That's Martin Luther King and Vice-President Richard Nixon meeting in 1957 to discuss strategy to overcome Democrat opposition to the Republican Civil Rights Bill, which was passed shortly afterward by Republicans over massive Democrat opposition.
It was the first civil rights legislation passed since Reconstruction.
Nixon was a champion of civil rights. He fought hard for civil rights as Vice President under Eisenhower, and he was instrumental in desegregation throughout the United States as President. Even after the Brown decision in 1954 and the presidencies of Kennedy and Johnson, very little was actually done by Democrats to achieve desegregation. When Nixon took office in 1969, the vast majority of black children in the South still attended segregated schools. Shortly after his inauguration, Nixon personally interceded in the desegregation program, and by mid-1970 the vast majority of black kids in the South attended desegregated schools. With admirable skill and moral resolve, Nixon reversed 200 years of school segregation quietly and without violence in less than a year and a half.
Shortly thereafter, Nixon ordered the first federal Affirmative Action program for government contractors, because Democrat unions were ferociously racist and were excluding blacks from government contracts.
Read the story of Nixon's remarkable desegregation of Southern schools here.
Liberal Democrat journalist Tom Wicker:
There’s no doubt about it—the Nixon administration accomplished more in 1970 to desegregate Southern school systems than had been done in the 16 previous years, or probably since. There’s no doubt either that it was Richard Nixon personally who conceived, orchestrated and led the administration’s desegregation effort. Halting and uncertain before he finally asserted strong control, that effort resulted in probably the outstanding domestic achievement of his administration.
While Republicans walked the walk on Civil Rights, Democrats spun the spin and set up an exculpatory alternate history that bizarrely dominates the discussion to this day. The real history of racism and segregation in the United States is the history of race-baiting Democratic Party and Progressive politics (the second iteration of the KKK had very close ties to the Progressive movement), and the real history of the Civil Rights Movement is the history of the tireless efforts of courageous black leaders working with Republicans and conservatives to achieve desegregation and a color-blind society.
That history continues today.
Shortly thereafter, Nixon ordered the first federal Affirmative Action program for government contractors, because Democrat unions were ferociously racist and were excluding blacks from government contractsReplyDelete
Nice of you to mention that Nixon was the father of affirmative action. He was, and he ought to be ashamed of it. The answer to discrimination is never discrimination.
I oppose affirmative action. But the issue here is the Democrat lie about the "southern strategy", which Nixon's behavior contradicts.Delete
Egnor, it's a laughably bad argument. The photo was taken in 1957. The Southern Strategy was used a decade later. One does not exclude the other.Delete
Who are the other guys in the picture besides Nixon and King?ReplyDelete
I admire Dr. King quite a bit because he wasn't afraid to get arrested and beat up for what he believed in. What he believed in was judging people by the content of their character not the color of their skin. I believe in that too, though the sentiment seems to be in short supply in today's Democratic Party, where the color of one's skin is of utmost importance.
Exactly, TRISH. I suppose that's why there are so many blacks among the Republican members of Congress.Delete
The fact that blacks vote Democrat doesn't prove that the Republican Party is racist. The Democrats offer blacks a better deal--special treatment rather than equal treatment, a hand-out rather than personal responsibility. Blacks aren't immune from racism. Many of them are tribalists of the first order, concerned only for what's good for black folks. The fact that they choose the party that affords them special treatment is no surprise at all.Delete
The Democratic Party went from being a pro-white/anti-black party to being an anti-white/pro-black party. No wonder they attracted to many white voters in the old days and so many black voters now.
Well, sometimes skin color isn't such a big deal. For example, millions of people apparently just noticed that Barack Obama is black. After all the TV and public appearances he's made over the last 5 years, his approval rating among white voters (and Hispanics, I might add) fell through the floor in the last few months.ReplyDelete
They just noticed he was black!
There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black President...
--- B. Obama (11/12)
Actually, Sir, it's because you pout. And because you're such a [ahem] manly man.
And others called him an enlightened being, a Lightworker, "that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet". (2008)Delete
Or, in Evan Thomas's less ethereal words, Obama is standing above the country, above above the world, he's sort of God. (2009)
So, yeah. That was copycat, bandwagon journalism on Rush's part. Plain and simple.
Millennials just noticed he was black...Delete
Voters under 30, the Millennial generation, produced numbers for Barack Obama 13 percentage points above the national average in 2008 and nine points above in 2012.
But in recent polls, Obama’s approval among those under 30 has been higher than the national average by only one percentage point (Quinnipiac), two points (ABC/Washington Post) and three points (YouGov/Economist).
--- Michael Barone (NRO, 1/21/14)
It couldn't be the content of his character...
If you like your health plan, you can keep it...
