AH challenge:more liberal america

[Straha]

The United States of America in OTL is unique amoung the democratic
republics of the Earth in that the political center of gravity is
further to the right than other democracies and the average person
more conservative.

What PODs are necessary for the political center of gravity to move
to the left in America with a more liberal population. The POD does
not to make the United States as liberal as the Netherlands but it
must make the United States as liberal as the UK or Canada.

[Ian the Admin]

I think the US being more conservative is really fairly recent (post WW2) on most issues. Except for anything having to do with that 800 pound gorilla of the US social landscape, racism.

I actually read a really interesting book about this that I grabbed in Canada over the holidays (currently not available in the US). It's called "Fire and Ice: The United States, Canada, and the Myth of Converging Values". Basically it's written by a Canadian market research/polling guy. In the process of doing his job, he noticed that the politics and values of Canadians and Americans have actually gotten more different over the past couple of decades, not more similar. Which is really surprising considering that Canadians watch more and more American movies/TV shows, we're sharing the same internet, free trade is increasing commerce between the two countries, etc. Basically you have a trend where the US is going one way and much of the rest of the western world is going another way - even Canada which is right next to it and shares much of the same mass media.

As for what the changes are, there's really two aspects to it. One is that the US has completely swapped places on the political/social map with some other countries, especially Canada. "Fire and Ice" points out that half a century ago, the suggestion that Canada was more liberal than the US would have been ludicrous. Canada had a more rural population, probably less ethnic diversity/immigration, people went to church more, and in general Canadians would tell you their politics were more "peace, order, and good government" compared to the freedom-loving/libertine US. It's only recently that Canada and the US have completely swapped places. Now Canada is highly urban, has a much higher immigration rate than the US, religion is way less of a big deal than the US, and public attitudes have totally liberalized. In the US in the 60s and early 70s there was a shift toward more liberal opinions to the point people were confidently predicting legalized pot, an equal rights amendment for women, etc. Then abruptly that all stopped and there was a swing back to the right - whereas in Canada, no such thing.

But the REALLY surprising thing about the US swing towards conservatism - surprised me and I know a lot about opinion research - is how much of it happened during the 1990s. The point where Canada and the US "crossed over" and Canadian attitudes finally became identifiably more liberal than US attitudes was in the 80s, not surprising as this was the Reagan era, the "me" decade in the US. But during the 1990s - when Clinton was president, everybody was prosperous, and things were pretty peaceful - the US continued to make a big beeline away from liberal opinions, whereas Canada continued to become more liberal. So you can't really blame this on who is president or on international conflicts. US society was moving away from liberal opinions even after the Cold War was over and before September 11.

As for the specifics of this "move away from liberalism" that's interesting too. Because really there are two trends in the US. One trend is that the religious right has gotten a lot more influence over the past couple of decades - more political power, its own media, and so on. But this growing political power of "traditional conservatism" doesn't mean growing numbers of people believing in it. No matter how much louder and more unified the fundamentalists and hard right types get, they're not really getting more numerous. Also, the progressive/liberal "wouldn't vote for a Republican with a gun to my head" crowd isn't really getting much smaller. The big change is happening in the center - the approximately half of the population that isn't committed to the hardcore right or left.

And what's happening to the center is something that shouldn't bring any comfort to either the right or the left. "Fire and Ice" uses statistical techniques to measure the most important trends of change in US social/cultural attitudes. Their technique produces a two-dimensional political map.

One dimension is authority vs. individuality. People high on authority place emphasis on duty, behaving according to social norms, obedience to authority, traditional religion/families, and so on. People high on individuality place emphasis on questioning authority, non-hierarchal organization, sexual permissiveness, equal/flexible relationships between people of different ages and genders, and so on.

The other dimension is survival vs. fulfillment. People high on survival see the world as a sort of Darwinian struggle - survival of the fittest, you've got to look out for your own first, other people are ready to take advantage of you, you need to look out for your security and wealth, etc. People high on fulfillment emphasize cooperation and social connection with others. Be a contributor to the community, money doesn't mean everything, and so on.

The traditional left in the US is high on individuality and fulfillment. The traditional right is high on authority and survival. But these guys aren't where the change is taking place. The center is shifting from high authority, high fulfillment people (generally conventional but believing in community and harmony), to high individuality, high survival people (reject traditional authority, but also reject community and believe it's a dog eat dog world).

This is actually a really troubling trend. It's not a shift towards liberalism or conservatism as we conventionally recognize them. It's people rejecting both the conservative solution to social problems (obey the rules of authority and convention) and the liberal solution (cooperate with others, tolerate differences, and form communities). They are out for themselves, they measure success by material gain, and their position on social problems is that shit happens. This is radically different from the rest of the western world, where populations have been predominantly shifting toward liberalism, rather than towards nihilism (for lack of a better word).

Specifically, some the attitudes that have shown the most dramatic increase in the US in the 90s are:

Sexism
- 49% of Americans believe that men should be heads of their household in 2000, up from 42% in 1992. Canadian number is 18%.
- 38% of Americans believe that men are naturally superior to women in 2000, up from 30% in 1992. Canadian number is 24%.

Xenophobia/Nationalism
- 25% of Americans in 2000 believed that non-whites should not be allowed to immigrate, up from 16% in 1992. Canadian number is 13%.
- 49% of Americans believe immigrants have a good influence on the country, compared to 77% of Canadians. (43% of Americans believe immigrants have a bad influence, the other 8% would be neutral/undecided).
- In 2000 31% of Americans said they enjoyed showing foreigners that they're smarter and stronger, up from 27% in 1992. Canadian number is 14%, down from 17% in 1992.


Acceptance of violence
- 24% of Americans think violence is a normal part of everyday life in 2000, up from 10% in 1992. Canadian number is 12%.
- 31% of Americans in 2000 believe that when you're frustrated, a little violence is no big deal and can offer relief, up from 14% in 1992. Canadian number is 14%.
- 23% of Americans believe violence is an acceptable way to reach one's goals in 2000, up from 9% in 1992. Canadian number is 13%.

Acceptance of advertisement
- 44% of Americans in 2000 believe that a widely advertised product is probably good, up from 34% in 1992. Canadian number is 17%.
- Increasing portion of Americans report getting great pleasure from advertising (decreasing portion in Canada)

Materialism
- Increasing portion of the US population believes it's important that others admire the things you own, decreasing portion feel a personal responsibility to those worse off than themselves, increasing portion say they have trouble accomplishing things due to a hectic life, increasing portion say they need to get away from the burdens of their lives. All trends in Canada are the opposite.

Decreasing civic engagement ("Bowling Alone" effect)
- In 2000, 34% of Americans discuss local problems with other people, down from 66% in 1992. Canadian number is 47% (down slightly from 52%).
- Average American spends 40% of their leisure time watching TV, up from 30% in the 1960s. Canadian number was 30% then and now.
- 31% of Americans are obese compared to 15% of Canadians
- SUVs outsell minivans 2:1 in the US, minivans outsell SUVs 2:1 in Canada. (Market research shows that people view the minivan as a symbol of family commitment, whereas SUV owners don't want to be "tied down" and don't want other people to see them as having lost the adventure in their lives).


Those are some of the most noteworthy changes. There are other changes. Some are negative (such as a noticable 1990s increase in "ecological fatalism", the belief that environmental problems cannot be fixed). A few are positive (people feel more comfortable with adapting to a complex society, have more support for flexible family structures, and have more support for the ideal of multiculturalism even while they are in fact becoming more hostile to immigrants).

[David Howery]

hmm... lots of statistics, but not much background. Just why is this disturbing trend supposed to be happening? Is there some vast web of social/economic factors causing it, are we just naturally bad people showing our true colors, or (as some would have it) is it an inevitable consequence of the US achieving independence instead of staying a part of the Empire ( :p )? So, assuming these trends hold, what will we look like in 100 years?

[RMG]

Wow, moving to Canada seems like a pretty good idea.

[Straha]

yes it is a good idea

[PM Nixon]

Interesting stuff there, Ian. I read an article online a few weeks ago pointing out these same diverging facts. Maybe, just maybe, it's a cycle. It could possibly be that America could become more liberal in a few years, and Canada could become slightly more conservative. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

As for the actual question, my guess is a POD in the 1950s. America at that time was a very conservative place. Maybe if the nation sees a greater commitment to Civil Rights by President Eisenhower(or possibly Stevenson, that could be the POD), then the nation could become more liberal. This will come right before the hippies and the radicals of the 1960s....that may change the way the Civil Rights movement is seen in its later stages, and lead to an America more liberal than OTL.


Another POD is the 1960s, of course. If Hubert Humphrey wins in 1968, he could set the country up to be more liberal. If he succeeds in getting the nation out of Vietnam and making the country prosperous, liberalism may be seen in a more positive light than it is right now.

POD #3: 1976. Maybe if Ford is re-elected, or if Reagan gets a shot and wins the Presidency, it may weaken the Republicans by 1980, quite possibly to the point where the conservatives in the Republican Party, thanks to a Reagan defeat in 1980, cannot fully take control of the party. A person like Edward Kennedy wins in '80 and makes the country strong...while still being a liberal.

[Straha]

or od this... Take the CSA out of the picture

[RMG]

or od this... Take the CSA out of the picture

It's a common (though by no means unanimous) sentiment up here that if we let the South just go and let their stagnant economy self-destruct as the North enjoys wonderful Egyptian cotton, we'd be better off. My history teacher said that if the South had been allowed to secede, it would've set the precedent that any state could leave on a whim, which would have pretty much been the end of the United States. Would that happen? Who knows?

Anyway, even with the CSA gone, would America as a whole be more liberal? The North bit of America might be, but then there'd be a deepy conservative, slave-based country of Americans sitting right below it.

[Xen]

The 1970s were hard on the liberals, it of course started in the 1960's particularly 1968 when Dr King and Robert F Kennedy was murdered. Ted Kennedy left behind too many soggy women to be of much use and the Liberals answered Watergate with Jimmy Carter. The unfortunate events of 1979 set the liberal movement back even further, and the Reagan years were of no help. The 1988 elections is what hurt the liberals the most, Dukakis let George HW Bush bash liberalism, something it hasnt quite recovered from. The Democrats put up the moderate Clinton in 1992, but Congress was controlled by the Republicans. It should also be mentioned Clinton was seen as a liberal and his life style didnt really help the liberals image. Now we have Dubya, and the events surrounding 9-11 which havent really put the US in a very liberal mood.

If RFK survives in 1968, and declines nomination in '72, but makes a run in '76 things could go radically different. He could abandon the Shah in '79 and support the Islamic regime, or he could support the Shah and keep the Islamic regime from coming to power and probably would beat Reagan in 1980. By 1984 Reagan is going to start looking old and the Republicans will go with someone else (perhaps Bush), but if the economy is doing pretty good that year, Kennedy's VP would likely win. After 12 years in power, the democrats are swept out of office in favor of the Republicans (led by Dole?) in 1988, after the Gulf War in 1991, Dole looks sure to be reelected, but the economy gets sluggish and he is put out of office in 1992 in favor of a Democrat (Dukakis?) the Democrats win again in 1996. In 2000 the Republicans put up John McCain who goes on to win the election in a landslide, the joke of the election is the son of former Presidential candidate and owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team, George W. Bush attempting to make a run at the office.

The US sees liberalism continue into the late 70s and into the 1980's with a break in the late 80s early 90s, but a return in the 90's. The US is much more liberal, and the world looks very different.

[Paul Spring]

Ian's statistics do seem to reflect a trend in the US among many people - a lack of concern or interest regarding social issues, and often politics in general, and a focus of all effort on taking care of oneself and sometimes the people closest to you. I definitely see a lot of people in the US as having an attitude that each individual should take care of his or her own problems, and little patience for the idea that people owe something to "society" as a whole.

On a different scale, this attitude might help explain the hostility of many in the US towards the United Nations and the opinions of people in other countries. If individual people should do what's in their own best interests, than the same should be true for individual countries. If other people/countries don't like what you're doing, that's their right, but you're sure as hell not going to give up your own best interests just to make others happy.

This sounds grim and bleak to people (including myself) who have been conditioned to accept the standard liberal idea that we should all look out for one another, that to be selfish is bad, etc. On the other hand, who is to say that these people are necessarily wrong? Is there really any hard evidence that cooperation and looking out for others is the one "right" way?

In a sense, this might be seen as a reassertion of the very old American ideal of "rugged individualism" after decades of being out of fashion. Historically, though, "rugged individualism" in most parts of the US was tempered by strong community influences as well - churches, towns, families both extended and nuclear, and a wide variety of voluntary organizations. I think that it might have been de Tocqueville who said that this impulse towards belonging to groups was a good counterweight to rugged individualism in the US and prevented that individualism from degenerating into a total "dog-eat'dog"-style lack of concern for others. If individualism becomes triumphant again without many community influences to mix with it, THAT might not bode well for the US in the future.

[PM Nixon]

Good points, Xen and Paul. About the POD, I think about the possibilities of MLK living past 1968. I think he would've become a liberal leader in the USA if allowed to live...and if J. Edgar Hoover doesn't discredit him. It is somewhat possible that, if allowed to live, he at least makes an attempt at making the South more moderate than it is IOTL.

Again, as I said earlier, if the GOP gets the White House in 1976, they are as good as screwed in 1980. If a liberal like Edward Kennedy, or someone else like Edmund Muskie or Walter Mondale, gets elected President, then the nation will probably be more liberal than IOTL. As a matter of fact, what Xen said about Ted Kennedy is true; it would be very hard for him to be elected after the 1969 incident. I think then Mondale has a great shot at the nomination in 1980.

1980: Walter Mondale and Edmund Muskie defeat the Republican nominee, who I think would be either Bob Dole or George Bush.

1984: Thanks to a bustling economy, Mondale defeats the Republicans again, possibly one of the two guys listed above.

1988: At this point, Muskie may be considered too old for the Presidency, so the nod from the Democrats is given to either Michael Dukakis or possibly John Glenn. With the Dems winning the Cold War, and the country looking strong again after the debacle of 1979-1980, the Republicans lack the anti-Liberal weapons that Bush had IOTL in 1988. Dukakis wins, and leads America into war against Iraq in 1991.

1992: The economy may be sluggish like IOTL, so the GOP gets the White House back. Unless, of course, Ross Perot runs...and that could mean several things.

[Straha]

ross perot might take republican votes so we get maybe a gore-clinton ticket?

[Xen]

I also think America became more conservative in the 1990s because the absolute worst of liberalism reared its ugly head. American's tend to be some what libertarian, we just want to be left alone, however the 1990's saw some pretty stupid stuff. We saw where thieves break into peoples houses and get hurt, then sue the victim and WIN. We saw a woman spill coffee on her lap and sue McDonalds over it and WIN. Alot of the 1990's liberals here seemed to make the victims the criminals, and the criminals the victims. How many times did we hear "So and so committed this crime because society failed him, therefore he should not be punished." Good, hard working Americans began to become bitter as people were not accepting of their responsibilities. Its good to know why they did such things, but its not very good to let them go scot free.

Then we have the prisons, people who break the law go to these multi million dollar facitilies where they have Air conditioning, tennis courts, state of the art libraries and modern computers and three square meals a day. Most Americans who dont break the law dont get it so good, and this upsets them. The Republicans have done a good job of putting it on the Democrats, and the Democrats havent been smart enough to distance themselves from it. Then theres also the military issue, Americans love its military and believes we need a strong one, the liberals believe since the Cold War ended its not necessary, which is a direct affront to the will of the people. Im not trying to insult liberals or anything, but their leaders over the past 20 years have been stupid, out for themselves and have treated the people like they can think for themselves.

Whats harder for the liberals is they are beginning to lose the minorities, the Democrats have an attitude like "You are here because of us, you cant make it without us, you need us to survive, without us youre nothing." While the Republicans are successfully selling individualism "You are your own person, if you put your mind to it you can do it, if the world judges you because you are a minority work that much harder and be a better person for it." Look at the demographics of the politicians in Washington, a good number of the black's are Republicans, and they are taking a leading roll in the party, where as the Democrat Party tends to relegate them to the minor rolls.

The biggest issue really is the leadership of Conservatives and Liberals, the Conservatives know how to appeal to the people, the Liberals know how to appeal to a certain percentage of the people and blow hot air at the others.

[Straha]

I wonder is there away to distance liberalism from thigns like that??

[Xen]

Yes but it has to come from the leadership, many individual liberals like their conservative neighbors resent working 40 hours a week to feed their family a meager meal, and have to use fans to keep cool in the summer. There is no easy street for alot of people.

Im not sure if it would work this way but perhaps if they start calling these judges who rule in favor of the criminal in front of them and have him or her explain their reasoning.

If the liberals want to cut the military they have to do it in small doses, Americans cant swallow a big cut. Now after 9-11 talking of cutting the military is like shooting yourself in the foot. Americans right now want a bigger military.

As far as the prisons, instead of them getting the best of the best lets put the state of the art libraries and the brand new computers in the schools and take the schools libraries with the out of date books, and old Apple Computers from the Reagan years in the prisons. It should also be if you commit the crime you do the time for everything except self defense. Its good to know why so and so did this, it helps society help him so he wont do it again, but he still should reap the seeds he sows so to speak.

And most importantly, the minorities arent votes waiting to be harvested, they dont want welfare, they want opportunity. The Republican's are just now begining to figure this one out and are opening up its doors.

[Straha]

I see your point...

Another way to get a more liberla USA besides president humphrey is to cut the south out of the picture. The jacksonian south with its ideas of dundamentalism,racism,unregulated capitolism and slow change wouldn't be able to influence national policy.

[Ian the Admin]

hmm... lots of statistics, but not much background. Just why is this disturbing trend supposed to be happening? Is there some vast web of social/economic factors causing it, are we just naturally bad people showing our true colors, or (as some would have it) is it an inevitable consequence of the US achieving independence instead of staying a part of the Empire ( )? So, assuming these trends hold, what will we look like in 100 years?


The guy who wrote the book is a public opinion researcher - he doesn't necessarily know WHY large trends are happening, he just noticed that they were and recorded them in great detail. Explanations are much harder. And BTW the increase of "dog-eat-dog materialism" type opinion in the US is a RECENT trend especially apparent in the 1990s, it's not something that goes back to the founding or that I would expect to continue for another hundred years.

Particularly surprising is the increase in number of people who think violence is a normal, fine thing, because there was a huge increase in this opinion in a time when violent crime was actually dropping. The most obvious thing to pin it on would be the US media's discovery that violence sells in all its forms, especially on the news. If you based your view of US society on what is reported on the news, you'd think the 1990s were a dystopian decade of social disaster in which violence and disaster became ubiquitous and violent crime increased many times over. Canadians watch the same movies and entertainment TV shows but the news is very different. Much less focused on disaster and sensationalism. When I moved to the US and actually saw US domestic TV news for the first time (Fox as it happens), I was floored by how shallow and sensationalistic it is.

However there are other possibilities. A "dog eat dog" and materialistic attitude is more common among poor people struggling to survive, for example. And in the 80s and 90s, there was a significant increase in inequity in the US with the poor getting poorer, especially relative to the rest of society. In Canada and European countries this either isn't happening or is much less pronounced.

As for whether this is bad... well, I think in cases like xenophobia, sexism, and blase acceptance of social problems, it speaks for itself. As for whether materialism or community is better, there's a lot of psychological research on this. It's pretty well established that the more importance a person places on material possessions in their life, the less happy they are.

[Straha]

no offense even thoguh this discussion on long trends is interesting an all(as well as possible POD fodder) but I'd like to discuss AH ;) :p :D

[Ian the Admin]

Then we have the prisons, people who break the law go to these multi million dollar facitilies where they have Air conditioning, tennis courts, state of the art libraries and modern computers and three square meals a day.


