0
   

REPUBLICANISM AND RACISM

 
 
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 02:09 pm
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: September 24, 2007
Last Thursday there was a huge march in Jena, La., to protest the harsh and unequal treatment of six black students arrested in the beating of a white classmate. Students who hung nooses to warn blacks not to sit under a "white" tree were suspended for three days; on the other hand, the students accused in the beating were initially charged with second-degree attempted murder.

Many press accounts of the march have a tone of amazement. Scenes like those in Jena, the stories seemed to imply, belonged in the 1960s, not the 21st century. The headline on the New York Times report, "Protest in Louisiana Case Echoes the Civil Rights Era," was fairly typical.

But the reality is that things haven't changed nearly as much as people think. Racial tension, especially in the South, has never gone away, and has never stopped being important. And race remains one of the defining factors in modern American politics.

Consider voting in last year's Congressional elections. Republicans, as President Bush conceded, received a "thumping," with almost every major demographic group turning against them. The one big exception was Southern whites, 62 percent of whom voted Republican in House races.

And yes, Southern white exceptionalism is about race, much more than it is about moral values, religion, support for the military or other explanations sometimes offered. There's a large statistical literature on the subject, whose conclusion is summed up by the political scientist Thomas F. Schaller in his book "Whistling Past Dixie": "Despite the best efforts of Republican spinmeisters to depict American conservatism as a nonracial phenomenon, the partisan impact of racial attitudes in the South is stronger today than in the past."

Republican politicians, who understand quite well that the G.O.P.'s national success since the 1970s owes everything to the partisan switch of Southern whites, have tacitly acknowledged this reality. Since the days of Gerald Ford, just about every Republican presidential campaign has included some symbolic gesture of approval for good old-fashioned racism.

Thus Ronald Reagan, who began his political career by campaigning against California's Fair Housing Act, started his 1980 campaign with a speech supporting states' rights delivered just outside Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers were murdered. In 2000, Mr. Bush made a pilgrimage to Bob Jones University, famed at the time for its ban on interracial dating.

And all four leading Republican candidates for the 2008 nomination have turned down an invitation to a debate on minority issues scheduled to air on PBS this week.

Yet if the marchers at Jena reminded us that America still hasn't fully purged itself of the poisonous legacy of slavery, it would be wrong to suggest that the nation has made no progress. Racism, though not gone, is greatly diminished: both opinion polls and daily experience suggest that we are truly becoming a more tolerant, open society.

And the cynicism of the "Southern strategy" introduced by Richard Nixon, which delivered decades of political victories to Republicans, is now starting to look like a trap for the G.O.P.

One of the truly remarkable things about the contest for the Republican nomination is the way the contenders have snubbed not just blacks ?- who, given the G.O.P.'s modern history, probably won't vote for a Republican in significant numbers no matter what ?- but Hispanics. In July, all the major contenders refused invitations to address the National Council of La Raza, which Mr. Bush addressed in 2000. Univision, the Spanish-language TV network, had to cancel a debate scheduled for Sept. 16 because only John McCain was willing to come.

If this sounds like a good way to ensure defeat in future elections, that's because it is: Hispanics are a rapidly growing force in the electorate.

But to get the Republican nomination, a candidate must appeal to the base ?- and the base consists, in large part, of Southern whites who carry over to immigrants the same racial attitudes that brought them into the Republican fold to begin with. As a result, you have the spectacle of Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, pragmatists on immigration issues when they actually had to govern in diverse states, trying to reinvent themselves as defenders of Fortress America.

And both Hispanics and Asians, another growing force in the electorate, are getting the message. Last year they voted overwhelmingly Democratic, by 69 percent and 62 percent respectively.

In other words, it looks as if the Republican Party is about to start paying a price for its history of exploiting racial antagonism. If that happens, it will be deeply ironic. But it will also be poetic justice.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,668 • Replies: 59
No top replies

 
Green Witch
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 02:16 pm
Republicans are not racist. They just hate poor people no matter if they are black, brown or white.

(Really, I don't think race is the problem)
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 02:24 pm
Greeny, you may be right. But, perhaps, you have to have lived in the South to really know.

