Liberal Policies, Feminism, and their Destruction of the Black Community

reply to post by bbracken677


I'd trade any and all Democrats today for just one Dwight Eisenhower in a red hot minute, just so you know.

I did unfairly generalize the position of the Republican party of the 50s. I did that in reaction to what I see as the absurd postulations of QoS that the Republican party has always been what it is today and was historically solicitous in regard to African Americans. The opposition to Civil Rights within the Democratic party was regional (Southern). Politics being politics, then as now, some Republicans supported Civil Rights (like the bill that President Eisenhower supported in '57) as an antithesis to the southern Democrats, many of whom were in positions of power (Committee Chairs) in the House and Senate.

I'm asserting that the opposition to the Civil Rights Acts was based in regionality rather than party politics, per se.

I will still point out that only 15 years or so later, those same Southerners jumped to the side of the fence that they felt best represented their beliefs (which may or may not remain racially motivated), painted the Deep South Red and kept it so for the last 35 years more or less.

There's a reason why one of the strongest causes celebres for the modern Republican Party is "State's Rights."

That math is just not that hard to do.

I think we've learned some strong hard lessons in the last 50 years or so. Indeed, too many times when we try to do "too much" for people (and there's no racial boundary here) they become complacent. The road to hell really is paved with good intentions, sometimes.

I live in the Atlanta area, and I can tell you that the eradication of most of the high-volume "public housing" has helped many neighborhoods return to greater peace and prosperity. (And some of these are predominantly Black neighborhoods, some are White, but most are today a mixture of all races and nationalities.)

People just aren't meant to so tightly share that kind of space (the housing projects), in my opinion. Something about that kills the soul. Along with that what I saw here was that Federal money established these projects, which were then turned over to the State in some cases and municipalities in others. These entities in every situation did not maintain these facilities, did not manage them, allowed them to decay and aggravated the "high-density" issues thereby. I am not a believer in the sanctity of 'local government' for those reasons, among others; if you want to find REAL corruption, look locally.

But I ramble. I don't disagree with you totally, Bracken.

reply to post by Gryphon66


Nor I you In fact, I agree with your remark regarding Ike!! I like Ike! (LOL those too young will not get that at all)

I, having been Republican (and before that Democrat, and extremely liberal in my youth) happen to know quite a few Republicans.

A little personal history to establish my background and reasoning: I was born in California, raised in California and Texas, lived 5 years in Costa Rica and then 30 years in Mississippi. Since then count in Tennessee and back to Texas as my resident states.
I was once as liberal as can be. I then progressed in the direction of conservatism over many years finally declaring myself as Republican. The main reasoning behind my transition was the growing realization that liberalism did not work. The evidence is all around. I will always call real, grassroots liberal ideals noble in intent. Liberal politicians I have a special finger reserved for them. My youngest daughter is as liberal as can be, while my oldest is pretty conservative. I have never, aside from specific political arguments, encouraged my youngest to "turn". In fact, when she called me up and told me she was going to join a protest about the Iraq war I encouraged her. I also told her not to get arrested LOL

True diehard liberals, although exasperating, are pretty awesome people. Unfortunately I dont believe in pie in the sky. The intent is great but the results usually suck to some degree and seldom (extremely seldom) actually accomplish what the intent is by even a reasonable amount.

Anyway, I digress.... I am now a curious mixture of fiscal conservatism to an extreme, coupled with what I would refer to as a reasonable social progressive.

Now that that has been established: I agree that the Republican Party has not bent over backwards to help out any group, but then, realistically, if you examine what is "supposed" to be their philosophy you will see that it is not racist per se, but just not anti-racist either. They simply believe (or claim to) (once again this is politicians, not grassroots folk) that each is responsible for themselves and their decisions in life. They do not believe in a Nanny state.

Personally, I have no problem with and think it is right to help people out in bad positions in life. What I do not believe is that we (as a country or govt) should subsidize poverty and provide incentives to maintain the condition of poverty. The help, the incentives and the support should go strictly to aid and or guide people OUT of those conditions. If you (generic) do not wish to play that game but would rather wallow in poverty, then support should be withdrawn and you should be left to wallow as you see fit. (It is, after all, called freedom, liberty).

This is not racist. Having lived for 30 years in Mississippi I have been exposed to racists quite a bit, particularly in the late 70s when I moved there. There is a new Mississippi now. White racists are rare (believe it or not) and those who are republicans are because of the basic philosophy as stated above...not cause they hate blacks. I actually, during the last 20 years, have seen more racism on the part of blacks than whites. Bold statement given that most of those 20 years were in Mississippi.

