Harry Reid: racist or political realist?

He's right about that, you know, Thomas.

This could be such an interesting topic, and this discussion makes dishwater look exciting.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown wrote:

If you are Black or Latino or not a Christian or a Homosexual... the Republican party has consistently acted against your interests. (Conversely the Democratic party has often acted for your interests).

There are plenty of republican blacks, latinos, non-Christians, and homosexuals that would disagree with you on this point. The difficulty lies in what is "for/against your interests". One could argue, for example, that affirmative action is against a minorities "best interests" because it favors one person over another strictly for the color of their skin and thus serves to unnecessarily emphasize and perpetuate racial distinctions. You, on the other hand, might argue that affirmative action is necessary to overcome insurmountable barriers hampering a minority person's social advancement. You are merely arguing a common perception of many blacks, latinos, and homosexuals....I am arguing a common perception of non-blacks, non-latinos, and heterosexuals. While there is supporting evidence for both perceptions, there is conclusive proof of neither.

ebrown wrote:

The rhetoric coming from some prominent Republicans is unapologetic; the idea that European Americans are the true Americans, that people from different cultures are a threat and that the US is a Christian nation.

I'll admit that a few Republicans are xenophobes, but I think you're exaggerating to call them "prominent" and you're plainly mistaken if you contend these few extremists speak for the Republican party or the majority of its members.

ebrown wrote:

You don't hear the idea that one culture should be dominant over others from Democrats.

That's a strong phrase "dominant over others" and I'll ask you to 1) provide a little more clarification on what you mean and 2) support for your assertion. I've never heard a Republican arguing cultural dominance...cultural assimilation, yes, but never cultural dominance.

1 Reply

@slkshock7,

Quote:

I'll admit that a few Republicans are xenophobes, but I think you're exaggerating to call them "prominent" and you're plainly mistaken if you contend these few extremists speak for the Republican party or the majority of its members.

you're either stupid or a liar.

2 Replies

@dyslexia,

why must that be an either or proposition, cowboy?

(just kurious)

0 Replies

You are such a bad man . . .

0 Replies

@dyslexia,

dyslexia wrote:

"unfair and inaccurate"? really George? From Harry Truman on the republican party as pushed the zero-sum methodoly (when you give minorites equal civil rights, you take away rights from white anglo americans. this is especially true of voter rights but also aplies to educaction/housing/employment rights.
while it's true the democrats haven't done well in this regard it's pretty much inane to say Republicans have done a remarkable jobs in this regard. Your support of Okie in this regard is amazing as would be my support of Advocate of JTT. Next thing would you supporting Foyfyre's claim to be libertarian. Boggles the mind, really!

You are putting words on my mouth. I didn't say that Republicans had done "a remarkable job" in these areas. Instead I noted the facts that the key legislative elements of the Civil Rights transformation were passed through our Congress with overwhelming support from Republicans (and this long after Truman's integration of the Army) and a coalition of part of the Democrat party. I explicitly acknowledged that the parties diverged rapidly on issues related to expanded Federal power to enforce specific subsidies, set-asides, and priorities for Blacks under the rhubric of "Affirmative Action". I also acknowledged that in the case of both parties their motivations were a combination of principal and political tactics with respect to their changing constituencies - and that from that perspective there was little relative merit between them.

I recognize that many here regard Okie as anathems and everything he writes or affirms as necessarily wrong. I don't buy that kind of thinking and behavior with respect to anyone. The complacent prejudgement that one who disagrees with you about some fundamentals is necessarily a fool or wrongheaded is a dangerous thing - it breeds a state of mind that is the mirror image of the very things of which one accuses the outlier. Besides, no one is right about everything all the time - and no one is wrong either.

I have also learned many times the value of paying more attention to those who disagree with me than to those who persistently agree.

I disagree with okie about many, but not all, things. He is animated about some principles that I believe are valid and wrongfully overlooked by many. However, in my view, he persistently ignores some of the basic complexities and contradictions of this world and wrongfully trys to force everything through the political constructs that interest him. The fact is our (and his) political constructs are but feeble abstracts of a real world which persistently presents changes, contradictions and complexity that won't fit.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Perhaps it would be helpful to distinguish between 'Republicans' and 'Conservatives.' I think it would be difficult to argue that Conservatives - from either party - have been those who pushed for greater equality over the years.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

That's a good point. Many people seem to have forgotten that there are conservative Democrats. The members of the Texas house who actually left the state to attempt to prevent old what's his face (how quickly i've forgotten, how blissful) from gerrymandering the House districts in Texas were conservative Democrats. A lot of Texas voters were pissed off, too. They've voted Democrat all their lives, and though they might vote for someone like "Dubya" for the white house, they don't want to be gerrymandered out of the opportunity to continue to elect conservative Democrats to the House.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

That's merely a semantical tautology. "Conservatives" on any issue are, by definition, those who oppose change.

