« One of these things was not like the others... | Main | Obama needs to equalize [radio] it out! »

March 26, 2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

derek

why is this so hard to understand? black vote is split until 1965, when the GOP nominates for president a guy (Goldwater) that voted against the civil rights act. That essentially forced black people to vote for LBJ. and to solidify that crossover, the GOP embraced southern democrats that left the party. Strom Thurmond is the most famous example.

seriously, what's so amazing about that? erasing history won't change the reason the GOP lost the black vote. Conservatives used race as a wedge issue and they reaped the benefits. No different then what they currently do to gays on the marriage issue, what they currently do to hispanics on the immigration issue, etc. NO minority votes GOP. period.

derek

i mean seriously, james, would you have voted for Barry Goldwater? If not, then why the hell do we need all this dumb ass armchair psychoanalysis to figure out why blacks left the republican party

Dan K.

There is this perception that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was perfect in every way and should have been rejected by no one.

I know I wouldn't vote for Barry Goldwater (his abortion stance) but when it came to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he opposed it because of Title II, which outlawed discrimination in hotels, restaurants, etc.

In other words, he didn't want government telling restaurants, hotels, etc. who to serve.

Moonbeam

James, you have written an excellent piece!! This phenomenon has puzzled me as well, for as long as I remember. The explanation that you and Dr. Levin give makes a great deal of sense, and makes me grieve for our people deeply. I am grateful that not everyone is "drinking the Koolaid", though, and that the sleeping giant is waking up... evidenced in part by those blacks who are grounded, common-sense Conservatives, and who have the courage to take action for and in the country we love!

derek

why goldwater opposed it is immaterial to the desired outcome of the legislation.

on a sidenote, this is getting into dog whistle politics and how conservatives tainted the small government movement by allowing it to merge with segregationists. Goldwater's objections may have been constitutional, but his supporter's concerns about the civil rights act weren't so noble.

Dan K.

derek, your assumption (you said: "That essentially forced black people to vote for LBJ.") about the civil rights act was that black people basically had to embrace it on account of being black. That's the same reasoning that seems so prevalent today to explain why so many black people vote Democrat - they're just following the policies that are good for black people!

But what if you don't agree that Democratic policies are good for black people?

Again, I think that you're on to something in the "black shift" here, but your underlying assumption is that black people have to go along with Democrat policy because that's what's best for them. As you see on this very blog, that's not always the case.

Dan K.

"why goldwater opposed it is immaterial to the desired outcome of the legislation."

Huh?

The "desired outcome" of a law makes why you oppose it immaterial?

Now I understand why Democrats are so elated about health care. After all, the DESIRED OUTCOME is so goooooood!

Dan K.

I think I want to pass a bill that gives me total command of America. I will bring peace and prosperity back to this country.

Huh? You oppose it? Unconstitutional, you say?

Immaterial. The DESIRED OUTCOME is peace and prosperity for America.

derek

The problem comes with separating legitimate concerns from the shameless racial opportunism that birthed the modern gop coalition of southern whites. Are we far enough removed from integration that when, for example, conservatives take issues with forced busing/school districts drawn with racial considerations, i can take it that they are arguing in good faith rather than going wink wink to their southern base? That's the fundamental issue. And that's a mess of the GOP's own creation. The fact that conservatives say "state's rights!" and then black people get suspicious isn't the fault of black people

derek

You do realize that goldwater lost the constitutional argument about the civil rights act? it's still around for a reason.

So yeah, his reasoning was immaterial.

derek

but i'm not here to debate heart of atlanta motel v. US. The reasoning for opposing something doesn't purify the outcome of opposition.No one says "oh, it's ok that he's against what i'm fighting for, because he's not racist"

Dan K.

Well, if you're going to say that black people should be suspicious of conservative whites simply because the GOP houses some racists, then is it not also legitimate if I fear the Democratic administration because of connections to communists like Van Jones? Any conservative who uses the word "socialism" or "communism" is totally derided as a rube, but you then go and say black people have every right to get suspicious of potential racist intentions on the GOP side.

When Barack Obama argues that health care legislation is going to reduce costs, can I take it that he's arguing in good faith rather than going wink wink to his liberal base?

Of course politicians are going to cater to their base. They're selfish just like most of us. What I'm concerned about is the policy.

derek

the difference is that there is no socialist or communist powerbase in america. But there IS a history of slavery and segregation. Conservatives that fear communism fear a boogeyman. Older blacks that fear racism fear an america they grew up in.