--- B. Obama (aka Trabajador de la Luz del Mundo Jeebus McLightworker)
Oh Admiral, please do tell who exactly Rush was copying when he played “Barack the Magic Negro” over and over. Rush was also quite fond of Calling the president “Man-Child”, a better euphemism for “boy” is hard to imagine.Delete
Popeye: "Rush was also quite fond of Calling the president “Man-Child”, a better euphemism for 'boy' is hard to imagine."Delete
Tell that to the heirs of Claude Brown, author of Manchild in the Promised Land, "published to critical acclaim in 1965, which tells the story of his coming of age during the 1940s and 1950s in Harlem." (Wiki: Claude Brown)
Published at the height of the civil rights movement, the book reached far beyond the traditional literary world, drawing new attention to the lives of urban blacks. It has sold more than 4 million copies and has been translated into 14 languages. Today, it sells more than 30,000 copies a year and is required reading in many high schools and colleges.
--- Brown obituary (NYT, 2001)
Take note of the last sentence in Brown's obit. Improve yourself.
What does that 50 year old tidbit have to do with Rush’s contemporary racist usage? Do you realize you’re playing the role of racist apologist?Delete
You're the racist, imputing racism to Limbaugh. You should be ashamed.Delete
"Magic Negro" - origin of the phrase found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_NegroDelete
Rush sometimes plays parodies. And Shanklin's 'Barack the Magic Negro' sung in the voice of Al Sharpton is comedy gold. If you aren't amused by it then you are a fu'cking robot.
After Passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Johnson said “We have lost the south for a generation”, and it didn’t take long to see his prediction come true.ReplyDelete
In the 1964 Barry Goldwater, conservative firebrand and father of the modern conservative movement, ran on a platform of “state’s rights” and won just South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and his home state of Arizona. Other than Arizona, all the states he won in were heavily Democratic but attracted to Goldwater’s pro-segregation platform, and have voted largely Republican ever since.
Tell me where I’m wrong.
Barry Goldwater was a libertarian. He was no racist-- he was a founder of the Arizona NAACP.Delete
And Democrats didn't "lose the South for a generation". In the 1968 election, Democrat George Wallace carried most of the deep South-- on a traditionally Democrat platform of segregation.
In 1972, Democrats lost the south, north, east, and west, except for Massachusetts.
In 1976, Jimmy Carter (strongly pro-civil rights Democrat) did very well in the South.
The South continued to send mostly Democrat congressmen and senators to Washington until 1996. It is now a Republican stronghold because of economic and social policy.
"We just lost the South for a generation" is a lie.
As I noted in the post, Nixon in 1969-70 rapidly desegregated southern schools, threatening southern Democrats with federal prosecution if they interfered. He also instituted Affirmative Action early in his first administration.Delete
The reason Nixon did that is two-fold:
1) Nixon was a strong supporter of civil rights
2) He owed nothing whatsoever to the southern Democrats, who voted overwhelmingly for Wallace (Democrat) in 1968. He owed the racists nothing, and he slapped them down faster and harder than the national Democrats had done in 150 years.
Nixon's "Southern Strategy" is a lie, fabricated to cover up Democrat complicity in 150 years of brutal racism. It is slander against Nixon and Republicans.
The Southern Strategy question isn't a quote-mining game. It entails an honest look at policy decisions and actual political dynamics in the late 60's and 70'sDelete
Republicans had always been the party of civil rights. No debate. Neither Nixon nor Goldwater where racists. No debate. Nixon had no chance at winning the south in 1968 (Wallace-- a Democrat-- had it locked up). Nixon didn't need the south in 1972-- he beat McGovern in a landslide.
As soon as Nixon became president, he came down on the southern democrat racists like a hammer. He desegregated southern schools in 2 years-- an historic achievement. He instituted Affirmative Action-- for the first time at the federal level.
Obviously, a president and a party trying to woo racist votes would not impose historic desegration and affirmative action.
The Republicans had a Southern Strategy. It was to consign Southern Democrat racists to oblivion, and advance civil rights, which they did, big time.
You should have the simple decency to admit it.
LOL. What do you make of Phillips's own words, doc? They seem to clash with your simplistic picture.Delete
Obviously there were individuals who considered racist strategies. On both sides. Always, everywhere. Political campaigns are big messy things for very high stakes.Delete
The fact is that Republicans advanced civil rights in major ways, just at the time you accuse them of a "southern strategy".
The well documented acts of Republicans in office disprove that "southern strategy" myth.
Facts are facts. Republicans were beating the shit out of racists at exactly the time you claim they were courting them.
Nixon's own political strategist implemented (not just considered) the Southern Strategy. There is ample evidence of that out in the open, the New York Times interview being just one piece.Delete
You can renounce that all you want, doc, but that's part of history and it isn't going anywhere.
And remind me how many Congressional districts are represented in the House by black Republicans?
Nobody is saying you have to be racist to work the racist vote.Delete
There’s no getting around the fact that the States that fought the civil war to keep slaves, violently resisted racial integration, and are currently home to the vast majority of KKK members , are now solidly in the Republican camp. Just look at the blue/red Electoral College maps for the last hundred years and you will see the North-South change in party affiliation. No Freaky Friday body swaps required.
The south is Republican because of economic and social issues, not racial issues. When racial issues were important in the south, it was Democrat. When racial issues became less important, it became less Democrat and more Republican. Facts are facts.Delete
Regarding black voting patterns, I point out that Democrats did surprisingly well with blacks (back to FDR) even when Democrats were seething racists. Voting patterns don't mean patterns of racism. The Republican party is not in any sense a racist party.