Or more accurately, you have conservative ideologues who've convinced people that such ludicrous pictures are actually true. Over the past quarter century, the US justice system has gone from being pretty ordinary to being BY FAR the harshest in the developed world. Sentences are far longer than anywhere else for most crimes, far far more people are imprisoned, and prisons are generally overcrowded and suffering from poor conditions due to the prison population expanding faster than prisons can keep up. Crime policy is one HUGE difference between the US and basically any other developed country. To much of the American electorate, there is virtually no such thing as being too tough on crime, and anybody who suggests that the harsh punishments don't actually do anything to reduce the crime rate gets pretty much crucified in public. (It's really quite extreme - criminologists complain that even US government agencies are like a black void where science shall not enter and it is heresy to even seriously ask the question of whether the harsh penalties actually help the crime rates).

I think this (and the great hostility of Americans to antipoverty programs) is ultimately due to racism. The US has a large, poor, and thus disproportionately violence-prone black minority. This means that on average, whenever an American thinks about crime and poverty it's a white person thinking about black crime and black poverty. This makes it much more of an "Us vs. Them" situation than in other countries, and antipoverty programs and less harsh criminal penalties are seen as helping "Them" without doing much for "Us". Even Americans who aren't racist and would quickly deny that crime and poverty are just black problems, retain a view of criminals as "Them", people threatening their community from outside. Even ignoring skin color, segregation and urban decay result in crime being disproportionately concentrated in US inner cities. So Americans are paranoid about "Them" (urban criminals) moving into our suburban neighborhood.

Contrast to Canada just north of the border. Nonwhite minorities are relatively recent arrivals (mostly asians) who aren't strongly associated with poverty and crime, and who aren't so heavily segregated from the rest of the population. Violent crime in Canadian cities is actually LOWER than in rural areas. So the average Canadian doesn't have nearly the "Them" mentality toward poverty and crime that the average American does.

It creates an extremely palpable difference. In the US all politicians want to look "tough on crime", because it can only win you votes. In Canada, if a politician goes on about being "tough on crime" and US style policies, it's a risky move and lots of people will just see it as fearmongering. And politicians espousing US style poverty rhetoric, portraying the poor as lazy bums who need to be given a smaller carrot and a bigger stick to get off welfare, get flooded with criticism about their uncaring attitude toward honest people down on their luck.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

The US has a large, poor, and thus disproportionately violence-prone black minority.

Whoa, time out. Put an equal amount of white people in the same economic situation, and you'll likely get an equal amount of criminal activity. I know you didn't mean anything, but maybe I just read that wrong.

The government doesn't just ignore science about crime, it also ignores global warming, international issues, and a lot of other things. Asking the government to take science into consideration is like trying to give a cat a bath. Some will accept it, but they're considered wierd. The United States is also the only nation in the world that gasses and lethally injects prisoners. It's really disgusting.

[PM Nixon]

Hmmm....I sincerly hope this doesn't lead to a flame war. ;)

But I do think that liberal tactics must be changed in order to get a bigger share of the electorate. As it was said earlier, the Democrats can't act as though they have black votes in their pockets. A few more years, and it is quite possible the GOP will get more black votes due to Democratic incompetence at the top. (Terry McAuliffe, I'm looking at you. :D) I really hope my generation can change this chain of thinking in the Democratic Party.

As for Straha's POD, let's look at 1988. If Dukakis answers a particular question about the death penalty, then maybe things are different. Basically, the question revolved around using the death penalty to punish a criminal who had done something to his wife. This hypothetical question's answer from Dukakis, some political scientists believe, was lackluster, without passion, and cost him the election.

Also, I think if a few more liberals thought about saying some things differently during the Cold War, especially about defense spending, taxes, and Vietnam, it is quite possible the US would have a few more liberal presidents.

One more POD I thought about today: What if Teddy Roosevelt wins in 1912? That probably leads to a permanent split in the Republican Party, gives America a progressive, viable third party and gives future liberals a future home. I think more moderates will shift to the Democratic Party, and the Conservatives will make a shift to the Republican Party. With President Roosevelt as a member of the Bull Moose Party, that gives them some real credibility for future American politics.

About crime: I'm pro-death penalty, but I agree that the government must look into how to really reform the system overall. Also, as one poster said earlier, schools should get some of the resources that prisons get, such as good computers and nice libraries.

[David Howery]

hmm... Ian's big post noted that too many Americans think that immigrants are bad for the country and that violence is ok when you are frustrated. I'd point out that Ian is an immigrant (a refugee from impoverished backward Canada), thus he's bad for the US, which is frustrating. By that logic, then, we should beat him up to feel better ;)

[Straha]

I kinda hoped the rest of the world would invade the USA after bush violated the UN resolutions. Canada with new england,the pacific northwest,baja,nevada,alaska,hawai,wisconsin,michi gan and bermuda would be paradise

[PM Nixon]

hmm... Ian's big post noted that too many Americans think that immigrants are bad for the country and that violence is ok when you are frustrated. I'd point out that Ian is an immigrant (a refugee from impoverished backward Canada), thus he's bad for the US, which is frustrating. By that logic, then, we should beat him up to feel better ;)


You've been quite the American nationalist this week, haven't you David? :D

[NapoleonXIV]

Is it possible that all this discussion of trends is to put the cart before the horse? Take note of the fact that almost all the examples you cite manifest themselves in ways which have to do with people losing freedom or the guarantees of freedom. And by freedom I mean the ability to actually do something I would logically choose to do, like use the Internet as I choose or express myself as I see fit without directly hurting someone else. I do not mean the freedom to discriminate against someone else, or to force my belief upon them, or the "freedom to fail."

The proximate actual cause of increased conservatism in the 90's was the election of the '94 Congress by a method which at the time was widely criticised and which has never been applied so thoroughly before or since, that is, the running of essentially local elections on a national basis. This one stroke of political genius simultaneously put the Far Right in control of both the House of Congress and the Republican Party, after which they quite quickly passed dozens of sweeping changes to a 200 year old institution all aimed at making their position permanent. The only other significant thing they did was to try to actually unseat an elected president essentially because they disagreed with him. Cooler heads in the Senate prevailed or they would have done so and in 1996 the American people elected a Democratic Centrist who had made the country prosperous. In 2000 we again did the same BUT...

So, in 1994 we have a new type of election followed by sweeping congressional rules engineered by a politician who, (politically ONLY mind you, otherwise he was a decent guy, I don't want a flame war over this, my personal opinion ENTIRELY, and I mean it in a good way), resembles Adolf Hitler more than any other US politician I ever saw. They do their best to insulate themselves from the consequences of any more elections and then try their best to unseat an elected sitting President. Then in 2000 we have another election in which machinations worthy of Justinian combine with obscure rules passed 200 years ago to result in the guy who got 500,000 LESS votes winning.

THAT'S a disturbing trend to me. A small and vociferous elite who don't represent the majority and know it very well have captured the country and are succeeding in making it their own. People will try to take our freedoms, that's not a trend, its been a sad fact forever.

Oh and uh...right AH :rolleyes: The POD is 1992, Newt Gingrich proposes the 1994 campaign to certain colleagues but some actually tell certain Republican Senators. Horrified, a bipartisan majority passes campaign reform specifically aimed at making it hard for national orgs to steamroller local candidates. Gingrich later becomes a perennial candidate for President and writes a series of AH WWII bestsellers upon retirement in 2004.

[PM Nixon]

Interesting Napoleon. I had thought that the results of the 1994 elections, could not be averted without some sort of POD from the 70s or 80s. That really cemented Conservatism into American thought as it is today, giving a push from Reagan's administration and the tax revolts of the late 1970s.

[Paul Spring]

I think this (and the great hostility of Americans to antipoverty programs) is ultimately due to racism. The US has a large, poor, and thus disproportionately violence-prone black minority.

Ian, I honestly wonder if you're just unlucky in the people you have met, or whether you had a hostile opinion of the US to begin with and deliberately ignore Americans you meet who don't conform to that opinion. I hate to rain on your parade, but the fact is that most people in the US just don't particularly like people who do things like murder and rape, regardless of whether they're white, black, or whatever shade of color.

[Straha]

*ahem* get back on topic

[Xen]

I think this (and the great hostility of Americans to antipoverty programs) is ultimately due to racism. The US has a large, poor, and thus disproportionately violence-prone black minority.

Ian, I honestly wonder if you're just unlucky in the people you have met, or whether you had a hostile opinion of the US to begin with and deliberately ignore Americans you meet who don't conform to that opinion. I hate to rain on your parade, but the fact is that most people in the US just don't particularly like people who do things like murder and rape, regardless of whether they're white, black, or whatever shade of color.

Ian was just quoting stats from a book he read, there is a certain percentage of error, and I would like to know the basis of polls taken to come to these conclusions. But thats beside the point, I dont think he meant anything by it.

But back on topic, if you want the truth the US is more liberal now than ever before, its just compared to the rest of the western world were more conservative, but then again most of the rest of the western world had to play catch up in that department. They didn't start getting that way until after world war II and even then had a very strong socialist element. The US had no socialist element, you can blame the Cold War and McCarthyism for that.

[Paul Spring]

If you mean "liberal" in the sense of having a more socialized economy, with stronger government regulation, higher taxes, more social engineering, etc, then I just don't see it happening. The New Deal/Great Society kind of liberalism was such a turn away from the ideas of individualism that were traditionally strong in the US that a backlash against them was inevitable, especially when it became more and more obvious that they couldn't deliver on their promises and were actually having the opposite effect to what was intended.

If you mean "liberal" in the sense of a more laid back and permissive society, that's a lot more likely. Ironically, one way to do this might be to have many of the "mainstream" protestant churches in the US remain more conservative for a longer period of time. In OTL, some churches had moved so far in a liberal direction by the 1960s that millions of people began to desert them, and moved to churches that had a fundamentalist bent to them. This helped lay the groundwork for what would later be called the "Christian Right". In the same vein, if you removed or lessened the impact of some of the more traumatic events of the 20th century - Great Depression, WWII, Cold War, the turbulence of the 60s - you might get actually get a more permissive society now, because you wouldn't have strong conservative "backlashes" against liberal trends.

[Straha]

have the CSA out of the country and youu could get both

[David Howery]

PM> it's all in fun. I don't think anyone takes me seriously. I don't think I've really offended any of the non-Americans on the list. If I have, well then we should invade their country and send them all to the salt mines for having no sense of humor :)

[PM Nixon]

PM> it's all in fun. I don't think anyone takes me seriously. I don't think I've really offended any of the non-Americans on the list. If I have, well then we should invade their country and send them all to the salt mines for having no sense of humor :)

LOL!!! :D

As for the thread itself, I sense a flamewar coming on. Countdown in ten responses.:)

[Straha]

goddamit all I want is some F&%#ing AH scenario ideas and all I get is a F^$*ing flamewar :mad:

[PM Nixon]

goddamit all I want is some F&%#ing AH scenario ideas and all I get is a F^$*ing flamewar :mad:

On behalf of the other board members, I must apologize. I agree, we MUST get on topic. The scary thing is that no one's warmed up for battle yet.

As for AH, this might be of interest to you: what if the Socialists take off in the USA? I think the best chance for this is in the early 20th century, maybe with a larger, more intense labor movement. Or, maybe the lack of a New Deal and Great Society could lead to a liberal America TODAY. If America's more conservative early on, thanks to no Great Depression or lack of a strong Civil Rights movement, then you could have a backlash against Conservatism, and the beginnings of a large scale liberal movement.

[Straha]

in a world where the CSA is independent the socialists would take off. THey'd probably be able ot disassociate thmeselves enoguh from communims so that soem of the strongest red-bashers would be socialists

[PM Nixon]

in a world where the CSA is independent the socialists would take off. THey'd probably be able ot disassociate thmeselves enoguh from communims so that soem of the strongest red-bashers would be socialists

You're probably right. But, I'd like to see America be more liberal without losing the South. Maybe some sort of Populist movement comes about in the South, like the one in the late 19th century. Or, Reconstruction goes alot better and the South, somehow, becomes more tolerant.

Hmm....this just popped into my head. Maybe avoiding the Civil War makes the nation more liberal. Lincoln loses in 1860, war is averted, no Reconstruction, no permanent bad feelings between North and South....maybe the lack of rapidly diverging political views?

[Straha]

how about a reconstruction thats actually sucessful?

[Beck Reilly]

So you want a Populist movement in the South...

Huey Long, a known populist Democrat, wins the election of 1924 and becomes Governor of Louisiana four years early. In OTL, he lost this election. But, we have a younger more idealistic Huey Long as the governor. His entire political career is accelerated by four years. His reforms leave Louisiana in better shape than the rest of the nation when the Great Depression hits in 1928. Our younger Huey Long never becomes quite as authoritarian as he became in OTL. With the arrival of the stock market crash, Huey Long is seen as somewhat of a 'prophet' for building the structure to handle the crisis in Louisiana. He is nominated by the Democrats in 1932 over Franklin Roosevelt, who the public sees as a 'rich boy' and, thus, he is assured the election (no Republican was going to win that election no matter who the Democrats ran). He is in office in early 1933 and begins the same reforms he began in Louisiana throughout the entire nation, including desegregation by the mid-1940s. He handles WW2 well and is reelected repeatedly before deciding to end his Presidency in 1948...

voila, a more liberal America

[PM Nixon]

So you want a Populist movement in the South...

Huey Long, a known populist Democrat, wins the election of 1924 and becomes Governor of Louisiana four years early. In OTL, he lost this election. But, we have a younger more idealistic Huey Long as the governor. His entire political career is accelerated by four years. His reforms leave Louisiana in better shape than the rest of the nation when the Great Depression hits in 1928. Our younger Huey Long never becomes quite as authoritarian as he became in OTL. With the arrival of the stock market crash, Huey Long is seen as somewhat of a 'prophet' for building the structure to handle the crisis in Louisiana. He is nominated by the Democrats in 1932 over Franklin Roosevelt, who the public sees as a 'rich boy' and, thus, he is assured the election (no Republican was going to win that election no matter who the Democrats ran). He is in office in early 1933 and begins the same reforms he began in Louisiana throughout the entire nation, including desegregation by the mid-1940s. He handles WW2 well and is reelected repeatedly before deciding to end his Presidency in 1948...

voila, a more liberal America

Fascinating!! I briefly thought of Huey Long when I was typing about the South, but I didn't know about the 1924 defeat. But, do you think a Conservative backlash is possible still? Or are his programs just that successful?

[Beck Reilly]

I don't know how successful they'd be nationally but I know that they were extremely successful in Louisiana. Some of his stuff seems rather like Roosevelt's 'New Deal' but more practical.

[Straha]

soudns like a decent idea

[Derek Jackson]

I think that there were three factors in the grown of America's pretty extreme form of conservatism. One was Monetarism

Secondly Conservatives from the 70s REALLY got themselves organized

Thirdly Liberals and Progressives have ALLOWED themselves to be intimidated

[Mike Collins]

Im gonna take a different course on this one just to think out of the box!

Read a book years back called Vietnam: The Necessary War by a guy named Lindh. He went into surprisingly great depth on the different political mindsets in America. He goes somewhat like this. The Northeast culture is liberal because it was colonized by people from East Enlgand (mostly) who left the Old Country for moral/spiritual reasons (pilgrims) and tended to be more communal. The South was colonized by folks from South and West England who came for commercial reasons and tended to be culturally more militaristic. There is also a "Highland" culture in parts of the South (Texas High Country, Arkansas, Tennessee are examples) that came from Scots/Irish immigrants. Its a combination of both but leans towards the conservative/militarist tendencies of the South. As the US expanded, New Englanders colonized the Northern Tier and the Southerners colonized to South and Southwest. Lindh doesnt get much into which is dominant. He more focused on there being a constant friction between North and South. But I would agree from my experience that Americans tend to be more conservative than the other Western nations.

What if the people from South and West England went to South Africa or India instead of the American colonies and there was a bigger influx of East Engalnders and Scots/Irish? That might bring the USA more in line with the rest of the Western Nations.

[DominusNovus]

Quick question.
Am I the only one who seems to find the majority of the changes in the US, cited by Ian to be postive? :D

(I'll get you your flamewar, PM)

[Wombat]

I think part of the problem may lay with the US's lack of a labor Party, together with the poor light that unions are seen in, unlike most English speaking western democracies. As a result socialism tends to be equated with communism, and the collapse of the soviet union means therefore that socialism - which = communism in a lot of peoples minds - (and its implications of caring for the havenots of society) is therefore perceived to weak/flawed/stupid. This would explain the changes Ian has qouted for the past decade or so. So having said that an organised political party to represent the rights of the working man that attracts broad support could possibly result in a more liberal US.

Its interesting to compare some of the changes - despite a tightening up Australia still has more generous unemployment assistamne than the US, yet has roughly the same percentage unemployed. We have a deeply conservative political leader (at least compared to his predeccessors ove the last 30 years) in John Howard who actually pushed through MUCH tougher gun laws than the US, and was able to get widespread popular support, despite the fact the gun buy-back was funded via a surcharge on the medicare levy (for the unitiated medicare is Australia's universal health system). Surveys in Australia have indicated the majority of Australians would rather see increases in health and education than minor tax cuts.

Also, compulsory voting means that those elected have to take in to account the views of ALL Australians, rather than just those who vote, as in the US.

Having said that, I think the trend towards conservatism is a world wide phenomena. Look at the growth of the right in France, for that matter here in Australia (one nation - Australia's home grown far right party, attracted approx 600 000 votes a few years ago - a large number when there are only about 12 million voters). I think 911 and Bali have accelerated this process - it has tended to make many westerners xenophobic, and equate all muslims with terrorism. Fear has made people insular.

[DominusNovus]

Well, I can't speak for foreign nations, but labor unions in the US tend to be pretty bad and corrupt on their own, and kinda deserve to be looked down upon. My mother used to have union fees that were about equal to her paycheck (after insurance was taken out). This same union promotes poltical candidates that my mother doesn't support. Hell, my grandfather was a union leader and even he hated unions.

Then there's the mob ties...

[Grey Wolf]

Interestingly, here in the Uk because of the rightwards shift of the Labour Party several unions have allowed their branches to affiliate to other parties than the Labour Party - eg the Scottish Socialist Party. Today the Labour Party has tried to ban the whole union (RMT) - if it succeeds it will see a steady exodus of other unions which can no longer in this day and age support the Labour Party simply on the basis that they have always done so. It ought to make politics more interesting, but the right wing shift of Labour under Blair means that they get most of their monies for election years from business and special interests. So it will simply be a sign that Blair is a Tory at heart and nothing much in reality, except the SSP will get a bit more money that it would have done otherwise

Grey Wolf

[Stalin]

Well, I can't speak for foreign nations, but labor unions in the US tend to be pretty bad and corrupt on their own, and kinda deserve to be looked down upon. My mother used to have union fees that were about equal to her paycheck (after insurance was taken out). This same union promotes poltical candidates that my mother doesn't support. Hell, my grandfather was a union leader and even he hated unions.

Then there's the mob ties...

Yes, I definitely think that if anything the corruption of unions and the death of the "Old-left" contributed to the decline of Liberalism in the US. Liberalism took on a less respectable, "peacenik" reputation among a lot of people. Think about it, we went from having FDR, Truman, and Kennedy to having... Jimmy Carter. Perhaps if we were to limit the corruption of the unions, eliminate Vietnam and other factors that led to the "New Left", and give it a more populist bent than in OTL and it could drastically improve in its influence and popularity in the USA.