Dan K.

"You do realize that goldwater lost the constitutional argument about the civil rights act? it's still around for a reason."

I'm not sure the Federal Reserve is constitutional, but that's been around for nearly a hundred years.

Democrats' view of "winning an argument," clearly, is whether or not what law they wanted to pass passed. We saw that this past week. "The time for debate has passed..."

You said "The reasoning for opposing something doesn't purify the outcome of opposition."

Does that also mean that the reason for supporting something doesn't purify the outcome of supporting it? If the United States is the #4 economic power in 20 years and is crumbling under the weight of its bloated government and massive debt, are politicians still pure because they voted for so much government expansion?

Dan K.

"the difference is that there is no socialist or communist powerbase in america. But there IS a history of slavery and segregation. Conservatives that fear communism fear a boogeyman. Older blacks that fear racism fear an america they grew up in."

Really? There's no socialist base in America? Take a look at the top three elected officials in charge of the mammajammin country.

James T.

"Older blacks that fear racism fear an america they grew up in."

Yes... under the very Democrat Party that terrorized them. So why are they voting for the terror.

derek

I'm sorry do you want me to simply repost all my posts from this thread? Why do we just skip over the 65 realignment like it didn't happened? why do i have to pretend southern states didn't start voting republican in 65 and blacks didn't start voting democrat the same year? why do i have to pretend that it wasn't the GOP that made a conscious effort to merge conservatism with segregationists? I can't tell if this is some tongue in cheek way of getting back at the left for exploiting the right's flirtation with segregationists, or if you simply have no knowledge of political history

derek

i mean damn, you might as well make a post arguing that progressives should vote republican because Teddy Roosevelt was republican. You can't stop history where you want it, and then pretend nothing else ever happened before or after.

James T.

Derek = Diversion = Democrat

James T.

Thanks Moonbeam!

Amanda Smith

I never thought of this as stockholm syndrome... quite true... However, the fact that most black people are still slaves is quite apparent.
The ghettos are like slave quarters of the old days. And the black democrats in congress are like house slaves!
In 2010 the Democrat Party has blacks enslaved to a degree thats really impressive.
Considering that slavery, really begins in the mind. It seems like during the plantation times, slaves werent taught anything. That way, their minds were still intact and they wanted to be free. Ahhh!!! But now, with public schools, the dems can enslave minds from kindergarten age!
Yes, its quite obvious. Dems make a lot more money, and live a lot more comfortably with this type of slavery than they did in the old south.
Though, Im not exactly sure what the reality of slavery was in those days. I mean, Ive heard that a lot of slaves were quite comfortable. Harriet Tubman, I remember, had a hard time getting slaves to escape. Now how much more difficult it is to get people out of this mental slavery...
But those slaves, with unpoisoned hearts and minds and souls, appeared to be godly, dignified and intelligent.
Its also pretty hilarious that these current descendents of that reality really think Obama is black. I wonder, if he really has any knowledge of those trials and tribulations. Id like someone to catch him off guard ( sans teleprompter) and ask him about Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglass. I bet he has no idea. Ask him about Karl Marx though and I bet he can go on all day! Even without a script!
What a world! What a world!

Moonbeam

You're welcome, James. Thanks for telling the truth.

Janelle

Thank you, James Harris.

Joyce

James T. very good assessment... Amanda & Dan K good comments.

"...conservatives take issues with forced busing/school districts drawn with racial considerations..." derek... you trying to tell us the Irish-Catholics in Boston who so vehemently opposed busing/ integration in early 70s were "conservative" Democrats? Prove it!

derek. I'll forgive the democrat party for giving us Obama & socialism... isn't it time you forgive the republican party for "almost" giving us Goldwater? At least Goldwater had no chance to destroy the country.

Sail'nTodd

Excellent remarks from all.

I enjoyed the 'Stockhom Syndrome' James T.

Derek, nice rebuttal.

You are definitely intelligent enough to see that this in a large way does exist (the syndrome).

In a nushell, a larger, more powerful Federal government, is a bad thing for this country. One that at his point, will take many years to fix. And it didn't start with the first year of BHO, he just put it into hyperdrive.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

More on James T. Harris

UPCOMING APPEARANCES

Book James Harris to speak at your event

September 2011

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30