The Democrat Party is a race-baiting party, as they have always been. They just switched the races they bait in the sixties.
Hoo: remind me how many Congressional districts are represented in the House by black Republicans?Delete
Egnor: The Republican party is not in any sense a racist party.
I'll answer that question for you, doc. Exactly zero.
Of course, that doesn't make the Republican party racist. It makes the Democrats racist. Surely.
Females constitute only 8 percent of the Republicans in the House. For the Democrats, the number is 29 percent. That obviously makes the Democrats the misogynists.
How long did it take for former confederacy states on voter suppression laws after the Supremes gutted the Voting Rights Act? I’ll tell you, exactly one day.Delete
states to start onDelete
KW, the "We Lost the South for a Generation" quote is made up and you know it. The source is Bill Moyers. The whole point of the quote is to suggest that the Democrats took a principled stand even though they knew it was going to cost them politically.Delete
Here's a clue: The Democrats didn't take a principled stand. Many of them were against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965. Their support for the bills, though a majority of voting Democrats, was smaller than that of Republicans. Why would racist voters bolt from the Democrats to a party that supported the policy they hated by an even larger margin.
Here's your buddy Lyndon Johnson dropping n-bombs in the White House: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1rIDmDWSms
Want to know what he said about his "war on poverty"? "We'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years."
As if the scheming, plotting Democrats were just so magnanimous that they did the right thing even though it hurt them. What a load of horseshit.
Off-topic: Global warming causes government shutdowns...ReplyDelete
Office of Personnel Management
URGENT - WINTER WEATHER MESSAGE
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE BALTIMORE MD/WASHINGTON DC
242 AM EST TUE JAN 21 2014
...WINTER STORM WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT FROM 7 AM THIS MORNING
TO 11 PM EST THIS EVENING...
...WIND CHILL ADVISORY IN EFFECT FROM 6 PM THIS EVENING TO NOON
Every time it snows, right on cue.Delete
"Every time it snows, right on cue", a greenloon gets his wings.Delete
LOL, the "admiral" can't tell the difference between weather and climate! Global warming is real, documented, caused by humans and poses a grave threat to civilization. Of course it should really be called "climate change" for people like the "admiral" who have trouble distinguishing between weather and climate. FYI, "admiral," global warming models predict shorter but more intense winters, which is exactly what we have been getting in recent years. But don't let the facts preclude your fantasies as you guide the rubber ducky in your tub.Delete
Dr. Egnore, what you say about Nixon is true, so far as it goes. But what you … well, egnore, is where you go wrong.Delete
Nixon should and does receive credit for his desegregation program. He should and does also receive credit for a slew of other progressive programs: founding the EPA, founding OSHA, bringing about detente with the Soviets, opening the door to China, and on and on. Nixon was the last great progressive president! In other words, Nixon brought to fruition the very programs that you and current conservative Republicans oppose.
However, it is also a documented fact that he pursued a Southern Strategy which later Republicans like Reagan brought to fruition. Moreover, the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced by Kennedy and passed by Johnson, as was the Voting Rights Act. Both were opposed not only by southern Democrats but also by Republicans like Barry Goldwater. In the late 50s, William Buckley, the voice of the rising conservative movement of that era, wrote in National Review that blacks were inferior. As always, things are more complicated than any either/or view of history, including your revisionist version of it.
It should be noted that late in life, Barry Goldwater recanted his opposition to the Civil Rights bill, came out for gay rights, including gays in the military, and said that the influence of the religious right in the Republican Party was pernicious and should be weeded out, telling the Religious Right to "mind its own damned business." Today's Republican troglodyte party that you evidently support would have no use for Goldwater, Lincoln, Nixon or even Ronald Reagan.
“the real history of the Civil Rights Movement is the history of the tireless efforts of courageous black leaders working with Republicans and conservatives to achieve desegregation and a color-blind society.ReplyDelete
That history continues today”
Care to cite any examples in the past 20 years? Something that can perhaps make up for the disenfranchisement laws being put in place in the former confederacy now that the Supremes have gutted the Voting Rights Act?
Tell us again, Dr. Egnore, which presidents, with what political majorities, passed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act? Which Southern Democrat shepherded those things through Congress? Which same southern Democrat, as majority leader of the Senate in the 1950s, pushed through the more modest civil rights legislation of that decade?Delete
Egnore: "That's Martin Luther King and Vice-President Richard Nixon meeting in 1957 to discuss strategy to overcome Democrat opposition to the Republican Civil Rights Bill, which was passed shortly afterward by Republicans over massive Democrat opposition." False. The majority of Democrats voted for the 1957 civil rights bill. And history credits Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson, a southern Democrat, for pushing the bill through. Later, of course, Johnson did much better in 1964. I agree, Dr. Egnore, that liberal versions of history are often slanted. But so is yours. The best we can do is to try to be as objective as possible about the nuances of what actually happened, rather than rewrite history to fit our own biases. Wouldn't you agree?Delete
Republican majorities in favor of civil rights in the House and Senate were much larger than Democrat votes for civil rights for the Civil Rights bills from 1957 to 1965. The opposition-- which was fierce-- was organized and effected entirely through the Democrat party. The massive Republican majorities in favor of the civil rights bills were repeatedly necessary to break Democrat filibusters.Delete
Without question there were some Democrats who did the right thing on civil rights. But they were also in bed with their racist Democrat colleagues, and cut all sorts of deals that weakened civil rights for decades. And Johnson was no hero on civil rights. He spent his first few political decades as a standard Democrat bigot-- voting against anti-lynching bills, etc. He was a very astute politician, and by the mid 50's he saw the writing on the wall, and began to shift to a pro-civil rights stance. For obviously political reasons.