Come to think of it, Liberalism really only declined towards the end of the Cold War, oddly enough...

[Ian the Admin]

I think this (and the great hostility of Americans to antipoverty programs) is ultimately due to racism. The US has a large, poor, and thus disproportionately violence-prone black minority.


Ian, I honestly wonder if you're just unlucky in the people you have met, or whether you had a hostile opinion of the US to begin with and deliberately ignore Americans you meet who don't conform to that opinion. I hate to rain on your parade, but the fact is that most people in the US just don't particularly like people who do things like murder and rape, regardless of whether they're white, black, or whatever shade of color.


My opinion is based on reading loads of social science and opinion surveys (some of which I referred to earlier in this thread). Racism isn't something unique to Americans. Especially the mild sort of racism of a person who would never actually vote for segregation or something like that, but does have an instinctive dislike/distrust of people of different races. It is EXTREMELY common in societies (not just the US) for people to have an instinctively greater dislike/distrust of other races, viewing them more of an "outsider" group rather than one of "us". Even if they intellectually believe in equality, even if they can make friends with individuals of other races once they've gotten to know them, the negative attitudes are still there very very often. More negative attitudes toward people who obviously seem "outsiders" (another race, culture, religion, etc) are basically a fundamental and common element of human psychology.

But while such reactions are found to some extent all over the place, it is the US which actually has a large, obvious racial minority that remains highly segregated and impoverished at the end of the 20th century. Basically race continues to have a big and obvious presence in US society in a way which it doesn't elsewhere. And this isn't just an effect that produces difference between nations. I've seen research indicating that within the US, the level of prejudice among whites is associated with the number of black people living nearby. The more blacks, the more prejudice, and not just in the south.

Specifically, when an Americans thinks of criminals or poor people, it usually means a white American thinking of black criminals and poor black people. And not in proportion to reality, either - research has shown that Americans consistently overestimate the portion of criminals and welfare recipients that are black. So basically when an American today thinks of poverty and crime, they're more likely than people in other countries to consider those things the problem of an "outsider" group. Someone who is not like them. So the dislike and distrust of outsiders gets heaped on top of the normal distrust of criminals and poor people. This isn't speculation - psychological experiments have shown that Americans really are disproportionately likely to think of blacks when they think of crime or welfare. Some of the stuff is really interesting. For example there was one experiment where (IIRC - it's been a while since I read it) after watching news reports about criminals, people were likely to "remember" more of the criminals being black than actually were.

To get more specific, it's quite true that people don't like murderers and rapists of any color. But I wasn't talking about murder and rape, crimes which are punished severely around the world. The US doesn't stand out for its treatment of murderers and rapists (it often applies the death penalty, but it's not like long prison terms are a slap on the wrist). It stands out for its treatment of nonviolent offenders, and non-criminal poor people. Basically, for people who have problems but are not great dangers to society. When they think of such "borderline cases", people are more likely to be sympathetic and assume the best about others who are similar to themselves, and to be harsh and assume the worst about others who are very different from themselves. Most Americans think of criminals and poor people as being more different from themselves - darker colored, for starters, though also more urban - than people in other countries do.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Let's be honest, though, white anxieties are not entirely unjustified; 90% of interracial crimes are committed against whites, and the rate at which the white percentage of the population is shrinking is disconcerting, and would be anywhere - in fact it would likely be violently resisted just about anywhere else. Whites will be a minority in about 50 years - I'd like to see ths French reaction if that happened in France.

That "legalized crimes" are committed against minorites consistently is more or less inarguable, but this is not likely to be perceived by the public.

There is really nothing that can be done about the sense of "other"; it is human nature, and in any case is not limited to being an interracial phenomenon.

[Beck Reilly]

But while such reactions are found to some extent all over the place, it is the US which actually has a large, obvious racial minority that remains highly segregated and impoverished at the end of the 20th century.

Races in America are not segregated. Segregation implies enforcement. Races in America are seperated a lot of the time, yes, but they are not segregated. Also, as for that seperation, it is an almost natural occurence. As long as it doesn't get out of hand (i.e. forced segregation, unjust bias, etc., etc.), it is only natural for human beings (and all natural species for that matter) to congregate into groups based on similarities. Your psychological examples prove this. Just because they congregate into seperate groups, that does not make either "group" racist.


Basically race continues to have a big and obvious presence in US society in a way which it doesn't elsewhere.

Nope. That's where your wrong. Every nation has conflict between races simply because those races, generally, have different goals and agendas. Stick two groups with different objectives together for long enough, and you're going to get a fight. It's unstoppable and natural. No matter which group is in the right, they will come into conflict.

Examples of other nations with race problems: France (French vs. Algerians) / Germany (Germans vs. Turks) / Russia (Russians vs. Chechans) / Yugoslavia (Muslims vs. Christians / Israel (Jews vs. Muslims). There are countless other examples.


Most Americans think of criminals and poor people as being more different from themselves - darker colored, for starters, though also more urban - than people in other countries do.

Nope. The examples of above prove this wrong. The only reason why Americans, in your opinion, view blacks as criminals more than other nations is: A) when you turn on the news, it does sometimes appear that blacks commit a disporportionate amount of crimes (whether it's true or not I don't know), and B) there just aren't that many black people in Europe. Here they make up >12% of our population. There they make up <4% of the population.

[Michael E Johnson]

---and the rate at which the white percentage of the population is shrinking is disconcerting----


Why is that? Afraid you couldnt handle losing both (in)equality of opportunity ( better opportunities) and outcome (top of the heap)? White -Americans really dont have to worry about their descendants being in the minority in the US-no matter what that old Sci-fi show Time Trax depicted. We minorites will be sure our descendants practice " delayed Chrisitan charity" as you have done and treat your decendants the same as we were treated :D

[Grey Wolf]

Races in America are not segregated. Segregation implies enforcement. Races in America are seperated a lot of the time, yes, but they are not segregated. Also, as for that seperation, it is an almost natural occurence. As long as it doesn't get out of hand (i.e. forced segregation, unjust bias, etc., etc.), it is only natural for human beings (and all natural species for that matter) to congregate into groups based on similarities. Your psychological examples prove this. Just because they congregate into seperate groups, that does not make either "group" racist. .

Well, I might agree with the final point, but I am not sure I see at all that it is 'natural' for people of different races to not mix. I live in an area where Asians, black, chinese and white all mix. In my small street half are black, half are white and there's a Chinese family too. It doesn't feel at all weird, its just how it is....


Nope. That's where your wrong. Every nation has conflict between races simply because those races, generally, have different goals and agendas. Stick two groups with different objectives together for long enough, and you're going to get a fight. It's unstoppable and natural. No matter which group is in the right, they will come into conflict. .

Um, what agenda does a black family have in the area I live in ? Or an Asian one or a Chinese one ?
I am not sure your argument works for different ethnicities living within one country


Grey Wolf

[Michael E Johnson]

--Races in America are not segregated. Segregation implies enforcement. Races in America are seperated a lot of the time, yes, but they are not segregated. Also, as for that seperation, it is an almost natural occurence. As long as it doesn't get out of hand (i.e. forced segregation, unjust bias, etc., etc.), it is only natural for human beings (and all natural species for that matter) to congregate into groups based on similarities. ----


Incredible! Where do you think this "seperation " in America comes from? It is directly descended from "enforced segreagtion" The reason it still exists today is because of something called white flight-that means when legal segregation was ended in the 1960's and 1970's and blacks could finally move into white neighborhoods,whites ran away to the suburbs as fast as they could so they wouldnt have to live next to blacks or have thier children go to school with them. Apologism is always cute but it doesnt work here -the main reason for neighborhood segregation,like so many other inequalities in this land,are layed at the feet of white racism.


ps since its Feburary maybe,you know for shits and giggles, reading some books about the black experience in the US would help you get more informed on these issues?

[Akiyama]

A more liberal America - easy!

Sometime in the 1990s Rupert Murdoch (Fox TV/New York Post and other media in the US and around the world) has a heart attack or a fatal accident. News International shares plunge as his underlings fight each other rather than working together, plus, they don't have Rupert's business sense, plus, maybe they discover he's from the Conrad Black/Robert Maxwell school of creative accounting.

George Soros (billionaire stock market genius and liberal do-gooder) uses his vast personal fortune to buy a commanding share in NI, and suddenly some media that used to be conservative are now liberal. Over the years, I would have thought this was bound to have an effect on US public opinion.

BTW, for those of you who think US prisons are too comfy I can recommend a recent first-hand account "You Got Nothing Coming" by Jimmy A. Lerner. Read it.

[Gedca]

As to a POD perhaps if America remains attached to Britain longer. :D

[DominusNovus]

Here's an interesting statistic for you guys:
10 years ago,
40% of Americans identified with the Republican Party
49% identified with the Democrat Party
Now,
45.5% of Americans identify with the Republican Party
45.2% of Americans identify with the Democrat Party

Really interesting, considering that the Republicans won Congress 10 years ago.

[NapoleonXIV]

Let's be honest, though, white anxieties are not entirely unjustified; 90% of interracial crimes are committed against whites,

Uh...who else could they be committed against? Blacks are still a minority so if there are interracial crimes of one against another at all they will disproportionately seem to be of the smaller against the larger if you consider rates alone. Examine the raw nos and I think the picture will be different. I've seen this example before. A math major might be helpful here to explain this to us as yet another example of "figures don't lie but liars figure"

OTOH
The reason it still exists today is because of something called white flight-that means when legal segregation was ended in the 1960's and 1970's and blacks could finally move into white neighborhoods,whites ran away to the suburbs as fast as they could so they wouldnt have to live next to blacks or have thier children go to school with them. Apologism is always cute but it doesnt work here -the main reason for neighborhood segregation,like so many other inequalities in this land,are layed at the feet of white racism.

How is it racism to flee from people who make no secret of their hatred and violent hostility towards you? My grandmother of 90 was the last white resident in an all black neighborhood until the gang members actually told her they would kill her if she stayed. Imagine being forced to leave where you had grown up and stayed all your life, and the b*****ds acted like they were doing her a favor! People don't sell their homes at a loss and leave on a whim, but self-preservation overrides most other instincts.

[Grey Wolf]

Here's an interesting statistic for you guys:
10 years ago,
40% of Americans identified with the Republican Party
49% identified with the Democrat Party
Now,
45.5% of Americans identify with the Republican Party
45.2% of Americans identify with the Democrat Party

Really interesting, considering that the Republicans won Congress 10 years ago.

Um given that statistical margins of error are usually around 3% I am not sure this is statistically valid as an indication of anything much in particular

Grey Wolf

[DominusNovus]

Um given that statistical margins of error are usually around 3% I am not sure this is statistically valid as an indication of anything much in particular

Grey Wolf
Well, it does sinc up with Ian's stats fairly well.

[David Howery]

The subject of racial attitudes came up in a thread on the other board. Somewhat ignored among all the arguing was an encouraging fact that someone brought up: racism is lessening among the youth of America. I can't remember the exact figures, but there was a substantial divide between old and young about such things as interracial dating, etc. Best of all, the number of young people who are positive about such things has increased quite a bit over the past 20 years. Hopefully, by the time that whites in America are a distinct minority, most of the people who hold strong racist attitudes will have died off; quite a distinct possibility, as most of those with strong racist attitudes are in the older age groups....

[Beck Reilly]

legal segregation was ended in the 1960's and 1970's and blacks could finally move into white neighborhoods

I have a question that has sort of always puzzled me. Now, don't take offense to this, and I know you probably will, but I dont mean any disrespect or anything by it. Okay, here I go.

Okay. It's 1963. Let's say, I'm black. The governor of my state, let's say Alabama, is right now standing in the doorstep of the university, personally blocking the doorway of the school in order to not allow a black student to enter. Now, the question is, with all these angry white Alabamans surrounding me, yelling nasty things at me, obviously not wanting me there, why do I want to go there??? And for that matter, why would I want to move into a white neighborhood in 1963 when I am not wanted by much of the populace???

Now, I know the white neighborhoods probably had better living conditions and all, but rather than moving into the white neighborhoods where, at the time, I am not wanted, why wouldn't I just achieve the equal rights which I deserve and then work real hard to build up the living standards of my own neighborhood???

[Wombat]

OK, I won't take offence and I'll try to answer calmly.

Why shouldn't I go to university? And if I'm going to uni them why shouldn't I go to the best one I can? And who is some pig-ignorant redneck who probably didn't go to university himself to tell me where I can and can't go. That in itself would make me dig my heels in - if I'm right and someone else is wrong then I am not going to give in. After all, I'm a citizen, my parents/siblings pay taxes why shouldn't I enjoy the same opportunities as everyone else.

And the same applies to where I live. I'm educated, intelligent, well spoken, have a good job. Why shouldn't I live in a nice area now. Do you think a governor like the one you describe is going to worry about sewers, gutters or any of the basic infrastructure in a black area? No, coz the african-americans are never going to vote for a dumb peice of shit like that. So I'm going to move to a nice area now. And why should I have to wait for the same basic services whites take for granted? I want them now - After all I pay the same taxes.

Giving in to ignorance and prejudice is moral cowardice. If I'm going to be able to look at myself in the mirror I HAVE to stand up and say this is wrong. Because if I don't how can I expect anyone else to?

[Beck Reilly]

Okay, I guess I understand, to an extent. It's just not in my nature, whether you call it moral cowardice or not, to go where I am not wanted by a vocal majority. I'd rather build up the standards of living in my own neighborhood, rather than move to another one where I'm not wanted. But I do see your point.

BTW, the governor I described, George Corley Wallace, was not a "pig-ignorant redneck" nor a "dumb piece of shit." He did block the doorway to the University of Alabama in 196 and only gave up after being confronted by the Army. He was educated at the University of Alabama and reelected Governor in 1982 by one of the widest margins in Alabama history - thanks to the overwhelming support of the black population.

[Wombat]

You said "Now, the question is, with all these angry white Alabamans surrounding me, yelling nasty things at me, obviously not wanting me there, why do I want to go there??? " I assumed at least some of these people did not have a degree.

Excluding someone on the basis of race meets my definition of pig ignorant redneck. The fact he ended up attarcting the black vote in 1982 just goes to show the fickleness of politicians - either that or he had an epiphany to equal that of St Paul's.

[MerryPrankster]

" either that or he had an epiphany to equal that of St Paul's."

Wombat, he actually did; it came after he was nearly killed (and was crippled). After that, he was MUCH more sensitive to the concerns of blacks and was widely supported by those he previously oppressed.

[Michael E Johnson]

---Okay, I guess I understand, to an extent. It's just not in my nature, whether you call it moral cowardice or not, to go where I am not wanted by a vocal majority. I'd rather build up the standards of living in my own neighborhood, rather than move to another one where I'm not wanted. But I do see your point.----


This attitude you see displayed here is the reason that racism predominated in this country in the past and continues today.Millions of whites comfortable with their bigotry and blaming African -Americans for making an "issue" about it by trying to change things-truly pathetic.But then again pandering to that attitude was how Barry Goldwater ,Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and both George Bush's have turned Dixie into GOPland-so at least its politically useful-now if only theyd own up to it they wouldnt be hypocrites.

[Michael E Johnson]

--How is it racism to flee from people who make no secret of their hatred and violent hostility towards you?---


This really has to be one of the most cynical ,Orwellian things I have ever heard on this board or anywhere.Let the record show that it was WHITE people who ran from neighborhoods where blacks and other minorites moved in because of THEIR hatred and hostility towards non-whites NOT the other way around.It should also be noted that despite the neighborhood that you describe not every neighborhoord that blacks moved into became a crime -ridden ghetto-although thats got to be one of the oldest racist arguments.

[Beck Reilly]

But then again pandering to that attitude was how Barry Goldwater ,Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and both George Bush's have turned Dixie into GOPland-so at least its politically useful-now if only theyd own up to it they wouldnt be hypocrites.

HAHA, that's a laugh. Barry Goldwater was in no way, shape, or form a racist. He did not argue for segregation. He was an ultra-conservative who was known for his firm-advocacy of states' rights. His support from the South was merely an extension of that advocacy. He did not believe that segregation was right, but he believed it was the states' job to eliminate, not the federal government.

Richard Nixon was also not a racist. He may have slowed the pace of integration, but only to stabilize what was then a nation in crisis. He followed through with integration just the same, a policy followed by his Republican successors, Reagan among them. Is it just me, or was Nixon not reelected by one the widest margins in the history of the election process? I believe he lost only one state... As for his abhorence to busing, busing was a ridiculously stupid attempt to "diversify" public schools. All that nut Garrity achieved was breaking the city of Boston. The population of Boston is still but half of what it was in the 1960s. R

[Michael E Johnson]

----HAHA, that's a laugh. Barry Goldwater was in no way, shape, or form a racist. He did not argue for segregation. He was an ultra-conservative who was known for his firm-advocacy of states' rights. His support from the South was merely an extension of that advocacy. He did not believe that segregation was right, but he believed it was the states' job to eliminate, not the federal government----


No this is a laugh.Anyone with even a passing knowledge of American history knows that by 1964 when Goldwater ran "states rights" was code in the South for maintaining the racist Jim Crow structure. There is no way in hell that the Southern states would have eliminated segregation on their own and they had to be dragged kicking and screaming by the federal government. Goldwater,Nixon and the GOP pandered to this fear and its the main reason that the GOP has carried the white South every since. And to the rest of the apologists and denialists here it's also why despite having a large number of social conservatives-African-Americans support the Democrats year after year. Yeah I know it sucks-you cant honestly blame it on Jesse Jackson ,Al Sharpton and the NAACP fooling black voters-but I know that wont stop you from trying :o

[Beck Reilly]

The fact that you label Barry Goldwater a racist as you do shows nothing more than the effectiveness of that scumbag, Lyndon Johnson's ad campaign. Everyone gives Goldwater such shit now for just about everything, but how often do you hear of Johnson hunting deer from a jeep with a machine gun (which he did do), or giving an interview while getting a colonoscopy (which he did). Barry Goldwater was not a racist. He was simply one of the last in a long string of men to try (and to fail) at defending states' rights.

You know, you may call me an "apologist" or "denialist," which I suspect is simply a thinly veiled way of calling me a racist, but you do know, however, that you are even more biased than I am??

[Michael E Johnson]

---Barry Goldwater was not a racist. He was simply one of the last in a long string of men to try (and to fail) at defending states' rights. ---

You know I never had dinner with Barry,although I'm sure that he had lots of African-American freinds :rolleyes: ,so I dont know myself if he was personally racist. What I do know however is that he and the GOP chose sides on the race issue in the United States. Instead of standing up for black civil rights after they had been trampled for 100 years,he and the GOP( and Strom Thurmond before them) took sides with the white South,under the code of "states rights", to try and keep things they way they were with as little change as possible. So maybe he wasnt personally racist ( :rolleyes: ) but he pandered to racists and dealt with racists at the expense of people who just wanted a chance to live their lives with the same opportunites and rewards as everyone else.For that he and the GOP have my utter contempt-as does anyone who tries to justify and minimize what they did then and continue to do.

[Beck Reilly]

Instead of standing up for black civil rights after they had been trampled for 100 years,he and the GOP

What party did Abraham Lincoln, the man who was the single greatest factor in the abolition of slavery, belong to.......?

The Republican Party.

[tom]

My negro college professor told how his mother wept the first time she voted Democrat.

[NapoleonXIV]

--How is it racism to flee from people who make no secret of their hatred and violent hostility towards you?---


This really has to be one of the most cynical ,Orwellian things I have ever heard on this board or anywhere.Let the record show that it was WHITE people who ran from neighborhoods where blacks and other minorites moved in because of THEIR hatred and hostility towards non-whites NOT the other way around.It should also be noted that despite the neighborhood that you describe not every neighborhoord that blacks moved into became a crime -ridden ghetto-although thats got to be one of the oldest racist arguments.