What I see now is a knee jerk reaction to call anyone who is not liberal a racist. I have been called racist by liberals often simply because of my views regarding welfare and the welfare state. Funny, cause when my oldest once returned from school and was telling us (she may have been 6?) about some event at school that day she referred to a black teacher as "the dark lady"...it took me a bit to realize she was talking about a black lady. I was proud that my children were raised in MS and escaped without being tainted by racism. But yet, the left insists on putting everyone in a nice, neat box. Racists.

I know lots of Republicans and Tea Party and even a few libertarians and not a one of them are racist. But yet liberals seem to feel it's ok to hypocritically identify a whole political party as racist. Pot calling kettle black? Hypocrites?

And yet, I do know a few Democrats that are as racist as the day is long...

End of long ramble/rant for now. Sorry for my wordiness LOL In case you haven't noticed I hate hypocrisy. I do not care for the Republican Party (hypocrites) nor do I care for liberals that insist on being hypocrites. I do not agree with Democrat philosophy.

reply to post by bbracken677


Oh...and I so totally disagree with the govt assigning "protected class" status to anyone. Equality is supposed to mean equal.
The "protected class" designation is going to result in all kinds of messed up policies.

There is already a movement towards not allowing apartment complexes to run background checks on the "protected class" since the black community (particularly black youth) has such a large percentage of convictions. That same movement will not allow an employer to check a potential "protected class" employee's record either.

I see...because I want my apt community to be safe, or because I do not want to hire a criminal to represent my company I am being discriminatory?

This is insanity...

Does my opinion make me a racist?

I loved your post. How refreshing to hear how other people think like myself, and my fiance. You're absolutely right about the history. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a republican, and so is his niece. Women, black or white, are still not paid equal to men. But, it's too bad women have had to join the workplace. The courts are so hard on men that get divorced and have to pay child support, that they don't want to get married anymore. But, then there are women out there, that they know the courts will rule on their side, therefore, having children, alimony, and living free. Not having to go into the workplace, and scrape up a living for themselves.

reply to post by QueenofSpades


it is the pussification of the American male
and the penisification of the American female.

The facts of history beg to differ:

In a 1958 interview, King said “I don’t think the Republican party is a party full of the almighty God nor is the Democratic party. They both have weaknesses … And I’m not inextricably bound to either party.”

(Source - King Interview at Bennett College)

The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.

He finishes this comment here:

In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.

Source - Dr. King's Comments on the 1964 Republican Convention

"A commonly circulated item about Martin Luther King which is not included in this list is the claim that King was a Republican. Such claims are based purely on speculation; King himself never expressed an affiliation with, nor endorsed candidates for, any political party, and his son, Martin Luther King III, said: "It is disingenuous to imply that my father was a Republican. He never endorsed any presidential candidate, and there is certainly no evidence that he ever even voted for a Republican."

MLK - Snopes

Politifact - Dr. King was NOT a Republican

Etc. Etc.

reply to post by Gryphon66


Ah, yes, Goldwater. A bit before my time, but I know of him.

And yet, during that same period were there no racist Democrats?

Since I came of age and began following politics, I do not believe the philosophy of the Republican Party was racist. Were there racist influences and members? No doubt!! Were there racist influences and members in the Democrat Party? No doubt either!

Goldwater ran for the '64 election. Wallace was elected in 1963 as Governor of Alabama. Wallace's Inaugural Address featured the slogan: "Segregation now, Segregation tomorrow, Segregation forever!" He was a Democrat. Just as a side note: Democrat Mayor of Memphis stated on TV that he "didn't care if all the white people in Memphis moved out". (I personally heard this)

My point? Perhaps merely that my time of following politics has seen many a$$hats, some racists, some not, but that there has not been a racist party per se. The Repubs are often called that (which is just as bigoted a statement as any racist one made) just as they are blamed for being in the pocket of big business and are all for the rich, and yet I could point to the Democrats and say the same exact thing. 7 out of the 10 richest congressmen are democrats...they are for the little guy, right? As far as Democrats claiming a change in heart concerning racism all I have to say is: They are politicians right? Even Wallace had a "change in heart" in the 70s and apologized to black America. Yeah...right.

My point is that there is an awful lot of spin going on and most of it is pure and unadulterated BS. Unfortunately too many Americans believe what they want to believe with zero critical thinking.

reply to post by bbracken677



Addendum: Congressional vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

80% of Republicans voted FOR the act in the House.
82% of Republicans voted FOR the act in the Senate
63% of Democrats voted FOR the act in the House
69% of Democrats voted FOR the act in the Senate.

How many of you are familiar with these numbers?

The Democrats controlled both houses and yet, could not put together enough votes to pass it on their own.