Republicans have always been the party of civil rights. Still are.
Democrats have always played politics with civil rights. Still do.
The opposition was from southern Democrats, not northern Democrats. Many Republicans, like Goldwater, also opposed the Civil Rights act of 1964, though he later recanted. The relevant point, however, is this: the bigots of the south who opposed civil rights in the 50s and 60s were members of the Democratic Party. Today, their heirs are members of the Republican Party. The parties have essentially flipped places since 1860. The flip began with The New Deal, when under FDR the Democrats abandoned states' rights for the strong centralized government that the party had historically opposed. The flip was completed with the Civil Rights and Voting Rights act proposed by Democrat JFK and pushed through by Southern Democrat Johnson. As to your comments about LBJ's past, they're right but irrelevant. In the same vein, Nixon himself said that many of the progressive programs he pushed, he actually opposed but supported them for political profit. Your civil rights hero Nixon is also on tape making repeated derogatory comments about blacks and Jews.Delete
Here, Dr. Egnor, is your great civil rights here Nixon's opinion of blacks, taped by his own tape recorders:Delete
“Bill Rogers has got — to his credit it’s a decent feeling — but somewhat sort of a blind spot on the black thing because he’s been in New York,” Nixon said. “He says well, ‘They are coming along, and that after all they are going to strengthen our country in the end because they are strong physically and some of them are smart.’ So forth and so on.
“My own view is I think he’s right if you’re talking in terms of 500 years. I think it’s wrong if you’re talking in terms of 50 years. What has to happen is they have to be, frankly, inbred."
Yep, that's come color-blind civil rights champ you've got there!
Egnor: Nixon, who desegregated southern schools and started affirmative action, is branded a racist because of some crude talk.Delete
The Southern Strategy is merely "crude talk?" Hoo knew?
There, if it helps, I now have a user name. Bear in mind that you esteemed "admiral" is also anonymous, unless you suppose his ludicrous user name is his real name.ReplyDelete
Democrat racism is slavery and lynching and the KKK and Jim Crow? What year are you living in, Dr. Egnor? According to my calendar it is 2014. Are you still stuck in 1896?
Yes, all that is historically true, and just reinforces my point that you won't deal with: the two major parties have flipped places. The heirs to the KKK and slavery and Jim Crow are now in YOUR party, doctor. Too bad, but that's the truth.
As to Nixon, anyone who says that there a "few" smart blacks but that blacks will have to be inbred before they amount to anything is clearly a racist. However, that does not detract from his commendable record on desegregation. People are complicated and history is replete with ironies. Do you not notice that you are doing the same thing with LBJ, as you claim I am doing with Nixon? You are denigrating his civil rights accomplishments on the grounds that in fact he was a racist. But I'm not doing that with Nixon. I'm praising his civil rights accomplishments while pointing out that he was a racist. You could do the same for LBJ, if you valued intellectual consistency.
[As to Nixon, anyone who says that there a "few" smart blacks but that blacks will have to be inbred before they amount to anything is clearly a racist.]Delete
How do you define a racist? A man who engages in nasty locker room talk, but who personally ended segregation in southern schools and instituted affirmative action? Nixon did immeasurably more for civil rights than any fucking Democrat ever did. Don't his actual accomplishments-- historic accomplishments-- count, or are you only interested in PC soundbites? Should we scour MLK's life for casual slurs so we can call him bad names too? I point out that you do to Nixon what actual racists still do to MLK.
[However, that does not detract from his commendable record on desegregation.]
So why did you say he was a racist?
[People are complicated and history is replete with ironies.]
So why did you call Nixon a racist?
[Do you not notice that you are doing the same thing with LBJ, as you claim I am doing with Nixon?]
LBJ did racist things. He walked the racist walk. He voted against anti-lynching laws, for goodness sake. He incessantly cut deals, even in his "good phase", with the most odious southern Democrat bigots. He frequently watered down civil rights laws (he notoriously did this in 1957) to keep his bigot constituency happy.
Nixon never did racist things. He was a life-long active supporter of civil rights. Yet you brand him a racist for a casual slur.
[You are denigrating (LBJ's) civil rights accomplishments on the grounds that in fact he was a racist.]
