Obama because of the color of his skin)..

insightful comments like the following: (quoted in its entirety to preserve "the context")

Deb Schultz says:
September 28, 2011 at 7:03 am

What I find most wrong-headed about MHP’s attack on white liberals is that she clearly is a die-hard Obama supporter. Does she think that this attack on liberals and white Obama voters will be helpful in the upcoming campaign? You must be very politically naive not to realize that such an essay will be fodder for the Limbaughs and Hannitys for months to come. When the Republican candidate says something apparently or potentially discriminatory or condescending toward minorities, any criticism from the Democrats and the left will be countered by the fury aroused by this essay to show that white liberal lefties are hypocrites.

I think a better response to this sort of argument is to shrug and say okay, call me racist. So I voted for Obama and part of me did indeed hope that his minority status would give him more powerful stature when/if he chose to speak for those who have historically been unempowered and suffered subtle and not so subtle endemic societal barriers to advancement and economic security. I was wrong to stereotype in this way, just as many of those who voted for Bush in the hopes that he would actually prove to be a regular straight-talkin’ Joe who would stand up against the Eastern elites and the liberal media and help out the middle class etc etc were wrong. It would be better for the body politic if we all did not make that sort of mistake anymore, including Melissa Harris-Perry, who stereotypes white liberals.

Sorry for the apparent thread hi-jack: but the "right" does not necessarily hold the sole "racist" position where politics is concerned.
As your O.P. Accuses "the right" I think that makes this a "political topic"...

It would seem; judging from the article;(like a frothing dog) liberals are snapping their jaws at everyone( even "unfoundedly" calling themselves "racist") for losing "the vision".

edit on 29-9-2011 by 46ACE b"ecause: (no reason given)

edit on 29-9-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-9-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-9-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-9-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-9-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-9-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

reply to post by Ghost375


I understand your frustration and where your coming from. But you do understand that much of that hatred towards the president is about performance? And not race? Yes, some don’t like him because of race. But most don’t like him because of his high unemployment rate. When you have a 9.1 % unemployment rate, almost 1/10 of people aren’t working, you’re going to have an upset country with much frustration. Not what would happen if the GOP did that with Obama? They would be thrown in jail and the keep would be thrown away.


]Side note:

I’m sure you remember this. But I remember George Bush being called "white devil", camera viewings of people hanging a makeshift dummy of him, setting a picture of him on fire, telling him to die, and many of the screen shots, were of different people of different race doing all this. Not once did I think they were racist, only that were verry unhappy democrats with not a proper outlet to place their frustration. And that they are immature and misguided.


So again I will ask. Why does your party want to continue to focus on race and not the current failures the Obama administration is covered in?


Don’t believe me? Here you go



Pictures of Democrats acting out!
www.binscorner.com...

What are you gonna scream about if we can get Herman Cain elected??????:

His resume is great deal more impressive than Oblabla's!


en.wikipedia.org...



Herman Cain was born in Memphis, Tennessee, son of Luther Cain, Jr. and his wife Lenora Davis. His mother was a cleaning woman and his father was a chauffeur.


He grew up in Georgia.Cain graduated from Morehouse College in 1967 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in mathematics, and received a Master of Science degree in computer science from Purdue University in 1971, when he was also working full-time in ballistics for the U.S. Department of the Navy.


He is the author of four books: Leadership is Common Sense (1997), Speak as a Leader (1999), CEO of SELF (October 2001), and They Think You're Stupid (May 2005). He also wrote "The Intangibles of Implementation" in the technical journal Interfaces (Vol. 9, No. 5, 1979, pp. 144-147), published by the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences.

vote Cain! he's Got my vote in lieu of Romney/Perry etal...

Originally posted by Ghost375
This is the evidence that will disprove that many on the right are racist. If they vote for Herman Cain, for either president or vice-president, calling the right racist will be false.
If they don't vote for him, well I think it's more evidence that many on the right are racist.

Sorry, if I vote FOR someone based upon their color, I am racist. Even if I'm the whitest whitey voting for H. Cain. I like Cain, a lot. But I'm more in line with Ron Paul. Therefore I'm going to vote for who has the best approach. If Ron Paul had to drop out, I'd be voting Cain in a heartbeat, but I'm not voting him to prove I'm not racist.

reply to post by CynicalDrivel


You have made a valid point,Cynical..
Dr. Paul is the only candidate I ever wrote a "sizeable" check to. ever...
IMHO Cain has alot (his business experience) going for him.It will be a tough choice if they both are on primary ballots.
Cain/Paul2012 ticket would be unstoppable. but probably as likely as a "nibiru fart".

Originally posted by kellynap43
reply to post by technical difficulties

 

Are there racists on the right side? Yes (example: KKK)
Are there reacists on the left side? Yes (Black Panthers)


Its that simple. This isnt rocket science. Both sides are guilty period.