Cynical or Orwellian it also seems a question you apparently cannot answer. I maintain that the majority of white people move from their homes out of fear, hatred and/or hostility to your neighbors alone is not enough.

As proof of this I submit your own observation that not every neighborhood that blacks move into becomes a crime ridden ghetto. The majority of such neighborhoods, in fact, do not. They are not noticed because they do not become black neighborhoods, rather reflecting accurately the nationwide racial ratios that exist. (Please note; I am NOT saying that all black neighborhoods are or become crime ridden, again,the majority are not but we do not notice them, good news, truly, is no news) In most cases, the majority of the whites remain, fear subsides with contact, hatred and hostility usually wouldn't.

If whites do flee because of fear, than it is a fear that is not justified by the facts. Why? I submit we might better make an effort to find a reason for this rather than simply ascribing all evil in the world to white racism.

[Beck Reilly]

How is it racism to flee from people who make no secret of their hatred and violent hostility towards you?

It's not racist. How could it be? If the whites were racist simply for this, wouldn't they not let the blacks into their neighborhoods to begin with? I know they tried to stop it, but if they were truly racist, wouldn't they never give up? Or, to be crude, wouldn't they drive the blacks out? Just leaving is not racist. It is an attempt to avoid hostile confrontation.

[Grey Wolf]

Personally I would address the Goldwater questions simply on this basis

1. If states rights was allowed to be supreme, would segregation have ended ?

2. If not, then support for states rights is de facto support for racism

3. If it is obvious that 1 would have not have occurred and that 2 is therefore true, surely anybody standing on a policy of states rights KNOWS that they are also standing on a policy of segregation ?

4. Since segregation is clearly wrong (unless someone actually wants to argue otherwise) then it needed to be got rid of, especially in the atmosphere of the 1960s which could frequently turn violent, and where MLK's leadership was often the only thing preventing the whole movement turning violent

5. If its wrong, and states rights won't stop it, and it needs to be dealt with somewhat pressingly, then only the federal government can handle this

Grey Wolf

[Michael E Johnson]

---What party did Abraham Lincoln, the man who was the single greatest factor in the abolition of slavery, belong to.......?

The Republican Party.---



And the Democratic party supported slavery ,the Confederacy and segregation- so what? The Republican and Democratic parties of the last 40 years and today arent the same as they were in the 1860's.Starting with Barry Goldwater and when Strom Thurmond becamed Republican they switched places and roles. Which is why the Republicans win the white South and Democrats win the black vote.

---My negro college professor told how his mother wept the first time she voted Democrat. ----


You know the same answer as above applies here. However I have to say that if you seriously refer to African-American people as "negro" (to their face especially) in 2004 you have a problem. If its cynical an attempt to express disdain-its fully returned :D

[Beck Reilly]

Segregation would have fallen without the federal government intervening, just as slavery would have fallen without the federal government intervening. It may have taken a decade or two, but it would have happened. Segregation, like slavery, was becoming increasingly infeasible. Whether the whites of the South were racist or not (they, obviously, were), segregation simply takes up too much time and effort. In the modern United States, even the whites of the South, like the whites of South Africa (which is an excellent example of segregation collapsing under its own weight), would see that it would be much more politically and economically useful to remove segregation, albeit somewhat later and slower.

[Michael E Johnson]

---Cynical or Orwellian it also seems a question you apparently cannot answer. I maintain that the majority of white people move from their homes out of fear, hatred and/or hostility to your neighbors alone is not enough.


If whites do flee because of fear, than it is a fear that is not justified by the facts. Why? I submit we might better make an effort to find a reason for this rather than simply ascribing all evil in the world to white racism.----


Lets try it again. The "fear" that racist whites had when they left wasnt entirely of crime ,it was of living with black people and having their kids go to school with them. Who knows they might have liked them or actually wanted to have sex with or marry them? But wether the whites fled because of fear of crime,hatred or hostility it was all based on racism. All the evil in the US,at least as far as black people are concerned, isnt because white racism but most of it is.And attempting to deny it or misdirect it is not only cynical and Orwellian but also disgusting.

[Michael E Johnson]

---It's not racist. How could it be? If the whites were racist simply for this, wouldn't they not let the blacks into their neighborhoods to begin with? I know they tried to stop it, but if they were truly racist, wouldn't they never give up? Or, to be crude, wouldn't they drive the blacks out? Just leaving is not racist. It is an attempt to avoid hostile confrontation.---

pathetic

[Michael E Johnson]

---Segregation would have fallen without the federal government intervening, just as slavery would have fallen without the federal government intervening. It may have taken a decade or two, but it would have happened. Segregation, like slavery, was becoming increasingly infeasible. Whether the whites of the South were racist or not (they, obviously, were), segregation simply takes up too much time and effort. In the modern United States, even the whites of the South, like the whites of South Africa (which is an excellent example of segregation collapsing under its own weight), would see that it would be much more politically and economically useful to remove segregation, albeit somewhat later and slower.----


Even more pathetic

[Beck Reilly]

pathetic

I'm sorry. I don't see what's wrong whites leaving those neighborhoods. Aren't they, like blacks, allowed to live wherever they choose? If they choose to leave, that is their choice, and their's alone.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Whites comprise 76% percent of the population, so if whites suffer 90% of interracial crime, they are suffering at double the rate of members of minorities. In addition, interracial crimes are overwhelmingly an urban phenomenon, where the proporition of whites is far lower than in the population as a whole.

Whites are no longer in the majority in California, our largest state. It is not Sci Fi, it is simply the case that whites will no longer be in the majority by 2050, unless something dramatically changes population trends.

A radical shift in the ethnic balance of any state will be destabilizing, and disconcerting. I don't see why it's rocket science to recognize this. It creates problems that have to be dealt with constructively, rather than sitting back and blaming whitey for everything bad that has ever happened.

And let's not pretend that blacks aren't racist too. You can make a presumption of permanent innocence based on slavery, but that doesn't nake it true and it certainly won't facilitate improived race relations if the "race card" is played any time a black person doesn't get what they want or are subjected to the same standards as whites.

I'm still waiting for someone to claim it's racist that Janet Jackson is under pressure while Justin Timberlake is off the hook.

[Michael E Johnson]

---I'm sorry. I don't see what's wrong whites leaving those neighborhoods. Aren't they, like blacks, allowed to live wherever they choose? If they choose to leave, that is their choice, and their's alone.---


And denying that they left mainly because of racism is apologism and its very pathetic.Any questions?

[Michael E Johnson]

---if the "race card" is played any time a black person doesn't get what they want or are subjected to the same standards as whites.---


Actually this is the one of the "race cards " that whites ( and they have a full deck)constantly use to condemn affirmative action and to claim that racism isnt an issue in the US anymore,at least as far as poor, persecucted whites are concerned.I'm really not surprised to see it used here.

[Grey Wolf]

Whites comprise 76% percent of the population, so if whites suffer 90% of interracial crime, they are suffering at double the rate of members of minorities. In addition, interracial crimes are overwhelmingly an urban phenomenon, where the proporition of whites is far lower than in the population as a whole.

Doesn't the second part invalidate the statistical comment of the first part ? Or is it the opposite...heck, I'm out of practice !

Whites are no longer in the majority in California, our largest state. It is not Sci Fi, it is simply the case that whites will no longer be in the majority by 2050, unless something dramatically changes population trends.

I'm seen this one before, and you only get it by saying that Mexicans/Hispanics aren't white. I have a very good friend who falls into this racial category and he certainly doesn't view himself as black

Grey Wolf

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

---if the "race card" is played any time a black person doesn't get what they want or are subjected to the same standards as whites.---


Actually this is the one of the "race cards " that whites ( and they have a full deck)constantly use to condemn affirmative action and to claim that racism isnt an issue in the US anymore,at least as far as poor, persecucted whites are concerned.I'm really not surprised to see it used here.

Well, don't be. "Racism" is called with such ubiquity that nobody pays proper attention when there is a legitimate problem. You just did it above with the parenthetical remark (and they have a full deck).

[Beck Reilly]

...apologism and its very pathetic....

Could you please do me the courtesy of answering with something better than than either "apologism" or "pathetic"? I try to answer many of your statements, no matter how pathetic they may seem to me, elequontly and with thought. I'd appreciate if you could extend that same courtesy to me.

[Michael E Johnson]

--Well, don't be. "Racism" is called with such ubiquity that nobody pays proper attention when there is a legitimate problem. You just did it above with the parenthetical remark (and they have a full deck).---

You should know that this is part of re-directing your misdirection.Anyone that wants to be honest about this issue knows that with the long history of the United States racism is something that blacks have experienced at the hands of whites 9.9 times out of 10 .Any "racism" that blacks feel in return towards 100's of years of continued mistreatment couldnt possibly morally or pratically have the same weight as white racism- which has ALWAYS been unwarranted and unjustified-except to people who like to pretend that it does.

[Xen]

--Well, don't be. "Racism" is called with such ubiquity that nobody pays proper attention when there is a legitimate problem. You just did it above with the parenthetical remark (and they have a full deck).---

You should know that this is part of re-directing your misdirection.Anyone that wants to be honest about this issue knows that with the long history of the United States racism is something that blacks have experienced at the hands of whites 9.9 times out of 10 .Any "racism" that blacks feel in return towards 100's of years of continued mistreatment couldnt possibly morally or pratically have the same weight as white racism- which has ALWAYS been unwarranted and unjustified-except to people who like to pretend that it does.

Racism is unwarranted regardless of who distributes it. There is no reason for it. It doesnt matter if its whites doing it to blacks or visa versa. Its wrong. And playing tit for tat does not help matters any.

Damn and I didnt want to get involved in this crap.

[Michael E Johnson]

---Could you please do me the courtesy of answering with something better than than either "apologism" or "pathetic"? ----



Sorry but I cherish every momnet of my life. So when I chose to confront the same tired recycled apologism with 1 word instead of the multi-word response I used previoulsy about the same thing its about me saving my moments. But it also FULLY exprsses what I feel about the same tired recycled apologism I'm responding to. Hope that helps :D

[Michael E Johnson]

--Racism is unwarranted regardless of who distributes it. There is no reason for it. It doesnt matter if its whites doing it to blacks or visa versa. Its wrong. And playing tit for tat does not help matters any.

Damn and I didnt want to get involved in this crap.---


Great .Then dont imply that racism is a tit for tat situation in the US.It never has been and it still isnt.

[Beck Reilly]

Sorry but I cherish every momnet of my life. So when I chose to confront the same tired recycled apologism with 1 word instead of the multi-word response I used previoulsy about the same thing its about me saving my moments. But it also FULLY exprsses what I feel about the same tired recycled apologism I'm responding to. Hope that helps :D

Wow, I can't believe it.

You're actually a bigger asshole than I previously thought.

[Xen]

--Racism is unwarranted regardless of who distributes it. There is no reason for it. It doesnt matter if its whites doing it to blacks or visa versa. Its wrong. And playing tit for tat does not help matters any.

Damn and I didnt want to get involved in this crap.---


Great .Then dont imply that racism is a tit for tat situation in the US.It never has been and it still isnt.

It is this that you said

Any "racism" that blacks feel in return towards 100's of years of continued mistreatment couldnt possibly morally or pratically have the same weight as white racism- which has ALWAYS been unwarranted and unjustified-except to people who like to pretend that it does.

That just screams tit for tat. Perhaps its just the way you worded, or maybe I read it wrong. Neither of us are perfect.

[Michael E Johnson]

---Wow, I can't believe it.

You're actually a bigger asshole than I previously thought.---

And here ladies-well gentlemen we have the famous 1st sign that someone feels they can no longer debate the ISSUE at hand -they get personal .I'd respond in kind but I'm sure you know what I think about you and your friends here. :p

[Michael E Johnson]

"Great .Then dont imply that racism is a tit for tat situation in the US.It never has been and it still isnt."


--That just screams tit for tat. Perhaps its just the way you worded, or maybe I read it wrong. Neither of us are perfect.---

Granted.But this post wasnt directed at you but towards the individual I was responding to when you responded to me. Sorry for the confusion.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

--Well, don't be. "Racism" is called with such ubiquity that nobody pays proper attention when there is a legitimate problem. You just did it above with the parenthetical remark (and they have a full deck).---

You should know that this is part of re-directing your misdirection.Anyone that wants to be honest about this issue knows that with the long history of the United States racism is something that blacks have experienced at the hands of whites 9.9 times out of 10 .Any "racism" that blacks feel in return towards 100's of years of continued mistreatment couldnt possibly morally or pratically have the same weight as white racism- which has ALWAYS been unwarranted and unjustified-except to people who like to pretend that it does.

That blacks have and do undeniably suffer from racism does not change the fact that not everything blacks suffer is due to racism. Because you have a chip on your shoulder so gigantic that you can't see over it, you missed my point entirely. I sincerely hope that someday you can get over your hatefulness and develop a constructive approach to race relations instead of magnifying the problem by alienating everyone around you.

Your statemetnt that black racism isn't as bad as white racism is unlikely to win over any hearts and minds, but good luck with that strategy.

[tom]

I think he means the quantity of white racism is greater, not that the quality is worse.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Doesn't the second part invalidate the statistical comment of the first part ? Or is it the opposite...heck, I'm out of practice !



I'm seen this one before, and you only get it by saying that Mexicans/Hispanics aren't white. I have a very good friend who falls into this racial category and he certainly doesn't view himself as black

Grey Wolf

You may have got the impression from Michael that Black and White are the only racial categories, since the only relevant issue is that blacks were brought here as slaves and thus our entire culture is permanently corrupt, evil, and racist in ways that we are not even aware, even the way in which we sleep, because I'm sure that even our subconscious minds are dreaming up ways to keep the black man down, but the reality is that there are other ethnic minorities of significant size. This includes Hispanics and Asians, among others.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I think he means the quantity of white racism is greater, not that the quality is worse.

He said can't MORALLY have the same weight. That is qualitative.

[Beck Reilly]

And here ladies-well gentlemen we have the famous 1st sign that someone feels they can no longer debate the ISSUE at hand -they get personal .I'd respond in kind but I'm sure you know what I think about you and your friends here. :p

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?

First of all, I'm not sure I have too many friends here. I think I'm a little too right-wing for most people here.

Second of all, I would LOVE to hear what you have to say about me.

Third, I can't believe that you have the AUDACITY to say that I started going personal after you have been attacking ME from day one. Take for example, how many times have you called me an "apologist" or "denialist" or one of the other terms that you have used to covertly call me a racist?

I've tried to debate. I've tried to reason. I've asked you to respond with thoughtful rebukes of your own to my statements. And how do you respond? WITH ONE WORD ANSWERS. When I ask you to respond with full statements, you just degrade my views rather than express thoughtful statements backed by statistics, historical information, and plain common sense. And you dare to say that I CAN NO LONGER DEBATE???

Give me a fucking break.

[Michael E Johnson]

--I sincerely hope that someday you can get over your hatefulness and develop a constructive approach to race relations instead of magnifying the problem by alienating everyone around you.

Your statemetnt that black racism isn't as bad as white racism is unlikely to win over any hearts and minds, but good luck with that strategy---


Actually I already have a constrcutive approach towards race relations with the white people that I have in my personal life who happen to be honest about the racial situation and see it they way that I do.Saying that black racism hasnt had the same presence and desturctive effect in the US as white racism isnt saying that its not bad.But pretending that racism has been a tit for tat situation in the US and that both groups have the same degree of moral responsibilty for it is the main barrier towards racial healing in the US. I hope that someday you and others here will get over that mindset no matter how much it might threaten your worldview.

[Michael E Johnson]

--I can't believe that you have the AUDACITY to say that I started going personal after you have been attacking ME from day one. Take for example, how many times have you called me an "apologist" or "denialist" or one of the other terms that you have used to covertly call me a racist---


There is a difference between attacking someones opinions or what they write about issues and attacking them personally. When I used the words apologist or denialist I'm talking about whats being written.The only thing I know about you is based on what you write. So what did you mean when you said asshole? I'm secure enough in my opinions to have them assaulted as left-wing,radical,racist,hateful or crazy without resorting to personal name-calling.

Ps when I said friends I also didnt mean it literally I meant others who think like you about this issue -of which there are several here.

[Grey Wolf]

You may have got the impression from Michael that Black and White are the only racial categories, since the only relevant issue is that blacks were brought here as slaves and thus our entire culture is permanently corrupt, evil, and racist in ways that we are not even aware, even the way in which we sleep, because I'm sure that even our subconscious minds are dreaming up ways to keep the black man down, but the reality is that there are other ethnic minorities of significant size. This includes Hispanics and Asians, among others.

Sorry, I thought they were the only ones being argued about here, that was all.

I do wonder quite what the point of worrying about being out-numbered by a variety of races is, even more than the point of worrying at being out-numbered by a single one ? Not that I am saying that you have those fears/worries, I am just wondering why it SHOULD be seen as a valid fear/worry by people and whether the fact that it IS seen is what is really being debated here once all the extraneous elements are stripped away

Grey Wolf

[Beck Reilly]

There is a difference between attacking someones opinions or what they write about issues and attacking them personally. When I used the words apologist or denialist I'm talking about whats being written.

You still haven't answered: I've tried to debate. I've tried to reason. I've asked you to respond with thoughtful rebukes of your own to my statements. And how do you respond? WITH ONE WORD ANSWERS. When I ask you to respond with full statements, you just degrade my views rather than express thoughtful statements backed by statistics, historical information, and plain common sense. And you dare to say that I CAN NO LONGER DEBATE???


So what did you mean when you siad asshole?

When I SAID ('A' before 'I') the word asshole, I meant it as it is defined in the dictionary: A person with thoroughly contemptible, detestable thoughts and feelings. From what I can tell of you through your writing, it is an apt description.

Since, you edited your statement, I will edit mine as well.

P.S. There is no difference between a person and their thoughts, as you have suggested. Thoughts are what make a person. So, by attacking a person's thoughts and ideas, you are, thus, attacking the person themselves.

[Xen]

Sorry, I thought they were the only ones being argued about here, that was all.

I do wonder quite what the point of worrying about being out-numbered by a variety of races is, even more than the point of worrying at being out-numbered by a single one ? Not that I am saying that you have those fears/worries, I am just wondering why it SHOULD be seen as a valid fear/worry by people and whether the fact that it IS seen is what is really being debated here once all the extraneous elements are stripped away

Grey Wolf

I cant answer that. I personally dont care. As long as Im allowed to live my life without interference, the same with my family. This came up on another board I chat with when it was known that hispanics are now the largest minority in America. My opinion is if they leave me alone, Ill be happy. However I will say they better learn to speak English, Im not going to learn another language just so I can live in the country I was born in. I dont think that is asking to much.

[Michael E Johnson]

--When I SAID ('A' before 'I') the word asshole, I meant it as it is defined in the dictionary: A person with thoroughly contemptible, detestable thoughts and feelings. From what I can tell of you through your writing, it is an apt description---

Wonderful.And based on YOUR writings(which I feel exactly the same about) I feel its apologist.Like I said I dont need to get personal and use the word asshole to describe them but somethings in life can go without saying. :D

[Beck Reilly]

Michael, you know, for a change, why don't you respond with something that shows that you have just an ounce of brain-power? (i.e. something other than "apologist," "denialist," or "racist").