It might just be politics, whereby the whites are afraid that the blacks will take control. For instance, Mississippi is about 50 percent black, but the whites have retained control for the most part.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 02:32 pm
I don't know about American politics.
I can only form my own opinion from the American souces.

"Segregation in the South is a way of LIFE.
It is precious and Sacred Custom.
It is one of our Dearest and most Tresured possession.
It is the Means whereby we live to
Social peace, Order and Security"---Judge Thomas P Brady
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 02:55 pm
Ramafuchs wrote:
I don't know about American politics.
I can only form my own opinion from the American souces.

...Judge Thomas P Brady

Your "American source" is one of the most radical segregationist judges and your quote is from the early 1960's?? You need new sources.

I think the Republican party leadership is not racist per say, but they are clearly courting the dwindling racist population, not only of the South, but of the mid-West and the anti-immigrant population of the Southwest. In my lifetime, I have seen open racism give way to private racism and that give way to closet racism. Even in the deep South, it is no longer acceptable to make racist comments in public although it occasionally pops up in disguish like in the immigration debate. I believe that the Gen Xers will be the first full generation to benefit from these changes and as they inherit the reigns of power, we will go from an era of baby boomers actively rejecting the racism they learned as children to leaders who didn't learn racism at their parents' feet. We've seen good progress over the last 40 years, but it will be the Gen Xers who really get us there.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 03:03 pm
thanks for your clarification Engneer.

"We are all decendants of Adam and
we are all product of racial miscegenation.--Lester B Pearson
0 Replies
 
mismi
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 03:10 pm
Thank you engineer...I live here in the South and I am so frustrated by the tired claims that we are not making progress. I think we are. My kids do not see a difference in children of color and themselves. It pleases me to no end. I agree wholeheartedly with what you said!
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 04:46 pm
From my perspective we are not making progress overall. We are making progress in some areas and we are getting worse in other areas.

Look at what is happening to Arab-Americans.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 05:15 pm
engineer wrote:

Even in the deep South, it is no longer acceptable to make racist comments in public although it occasionally pops up in disguish like in the immigration debate. I believe that the Gen Xers will be the first full generation to benefit from these changes and as they inherit the reigns of power, we will go from an era of baby boomers actively rejecting the racism they learned as children to leaders who didn't learn racism at their parents' feet. We've seen good progress over the last 40 years, but it will be the Gen Xers who really get us there.


I am far more pessimistic. I think the level of racism is the same... just the targets of racism change.

The slurs of Hispanics... and especially of Arabs made by public figures are as bad as hateful comments have ever been.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 06:01 pm
I think there is solid progress in interracial relations. However, I think there is a long way to go, and that Krugman is dead on.

I live in South Carolina, and I now see a lot of interracial dating and marriage. This is a step in the right direction.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 09:02 pm
Yes, I live in NC and see the same thing. We're working on it, but our children will go farther in eliminating racism than we can imagine. Every now and then you get a glimpse of what racism looks like elsewhere and realize how far we've come even if we have a long way to go. When Boris Becker decided to marry a black woman, his wife and later his children received death threats from his adoring German public. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't imagine that in the US if a popular sports figure entered an interracial marriage. Forty years ago, yes. Today, no.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 10:34 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
engineer wrote:

Even in the deep South, it is no longer acceptable to make racist comments in public although it occasionally pops up in disguish like in the immigration debate. I believe that the Gen Xers will be the first full generation to benefit from these changes and as they inherit the reigns of power, we will go from an era of baby boomers actively rejecting the racism they learned as children to leaders who didn't learn racism at their parents' feet. We've seen good progress over the last 40 years, but it will be the Gen Xers who really get us there.


I am far more pessimistic. I think the level of racism is the same... just the targets of racism change.

The slurs of Hispanics... and especially of Arabs made by public figures are as bad as hateful comments have ever been.


I suppose I'm less pessimistic on this point having seen the changes in American society (re african americans) over the last 40 or 50 years.

But directing attention towards other contemporary targets of racist sentiment is valid. Re arabs, we see the concomitant anxiety that white/western culture is threatened...a boilerplate racist notion.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 06:43 am
I could not disgreee more with Krugman on this position.