The fact is the race-based formulas for affirmative action were indeed antithietical to the very principles on which the Civil Rights movement was based. It was a dose of the very poison we were trying to eradicate, done in the name of righting past wrongs. This was the central issue among most of those who opposed it. I have no doubt that many were also motivated by prejudice, just as I have no doubt that some Democrats were motivated by fairly crass political vote tallying in crafting their "principled" positions.

However, I suppose you sorely need a label to affix to the boogeymen whom you imagine are opposing the vanguard (of which you appear to see yourself as a member) leading us all to a bright new future. Okie needs one too: his is liberals & socialists.

I usually don't use labels that way.

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

That's merely a semantical tautology. "Conservatives" on any issue are, by definition, those who oppose change.

Yes, and when the situation being changed is one of Inequality between people based on meaningless distinctions (such as race), Conservatives are squarely in the wrong, no matter what party they belong to.

Quote:

The fact is the race-based formulas for affirmative action were indeed antithietical to the very principles on which the Civil Rights movement was based. It was a dose of the very poison we were trying to eradicate, done in the name of righting past wrongs. This was the central issue among most of those who opposed it. I have no doubt that many were also motivated by prejudice, just as I have no doubt that some Democrats were motivated by fairly crass political vote tallying in crafting their "principled" positions.

I find the Democrats' actions to be no more crass then the continual vote-buying the Republican party engages in through their mantra of tax cuts, cuts, cuts. Your side simply chooses to buy votes using cash for voters. There is no difference.

Besides, race-based quotas are only an extremely small part of the equation, and don't begin to address the problems the Republican party and Conservatives face wrt minorities in America.

Quote:

However, I suppose you sorely need a label to affix to the boogeymen whom you imagine are opposing the vanguard (of which you appear to see yourself as a member) leading us all to a bright new future. Okie needs one too: his is liberals & socialists.

I usually don't use labels that way.

You are free to believe whatever you like, but my statement - that Conservatives have opposed equality in the past and continue to do so today - is perfectly accurate. And it explains why the Republican party continues to do extremely poorly amongst non-whites.

I wonder if you even realize the fact that claiming that the Dems have 'bought' the votes of minorities through policies explicitly designed to do that, is insulting to these same minority groups; you are claiming that they don't have the ability to judge who truly represents their interest. I find this to be quite funny and emblematic of the problems your party faces in this area.

Even if we stipulate that what you say is true - which I don't agree with, but whatever - your party has offered no real solution to the problem at all. Putting an idiot like Steele in charge of your national committee isn't helping, it's almost (once again) insulting. It is inevitable that the next few decades will see growing numbers of minorities to the point where Whites are no longer the majority in the country; what is the Republican plan for capturing their votes?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I usually don't use labels that way.

So you probably wouldn't like it if i just think of you as a goofy old sailor, huh?

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

Glad to see that our regard for each other is the same...

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
I usually don't use labels that way.

So you probably wouldn't like it if i just think of you as a goofy old sailor, huh?

I already know that you do ... and I am content.

0 Replies

Well good . . . i had found that the Jesuit angle was getting stale, and wanted some new material. I already knew you were working the Paddy angle, so i wanted something unique for myself.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
From Harry Truman on the republican party as pushed the zero-sum methodoly

Uh, Dys? Harry Truman was a Democrat. ....

So Dys thought Truman was a Republican, ha ha.

As the man in the following video says after laying out some information on FDR, Truman, and KKK Robert Byrd, etc. , "Deal with it." It must be very difficult for Democrats to deal with facts, as it must get really hard to try to change them all of the time to fit their preconceived notions.

2 Replies

@okie,

"to deal with facts, as it must get really hard to try to change them all of the time to fit their preconceived notions."

oh jeez, the irony, it hurts... Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

@okie,

Dys actually knew Truman was a Democrat, but you're correct in pointing out that the inference he draws from Executive Order 9981 doesn't reflect the facts. Truman had been warned in no uncertain terms that unless he issues that order the blacks will boycott the November 1948 election - meaning he would lose. Even so he did his level best to slow down integration in the armed forces:

Quote:

July 13, 1948: The platform committee at the Democratic National Convention rejects a recommendation put forward by Mayor Hubert H. Humphrey of Minneapolis calling for abolition of segregation in the armed forces. President Truman and his advisors support and the platform committee approves a moderate platform plank on civil rights intended to placate the South.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/desegregation/large/index.php?action=chronology

1 Reply

The Republican connection with racism started about 30 years ago around the time of Nixon. Later, Reagan did everything he could to pull racists from the Democratic party (and he was very successful). Since this time Republicans have pushed "States rights" (which meant segregation), fought any affirmative action, fought against harsher punishments for hate crimes and promoted America as a Christian nation.

Of course, as America gets more and more diverse, this strategy is less and less effective.

2 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

The Republican connection with racism started about 30 years ago around the time of Nixon.

Haha, that was 40 years ago! Time flies!

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@High Seas,

an interesting response/seque however the development of the zero-sum methodology by the republican/dixiecrats did begin at walk-out of the Dem convention nominating H Truman and peaked with the nomination of R Reagan.

1 Reply

Harry Reid: racist or political realist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know