First, start by answering this: I've tried to debate. I've tried to reason. I've asked you to respond with thoughtful rebukes of your own to my statements. And how do you respond? WITH ONE WORD ANSWERS. When I ask you to respond with full statements, you just degrade my views rather than express thoughtful statements backed by statistics, historical information, and plain common sense. And you dare to say that I CAN NO LONGER DEBATE???

[Michael E Johnson]

--First, start by answering this: I've tried to debate. I've tried to reason. I've asked you to respond with thoughtful rebukes of your own to my statements. And how do you respond? WITH ONE WORD ANSWERS. When I ask you to respond with full statements, you just degrade my views rather than express thoughtful statements backed by statistics, historical information, and plain common sense. And you dare to say that I CAN NO LONGER DEBATE???---


Heres a suggestion-why dont you use some brain power and go back and read all the other posts I made on this thread BEFORE I responded with the 1 word answers and see if they compute. I said that when people respond to debates on issues with personal insults-like you did-its a sign that they cant or wont debate the ISSUE itself anymore-I still do.

[Beck Reilly]

Well, I can see you've given up. Don't even want to bother with any semblance of an actual debate, do you? Well, fine, I guess it's your perogative to give up whenever you want.

You see, it doesn't matter whether I read what you originally said. You still haven't answered my responses to those statements. Thus, going over your original statements, which I have rebuked, would be utterly pointless.

[Michael E Johnson]

--Well, I can see you've given up. Don't even want to bother with any semblance of an actual debate, do you? Well, fine, I guess it's your perogative to give up whenever you want.

You see, it doesn't matter whether I read what you originally said. You still have answered my responses to those statements. Thus, going over your original statements, which I have rebuked, would be utterly pointless.---

Once again- you said that I only responed to what you were saying here with 1 word answers.Anyone who has been following this thread or cares to look back will see thats not the case except for 2 responses. With the 2 responses which I rebuked with the 1 word responses would have been equally utterly pointless to respond to again because they were the SAME things I responed to before.So whats your point with this?

[Beck Reilly]

With the 2 responses which I rebuked with the 1 word responses would have been equally utterly pointless to respond to again because they were the SAME things I responed to before.So whats your point with this?

Actually, they were quite different than my previous statements, in that the information backing my own statements was much more solid and the reasoning more apparent. But, apparently, like I have said, you have given up and, thus, this latest in a long series of arguments does not matter.

[Grey Wolf]

Um...why don't you two just hit yourselves, pretend the other guy did it and either move on the debate or drop it, its becoming a bit, er, unfocused

Grey Wolf

[Michael E Johnson]

--But, apparently, like I have said, you have given up and, thus, this latest in a long series of arguments does not matter.---

You are right I'm giving up debating about this here because I dont see what the point is-but I'll never give up debating about racial issues in the US-especially if they are being misrepresented- as exhibted by ALL my posts on this and other threads here and on the old board.
-

[Wombat]

Actually, they were quite different than my previous statements, in that the information backing my own statements was much more solid and the reasoning more apparent. But, apparently, like I have said, you have given up and, thus, this latest in a long series of arguments does not matter.

I can't let this one go. How is attacking LBJ for the reasons you did more reasoned? I think deer hunting is not much of a sport and so who cares if he used a machine gun? Also so what if he gave an interview whilst receiving a colonoscopy - did that affect what he said? If they held the mic to his butt it would have been just as accurate - all politicians spout crap!

Having said that though, this is getting further and further off topic. And its also devolving into personal attacks - can we move back to the topic at hand?

[Xen]

Lets resolve this like Hamilton and Burr shall we

[Beck Reilly]

I think deer hunting is not much of a sport and so who cares if he used a machine gun? Also so what if he gave an interview whilst receiving a colonoscopy - did that affect what he said?

It's a huge thing. While he attacks Barry Goldwater, who, in my opinion, is one of the, if not THE, most honorable politician of the second half of the 20th Century, claiming the fact that Goldwater was a racist and not quite all there, he obviously neglects the fact that Goldwater's opponent, who painted him a fascist and racist, is nothing more less than insane. Who the hell, in their right mind, gives interviews while the have a camera up their ass? Don't you think that that's sort of, well, insane? But then again, according to what you just said, machine gunning helpless animals is a good thing as well. Such callousness for life, and yet Johnson painted Goldwater as a bomb-toting nut who wanted to destroy the world.... Hmmm.....

[Beck Reilly]

Lets resolve this like Hamilton and Burr shall we

I'd be all for it. Unfortunately, the government has to defend us from ourselves. Yet another example of government interference in life. Sigh. I don't need to be protected by the government from my own actions.

[Derek Jackson]

This has gone WAY off topic.

I am a left Liberal. I am VERY glad that Barry Goldwater was NOT elected in 1964.

On the other hand I accept the statement that he was a wholly honorable man.

I accept that he was not personally racist. However I believe that if his view of the Constitution and of States Rights had prevailed racism would be a lot stronger.

[Derek Jackson]

This has gone WAY off topic.

I am a left Liberal. I am VERY glad that Barry Goldwater was NOT elected in 1964.

On the other hand I accept the statement that he was a wholly honorable man.

I accept that he was not personally racist. However I believe that if his view of the Constitution and of States Rights had prevailed racism would be a lot stronger.

[Straha]

a cold war against a rightwing conservative empire would help make america far more liberal. Imagien if we had a theocratic revolution in russia and the nazis had christian taliban overtones along with their ideology.

[DominusNovus]

Sorry but I cherish every momnet of my life. So when I chose to confront the same tired recycled apologism with 1 word instead of the multi-word response I used previoulsy about the same thing its about me saving my moments.
This coming from the guy who has posted probably more posts to this thread than anyone else.

[David Howery]

my... I go away for a day and find that this thread has grown by three pages (!)... and all of it is ranting remarks about racism. I stand in awe....

[DominusNovus]

my... I go away for a day and find that this thread has grown by three pages (!)... and all of it is ranting remarks about racism. I stand in awe....
Heh, I know what you mean, I checked the board, went out to do some errands, got on a bus, got back to campus, and blam, the thread has practically doubled.

[MerryPrankster]

(horrified @ sight of a profanity-spewing argument between Michael and Walter, Matt breaks into a...)

DEAN SCREAM

YAAAAAARRRRRGGGHHH!!!!

[Grey Wolf]

(horrified @ sight of a profanity-spewing argument between Michael and Walter, Matt breaks into a...)

DEAN SCREAM

YAAAAAARRRRRGGGHHH!!!!

I missed that...what was the point of it ? Gotta pin my hopes on Al Sharpton now unless want Bush Lite or Military Hero, neither of which I am partial to

Grey Wolf

[DominusNovus]

I missed that...what was the point of it ? Gotta pin my hopes on Al Sharpton now unless want Bush Lite or Military Hero, neither of which I am partial to

Grey Wolf
Oh, Dean didn't handle losing the Iowa Caucus very well, and kinda screamed like a madman on television.

[Beck Reilly]

I missed that...what was the point of it ? Gotta pin my hopes on Al Sharpton now unless want Bush Lite or Military Hero, neither of which I am partial to

What's wrong with Clark, Edwards, or Kerry? Kerry may be a little boring but that's certainly better than being, well, stupid. As for the scream, he got a little too enthusiastic trying to bolster confidence in his followers...

[Stalin]

I missed that...what was the point of it ? Gotta pin my hopes on Al Sharpton now unless want Bush Lite or Military Hero, neither of which I am partial to

Grey Wolf

Oh, I'm hoping that Sharpton gets the nomination too. I would love to see a Sharpton/ Kucinich ticket, unlikely as that might be. Albeit for very different reasons than yours...

[Beck Reilly]

Oh, I'm hoping that Sharpton gets the nomination too. I would love to see a Sharpton/ Kucinich ticket, unlikely as that might be. Albeit for very different reasons than yours...

LOL. That'd be about the worst combination possible. But I assume that's your point. In the end, no matter how bad it would be, I would vote for Sharpton. At least he, no matter how nutty, is intelligent.

[Stalin]

LOL. That'd be about the worst combination possible. But I assume that's your point. In the end, no matter how bad it would be, I would vote for Sharpton. At least he, no matter how nutty, is intelligent.

Oh, I think Bush is intelligent, just disoriented (at least, that's the impression I've gotten from him post-9/11). He reminds me of Dan Quayle in that, while he may say stupid things, he isn't anywhere near as buffoonish as the media makes him out to be.

Anyway, I would love to see the Dems go off the deep-end and nominate a far left candidate, and subsequently decline in popularity (maybe even collapse). Then maybe we could have a new party that's more in touch with Americans arise (possibly a new populist movement) instead of the establishment-liberal/moderate left party we have now.

[DominusNovus]

Oh, I think Bush is intelligent, just disoriented (at least, that's the impression I've gotten from him post-9/11). He reminds me of Dan Quayle in that, while he may say stupid things, he isn't anywhere near as buffoonish as the media makes him out to be.

Anyway, I would love to see the Dems go off the deep-end and nominate a far left candidate, and subsequently decline in popularity (maybe even collapse). Then maybe we could have a new party that's more in touch with Americans arise (possibly a new populist movement) instead of the establishment-liberal/moderate left party we have now.
I agree with you 100%
My view of Bush is that his brain is running in 5th gear, while his mouth is running in 2nd (or some such combination).

[Michael E Johnson]

---This coming from the guy who has posted probably more posts to this thread than anyone else.----

Your partly correct. I probably have more posts on here than anyone else in regard to correcting the apologist bullshit about African -Americans in the United States . But when it comes to sheer numbers I definitely dont have the most as there are usually only a handful of threads on here that interest me ( due to subject matter and authors)

[Michael E Johnson]

---I am a left Liberal. I am VERY glad that Barry Goldwater was NOT elected in 1964.

On the other hand I accept the statement that he was a wholly honorable man.

I accept that he was not personally racist. However I believe that if his view of the Constitution and of States Rights had prevailed racism would be a lot stronger.----

You are right about the result of his being president Derek. But how honorable does that make him ? If he had a scrap of intelligence he also knew that his policies would have left segregation in place. Thats tells me that the he,the GOP and the millions of white voters who voted for him didnt have a problem with that. Maintaining segregation and Jim Crow is many things but its definitely not honorable.

[DominusNovus]

---This coming from the guy who has posted probably more posts to this thread than anyone else.----

Your partly correct. I probably have more posts on here than anyone else in regard to correcting the apologist bullshit about African -Americans in the United States . But when it come to sheer numbers I definitely dont have the most as there are usually only a handful of threads on here that interest me ( due to subject matter and authors)
Well, in regards to the entire board, I'm pretty sure Straha has us all beat by a longshot (~600).

[Michael E Johnson]

---Barry Goldwater, who, in my opinion, is one of the, if not THE, most honorable politician of the second half of the 20th Century---

I waited on this one to see if anyone else would respond,but I wasnt to shocked to see that no one did.So let me get this straight, Barry Goldwater, Republican candidate for president in 1964 who earned the voters of millions of racist southern whites because he wanted to keep segregation in place by allowing for "states rights", is MORE honorable than Harry Truman,Adlai Stevenson, Dwight Eisenhower, Winston Churchill,John F Kennedy,Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy,Golda Meir, Anwar Sadat,Nelson Mandela,Mikhail Gorbachev and a host of others ??? !!! Give me a freaking break.

[Michael E Johnson]

---I would love to see the Dems go off the deep-end and nominate a far left candidate, and subsequently decline in popularity (maybe even collapse). Then maybe we could have a new party that's more in touch with Americans arise (possibly a new populist movement) instead of the establishment-liberal/moderate left party we have now.----

The reason that the Democratic party is liberal/ modearte left is because millions of Americans ( and based on 2000 a majority of the electorate- ie people who actually vote) fit into the category. So this means that the Democrats are in no danger of collapsing. If they actually did the people that vote for them would go to other parties but there is no way in hell they would go to the GOP.

[Beck Reilly]

Harry Truman,Adlai Stevenson, Dwight Eisenhower, Winston Churchill,John F Kennedy,Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy,Golda Meir, Anwar Sadat,Nelson Mandela,Mikhail Gorbachev and a host of others ??? !!! Give me a freaking break.

Actually, two of those are, in my opinion, the LEAST honorable politicians of the 20th Century. I am, of course, talking about the Kennedy's, arguably THE least honorable men to serve in Washington. Not only did JFK have absolutely NO moral standards (whether good or bad), but he was a horrible President as well. His brother, was no better, although he, obviously, was never President.

To further narrow the field, I meant Americans, as this entire thread is about America. That leaves us with Truman, Stevenson, Eisenhower, and King. I don't like Truman. He fired MacArthur, my favorite military officer of American history (I don't care whether it was warranted or not. In the end, MacArthur will be proved right). Stevenson was, although a nice man, a little too "red" for my liking. He was a good person, but he would have ruined this country had he been President. Eisenhower was a politician, pure and simple. He was a master politician and administrator and a relative do-nothing as President.

As for King, the last man on your list, I have only a tiny inkling of respect for him. He was made of the same moral fiber as the Kennedy's. You're talking about a man who slept with white prostitutes and plagarized his doctoral thesis. His constant criticizing of the US government's foreign policy, especially during the Vietnam War, really got on my nerves. The best thing about King: the day off from work.

There you go. Out of the Americans on that list, it is my opinion that Barry Goldwater is the most honorable.

[MerryPrankster]

"The best thing about King: the day off from work"

(Gasp!)

Tell, would you rather have a lunatic like Malcolm X (pre-Hajj) becoming the embodiment of American blacks' desire for equal rights?

King, though he had self-control issues re: sex, was a genuinely good, principled human being. He opposed Vietnam, true, but he wasn't doing it from a pro-Viet-Cong/semi-Communist prospective like many anti-Vietnam types (incl Bill Clinton--"Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh! Viet Cong are gonna win!"). He viewed it as symptomatic of a counterproductive US foreign policy. He denounced the Communists too.

[MerryPrankster]

By the way, Mikhail Gorbachev didn't WANT the USSR to fall, he wanted to make it more efficient. The massacres of protestors in the Baltics and in the Caucasus shows that deep down, he was a killing-happy bureaucrat like most Soviet leaders. He also tried to cover up the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, which was extraordinarily irresponsible.

[Beck Reilly]

Tell, would you rather have a lunatic like Malcolm X (pre-Hajj) becoming the embodiment of American blacks' desire for equal rights?

Hell, no. Malcolm X was a stark raving lunatic. I'd rather have a man like W.E.B DuBois (pre-Commie days) embody that dream. Or even Booker Washington.

[Michael E Johnson]

-----Actually, two of those are, in my opinion, the LEAST honorable politicians of the 20th Century. I am, of course, talking about the Kennedy's, arguably THE least honorable men to serve in Washington. Not only did JFK have absolutely NO moral standards (whether good or bad), but he was a horrible President as well. His brother, was no better, although he, obviously, was never President.

To further narrow the field, I meant Americans, as this entire thread is about America. That leaves us with Truman, Stevenson, Eisenhower, and King. I don't like Truman. He fired MacArthur, my favorite military officer of American history (I don't care whether it was warranted or not. In the end, MacArthur will be proved right). Stevenson was, although a nice man, a little too "red" for my liking. He was a good person, but he would have ruined this country had he been President. Eisenhower was a politician, pure and simple. He was a master politician and administrator and a relative do-nothing as President.

As for King, the last man on your list, I have only a tiny inkling of respect for him. He was made of the same moral fiber as the Kennedy's. You're talking about a man who slept with white prostitutes and plagarized his doctoral thesis. His constant criticizing of the US government's foreign policy, especially during the Vietnam War, really got on my nerves. The best thing about King: the day off from work.

There you go. Out of the Americans on that list, it is my opinion that Barry Goldwater is the most honorable.-----



I'm leaving this beaut for someone else on the board, I dont have my gloves and shovel today.Plus I have responded to this before on other threads-anyone else?

[Michael E Johnson]

---Hell, no. Malcolm X was a stark raving lunatic. I'd rather have a man like W.E.B DuBois (pre-Commie days) embody that dream. Or even Booker Washington.----


Fortunately African-Americans dont let white people with your views chose our leaders-there were plenty of them around then to based on Goldwaters vote.

[Beck Reilly]

Fortunately African-Americans dont let people of your ilk chose our leaders-there were plenty of them around then to based on Goldwaters voter.

And what, exactly, is my "ilk?" If you want to say something, just come out and say it. Don't allude to it.

[Michael E Johnson]

--And what, exactly, is my "ilk?" If you want to say something, just come out and say it. Don't allude to it----


Check my post again, I edited to better reflect what I meant.

[Paul Spring]

On an "honor list", I would definitely put the Kennedys and Gorbachev below Goldwater. Gorbachev was really just trying to pump new life into a totalitarian system - nothing too honorable there. The Kennedys were charismatic, well-connected, somewhat amoral politicians, no more, no less. With some of the others it's harder to say for certain.

Overall, my impression of Goldwater is of a man who believed very strongly in the principle of limited central government. His belief was that any temporary advantages that a strong central government would bring would be more than outweighted by problems in the long run. His uncrompromising stand on these beliefs leads me to suspect that they were definitely NOT a guise just to gain votes. In 1964, the bulk of public opinion in the US as a whole tended to swing in favor of a stronger federal government - Goldwater's views were going completely against the tide. If electability was his only concern, he would have taken a different tack.

It's quite likely that his views blinded him to a certain extent. Like some libertarians still do today, I suspect that he had an overly optimistic view of local and state governments, and never acknowledged that they could be just as tyrannical as the federal government. He was far too optimistic about the possibility of racism simply fading away without any government rules. Even if mistaken, though, I think that these beliefs were sincerely had, and not the result of racism.

[Beck Reilly]

On an "honor list", I would definitely put the Kennedys and Gorbachev below Goldwater. Gorbachev was really just trying to pump new life into a totalitarian system - nothing too honorable there. The Kennedys were charismatic, well-connected, somewhat amoral politicians, no more, no less. With some of the others it's harder to say for certain.

Overall, my impression of Goldwater is of a man who believed very strongly in the principle of limited central government. His belief was that any temporary advantages that a strong central government would bring would be more than outweighted by problems in the long run. His uncrompromising stand on these beliefs leads me to suspect that they were definitely NOT a guise just to gain votes. In 1964, the bulk of public opinion in the US as a whole tended to swing in favor of a stronger federal government - Goldwater's views were going completely against the tide. If electability was his only concern, he would have taken a different tack.

It's quite likely that his views blinded him to a certain extent. Like some libertarians still do today, I suspect that he had an overly optimistic view of local and state governments, and never acknowledged that they could be just as tyrannical as the federal government. He was far too optimistic about the possibility of racism simply fading away without any government rules. Even if mistaken, though, I think that these beliefs were sincerely had, and not the result of racism.

Well put. I agree and this was what I've been trying to get across, albeit somewhat less eloquently.

[Beck Reilly]

lol, well that's much clearer. "white people with your views." Again you're just hiding what you really want to say, so come out and say it.

[Michael E Johnson]

---It's quite likely that his views blinded him to a certain extent. Like some libertarians still do today, I suspect that he had an overly optimistic view of local and state governments, and never acknowledged that they could be just as tyrannical as the federal government. He was far too optimistic about the possibility of racism simply fading away without any government rules. Even if mistaken, though, I think that these beliefs were sincerely had, and not the result of racism.---


Very Interesting. So I assume that the southern whites who actually voted for him had the same viewpoint as well? I'm sure that Mr Goldwaters strategy in Dixie was to be a balm for all those poor frustrated libertarians down there. :rolleyes:

[Beck Reilly]

Very Interesting. So I assume that the southern whites who actually voted for him had the same viewpoint as well?

I'd be interested to hear how the views of the people who voted for him reflect whether or not he himself was personally racist....