"Last Thursday there was a huge march in Jena, La., to protest the harsh and unequal treatment of six black students arrested in the beating of a white classmate. Students who hung nooses to warn blacks not to sit under a "white" tree were suspended for three days; on the other hand, the students accused in the beating were initially charged with second-degree attempted murder.
"

The problem is not that the black student was punished too severly.
It is that they did not punish thew white kid s for hanging the rope on the tree.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 06:53 am
woiyo wrote:
I could not disgreee more with Krugman on this position.

"Last Thursday there was a huge march in Jena, La., to protest the harsh and unequal treatment of six black students arrested in the beating of a white classmate. Students who hung nooses to warn blacks not to sit under a "white" tree were suspended for three days; on the other hand, the students accused in the beating were initially charged with second-degree attempted murder.
"

The problem is not that the black student was punished too severly.
It is that they did not punish thew white kid s for hanging the rope on the tree.


And this you consider evidence of racial equality?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 10:52 am
Um, of course it's racism. There's a heavy element of Racism in the 'southern strategy.' They just use code words and different tactics to promote it.

Here's Lee Atwater describing how it works:

Quote:
In 1981, during the first year of Mr. Reagan's presidency, the late Lee Atwater gave an interview to a political science professor at Case Western Reserve University, explaining the evolution of the Southern strategy:

"You start out in 1954 by saying, ?'Nigger, nigger, nigger,' " said Atwater. "By 1968, you can't say ?'nigger' ?- that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights, and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things, and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites."


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 11:47 am
By BOB HERBERT
Published: September 25, 2007
I applaud the thousands of people, many of them poor, who traveled from around the country to protest in Jena, La., last week. But what I'd really like to see is a million angry protesters marching on the headquarters of the National Republican Party in Washington.

The G.O.P. has spent the last 40 years insulting, disenfranchising and otherwise stomping on the interests of black Americans. Last week, the residents of Washington, D.C., with its majority black population, came remarkably close to realizing a goal they have sought for decades ?- a voting member of Congress to represent them.

A majority in Congress favored the move, and the House had already approved it. But the Republican minority in the Senate ?- with the enthusiastic support of President Bush ?- rose up on Tuesday and said: "No way, baby."

At least 57 senators favored the bill, a solid majority. But the Republicans prevented a key motion on the measure from receiving the 60 votes necessary to move it forward in the Senate. The bill died.

At the same time that the Republicans were killing Congressional representation for D.C. residents, the major G.O.P. candidates for president were offering a collective slap in the face to black voters nationally by refusing to participate in a long-scheduled, nationally televised debate focusing on issues important to minorities.

The radio and television personality Tavis Smiley worked for a year to have a pair of these debates televised on PBS, one for the Democratic candidates and the other for the Republicans. The Democratic debate was held in June, and all the major candidates participated.

The Republican debate is scheduled for Thursday. But Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson have all told Mr. Smiley: "No way, baby."

They won't be there. They can't be bothered debating issues that might be of interest to black Americans. After all, they're Republicans.

This is the party of the Southern strategy ?- the party that ran, like panting dogs, after the votes of segregationist whites who were repelled by the very idea of giving equal treatment to blacks. Ronald Reagan, George H.W. (Willie Horton) Bush, George W. (Compassionate Conservative) Bush ?- they all ran with that lousy pack.

Dr. Carolyn Goodman, a woman I was privileged to call a friend, died last month at the age of 91. She was the mother of Andrew Goodman, one of the three young civil rights activists shot to death by rabid racists near Philadelphia, Miss., in 1964.

Dr. Goodman, one of the most decent people I have ever known, carried the ache of that loss with her every day of her life.

In one of the vilest moves in modern presidential politics, Ronald Reagan, the ultimate hero of this latter-day Republican Party, went out of his way to kick off his general election campaign in 1980 in that very same Philadelphia, Miss. He was not there to send the message that he stood solidly for the values of Andrew Goodman. He was there to assure the bigots that he was with them.

"I believe in states' rights," said Mr. Reagan. The crowd roared.

In 1981, during the first year of Mr. Reagan's presidency, the late Lee Atwater gave an interview to a political science professor at Case Western Reserve University, explaining the evolution of the Southern strategy:

"You start out in 1954 by saying, ?'Nigger, nigger, nigger,' " said Atwater. "By 1968, you can't say ?'nigger' ?- that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights, and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things, and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites."