LBJ was a consummate politician who had strong political reasons to embrace civil rights. I'm not saying that he didn't have a real change of heart, but if you think that LBJ's belated support of civil rights had nothing to do with political calculation, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
[But I'm not doing that with Nixon. I'm praising his civil rights accomplishments while pointing out that he was a racist.]
You fucking bastard. One slur does not make a man a racist. Nixon was no racist. He courageously supported civil rights when it hurt him politically-- evidence his desegregation of southern schools and his affirmative action policy, which obviously did him no good in the deep south.
[You could do the same for LBJ, if you valued intellectual consistency.]
LBJ was one of the most dishonest politicians of modern times. He made Nixon look like Mother Theresa. He barely escaped indictment in the Bobby Baker scandal, and FDR had to intervene with the Justice Department to keep LBJ from going to prison in the 1940's. LBJ stole his Senate election in 1948. Obviously LBJ's support for civil rights in the 60's is to be applauded, but there is a context of political calculation there, a context that is entirely missing with Nixon, who was an honest supporter of civil rights his entire life.
In a way, LBJ and Nixon epitomize Democrat and Republican policies on civil rights. Democrats only supported civil rights when they stood to gain from it, just like they supported segregation when they stood to gain from it.
Republicans always supported civil rights, even when it worked against their political fortunes.
"the heirs to the KKK and slavery and Jim Crow are now in YOUR party"ReplyDelete
Oh There was a magical switch. Exactly how this switch actually happened is always a little vague (they never really explained the switch in Freaky Friday either.
Who switched? Names and dates please. Could you point out the KKK and slavery and Jim Crow policies of the Republican party.
"the central question that emerges... is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas where it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes – the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race."Delete
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Why the South Must Prevail
Dr. Egnor, you really should try to show some intellectual integrity, and some intellectual respect to people who, while opposing your views, engage with you respectfully. As I've already noted, KKK, slavery and Jim Crow belong to the Democratic Party of the past. Are you suggesting that the Democratic Party of today, with a black man as its president, is the same party of 1896?Delete
The "magical switch" is easily documented, and I've already explained it. Please bear in mind that the same Democratic Party of slavery, lynchings etc. was the party of small government and state's rights. Which party is the party of small government and state's rights today?
As I've already explained, the initial switch happened under FDR and the New Deal. FDR transformed the Democrats from the party of small government to big government. Before that, Republicans were the party of big government, right from the get-go under Abe Lincoln who was a big-government interventionist, and who members of your party today revile rather than hail. The switch, as I've already explained, was finished off in the 60s, with the JFK/LBJ civil rights and voting rights legislation that today, the heirs of the southern Democrats, who are now southern Republicans, are trying to cripple or even repeal. Deal with it, Dr.: you party TODAY is the heir to slavery, Dred Scott, Jim Crow and lynchings. Lincoln is rolling over in his grave.
On the Buckley quote, Buckley was wrong and the statement was disgusting, and Buckley apologized for it.Delete
He was of course parroting Democrats, for which he should also apologize.
“Could you point out the KKK and slavery and Jim Crow policies of the Republican party.”Delete
The voter suppression laws enacted immediately after the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act.
My how times have changed.
Buckley parroting the Democrats? No way. The man's sole function was fighting liberalism. What he wrote in that 1957 piece was Buckley's firmly held own opinion. He regretted it and apologized, but that happened much, much later, in 2004.Delete
So there we have it, a Republican intellectual, with conservative credentials rivaled by no one, firmly supported segregation. In 1957. And it's all the Democrats' fault.
davidm. WHAT voter suppression?Delete
What say you with respect to the quote from William Buckley, Dr. Egnor? Buckley was a Republican, but not just a Republican. He was one of the leading intellectual lights and motive forces of mid to late 20th century conservative Republicanism -- and, as we see, an out and out racist who favored suppression of blacks in the south. Once again proving my point that the two parties flipped places, and that today, the heirs of the old Democratic Party and now the bigots in your party.ReplyDelete
Buckley made his pro-segregationist statement in 1957, which was before the mythological "switch". Buckley was just repeating a Democrat talking point in 1957.Delete
By the mid 1960's Buckley repudiated racism and segregation, and fervently opposed George Wallace's segregationist candidacy in 1968, which was the mythical time of the mythical "switch".
The irony in your claim about Buckley is that you cherry-picked just about the only pro-segregation statement by any prominent Republican in the 20th century. At the same time Buckley made said that, Eisenhower and Nixon and the Republicans in the House and Senate were championing the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which was a major voting rights law passed over fervent Democrat opposition and the first civil rights law since Reconstruction.
So why the fuck would you quote Buckley, an outlier who merely parroted Democrat segregationist talking points and who shortly thereafter repudiated segregation, instead of quoting the Republican President, Republican Vice-President, the Republican Senate, and the Republican House, who were engaged in the most important civil rights legislation in a century?