[Michael E Johnson]

The article below ,that's packed with FACTS,addresses what the Barry Goldwater and GOP "legacy" actuaclly is-in regard to African-Americans since 1964 election-MEJ


The Hutchinson Report
Money Down a Sinkhole in GOP’s Ad Push For Blacks
©Earl Ofari Hutchinson

The Republican National Committee didn’t say how much it would spend on its new ad and promo campaign on black radio stations and newspapers to woo black voters. But whatever it spends it’ll be money wasted. President Bush’s efforts to reach blacks have failed miserably and for good reason. He has repeatedly turned down requests by the Congressional Black Caucus, and civil rights leaders to meet. For the past thirty years, they, and not the black conservatives that Bush and the Republicans delude themselves speak for blacks, have fought tough battles in the courts and the streets for voting rights, affirmative action, school integration, an end to housing and job discrimination, and police abuse. They are the ones who accurately capture the mood of fear and hostility the majority of blacks feel toward Bush.

But Bush has done more than cold shoulder black leaders and elected officials. He refuses to prod Congress to free up the billions he promised in his State of Union address last January to combat AIDS in Africa. He refuses to support tougher hate crimes legislation, and has been mute on the fight against racial profiling. He backed the white students in their effort to torpedo the University of Michigan’s affirmative action program, and he tried to ram rod Congress to confirm a wave of racially insensitive, ultra conservative appointees to the federal appeals court. His appointments of Colin Powell, Condeleezza Rice, Rod Paige, and Alphonso Jackson to high-ranking administration posts have not resulted in his promised racial remake of the Republican Party.

The devil’s bargain that GOP presidential contender Barry Goldwater struck with the South in 1964 assured the unshakeable loyalty of white Southerners. Goldwater blasted civil rights demonstrations, opposed the 1964 Civil Rights bill, and promised to slash big government. This open pandering to Southern fury over integration resulted in the wholesale stampede of Southern whites into the Republican Party. The Democratic Party became the hated symbol of integration, and civil rights.

Republican Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and the elder Bush excised Goldwater’s naked race-baiting appeals, but railed against welfare, crime in the streets, permissiveness, and quotas. This was racial code speak and Southern whites got the point. Before Secretary of State Colin Powell mildly dissented from his bosses’ opposition to the University of Michigan’s race-based affirmative action program, he criticized his former bosses Reagan and the elder Bush for not showing more sensitivity on racial matters. This has resulted in a huge and consistent vote bonanza for the Republicans in the South since the 1960’s. It won’t change in 2004. Polls show that white males by big margins favor Bush over any Democratic challenger and that includes North Carolina senator John Edwards.

The GOP, however, does not repeatedly fumble on its periodic public relations stab at bagging more black votes because of a cold, calculated, and obsessive political hunt for white male votes. Many Republicans still swallow the myth that blacks are cradle-to-grave Democrats, and believe that no matter what they do it won’t change. Though the few places that the GOP has done more than mouth platitudes about diversity and minority outreach and softened its hard line hostility to civil rights and social programs, and made a real effort to reach younger voters most notably in 2002, it has scored some successes. In 2002, it elected two black GOP lieutenant governors in Maryland and Ohio. Also, Bush’s pet programs of faith based charities, school vouchers, minority business and homeownership, increased funding for historically black colleges, and his approval of an African-American Museum could resonate with more than a handful of blacks. Polls have shown that many younger blacks are more politically conservative, if not down right indifferent, and hostile to the Democrats, whom they lambaste for tucking the black vote in their hip pocket and saying and doing as little as possible on racial issues for fear this will stir up white among the NASCAR dads by reinforcing the old perception that Democrats tilt toward minorities.

Despite this slight political window opening for the GOP, not a single black Democrat or black critic of the Democrats has yet broken ranks and called on blacks to back the GOP. And of the nearly 4000 blacks that the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a black think tank, lists on its roster of black elected officials only 50 are Republicans. That number isn’t likely to get much bigger in 2004.

During the 2000 presidential campaign, the Republican Party had a once in a lifetime chance to snatch the political and ideological blinders from the eyes of Republican leaders and bury the notion that the GOP is nothing more than a cozy, good ole’ white guys club. Republicans have so far badly squanders that chance. A few splashy ads and promos on black radio and newspapers won’t change that. It’s just money down a political sinkhole.


About The Author: Earl Ofari Hutchinson is a noted author of nine books about the African American experience in America. His numerous published articles appear in newspapers and magazines across the country as well as some of the most popular web sites on the Internet. He is a radio host and TV commentator. Mr. Hutchinson has received several awards for his writings Visit his news and opinion website: thehutchinsonreport.com.

[Michael E Johnson]

Here is another one-sorry but its got more of those uncomfortable facts :o



Armey Needs A Lesson In The Republican Party's Racial History
Earl Ofari Hutchinson

In a letter to NAACP president Kweisi Mfume House Majority Leader Dick Armey accused the organization of "racial McCarthyism." He specifically cited the NAACP's attack on Bush for indifference to the Texas dragging murder of James Byrd by three white supremacists and for inciting racially-divisive protests over Florida voting irregularities. Armey asked Mfume for a meeting. But if he is serious about easing racial polarization, he could start by looking at his own party's shameful record on race. In 1964 the Republican party was practically defunct in the five deep South states. Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater set out to change that by riding the first tide of white backlash. He opposed the 1964 civil rights bill, railed against big government, and championed states rights. At the Republican convention nearly all the Southern delegates backed him. Despite his landslide loss to Lyndon Johnson, Goldwater deeply planted the seed of racial pandering that would be the centerpiece of the Republican's "Southern Strategy" in the coming decades. The strategy was simple: court white voters, ignore blacks, and do and say as little about civil rights as possible.

In 1968, Richard Nixon picked the hot button issues of bussing, and quotas, adopted the policy of benign neglect and subtly stoked white racial fears. He routinely peppered his talks with his confidants with derogatory quips about blacks. He enshrined in popular language racially-tinged code words such as, "law and order," permissive society" "welfare cheats," "crime in the streets," "subculture of violence," "subculture of poverty," "culturally deprived" and "lack of family values."

Ronald Reagan picked up the racial torch by launching the first major systematic attack on affirmative action programs, and gutting many social and education programs. He refused to meet with the Congressional Black Caucus, attempted to reduce the power of the Civil Rights Commission over employment discrimination cases, and opposed the extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Reagan Attorney General, Ed Meese complained that the bill discriminated against the South.

In 1988, Bush, Sr., made escaped black convict Willie Horton the poster boy for black crime and violence and turned the presidential campaign against his Democrat opponent, Michael Dukakis into a rout. He branded a bill by Ted Kennedy to make it easier to bring employment discrimination suits a "quotas bill" and vetoed it. He further infuriated blacks by appointing arch-conservative Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. Bush and Reagan's thinly disguised racial salvos were too much even for Colin Powell. In his autobiography, My American Journey, the general called Reagan "insensitive" on racial issues, and tagged Bush's Horton stunt, "a cheap shot." Republican presidential hopeful, Bob Dole waltzed through his failed campaign against Clinton in 1996 making only the barest mention of racial issues. He flatly rejected an invitation to speak at the NAACP convention. In 1998, the Republicans had a golden opportunity to loudly denounce race baiting, extremist groups when it was revealed that Senate Majority leader Trent Lott, and Georgia representative Robert Barr had cozied up to the pro-segregation, states rights, Council for Conservative Citizens. They, and that included Armey, were stone silent on the Council. Before, during, and after his campaign, Bush repeatedly promised a total racial makeover of the Republican Party. His appointments of Condeleezza Rice, Powell, and Rod Paige to top level posts supposedly is the signal that he means what he says. But those appointments, and photo-ops at inner-city schools, can't easily wipe away the rotten taste Bush left when he spoke at racially-archaic Bob Jones University, ducked the Confederate flag fight, and racial profiling, refused to support tougher hate crimes legislation and promptly ignited a racially-destructive battle by appointing ultra-conservative, John Ashcroft as attorney general. Undoubtedly there's much more to Armey's extended hand to the NAACP than a burning urge for racial reconciliation. He can do the math. Republicans have lost Congressional seats in every midterm election since 1994. In 2004, 20 republicans and 13 Democrats are up for re-election in the Senate. If black voters are convinced that the Republicans are bent on doing everything they can to damage their interests they will again angrily march to the polls in big numbers. This could wipe out the razor thin edge Bush and the Republicans have in the Senate.

It's no accident why blacks have given the Democrats 80 to 90 percent of their vote since the Goldwater rebuff in 1964. They give them near monolithic support not because they are madly in love with their polices, but because the Republicans have blown every chance they've had to prove that they are friends and not mortal enemies of civil rights. This is a point Armey did not mention in his letter to the NAACP.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is the President of The National Alliance for Positive Action. website www.natalliance.org email:ehutchinson@natalliance.org

[Beck Reilly]

LOL, The Hutchinson Report. And you actually believe that he is trustworthy and unbiased....? Hmm...suprise, suprise. Looking around this website, most seems to be about unfair treatment of blacks such as Michael and Janet Jackson. Hmm... if that's not biased, I don't know what is...

[Michael E Johnson]

---LOL, The Hutchinson Report. And you actually believe that he is trustworthy and unbiased....? Hmm...suprise, suprise. Looking around this website, most seems to be about unfair treatment of blacks such as Michael and Janet Jackson. Hmm... if that's not biased, I don't know what is...----


This issue here is the FACTS that he reports about Goldwater and the GOP since 1964-which you obviously cant truthfully respond to and which back up what I have said in this thread and many others.


PS If you are capable of having your views challenged by FACTS there are many other sources online-Hutchinson just happens to be among the most succient.

[Beck Reilly]

This issue here is the FACTS that he reports about Goldwater and the GOP since 1964-which you obviously cant truthfully respond to and which back up what I have said in this thread and many others.

This is complete bullshit. Explain to me how Ronald Reagan or George Bush's racial policies in any way indicate that Barry Goldwater himself was personally racist.

And, BTW, the Hutchinson Report in no way backs up your argument. It's like KKK in terms of credibility. Neither are truthful because each have their own racist agenda. Thus, they are not valid sources of information.

[Beck Reilly]

PS If you are capable of having your viwes challenged by FACTS there are many other sources online-hutchinso just happens to be among the most succient.

I challenge you to find me one unbiased website (i.e. no NAACP, no National Alliance) which argues that Barry Goldwater was personally racist and had no morals.

[Michael E Johnson]

--This is complete bullshit. Explain to me how Ronald Reagan or George Bush's racial policies in any way indicate that Barry Goldwater himself was personally racist---

If you actually READ the articles they both note that the Republican party's racial strategy started with BARRY GOLDWATER. Also as you should know I never said that Barry Goldwater was racist-just his strategies ,policies and of course the people who supported him. I'll let any THINKING people use their own judgement to determine what that says about how honorable he really was :rolleyes:

[Michael E Johnson]

:p --I challenge you to find me one unbiased website (i.e. no NAACP, no National Alliance) which argues that Barry Goldwater was personally racist and had no morals.---


Once agian not necessary as whats being argued here isnt about him personally but about WHAT HE ACTUALLY STOOD FOR accomplished.OR in othe words to make it crystal clear for you-THE FACTS. As far as what he really believed have you ever heard of that old saying that actions speak louder than words?

[Beck Reilly]

If you actually READ the articles they both note that the Republican party's racial strategy started with BARRY GOLDWATER. Also as you should know I never said that Barry Goldwater was racist-just his strategies ,policies and of course the people who supported him.

Barry Goldwater's strategies and policies were NOT RACIST. He believed that the method being used by the federal government was unconstitutional and thus he stood against them. He was not racist. His policies were not racist. His strategies were not racist. He was simply a little too naive and he was trying to follow the constitution to the best of his abilities. He firmly advocated states' rights and did not turn his back on his morals. Thus, he is neither a scumbag, like the two Kennedy's, who you had the gall to say were more honorable than he, nor a hypocrite, like MLK, Jr., who ranted and raved about white being bad, and then went to his hotel room and slept with white prostitutes.

Barry Goldwater told the truth, he didn't lie, he clung to his morals, and he took the shit that the Democrats threw at him in the election while not resorting to the low tactics of his opposition. He was a decorated war veteran and, yes, a father of modern conservatism - which is completely different than racism. You seem to have "conservatism" and "racism" mixed together as one...

[Michael E Johnson]

---And, BTW, the Hutchinson Report in no way backs up your argument. It's like KKK in terms of credibility. Neither are truthful because each have their own racist agenda. Thus, they are not valid sources of information---


I want to get this straight are you actually saying what he says about Goldwater and the GOP since 1964 is untrue? Dont wait for the translation to gibberish answer that now.

[MerryPrankster]

What Michael is trying to say is that although he acknowledges that Goldwater is not a racist, he believes Goldwater's strict interpretation of "states' rights" would impede progress for southern blacks.

Now, I'm a firm believer in federalism and "states' rights." The 14th and 15th Amendments to the US Constitution were going unenforced in the South. That's a place for federal action right there. Once blacks can vote, other changes will follow, as politicians will try to pander to them (that's what politicians generally do).

Remember, in the South, the business classes opposed racist policies, but b/c the politicians and most of said politicians' supporters were racist, the business folks got the shaft. Once blacks could vote (courtesy of US marshals laying the proverbial smackdown on the Klan), a black-bourgeosie (sic) alliance could make progress in race relations.

[Beck Reilly]

I want to get this staight are you actually saying what he says about Goldwater and the GOP since 1964 is untrue? Dont wait for the translation to gibberish answer that now.

I'm saying that what he says about Goldwater is too biased to be completely believable. And yes, since it doesn't have my full trust, I'm saying that there is a chance that at least some of it is untrue.

[Michael E Johnson]

--I'm saying that what he says about Goldwater is too biased to be completely believable. And yes, since it doesn't have my full trust, I'm saying that there is a chance that at least some of it is untrue.---

Unbelievable :confused:


Even more unbelievable than this

--- nor a hypocrite, like MLK, Jr., who ranted and raved about white being bad, and then went to his hotel room and slept with white prostitutes---


I'm curious where did you learn your history from -Apologist U?

[Beck Reilly]

What Michael is trying to say is that although he acknowledges that Goldwater is not a racist, he believes Goldwater's strict interpretation of "states' rights" would impede progress for southern blacks.

Yes. That's true. But there's no way that you can blame Goldwater (who, as some may have guessed, is one of my favorite figures in American history) for purposely attempting to impede the progress of southern blacks. Nor can you blame any perceived continued racism within the Republican party in 2004 on Barry Goldwater, as he has done.

Barry Goldwater, as I have said, was not intending to impede the progress of southern blacks. He was doing his best to interpret the Constitution as he saw it. He was naive in thinking that race problems would solve themselves. But he DID NOT enter the 1964 campaign with the intention of carrying forth policies to impede the progress of southern blacks, as he has been claiming. Any claim that he was intentionally impeding the progress of southern blacks for his own ends is an outright lie.

[Michael E Johnson]

--What Michael is trying to say is that although he acknowledges that Goldwater is not a racist, he believes Goldwater's strict interpretation of "states' rights" would impede progress for southern blacks.---


I dont need help with what I'm trying to say.It should be perfectly obvious to anyone with a passing knowledge of American history, a command of English and no desire to sugar-coat and soft pedal racism.

[Beck Reilly]

Unbelievable

If I quoted a website biased towards whites, would you believe what it said?


I'm curious where did you learn your history from -Apologist U?

Good one. That is funny. I'm not laughing.

So you deny that he ever slept with white prostitutes? I guess you also deny that he plagiarized more than a small share of his doctoral thesis?

[Beck Reilly]

It should be perfectly obvious to anyone with a passing knowledge of American history

Well, it would be perfectly obvious, if you were actually right.

[Michael E Johnson]

---If I quoted a radical white power website, would you be inclined to believe what it said? Just as I am not inclined to believe a black power website, I would not expect you to believe a white power website, which I myself wouldn't believe. Biased reporting, no matter which side it is on, can not be taken into count over serious issues. ---

You know I'm starting to have trouble beliving that you actually believe what you are saying. What is reported on that site and many others -including numerous history books are FACTS. If you dont want believe it thats up to you,some people dont believe the Earth is millions of years old, but it doesnt change the fact it happened.



--So you deny that he ever slept with white prostitutes? I guess you also deny that he plagiarized more than a small share of his doctoral thesis?---

LOL- this was in reference to your saying that MLK said that white pople were bad.Anyone with a passing knowledege of the FACTS of American history knows that MLK said that white racism was bad-you know the racist views of the people who actually voted for Barry Goldwater. You have to stop distorting histoy with someone who knows history-especially in regard to African Americans-its getting embarrasing.

[Beck Reilly]

LOL- this was in reference to your saying that MLK said that white pople were bad.Anyone with a passing knowledege of the FACTS of American history knows that MLK said that white racism was bad-you know the racist views of the people who actually voted for Barry Goldwater.

Okay. Sorry. My mistake. I never cared for MLK and thus I didn't listen to him and didn't care to learn about him.

As for Goldwater - VOTING FOR BARRY GOLDWATER DOES NOT MAKE A PERSON RACIST as you imply in this statement.

[Michael E Johnson]

--As for Goldwater - VOTING FOR BARRY GOLDWATER DOES NOT MAKE A PERSON RACIST as you imply in this statement.---

Thats true.But the facts are that in 1964 A BIG PACK OF RACISTS VOTED FOR BARRY GOLDWATER. Why was that-they liked black -framed glasses?

[Beck Reilly]

--As for Goldwater - VOTING FOR BARRY GOLDWATER DOES NOT MAKE A PERSON RACIST as you imply in this statement.---

Thats true.But the facts are that in 1964 A BIG PACK OF RACISTS VOTED FOR BARRY GOLDWATER. Why was that-they liked black -framed glasses?

They voted for Goldwater because they believed that they could twist his policies in their favor. Barry Goldwater, as I have said, was not intending to impede the progress of southern blacks. He was doing his best to interpret the Constitution as he saw it. He was naive in thinking that race problems would solve themselves. But he DID NOT enter the 1964 campaign with the intention of carrying forth policies to impede the progress of southern blacks, as he has been claiming. Any claim that he was intentionally impeding the progress of southern blacks for his own ends is an outright lie.

[Michael E Johnson]

--They voted for Goldwater because they believed that they could twist his policies in their favor. Barry Goldwater, as I have said, was not intending to impede the progress of southern blacks. He was doing his best to interpret the Constitution as he saw it. He was naive in thinking that race problems would solve themselves. But he DID NOT enter the 1964 campaign with the intention of carrying forth policies to impede the progress of southern blacks, as he has been claiming. Any claim that he was intentionally impeding the progress of southern blacks for his own ends is an outright lie---


Just as its a bald faced lie to pretend that Goldwater and the GOP also DIDNT know in advance that taking this stand would put racist southern whites into their camp. Its a complete joke and naked apologism to even imply that this strategy was not deliberately deployed in the South to help win racist white votes-which is EXACTLY the effect it had and has had for 40 years as proven by the FACTS. His own quote about the issue was "you have to hunt where the ducks are" has become the hallmark of the GOP in the South for every GOP presidential candidate since Goldwater.

[MerryPrankster]

DEAN SCREAM

YAAARRRGGHHHH

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Personally I would address the Goldwater questions simply on this basis

1. If states rights was allowed to be supreme, would segregation have ended ?

2. If not, then support for states rights is de facto support for racism

3. If it is obvious that 1 would have not have occurred and that 2 is therefore true, surely anybody standing on a policy of states rights KNOWS that they are also standing on a policy of segregation ?