And yet, the spin is: Democrats passed the Act, Republicans fought it (being the racist party, after all, what else would you expect? )

reply to post by bbracken677


I mentioned Dr. King's Goldwater quote because someone earlier had repeated the common fallacious claim that King was a Republican. He wasn't, in his own words, as shown.

This thread portrays Democrats as intrinsically against Blacks. The claim was made earlier that the Republican party passed the Civil Rights Act of 68 on its own which is just patently ridiculous.

I provided the actual numbers for the vote on the Civil Rights Act earlier. It was clear that the majority of the Democratic party worked to pass the bill that President Kennedy had designed, that had been introduced on the Floor of the House by a Democrat, and ended up being pushed through by President Johnson.

The opposition to the Civil Rights Act, once again, was a regional concern: the Southern States were against it. The 18 Senators that held the filibuster were all from Southern states. After their defeat, within 15 years, all those States went Republican. President Reagans "Grand Coalition"

I've never called anyone a racist that wasn't being a racist. It's a vile claim and should not be made lightly.

I end up defending Democrats here all too often not because I agree with their "principals" but because the ridiculous rhetoric of the modern Republican party is utterly rife with misdirection, half-truths and outright lies as generated by the right-wing media's echo chamber.

reply to post by Gryphon66


I didnt mean you were calling people racist. Just that the Repubs are often, to this day, perceived as racist when that is not true, at least as far as the people I have know. Sorry bout that

Sometimes I get started on a point and then just drift into a different rant not totally related to the post I am replying to lol

reply to post by Gryphon66


Hey OP.. All of your conservatism and traditions and religion is creepy and the people who think critically and rationally will never accept it. The conservative mind is filled with disgust... Nowadays it's rich vs poor. Dem and rep are both the business party. Your a creep I hope the rapture takes you away. Your empire will burn one day... It's just too evil.. And creepy

reply to post by bbracken677


I didn't take it that way at all Bracken.

I just wanted you to know that I understand how frustrating it is to be called something or be told you're doing something that you're obviously not. My conclusion over time is that everyone is at least a little racist (including your favorite racial minority of choice) and that tendency is something we all should a) accept in ourselves and then b) fight against.

I absolutely do not trust anyone who tells me that "they don't have a racist bone in their body." It usually takes me less than a minute of Socratic method to show them that they do.

At the same time, on the "other side of the fence," it frustrates me to no end to see every reference to Democrats or to liberals or to progressives or anyone who disagrees with the right-wing spiel generated via the media echo chamber equated with Communist or Socialist or " 'Merica-hatin', sorry-good-for-nuthin layabouts that only want the guvment to give them somethin' "

I really am exhausted with that one.

Over the course of my life, I've debated Democrats, liberals, Republicans, conservatives, not to mention actual libertarians, Communists, and anarchists.

Anyone who "believes" in an inflexible dogma will occasionally have to confront the reality of an antithesis of their position.