We already know Egnor has no integrity at all. This just adds another quote to the long, long list demonstrating that.Delete
When did Buckley apologize for his statement? I'm not saying that he didn't; but whether he did or not is beside the point. His sentiment is further proof that as far back as the late fifties, the two parties were changing places. As previously noted, by the 50s the flip was half accomplished, with Democrats having become the party of big government and the Republicans the party of small government and state's rights, and Buckley's statement proves it. All that remained for the flip to be finished was the JFK/LBJ civil rights push of the next decade.ReplyDelete
In reality, of course, even my own analysis is somewhat simplistic. Actually, today, both parties are simply two wings of the same party: The Plutocratic Party, dedicated to government of, by, and for the 1 percent.
Buckley didn't "flip". He agreed with Democrats in the 1950's, and opposed segregation in the 1960's and thereafter.Delete
Name the Republican officeholders-- presidents, vice presidents, senators, congressmen, governors, etc who suddenly started supporting segregation in the 1960's.
Trent Lott, a Senate from Mississippi. The guy who famously said: "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had of followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."Delete
He was not just any Republican, mind you. A Senate Majority Leader.
And speaking of Strom Thurmond, he was a Dixiecrat who switched to the Republican party in 1964. A US Senator.Delete
Yes, it's absolutely hilarious to suggest that Buckley was ever "parroting Democrats" when, as you say, his sole function was to destroy liberalism. No, his comment was the tipoff that the two major parties had traded places. If Buckley had been around in 1857, he would have been an ardent supporter of the small-government Democrats, as well as Dred Scott, slavery, and all the rest. Once again proving that Dr. Egnor's modern Republicans are the heirs to the slavery, Jim Crow, KKK and lynchings that he says he detests. You should resign from the Republican Party, doctor.ReplyDelete
Buckley opposed segregation and racism by the late 1960's.He strongly opposed George Wallace's segregationist candidacy in 1968 and 1972, and he came to admire MLK and publicly supported making his birthday a national holiday.Delete
Some "switch" to segregation, eh?
I asked you to name the Republican government officials who "switched places" and supported segregation.
You haven't named even one. Because there aren't any.
I never said they started supporting segregation in the 60s, though many Republicans supported it even before then -- like Buckley and Barry Goldwater. That came AFTER. It came from the Southern Strategy first conceived by Nixon, notwithstanding his record on desegregation, and then later brought to fruition under Reagan, who tellingly gave his first campaign speech of the 1980 general election in a southern city notorious for a crime against civil rights. Since the so-called Reagan Revolution of the 80s, the bigots have drifted into your party and out of the Democratic Party, and there they remain today, attempting to eviscerate the voting rights act and suppress the minority vote through voter ID laws. If they could, they'd revert to Jim Crow, but they can't, so they do what they can to turn back the clock as far as they can.ReplyDelete
I'm not cherry-picking anything, doc. You seem to be ignoring several salient points, such as: the standard bearer of the Republican Party in the 1964 presidential campaign, Barry Goldwater, OPPOSED the civil rights act.ReplyDelete
It is only you who are cherry-picking, focusing on ancient history like the 19th century and ignoring current history, to support your mythical belief that only the Republican Party has ever supported civil rights. You also keep talking about the "mythical switch," yet I notice you have not yet responded to at least three posts I have made documenting the history of this switch. This makes me suspect you are not interested in an honest exchange of ideas, but merely in parroting your erroneous propaganda. Should I be surprised?
[I never said they started supporting segregation in the 60s, though many Republicans supported it even before then -- like Buckley and Barry Goldwater.]ReplyDelete
Goldwater was a passionate opponent of segregation, you stupid fuck.
He was a libertarian. He was a founder of the Arizona NAACP chapter in the early 1950's, and he was a supporter of and voted for the 1957 and 1960 Civil RIghts Acts. He was one of the early and genuine friends of the civil rights movement. He joined the Urban League and contributed his own money to fight segregation legislation in Phoenix.
He voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act for libertarian reasons, because he believed that the commerce clause did not give the federal government the power to control public accommodations within states. He was right of course, but his principled stand has been used against him by bastards like you for decades.
Godlwater strongly opposed segregation, and he fought it all of his life.
You also keep repeating the canard of "massive" Democratic opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Shall I show you the numbers? The majority of Democrats supported that bill; the opposition was among Democrats in the South. Today, the heirs to those southern Democrats are southern Republicans. That's a fact.ReplyDelete
It was a Republican bill, passed over massive Democrat opposition. LBJ as Senate Majority Leader fervently watered down the bill in order to get even a bare majority of Dems to vote for it.Delete
[Today, the heirs to those southern Democrats are southern Republicans. That's a fact.]
Names. Which Republican politicians switched from opposing segregation to supporting it? Which subsequent Republican policies supported Jim Crow and the KKK.
Specifics, asshole, specifics.
BTW, Dr. Egnor, your characterization of William Buckley as an "outlier" is simply laughable! An OUTLIER? William Buckley? He is rightly considered one of the main intellectual founders and propagandists of modern Republicans! Seven years after his essay, the anti-civil rights Barry Goldwater claimed the GOP nomination. Deal with history as it, doctor, and not as you wish it would be through your biases. I've already acknowledged that liberal/left versions of history can be distorted; you ought to have the intellectual integrity that rightist versions of history can also be skewed.ReplyDelete
"Anti civil rights Barry Goldwater?" What planet are you from? Do explain.Delete
Buckley repudiated segregation and racism in the late 60's, opposed Democrat George Wallace's racist candidacy in 1968 and 1972, and came to deeply admire MLK and champion his birthday as a national holiday.