Stop making issues up. Such as class and race warfare.

Focus on policies and the country will be better off.






Vote Herman Cain

This isn't a fake issue. Many are accusing the right of being racist, even on this forum. This thread is to see whether or not those claims are legitimite.Your post just avoids the issue completely and really doesn't help at all.

reply to post by technical difficulties


And I said YES. Confirming they do. Providing examples. And examples of the other side


Comprende?

Originally posted by technical difficulties

Originally posted by kellynap43
reply to post by technical difficulties

 

Are there racists on the right side? Yes (example: KKK)
Are there reacists on the left side? Yes (Black Panthers)


Its that simple. This isnt rocket science. Both sides are guilty period.

Stop making issues up. Such as class and race warfare.

Focus on policies and the country will be better off.






Vote Herman Cain

This isn't a fake issue. Many are accusing the right of being racist, even on this forum. This thread is to see whether or not those claims are legitimite.Your post just avoids the issue completely and really doesn't help at all.

Have you stopped beating your wife?
Do left(right) wingers pee standing up?
The entire premise of Your question is "bogus";and provocative.

People sometimes hold "racist" beliefs.
Are all conservatives racist? of course not.
Are some? Could be....
Are all conservatives card carrying members of the "rightwing"? Debateable. probably not.
are all leftists pure at heart lovers of humanity? of course not.
Are some? could be...

Originally posted by technical difficulties
Summarizied version:
1. Polarizing Rhetoric from the Right is sometimes regarded as coded racism by opponents, even though these accusations have been directed at white left-wingers as well; In addition, the left also does the same.
2. Lack of Diveristy has been used as evidence for racism, even though if this wasn't the case, they would still be considered racist, as minorities who associate themselves with the GOP/Tea Party are often regarded as traitors to their own race.
3. Right-Wing Critics of Obama are sometimes regarded as racist, even though one could easily argue that this is because of his party affiliation, and not his race. Just like with the Polarizing Rhetoric, the same has been done to white left-wingers as well.

Note: This is not a "who's more racist" thread. This is a thread about about whether or not the racial criticism of Right-Wingers has some legitimacy or not. If you want to talk about how racist the democrats supposedly are, or how the left is supposedly being bombarded with racial accusations, then go make your own thread about it.

Well many minorities see skin color first and everything else after. Michelle Obama's Princeton thesis depicts this pretty well.

Michelle Obama Princeton Thesis
obamaprincetonthesis.wordpress.com...

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to examine various attitudes
of Black Princeton alumni in their present state and as they
are perceived by the alumni to have changed over time. This
study tries to examine the following attitudes of alumni:
the extent to which they are comfortable interacting with
Black and with White individuals in various activities; the
extent to which they are motivated to benefit the Black com-
munity in comparison to other entities such as themselves,
their families, God, etc.; the ideologies they hold with re-
spects to race relations between the Black and White commu-
nities; and feelings they have toward the Black lower class
such as a feeling of obligation that they should help im-
prove the lives of this particular group of Blacks.

As a future Black alumnus, this study is particularly in-
teresting because often times I take my own attitudes about
such issues for granted;. never pausing to reflect upon how
my experiences at Princeton may somehow have caused my atti-
tudes to change. This is important for Blacks in contempo-
rary society because as more Blacks begin attending predomi-
nately White universities it will be helpful to know how
their experiences in these universities affect their future

They tend to add the skin color into conversations that really only highlight the race centrism of many ethnicities.

For example Morgan Freeman added 'black' before man when quoting McConnel

Actual Quote

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." -- Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), in an interview with the National Journal, describing his goal in retaking the Senate.

Freeman's version

FREEMAN: Mitch McConnell. Their stated policy, publicly stated, is to do whatever it takes to see to it that Obama only serves one term. What’s, what does that, what underlines that? “Screw the country. We’re going to whatever we do to get this black man, we can, we’re going to do whatever we can to get this black man outta here.”

I see this crap all the time. People have been indoctrinated and too often fail to break free.

NO, the "right wing" is NOT legitimately racist. . . .

They are just mostly a different color than the race-centric thought patterns of much of their opposition.

man i was reading comments on a legitamite news site yesterday about herman cain calling blacks brainwashed for voting for the democrats over 90% of the time. lets just say... i am not lookin forward to 2012 if herman cain gets the nomination, some really ugly comments and angry back and forth. would not be good for either party or our coiuntry to have a heated race debate on the scale of the presidential election. reminds me to much of the civil war, north vs. south again.

Originally posted by kellynap43
reply to post by technical difficulties

 

And I said YES. Confirming they do. Providing examples. And examples of the other side


Comprende?

My thread is about the right wing, not the far-right wing. You could've just as easily gave more reasons why those accusations of racism were false and misleading, and I would have no problem with it. Again, people all the time say that the Right-Wing is racist (even on this forum), and I just want to see proof of it. I admit I could've worded the title better though.