4. Since segregation is clearly wrong (unless someone actually wants to argue otherwise) then it needed to be got rid of, especially in the atmosphere of the 1960s which could frequently turn violent, and where MLK's leadership was often the only thing preventing the whole movement turning violent

5. If its wrong, and states rights won't stop it, and it needs to be dealt with somewhat pressingly, then only the federal government can handle this

Grey Wolf


This oversimplifies. State's rights was about State's rights, not a "narrow" issue like race relations. Goldwater would not have listed race as in his top 10 concerns, he was more concerned with the rapidly expanding size and power of the Federal Government and the huge tax increases that accompanied this. Goldwater has come out very strongly in favor of equal rights, even for gays.

Just because a policy might have delayed integration in some states does not mean that the supporter of said policy is inherently racist. That would be like saying anyone who was against there being a Secession and Civil War was racist because this was the fastest (but not necessarily the best, at least in the long run) way to get rid of slavery.

[Michael E Johnson]

--This oversimplifies. State's rights was about State's rights, not a "narrow" issue like race relations.---


except for the FACT that Southern racists who used the term "states rights" INVARIABLY when they were talking about maintaining Jim Crow as did the politicians who pandered to them on the issue. Just as it PRIMARILY meant maintaing and expanding slavery when it was used by Confederates in the 1860's.

[Beck Reilly]

Just as its a bald faced lie to pretend that Goldwater and the GOP also DIDNT know in advance that taking this stand would put racist southern whites into their camp. Its a complete joke and naked apologism to even imply that this strategy was not deliberately deployed in the South to help win racist white votes-which is EXACTLY the effect it had and has had for 40 years as proven by the FACTS. His own quote about the issue was "you have to hunt where the ducks are" has become the hallmark of the GOP in the South for every GOP presidential candidate since Goldwater.

The south voted for Goldwater because they perceived potential advantages from the way he organized his policies. The south conformed to meet Goldwater's view, Goldwater did not change his view point to conform to what the south wanted. He did not deliberately employ tactics to win win "racist white votes," those racist whites saw cracks in Goldwater's policy which they could manipulate to their own advantage.

I'm sick of arguing this. Goldwater was an honorable man and he was not a racist. I've said my peace, and, frankly, I don't give a damn what you want to twist and contort to your own agenda. I don't give a damn what you or anyone else like you thinks about me or Barry Goldwater, but I'm sick of "listening" to your twisted bullshit.

[Beck Reilly]

This oversimplifies. State's rights was about State's rights, not a "narrow" issue like race relations. Goldwater would not have listed race as in his top 10 concerns, he was more concerned with the rapidly expanding size and power of the Federal Government and the huge tax increases that accompanied this. Goldwater has come out very strongly in favor of equal rights, even for gays.

Just because a policy might have delayed integration in some states does not mean that the supporter of said policy is inherently racist. That would be like saying anyone who was against there being a Secession and Civil War was racist because this was the fastest (but not necessarily the best, at least in the long run) way to get rid of slavery.

Again, this is almost exactly what I've been trying to get across. Maybe it hasn't sounded like it, but this is what I've meant.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Sorry, I thought they were the only ones being argued about here, that was all.

I do wonder quite what the point of worrying about being out-numbered by a variety of races is, even more than the point of worrying at being out-numbered by a single one ? Not that I am saying that you have those fears/worries, I am just wondering why it SHOULD be seen as a valid fear/worry by people and whether the fact that it IS seen is what is really being debated here once all the extraneous elements are stripped away

Grey Wolf

Because it means the dissolution of one's culture, the end of the world you grew up in, and the need to integrate into something entirely new. I didn't say this was bad, just that its disconcerting. I don't see how its possible to expect people to NOT have these anxieties. Most of the reactions in places like California have not been so much racist as a desire to defend the existing culture by expecting a minimal amount of integration, like learning to speak English, which seems to me to be reasonable.

[Beck Reilly]

Just as it PRIMARILY meant maintaing and expanding slavery when it was used by Confederates in the 1860's.

Maintaining and expanding slavery was a smaller issue within an overshadowing problem that was the Confederates real point - that the government was encroaching on territory that they believed to be none of the federal governments business. Besides being a fuse for war, the expansion and continuation of slavery was a beneficial effect of the Confederates key point.

[Michael E Johnson]

--The south voted for Goldwater because they perceived potential advantages from the way he organized his policies.---

In regard to what issue did the South perceive this advantage :rolleyes:



---I'm sick of arguing this. Goldwater was an honorable man and he was not a racist. I've said my peace, and, frankly, I don't give a damn what you want to twist and contort to your own agenda. I don't give a damn what you or anyone else like you thinks about me or Barry Goldwater, but I'm sick of "listening" to your twisted bullshit.---

I know but FYI that agenda is called American history. Much to many people's chagrin here, I frequently use the facts in my posts as do a few others here-especially Ian.

[Beck Reilly]

I know but FYI that agenda is called American history. Much to many people's chagrin here, I frequently use the facts in my posts as do a few others here-especially Ian.

No, you are contorting American history into your own, super-PC (i.e. anti-white, anti-Christian) version of American history. Your so-called facts come from unreputable sources and thus, are not credible.

As for the rest, all I can say is that you are totally brown-nosing right now...

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Oh, I'm hoping that Sharpton gets the nomination too. I would love to see a Sharpton/ Kucinich ticket, unlikely as that might be. Albeit for very different reasons than yours...

Oh, you are soooo wrong. Kucinich is bizarre but has the habit of saying things that make sense, and Bush doesn't want that. I think you would be better off with Sharpton-Lieberman.

Did anyone see SNL on Sat? Tina Fey had the best line "Lieberman's campaign was quiet, long and depressing enough to qualify as a Jewish holiday."

[Michael E Johnson]

--Because it means the dissolution of one's culture, the end of the world you grew up in, and the need to integrate into something entirely new. I didn't say this was bad, just that its disconcerting.---


Interesting. Is it safe to conclude that another one of the things thats disconcerting about this happening is losing the special power and advantage that being white in America has always bestowed?

[Michael E Johnson]

--As for the rest, all I can say is that you are totally brown-nosing right now...--

My nose is a shade of caramel-brown so I dont need to brown nose-I'm stating another fact. Ian hardly posts here but whenever he does its usually to clean up some bullshit in a thread with FACTS-and he does a great job of it like in the Deist thread.

[Beck Reilly]

Interesting. Is it safe to conclude that another one of the things thats disconcerting about this happening is losing the special power and advantage that being white in America has always bestowed?

LOL, Special power? What, can white people fly or something?

[Michael E Johnson]

---WTF is your problem with white people, anyways...?---


ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

[Paul Spring]

Interesting. Is it safe to conclude that another one of the things thats disconcerting about this happening is losing the special power and advantage that being white in America has always bestowed?

Michael, that's what you conclude. You always come to the same conclusion, it doesn't matter what the other person says. This makes any attempt at a debate rather pointless.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

---I am a left Liberal. I am VERY glad that Barry Goldwater was NOT elected in 1964.

On the other hand I accept the statement that he was a wholly honorable man.

I accept that he was not personally racist. However I believe that if his view of the Constitution and of States Rights had prevailed racism would be a lot stronger.----

You are right about the result of his being president Derek. But how honorable does that make him ? If he had a scrap of intelligence he also knew that his policies would have left segregation in place. Thats tells me that the he,the GOP and the millions of white voters who voted for him didnt have a problem with that. Maintaining segregation and Jim Crow is many things but its definitely not honorable.


How things happen can be just as important as that they happen. Segregation would have been destroyed by the courts just as discrimination against gays is being dismantled - because it's wrong and unconstitutional. forcing the issue through political and military means will never have the legitimacy that doing it through legal means would. If the Civil War had not happened and slavery died a "natural" death, I would argue this would have been a much better outcome for blacks in the long run even if an evil institution persisted slightly longer.

Goldwater did not support State's Rights so that it would prolong segregation. You are being one-issue to see things that way. We could fight terrorism more quickly and effectively if we just declared Bush Emperor, but that would not necessarily produce the best results overall. I would argue that the speedy end to Segregation could have damaged long-term race relations by causing many whites to feel that something was imposed upon them from outside.

[Michael E Johnson]

--Michael, that's what you conclude. You always come to the same conclusion, it doesn't matter what the other person says. This makes any attempt at a debate rather pointless.---


Actually thats what even a casual perusal of the facts of American history concludes. As an African -American I'm more than game for a debate whenever anyone here wants to deny or soft-pedal that obvious fact.

[Beck Reilly]

Actually thats what even a casual perusal of the facts of American history concludes. As an African -American I'm more than game for a debate whenever anyone wants here to deny or soft-pedal that obvious fact.

I'm sorry, but this is sickening. I'd like to know why, exactly, you are so constantly ready, willing, and able to place the race card in any situation?

[Grey Wolf]

Because it means the dissolution of one's culture, the end of the world you grew up in, and the need to integrate into something entirely new. I didn't say this was bad, just that its disconcerting. I don't see how its possible to expect people to NOT have these anxieties. Most of the reactions in places like California have not been so much racist as a desire to defend the existing culture by expecting a minimal amount of integration, like learning to speak English, which seems to me to be reasonable.

Well, IMHO Thatcher destroyed the world I grew up in and it was nothing to do with race.

But

Grey Wolf

[Michael E Johnson]

---How things happen can be just as important as that they happen. Segregation would have been destroyed by the courts just as discrimination against gays is being dismantled - because it's wrong and unconstitutional. forcing the issue through political and military means will never have the legitimacy that doing it through legal means would. If the Civil War had not happened and slavery died a "natural" death, I would argue this would have been a much better outcome for blacks in the long run even if an evil institution persisted slightly longer.

Goldwater did not support State's Rights so that it would prolong segregation. You are being one-issue to see things that way. We could fight terrorism more quickly and effectively if we just declared Bush Emperor, but that would not necessarily produce the best results overall. I would argue that the speedy end to Segregation could have damaged long-term race relations by causing many whites to feel that something was imposed upon them from outside.---


The same arguments were made by people who opposed abolition in the 1860's and Civil Rights in the 1960's. Technically they may have proven to have been true but once again-as thoughout American history- it would have been a case of white people being allowed to continue unjustly profiting at the expense of black people.While that might not have been so bad for whites,I for one am glad that the forces prevailed that speed things up for ending those evils-that means the Republicans in the 1860's and the Democrats in the 1960's.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Actually, two of those are, in my opinion, the LEAST honorable politicians of the 20th Century. I am, of course, talking about the Kennedy's, arguably THE least honorable men to serve in Washington. Not only did JFK have absolutely NO moral standards (whether good or bad), but he was a horrible President as well. His brother, was no better, although he, obviously, was never President.

To further narrow the field, I meant Americans, as this entire thread is about America. That leaves us with Truman, Stevenson, Eisenhower, and King. I don't like Truman. He fired MacArthur, my favorite military officer of American history (I don't care whether it was warranted or not. In the end, MacArthur will be proved right). Stevenson was, although a nice man, a little too "red" for my liking. He was a good person, but he would have ruined this country had he been President. Eisenhower was a politician, pure and simple. He was a master politician and administrator and a relative do-nothing as President.

As for King, the last man on your list, I have only a tiny inkling of respect for him. He was made of the same moral fiber as the Kennedy's. You're talking about a man who slept with white prostitutes and plagarized his doctoral thesis. His constant criticizing of the US government's foreign policy, especially during the Vietnam War, really got on my nerves. The best thing about King: the day off from work.

There you go. Out of the Americans on that list, it is my opinion that Barry Goldwater is the most honorable.

Wow, you really lost me with this post. MacArthur was an incompetent egomaniac fool who should have been shot for treason for forcing an entirely superflous parallel Pacific Campaign to gratify is giant ego, which caused the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans for no reason whatsoever, not to mention his disobedience to Truman.

As far as Kennedy goes, you have no basis for saying that he had no moral standards. Last I checked, randiness was not necessarily total lack of standards, and I see no reason to question his principles as a leader. And as for MLK, I can't help but suspect you of racism there. This is a man that led a mass movement that brought people of all races together to wage an ENTIRELY NON-VIOLENT campaign that did enormous good for our society, and I would argue that his assassination was one of the greatest social catastrophes of the last century, as after him things got badly off track.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

On an "honor list", I would definitely put the Kennedys and Gorbachev below Goldwater. Gorbachev was really just trying to pump new life into a totalitarian system - nothing too honorable there. The Kennedys were charismatic, well-connected, somewhat amoral politicians, no more, no less. With some of the others it's harder to say for certain.

Overall, my impression of Goldwater is of a man who believed very strongly in the principle of limited central government. His belief was that any temporary advantages that a strong central government would bring would be more than outweighted by problems in the long run. His uncrompromising stand on these beliefs leads me to suspect that they were definitely NOT a guise just to gain votes. In 1964, the bulk of public opinion in the US as a whole tended to swing in favor of a stronger federal government - Goldwater's views were going completely against the tide. If electability was his only concern, he would have taken a different tack.

It's quite likely that his views blinded him to a certain extent. Like some libertarians still do today, I suspect that he had an overly optimistic view of local and state governments, and never acknowledged that they could be just as tyrannical as the federal government. He was far too optimistic about the possibility of racism simply fading away without any government rules. Even if mistaken, though, I think that these beliefs were sincerely had, and not the result of racism.


Very well put, Paul.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

---It's quite likely that his views blinded him to a certain extent. Like some libertarians still do today, I suspect that he had an overly optimistic view of local and state governments, and never acknowledged that they could be just as tyrannical as the federal government. He was far too optimistic about the possibility of racism simply fading away without any government rules. Even if mistaken, though, I think that these beliefs were sincerely had, and not the result of racism.---


Very Interesting. So I assume that the southern whites who actually voted for him had the same viewpoint as well? I'm sure that Mr Goldwaters strategy in Dixie was to be a balm for all those poor frustrated libertarians down there. :rolleyes:

You are being monomaniachal and assuming that everyone who favors State's Rights do so because they are racist and segregationist. Goldwater had large numbers of supporters in states and regions that had no race issues at all.

[Beck Reilly]

As far as Kennedy goes, you have no basis for saying that he had no moral standards. Last I checked, randiness was not necessarily total lack of standards, and I see no reason to question his principles as a leader.

Michael asked me if JFK was more honorable than Goldwater. My answer was no. JFK was married, he slept with AT LEAST half a dozen different women, including the girlfriend of a Chicago mob boss AND an East German spy. (He had a thing for blond women. ;) ) This is not the type of activities I'd expect of an honorable man, not to mention his only OKAY leadership as a President.


And as for MLK, I can't help but suspect you of racism there. This is a man that led a mass movement that brought people of all races together to wage an ENTIRELY NON-VIOLENT campaign that did enormous good for our society, and I would argue that his assassination was one of the greatest social catastrophes of the last century, as after him things got badly off track.

LOL, I'll be the first to admit, I was angry when I wrote this and I did go a little over the top. I'm sorry if I sounded racist, but I can only ask you to forgive me for sounding like this. BUT, as far as I'm concerned, to be honorable means to have integrity and the ability to do what you know is right. In my opinion, MLK had that second part, but lacked the first. I consider plagiarism the mark of a lack of integrity. It has, in recent years come to light that he plagiarized part of his doctoral thesis. This is a mark of a lack of integrity. It does not diminish his accomplisments, but, in my eyes, it is a stain on his personal life and a mark of a lack of integrity. Thus, I consider Goldwater, who may not always have been right but he clung to his sense of morality ferociously, a more honorable person. Again, I apologize for sounding racist, but i assure you that was not my intention. I hope what I said above will clarify things, but it may not change your mind. For that, I am sorry.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

---LOL, The Hutchinson Report. And you actually believe that he is trustworthy and unbiased....? Hmm...suprise, suprise. Looking around this website, most seems to be about unfair treatment of blacks such as Michael and Janet Jackson. Hmm... if that's not biased, I don't know what is...----


This issue here is the FACTS that he reports about Goldwater and the GOP since 1964-which you obviously cant truthfully respond to and which back up what I have said in this thread and many others.


PS If you are capable of having your views challenged by FACTS there are many other sources online-Hutchinson just happens to be among the most succient.


There is a difference between FACTS and OPINIONS. Calling Goldwater a race-baiter is only an OPINION unless you can provide FACTS that prove this was what he was doing.

[Michael E Johnson]

--You are being monomaniachal and assuming that everyone who favors State's Rights do so because they are racist and segregationist. Goldwater had large numbers of supporters in states and regions that had no race issues at all---


By the 1960's the term "states rights" in American politics,at least in the south,almost exclusively referred to Jim Crow and segregation.Goldwater may have had supporters in other areas of the US but other than Arizona the only states that he actually won were in the Deep South where states rights was code for segregation.It should also be noted that lack of many blacks or other minorities doesnt mean a state or region in the US doesnt have racial issues. Every American,one way or another, has racial issues-thats the unfortunate reality of this society.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Thus, he is neither a scumbag, like the two Kennedy's, who you had the gall to say were more honorable than he, nor a hypocrite, like MLK, Jr., who ranted and raved about white being bad, and then went to his hotel room and slept with white prostitutes.

Are you confusing MLK with Malcolm X? MLK, to my knowledge, never once said Whites were bad, he wanted everyone to be equal and live together - that's why his movement had such enormous appeal to Whites.

[Beck Reilly]

Are you confusing MLK with Malcolm X? MLK, to my knowledge, never once said Whites were bad, he wanted everyone to be equal and live together - that's why his movement had such enormous appeal to Whites.

You know what? I'm biting my own toungue a lot aren't I.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

--What Michael is trying to say is that although he acknowledges that Goldwater is not a racist, he believes Goldwater's strict interpretation of "states' rights" would impede progress for southern blacks.---


I dont need help with what I'm trying to say.It should be perfectly obvious to anyone with a passing knowledge of American history, a command of English and no desire to sugar-coat and soft pedal racism.

If you believe that everyting every politician says or does ought to be aimed at improving the situation of blacks no matter what the cost to our political system, then I agree with you, there is racism going on, just not in the same places you find it.

[Michael E Johnson]

--There is a difference between FACTS and OPINIONS. Calling Goldwater a race-baiter is only an OPINION unless you can provide FACTS that prove this was what he was doing.---

Sometimes I feel like Bill Clinton is channeling people here and getting them to argue what the defintion of is is. Barry Goldwater may not have been a racist or even a race baiter-but the facts,as listed in those articles, show that the strategy,policies and many of the people who have supported the GOP over the past 40 years are both. I think reasonable people can make conclusions as to what they feel that says about a person's "honor".

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

--This oversimplifies. State's rights was about State's rights, not a "narrow" issue like race relations.---


except for the FACT that Southern racists who used the term "states rights" INVARIABLY when they were talking about maintaining Jim Crow as did the politicians who pandered to them on the issue. Just as it PRIMARILY meant maintaing and expanding slavery when it was used by Confederates in the 1860's.

Although I think INVARIABLY is too strong, I agree that this often was the case, however Goldwater was a national politician, not a representative of Southern racists. There were good people that supported Hitler, too - does that mean Hitler was a good man? Likewise just because there were racists that supported Goldwater does not mean that Goldwater was a racist.

[Paul Spring]

As for the issue of why people voted for Goldwater, I'm sure that there were a variety of reasons. Some voted for him because they were genuinely concerned about the growth of the federal government's power, while others saw his states rights' position as a convenient way to oppose the Civil rights movement. Not everyone who supports the same candidate does so for the same reasons. Since the debate was about Goldwater's own character, I assumed that we were debating his own intentions. Based on what I now know, I don't believe that racism or opposition to civil rights per se were motivations for Goldwater's views. I don't believe that anyone can realistically hold a political candidate accountable for the motives and morals of every single person who votes for them.