How is that a "switch" to racism?
Uh-oh, now I'm a stupid fuck and an asshole! It looks like I'm humiliating Dr. Egnor on his own blog by exposing his lies, which means I'm accomplishing my mission here!Delete
Barry Goldwater OPPOSED the civil rights act of 1964. Goldwater was the typical libertarian who says something like: "It's wrong for the white man to serve or house the black man. However, if he chooses not to serve or house the black man, that's his free choice, which must be respected!" In the 1990s, Goldwater recanted his opposition to the Civil Rights Act.
As to the rest of it, your anger and bitterness is driving you to incoherency. I never said that Buckley "switched" to racism. He was always a racist. What I said was that the Republican and Democratic Parties switched roles after the 1960s, and that is a fact. I also showed how the switch began under FDR and The New Deal, and culminated with the Civil Rights acts of the 60s, which were pressed by Democrats JFK and LBJ. You have never attempted to respond to any of this, but have resorted to calling me names, because you know that you are a liar and can't defend your lies.
Finally, you are so stupid that you don't even realize that the traditional Christian metaphysics of God make God and contingent evolution perfectly compatible, without any need to invoke intelligent design. I could explain this to you, and even might do so, provided that you keep amusing me so. Keep wallowing in your own ignorance, Doc. Your temper tantrums, name-calling and lies are indeed amusing.
Mistake in my last post. I inadvertently omitted a word. I meant to say that Goldwater was the typical Libertarian who would say, "It's wrong for the white man to REFUSE to serve or house the black man." I inadvertently omitted the word "refuse." The point being that people like Goldwater, and Ayn Rand for that matter, held to the position that racism was wrong in the abstract. But in concrete reality, they advanced the view that private property rights take precedence over human rights, so that whites could refuse housing and services to black, even though, according to Goldwater and Rand, it was irrational of the whites to do this. I bet that was some comfort to the black people who were discriminated against in jobs and housing!Delete
[Reagan, who tellingly gave his first campaign speech of the 1980 general election in a southern city notorious for a crime against civil rights.]Delete
That makes him a racist? Giving a speech near Philadelphia Mississippi makes you a racist? Is that the best you got?
[Since the so-called Reagan Revolution of the 80s, the bigots have drifted into your party and out of the Democratic Party,}
Why did much of the South vote for Carter in 1976 and Clinton in 1992? It seems the drooling Southern Republican racism was episodic, only occurring when Republicans won the presidency, and strangely disappearing when Democrats got elected.
[and there they remain today, attempting to eviscerate the voting rights act]
The voting rights act is still in effect. It was ruled by the Supreme Court that black turnout for elections in many southern states is so high that there is no objective evidence of voter suppression. Actually, southern black voter participation is higher than black voter participation in many liberal northern states, like Massachusetts. If you're going to enforce the voting rights act according to the actual data, you have to enforce it in the liberal north, not the south. How does it feel to be a racist, asshole?
[and suppress the minority vote through voter ID laws.]
Requiring ID to vote is normal prudence. Is it racism when the DNC requires ID at the Democratic National Convention? Is it racist to require ID to board an airplane? Why shouldn't people be required to present ID when they do things where identity matters?
[If they could, they'd revert to Jim Crow, but they can't, so they do what they can to turn back the clock as far as they can.]
You're a crackpot.
BTW, Doc, before he died, Barry Goldwater recanted his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, came out in favor of gay rights and told the Religious Right to get the hell out of people's bedrooms and get the hell out of the Republican Party. How do you feel about that?Delete
Goldwater was right about the civil rights act. It was absolutely morally right, but there were Constitutional problems. I strongly oppose racism, but there are limits for which the government has the power to enforce equality. Not every good thing (equality) can be legislated in every detail.Delete
I strongly support gay rights. Freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, right to keep and bear arms, all of it. Just like everyone else. I oppose special gay privileges.
I don't want the Religious Right in people's bedrooms. With the Irreligious Left already there giving them condoms paid for by Catholics, there's not enough room in the bedrooms.
Perhaps we don't see the picture because MLK Jr had a low opinion of Nixon. In 1960 when MLK Jr was in jail after a sit-in Kennedy called and offered support. Nixon on the other hand did not. From MLK Jr's autobiography:ReplyDelete
"And yet, when this moment came, it was like [Nixon] had never heard of me. So this is why I really considered him a moral coward and one who was really unwilling to take a courageous step and take a risk. ... It indicated the direction that this man would take, if he became president."
Nixon was wrong not to reach out to MLK.Delete
As I said, Nixon walked the walk on civil rights, but he could be tone deaf. He never used his remarkably good record on civil rights to advance his politics.
That wasn't the only bad thing MLK had to say about Nixon. After one of their first meetings in the 1950's, MLK said if Nixon wasn't sincere then he was the most dangerous man in America. Rather prescient given what we now know about Tricky Dock.Delete
You really should read MLK Jr's autobiography before you go on talking about how he and Nixon were like two peas in a pod when it came to civil rights.