When that happens, I watch their reaction, which usually gives me a clear indicator of the quality of their character.

~~~~~

Bracken, I do enjoy our chats. I'm glad we didn't merely dismiss each other.

reply to post by asyourworldburned


come out from your moms basement in her motel.
the sun is shining. liberal/progressive is nothing more than
atheistic socialism.

spirited75
reply to post by asyourworldburned

 

come out from your moms basement in her motel.
the sun is shining. liberal/progressive is nothing more than
atheistic socialism.

See Bracken, ^ case in point.

Spirited:

Surely the world you live in is not this dreary.

Surely you don't believe that political positions that are distinct from yours are automatically the direct opposite of what they are.

Many liberals and many progressives believe in God, go to church, and practice what they preach. Do you?

Many liberals and many progressives believe in capitalism, have jobs or own businesses, and are productive members of society. Do you?

You spoke of sunshine ... why don't you turn off Fox or Rush or whatever is rotting your brain and go get you some, eh?

Practice what you preach, and all? Hmmm?

reply to post by bbracken677


Oh, I read it. You just don't know what you are talking about. You just know what you have overheard or read about the pre-Civil rights era.

I was sitting in my grandmother's kitchen in Big Creek, MS when I was 13 in 1964. At that age I could not but notice all the talk about Goldwater and the Civil rights fights. It made me ask a question I had never asked before "Grandma, why do we hate n****(blacks)?" Her answer "Cause they are sub-human".

That is a centuries old taught philosophy that Johnson and the civil rights activists had to overcome.

You also infer that the black community was better off before they had equal rights with the white race. You could not be more wrong.

MOMof3
reply to post by bbracken677

 

Oh, I read it. You just don't know what you are talking about. You just know what you have overheard or read about the pre-Civil rights era.

I was sitting in my grandmother's kitchen in Big Creek, MS when I was 13 in 1964. At that age I could not but notice all the talk about Goldwater and the Civil rights fights. It made me ask a question I had never asked before "Grandma, why do we hate n****(blacks)?" Her answer "Cause they are sub-human".

That is a centuries old taught philosophy that Johnson and the civil rights activists had to overcome.

You also infer that the black community was better off before they had equal rights with the white race. You could not be more wrong.

First off, in your initial reply to my post you said that what party blacks were before and then after was irrelevant. I say categorically that I have never made an issue NOR a reference to what political party blacks belonged to pre or post civil rights. I think you are thinking about another person's post because I never once touched on that subject. For this post I dont think it is pertinent. What party blacks are now is pertinent, obviously.

I think you are also confusing individuals campaigns with what a particular party stands for. Goldwater was an extremist and there is a reason he never became the Republican's candidate again.

Are you saying that I am claiming that there were no racist influences or individuals in the Republican Party? If that is the case, then you obviously either didn't read or understand my previous posts. There were racist (obviously) influences and individuals in both parties at the time. Racism was much more "in your face" as well as wide spread than it is now. I dare say that racism, in general, is much less than it used to be 50 years ago...that seems obvious to me. I will also say, that racism from the black community is much more than it was 50 years ago, or at least much more "in your face" at the very least.

If you, for one second, believe that Johnson was not racist, then you are severely deluded. His motivations were political and nothing more, nothing less.

As to not knowing what I am talking about? Hmm...I guess you are entitled to your opinion but your anecdote proved nothing other than your parents were racist.

My first exposure to racism was in grade school. Blacks had their own classrooms and part of the playground. The playground had a white line painted down marking the separation point. I remember a black kid chasing a ball that rolled into the white part and seeing a teacher react rather negatively about the whole thing as though the black kid had a communicable disease we would catch if we got too close. Needless to say that memory, as well as my confusion at the time stayed with me my whole life.

We each had our own experiences with it as well as influences of the times. I lived in Ms for 30 years beginning in 1976. I have a pretty good idea how racist MS probably was during the 60s. The state, as a whole was also Democrat, at the time and was still fairly heavily Democrat in the mid 70s, although not nearly as much as earlier. One of my first memories of MS was the KKK distributing leaflets at an intersection with robes and hoods on. I was rather dumbfounded, not realizing until then that the KKK was still active. I had just moved to MS from NW Texas. At the time I was extremely liberal. I had my world view, so to speak, rearranged quite a bit during my stay in MS.

So...as to whether I know what I am talking about or not, perhaps a bit more clarification regarding what specifically it was that I do not know would be helpful.

reply to post by bbracken677


Of course there are racists and arses everywhere. Why are you trying so hard to defend the Republican party then? The Black community wanted equality, voting rights, and jobs. I don't think it mattered which party or what the motivation. Too bad the Republicans missed being on the right side of history on that one.

reply to post by MOMof3


I know they seem long, but you could form a more cogent response if you read bbracken's posts instead of skimming them for things you disagree with.

He and others have laid out the truth several times in this thread. People today think Democrats were more supportive of the civil rights movement because of a deliberate revisionist history campaign.

reply to post by OpenMindedRealist


That is true. Goldwater was pulling the republican party way right. And the democrats probably saw a political opportunity at the right time. And because of all this pushing and pulling by the parties, the Civil Rights Bill passed.

OpenMindedRealist
reply to post by MOMof3

 

I know they seem long, but you could form a more cogent response if you read bbracken's posts instead of skimming them for things you disagree with.

He and others have laid out the truth several times in this thread. People today think Democrats were more supportive of the civil rights movement because of a deliberate revisionist history campaign.

There's a revisionist history campaign on all RIGHT. Once again:

1. President Kennedy, a Democrat, had the legislation that would become the Civil Rights Act developed and drawn up. (Source)

2. Representative Emmanuel Celler, a Democrat, chaired the Committee that brought the legislation to the Floor of the House.

3. President Johnson, a Democrat, pushed the Bill through Congress.

4. The House voted to pass the bill 290 - 130. 94% (145) of Northern Democrats voted in favor. Southern Democrats voted against overwhelmingly as did Southern Republicans.

5. The Senate voted to pass the bill 73-27. 98% of Northern Democrats voted in favor. 18 Southern Democrats voted against overwhelmingly as well as filibustering the bill.

6. Fifteen years later, those same Southern states whose Representatives and Senators did everything they could to stop teh Civil RIghts Act vote OVERWHELMINGLY Republican and have for the last 35 years.