In 1991, the first President Bush poked a finger in the eye of black America by selecting the egregious Clarence Thomas for the seat on the Supreme Court that had been held by the revered Thurgood Marshall. The fact that there is a rigid quota on the court, permitting one black and one black only to serve at a time, is itself racist.

Mr. Bush seemed to be saying, "All right, you want your black on the court? Boy, have I got one for you."

Republicans improperly threw black voters off the rolls in Florida in the contested presidential election of 2000, and sent Florida state troopers into the homes of black voters to intimidate them in 2004.

Blacks have been remarkably quiet about this sustained mistreatment by the Republican Party, which says a great deal about the quality of black leadership in the U.S. It's time for that passive, masochistic posture to end.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 03:03 pm
So as a passive participant of this forum I wish to pour forth my views.
I had never been to USA nor I will till my death.
My blood family members are there and I have enough informations about racial problems in USA.
Racial problems are still there in USA( not only reps or dems)
THIS IS A2K and not Abuzz.
So I wish to follow your observations
and as a mark of respect
I quote this which reflects my views.

"Well-adjusted people may get caught up in a tangle of social forces that makes them goose-step their way toward such abominations as the calculated execution of 6 million jews.....
It may be comforting to believe that the horrors of of WW2 were the work of a dozen or so insane men, but it is a DANGEROUS belief,
one that may give a false sense of security."
-------------------------------------------- Melly Harrower------------
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 03:36 pm
Ramafuchs, its difficult to understand what it is you are trying to say. Furthermore, what you are injecting into this thread is not germane to the subject under discussion. The question is not whether or not racism exists in the United States--anyone who would deny that would be a fool. But racism exists in every corner of the globe. The Turks were free to come work in Germany for over fifty years, but neither they nor their children born in Germany are citizens, while someone of German descent who has never set foot on German soil has the right to go there and become a citizen upon arrival. The National Front in England would like nothing better than to crack every skull covered in brown skin they can lay their hands on.

The question is specific to the political institutions of the United States, specifically, a question of whether or not the Republican Party is covertly racist. For as interesting as your comments might be, if they were coherent, they are not on topic.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 04:03 pm
.
The fact is this.
Republicans are as worst as Hindu fundamentalist or Islam fanatics.
Regarding racism I had aired my views with a quote relevant to the subject of this topic.
If you think that it is flippant and nonsense, I beg you to ask the moderators to delecte my views..
But allow me to observe the views.
Thanks
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 04:41 pm
woiyo wrote:
I could not disgreee more with Krugman on this position.

"Last Thursday there was a huge march in Jena, La., to protest the harsh and unequal treatment of six black students arrested in the beating of a white classmate. Students who hung nooses to warn blacks not to sit under a "white" tree were suspended for three days; on the other hand, the students accused in the beating were initially charged with second-degree attempted murder.
"

The problem is not that the black student was punished too severly.
It is that they did not punish thew white kid s for hanging the rope on the tree.


They didnt punish the white kids enough, thats true.

BUT,there is a big difference between hanging a noose in a tree and actually beating somebody.

Should the kids that hung the noose have been punished more?
YES they should have.

But,they didnt assault anyone, they didnt beat anyone, and they didnt use a gang to attack one person.

That is the difference.

Advocate,
As far as giving DC a voting member in Congress, that would require changing the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Washington%2C_D.C.

Quote:
Throughout much of its history, Washington D.C. residents lacked representation in the Federal government. The Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1961, gave the District representation in the electoral college. The 1973 District of Columbia Home Rule Act provided the local government more control of affairs, including direct election of the city council and mayor. Because it is not a state, the District of Columbia still lacks voting rights in Congress.


Quote:
Amendment 23 - Presidential Vote for District of Columbia. Ratified 3/29/1961. History

1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


And for your education, here is the District of Columbia Home Rule Act...

http://www.abfa.com/ogc/hrtall.htm

So,until DC actually becomes a state,they cannot have a voting member of congress, according to the constitution.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » REPUBLICANISM AND RACISM
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/07/2026 at 05:31:41