[What I said was that the Republican and Democratic Parties switched roles after the 1960s, and that is a fact. I also showed how the switch began under FDR and The New Deal, and culminated with the Civil Rights acts of the 60s, which were pressed by Democrats JFK and LBJ.]ReplyDelete
You haven't named a single Republican official who switched from opposing segregation to supporting segregation.
The "switch" meme is hilarious.
I asked you to name a Republican who opposed segregation who switched to supporting it.Delete
Which is the opposite of Strom Thurmond, who as a Democrat supported segregation, and as a Republican opposed it.
And Trent Lott was not a segregationist at all. He made a stupid comment about Thurmond at the elderly man's retirement party.
In what way is that a "switch"?
Not a segregationist? So what exactly did Lott mean when he blurted out the "stupid comment?" Let me remind you what he said:Delete
When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had of followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."
What did he mean by that, I wonder?
He was obviously referring to Thurmond's economic policy and social conservatism.Delete
What is the evidence that Lott is a segregationist/racist? The man had a long public career. You've made a very serious allegation about him.
How about some facts? Or is an offhand comment at a retirement party all you have?
Just to make sure I understand you, Michael. Lott was referring approvingly to Thurmond's 1948 presidential platform, correct?Delete
Uh-oh, now I'm a stupid fuck and an asshole and a crackpot! I guess I'm really touching some raw nerves here.ReplyDelete
I never said Reagan was a racist. That wasn't my point at all, and you know it. My point was was that Reagan was continuing a political scheme of Nixon, the Southern Strategy, to appeal in coded terms to white racists in the south, to convert them to the Republican Party on the national level. This was largely successful for more than a generation. It wasn't completely successful, of course, as all party-coalition strategies are subject to defects. Carter carried a good portion of the south in 1976 because he was a southerner, and because the nation was reeling after eight years of Watergate, the loss of the Vietnam War, gas rationing, inflation and all the rest. Clinton carried some of the south because again, he was a southerner to whom many white southerners could culturally relate. But he also lost southern states and tellingly, Al Gore lost his own state in 2000. The real place to look in southern politics is in the House of Representatives. There we see that Republicans have corruptly gerrymandered districts to ensure their perpetuation in power. These are the same districts that fifty years ago would have been voting for Democrats, proving yet again my point that the bigots of the old Democratic Party are now the modern bigots of the Republican Party -- your party, Dr. Egnor. Your party is the heir to the KKK, slavery, Jim Crow and all the rest. Abe Lincoln rolls in his grave.
What are the "code words"? Specifically.Delete
LOL, do you really expect me to believe you are this naive, Doc? Have you been under a rock since 1896?Delete
Just to take one of many, many examples, Google up Reagan and "welfare queen." Take two aspirins, and perform a prefrontal lobotomy on yourself in the morning. :D
Egnor: "end welfare as we know it". So Clinton was using racist dogwhistlesDelete
Have you lost your marbles, doc? There is no secret code in that.
Welfare queen, on the other hand, was a pejorative label applied to single mothers who couldn't work and care for their children. It absolutely carried a stigma.
"Welfare queen" referred to a real woman who was committing welfare fraud, which was and is very real. The actual woman Reagan referred to in 1976-- Linda Taylor-- was in fact a major fraud, and probably a murderer.Delete
Reagan just told the truth about her. And the welfare system was a mess and was burdened with fraud. Reagan began the process-- brought to fruition by Clinton and the Republican congress-- of welfare reform.
How is that a "code word", rather than an opinion about policy that turned out to be true?
Come on', davidm and Hoo. I want to hear more code words.Delete
More... more... I want to know what racist codes I'm responding to...
Blacks hated forced busing, just like whites hated it. So "forced busing" was a racist codeword for black racists too?
"States rights". Do you mean like in the Constitution? So the Constitution uses racist codewords!
"cutting taxes". When I hear that, I get so excited I want to burn a cross on someone's lawn!
LOL. It's not me saying that those are code words. It's a famed Republican strategist explaining it. From the horse's mouth!Delete
Boy, you're dense!
Either you are stupid, Mike, or have suspended disbelief and live in a fairy-tale world. Which is another way of saying that you're indeed stupid. :)Delete
I have quoted a Republican strategist, who plainly said that "forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff" is just a polite way of saying "Nigger, nigger!" I am not making this up. Atwater's quote is fully in context. You go ahead, stick your fingers in your ears, and yell "I don't hear you!" That's a time-honored defense. :)
And then of course we have "intelligent design," a.k.a. creationism in a cheap tuxedo.Delete
As soon as the Supreme Court made it illegal to require equal time for creationism and evolution,conservative Christians came up with the idea of renaming creationism into ID. No relation, of course. No, Sir.
They were in such a hurry renaming creationism that they left behind a truly remarkable hybrid: cdesign proponentsists. A missing link in the evolution of creationism into ID.
And after Dover, it's not even intelligent design anymore. It's "teach the controversy."