As for states' rights vs. federal power, I can understand why Civil Rights leaders usually turned to the federal government to support their measures. Their opponents were deeply entrenched in local and state governments in at least some parts of the country, and trying to change things on a local or state level must have seemed like trying to smash through a concrete wall by beating your head against it. For people like Goldwater, Civil Rights was less important an issue than government power and restrictions on it. As I said before, one could make a good argument that Goldwater was somewhat naive about the likelihood of civil rights succeeding on a local and state level, or that he didn't give the issue nearly the attention that it deserved because he was distant from it. I don't think that this is equivalent to being racist, however.

[David Howery]

My God, 3 more frikkin' pages since this morning... welcome to Rantfest '04.
Ian, please please please kill this page. Or at least rename it to "The Thread that Wouldn't Die...and Should"....

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

--Because it means the dissolution of one's culture, the end of the world you grew up in, and the need to integrate into something entirely new. I didn't say this was bad, just that its disconcerting.---


Interesting. Is it safe to conclude that another one of the things thats disconcerting about this happening is losing the special power and advantage that being white in America has always bestowed?

Wow, you can take even the most neutral statement and make it into a race issue. I don't feel that I ever had any special powers. Eddie Murphy once did a great skit on SNL where he put on white-face and walked through the white world - walking into a bank, he asked for a loan, and started producing ID and credit history - the loan officer laughed, told him "don't worry, there aren't any blacks around" - and handed him a big bag of cash. On the bus, the last black person got off, then the music started, the food and champaign came out and a dance commenced.

This seems to me to be your view of white America. Since I have never had speical powers, I don't really fear losing them.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Goldwater repeatedly supported equal rights. He integrated his family business, the Arizona National Guard, JOINED THE NAACP, and wrote repeatedly that he viewed the races as equal. He opposed Federal efforts at integration, but he also repeatedly attacked the Justice Department for not prosecuting voting rights violation rights in the South, because these were Federal civil rights.

You are grouping him with people that came after him and twisted his philosophies to evil ends, and he does not deserve that.

Quotes:

"There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?"

"Now those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth, and let me remind you they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyranny."

"I wouldn't trust Nixon from here to that phone."

"You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight."

"Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism."

"When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."

''I don't like being called the New Right; I'm an old, old son of a bitch. I'm a conservative.'' - expressing his contempt for Jesse Helms and his ilk, whom he also called "nuts."

And finally, just for Walter:

Regarding JFK: "If he had lived, he would have made a great president".

Heh, heh, heh... that's a real quote, too.

[DominusNovus]

2 Points.

1) States Rights is not invariably linked to racism, segregation, and/or slavery (or however Mike wants to phrase it). FACT: Robert E Lee was against slavery. FACT: Robert E Lee was in favor of states rights enough to refuse the command of the Union Army and fight for the Confederacy.

2) Mike's obsession with race issues reminds me of Straha's obsession with legalizing drugs. Except Straha isn't so annoying about it. :D'
No offense is meant to Straha, btw.

[Michael E Johnson]

---1) States Rights is not invariably linked to racism, segregation, and/or slavery (or however Mike wants to phrase it). FACT: Robert E Lee was against slavery. FACT: Robert E Lee was in favor of states rights enough to refuse the command of the Union Army and fight for the Confederacy.----

Rebuttal to point 1-by the way the author is white :eek:- Remember read the ENTIRE article .

The Ghost of Racism Past
by James Hall, Senior Associate Editor


December 20, 2002

"Leaning Left"

We're all familiar with Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol", in which the ghosts of the past and future labor to persuade a miserly Scrooge to change his ways. This month, future Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) confronts the ghosts of his past. Will he learn, and like Scrooge become a better person for it? Or does he get buried, unloved and unlamented by those he could have helped? And what of his party?

I, for one, don't believe that most of today's conservatives are segregationist. Most conservatives aren't prejudiced against blacks; they're simply prejudiced against the poor.

That, of course, is a topic for another column. But since a large percentage of blacks just happen to be poor, they correctly perceive that a conservative agenda that includes removal of welfare benefits, the watering-down of public education with vouchers and poor funding, the removal or blocking of minimum wage and living wage laws, the attempted destruction of labor unions and collective bargaining, and the ideological support for sending jobs overseas, etc., is aimed at them. Throw in a few actual segregationists like Lott and their 'paranoia' becomes very real---if today's segregationists can no longer keep blacks separate, they can still keep them poor.

Yes, some conservatives remain segregationist, hiding behind conservative ideology. You can even read some of them here on The American Partisan's pages (see Dave Gibson's "So Utterly Predictable" or SARTRE's Strappado Wrack: "The Many Colors of Ignorance.") These segregationists call themselves conservatives and profess to believe in conservative values like "states' rights," "freedom of association," and "less government."

A whole generation of Southern segregationists used these concepts to fight against civil rights, integration, and the removal of laws discriminating against blacks in the 1960s. 1970s, and 1980s. For these segregationists "state's rights" meant the right of states to pass Jim Crow laws regulating the conduct of the races; "freedom of association" meant separating the races; and "less government" meant less federal interference in integration and court-ordered desegregation plans.

Today's conservatives, for the most part, repudiate these interpretations of conservative doctrine. But even conservatives without a bigoted bone in their body must recognize the Republican Party's recent debt to segregationism. After the Democratic Party's ideological commitment to civil rights in 1964, many Republicans closed their eyes to their ideological differences with segregationists and accepted them into the Republican Party. Ronald Reagan's famous visit to Philadelphia, Mississippi was emblematic of that moral ambiguity. And it paid off --- within a couple of decades Southern white voters, once predominantly conservative Democrats, became conservative Republicans instead.

Some conservatives are now patting themselves on the back for calling out Lott on his segregationist views. But will they also condemn his segregationist brothers when they hear them in private? Will they condemn attempts to use race to rally voters to their party? In Georgia this past election, Republican Sonny Perdue won an upset victory in part by appealing to turn back a change to the Georgia state flag that had removed the Confederate battle flag from a prominent place in the flag's field. That change had been supported in a bipartisan fashion both by the NAACP and by Georgia's business community.

The flag issue, some will argue, is about Southern tradition, not segregation. But that answer ignores the flag's origin in 1956, during the days when segregation was under federal attack, as well as its meaning for blacks and a rallying point for segregationists today. The Southern Poverty Law Center reports that the Confederate battle flag is flown by over 500 race hate groups today. If conservative Southern whites want their flag back, they must take it back from hate groups first.

Secretary of State Colin Powell put the issue straight to his Republican colleagues at the 2000 Republican National Convention when he asked why the party fights so hard to deny affirmative action for a few thousand poor black students, but advances affirmative action policies for the treatment of corporations and their CEOs. Why do Republican-controlled state legislatures continue to draw up gerrymandered districts that are completely black or lily white, creating segregated districts to guarantee their election rather than trying to run themselves in mixed --- integrated --- districts?

Conservatives should ask themselves why segregationists are attracted to the Right. They must be careful not to be used by the segregationists who still lurk within their ranks to promote policies that keep black Americans stuck in poverty, deny black Americans chances for a good education and equal protection under the law. They ought to be concerned about political gambits like Perdue's, that pit blacks against whites. The Ghost of Racism Past is in the room; meanwhile, a conservative Ebenezer Scrooge is still making excuses for staying in bed. ***


James Hall
Orlando, Florida, USA


---2 Mike's obsession with race issues reminds me of Straha's obsession with legalizing drugs. Except Straha isn't so annoying about it. '
No offense is meant to Straha, btw.----


Rebuttal of point 2 .I'll take this one. Obsession can be a good thing depending on what it is.Many people here seem to be obsessed with sugar coating,soft pedaling,ignoring and out and out lying about racism in American history. I'm obsessed with correcting that.I use my own words but also post others as above when they so adequately refute the same sugar-coating.



ps Found another one.He's white to :o




E.J. Dionne, Jr.
Washington Post Writers Group
12.20.02


States' wrongs
Can a post-Lott Senate GOP adopt a post-Goldwater ideology?


WASHINGTON -- In all the denunciations of Trent Lott's after-the-fact endorsement of Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign, almost no one is talking about the principle on which Thurmond based his defense of segregation. The principle was states' rights.
It's not surprising that Republicans shoved Lott out of his job before the debate went too deep. For all their attacks on Lott's excursion back to the 1940s -- they culminated in his resignation as leader on Friday -- most contemporary Republicans are as committed to states' rights doctrines as he is.

This creates a problem. Most Republicans, to their credit, now embrace the civil rights laws of the 1960s. These laws, after all, were passed with significant support from such important Republican figures as Senate leader Everett McKinley Dirksen and Rep. Bill McCulloch.

But Dirksen, McCulloch and their allies were standing up for the old Republican tradition that defended the power of national government to promote equal rights. That tradition came under attack in 1964 when Republican nominee Barry Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act in the name of states' rights, and also because he thought some of its anti-discrimination provisions violated property rights. As Republican Jack Kemp put it recently in a column: “'The GOP went wrong in 1964 when Barry Goldwater, no racist, tragically voted against the Civil Rights Act out of misguided ideological purity.” That phrase, “'ideological purity,” is both accurate and instructive.

It was Goldwater's campaign, of course, that began the Era of the Republican South. Post-Goldwater Republicanism swept in millions of States' Rights Democrats, as Thurmond's supporters called themselves, including an ambitious young Mississippian named Trent Lott. Goldwater carried only six states in 1964: South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia and Arizona. The first four of these had been the only states to vote for Thurmond in 1948. Apropos some of Lott's recent comments, the overlap did not occur because Goldwater and Thurmond shared some views on national defense. At issue were civil rights -- and states' rights.

One can now hear Republicans groaning: “But that's ancient history, and Lott was a problem because he's letting all our opponents dredge it up.”

That sentence is true except for the part about ancient history. While most Republicans now support the old civil rights measures, they continue to cast themselves as the party of states' rights, and proudly so. Republican court appointees, from the Supreme Court on down, are busily fashioning a new jurisprudence that uses states' rights as grounds for overturning progressive national legislation. Already, for example, the courts have used states' rights to limit the reach of federal laws on behalf of the disabled and the environment. Where states' rights don't work to eviscerate national legislation, property rights are called in. Sound familiar?

Until Lott reminded us, here's what we had forgotten: States' rights doctrines were invoked in our history for purposes other than preserving the sanctity of state laws. As Grant McConnell put it in his classic book, “Private Power and American Democracy,” states' rights provided “the classic defense of the privileges enjoyed by local and other elites.”

African-Americans in the South are among the best-known victims of states' rights claims, but they were not alone in having to turn to the federal government to seek vindication for their rights. It also took federal power to advance the rights of workers (through the Wagner Act and wages and hours laws), to protect consumers, and to guarantee the rights of small investors. Federal law protects the rights of women, the disabled and members of religious minorities.

Yes, it's good that many Republicans (some more quickly than others) came out against what Lott said. But it's significant that many of his earliest and most forceful critics were neo-conservative former Democrats -- Charles Krauthammer and William Kristol come to mind -- who never shared the old states' rights faith. The first Republican senator to issue an outright call on Lott to quit was Rhode Island's Lincoln Chafee who, as his first name suggests, speaks from his party's oldest tradition of support for federal power.

But Lott's Republican critics, who share his states' rights views on many contemporary matters, need to explain why states' rights doctrines that were so wrong as a general proposition in 1948 are right today. If the federal government was right to overturn states' rights in defense of African-Americans, why is it wrong now to view states' rights with a degree of suspicion and to continue to see the federal government as a bulwark for individual rights? Lott has now been hustled off center stage, but the question will still haunt his party.

[DominusNovus]

None of that really had much to do with my point about R.E. Lee. Its just more proof that segregationists used the ideal of states rights to defend segregation. Nobody here (to the best of my knowledge) is denying that.

I'm also sure that if, by some twists of fate, the federal government was in favor of segregation and the state governments were in favor of integreation (this is an AH board, after all), the segregationists would be decrying the evils of states rights and extolling the virtues of the federal government. Mike would then be condemning all federalists as segregationists in fact, if not in word.

As to an example of state's rights not having anything to do with segregation, I bring up the time that New England wanted to secede from the Union.

Quick question, Mike. You say the states rights means segregation, in effect, if not in name. Would you also say that communism means totalitarianism, in effect, if not in name?

[MerryPrankster]

"MacArthur was an incompetent egomaniac fool who should have been shot for treason for forcing an entirely superflous parallel Pacific Campaign to gratify is giant ego"

Huh? What was superflous about the Pacific Campaign? The Japanese were the ones who actually attacked the US and they needed to be dealt with. Or are you talking about one particular campaign (the Phillippines, probably) in the entire Pacific phase of World War II?

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

"MacArthur was an incompetent egomaniac fool who should have been shot for treason for forcing an entirely superflous parallel Pacific Campaign to gratify is giant ego"

Huh? What was superflous about the Pacific Campaign? The Japanese were the ones who actually attacked the US and they needed to be dealt with. Or are you talking about one particular campaign (the Phillippines, probably) in the entire Pacific phase of World War II?

There were two entire island-hopping campaigns, one to defeat Japan, and the other one to allow MacArthur to return to the Phillippines, the latter of which was totally unneccesary, consumed a colossal amount of resources, and resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans, not to mention the Japanese casualties, due to MacArthur's having spent all his time and effort on increasing his public influence and political power rather than defeating Japan, which in my mind, is evil.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

None of that really had much to do with my point about R.E. Lee. Its just more proof that segregationists used the ideal of states rights to defend segregation. Nobody here (to the best of my knowledge) is denying that.

I'm also sure that if, by some twists of fate, the federal government was in favor of segregation and the state governments were in favor of integreation (this is an AH board, after all), the segregationists would be decrying the evils of states rights and extolling the virtues of the federal government. Mike would then be condemning all federalists as segregationists in fact, if not in word.

As to an example of state's rights not having anything to do with segregation, I bring up the time that New England wanted to secede from the Union.

Quick question, Mike. You say the states rights means segregation, in effect, if not in name. Would you also say that communism means totalitarianism, in effect, if not in name?


I don't see how those essays do anything other than point out the obvious, that racists hid behind state's rights. So? That doesn't make Goldwater or all State's Rights advocates, past, present, and future racists and segregationists.

I find myself taking a more extreme point of view than I think I really believe because of Michael's belligerence, and I 'm beginning to reevalutate my posistion - after listening to this I wonder if blacks really are out for equality or just revenge. I haven't heard even the slightest whiff of a constructive attitude, just a desire to tear down all things white.

[David Howery]

As I read the many many pages of ranting on this sight, I can't help but notice the many smilies sprinkled through MEJ's posts. This has given me the idea that we need a bigger variety of them, particularly for this thread. I propose:
an angry looking face with a wide open shouting mouth; this would be the 'I'm a ranting moron' smiley.
a face with eyes wide open and mouth hanging open in shock; the 'I can't believe that idiot really said that' smiley (or, it could double for the 'I can't believe this thread grew by 3 pages while I was gone to lunch' smiley).
a face with X's in place of the eyes and tongue hanging limply out of a slack mouth; the 'Oh hell, just kill me now' smiley.
a face with narrowed eyes and a disdainful sneer; the 'Damn, you're a f*****g moron' smiley (with this one, MEJ and WK could just trade this smiley back and forth, rather than bother with posting words).
If any of you have any more suggestions, please post them. True, this is nothing to do with the topic, but it's more interesting than most of what's been posted so far... ;) :( :D :confused: :o :) :mad: :p :rolleyes: :cool: :eek:

[Michael E Johnson]

----I don't see how those essays do anything other than point out the obvious, that racists hid behind state's rights. So? ---

I understand that fact isnt very important to people with your views about the matter but just to clarify you are acknowledging that whats written in the essays are facts not lies,distortions or 'opinions' as was previously suggested here?


---I find myself taking a more extreme point of view than I think I really believe because of Michael's belligerence, and I 'm beginning to reevalutate my posistion - after listening to this I wonder if blacks really are out for equality or just revenge. I haven't heard even the slightest whiff of a constructive attitude, just a desire to tear down all things white.----

Please, if you want to have that attitude you dont have to distort or twist what I'm saying here or have said in other threads to have it. Anyone who can seriously question wether or not blacks want equality in America is already coming from a certain set of false assumptions namly that things really arent and havent been all that bad for African-Americans ( or easier for whites) and blacks who have the nerve to point out how wrong that is are being cry-babies, belligerant or seeking revenge.Of course the reality is that some of those attitudes are completely warranted considering the history behind the issue.


The reason I went on as long as I did about this is because it never ceases to amaze me how people can disregard historical facts when it comes to pointing out issues like racism that challenge peoples ideas about America. I challenge anyone here to list anything that isnt factual about what was posted in the articles. You dont have to think it matters or that it was wrong but just say so-but you cant deny it happened and still does.That said I'd also be happy to have Ian close it down or have other people redirect it towards what it would take for a more liberal America -obivously alot judging by some of the views expressed here. But before this topic is abandonded I'd really like to hear Ian weigh in on this issue. He obviously hasnt considered the discussion below board standards as he hasn't spoken. I know I held myself back from saying alot of what I was thinking in the interest of civility and not getting banned.Ian,what do you think about this issue ?

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

The reason I went on as long as I did about this is because it never ceases to amaze me how people can disregard historical facts when it comes to pointing out issues like racism that challenge peoples ideas about America. I challenge anyone here to list anything that isnt factual about what was posted in the articles. You dont have to think it matters or that it was wrong but just say so-but you cant deny it happened and still does.That said I'd also be happy to have Ian close it down or have other people redirect it towards what it would take for a more liberal America -obivously alot judging by some of the views expressed here. But before this topic is abandonded I'd really like to hear Ian weigh in on this issue. He obviously hasnt considered the discussion below board standards as he hasn't spoken. I know I held myself back from saying alot of what I was thinking in the interest of civility and not getting banned.Ian,what do you think about this issue ?

I don't have time to go through all the articles and point out in detail what I feel to be opinion vs fact or where I feel the articles are innacurate, but I will address key paragraphs:

"The devil’s bargain that GOP presidential contender Barry Goldwater struck with the South in 1964 assured the unshakeable loyalty of white Southerners. Goldwater blasted civil rights demonstrations, opposed the 1964 Civil Rights bill, and promised to slash big government. This open pandering to Southern fury over integration resulted in the wholesale stampede of Southern whites into the Republican Party. The Democratic Party became the hated symbol of integration, and civil rights.

Republican Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and the elder Bush excised Goldwater’s naked race-baiting appeals, but railed against welfare, crime in the streets, permissiveness, and quotas. This was racial code speak and Southern whites got the point."

How is this fact? While Goldwater did hold SOME of the positions listed above, the analysis of his motives is pure opinion and flies in great opposition to everything Goldwater ever said or did regarding race issues.

This "Devil's Bargain" line only makes sense if Goldwater's only aim was to make racists vote for the GOP. His aim was to become President, which means he needed to win nationwide. His philosophy of government was very consistant and carefully spelled out, and he wrote several books to make himself clear, which I feel safe in assuming you haven't read. Goldwater believed:

1. In small government. "A government that is big enough to
give you all you want is big enough to take it all away."

2. Racial equality. He was a member of the NAACP, and railed against the Justice Department for not prosecuting voting rights violations against blacks.

3. State's Rights. This was not necessarily code for racism, although it is obvious that it is for some people. State's Rights is still an important philosophical point to most conservatives, who are concerned about the extra-constitutional assumption of powers by the Federal Government. Goldwater opposed this, and yes, this included opposing some of the Federal Government's efforts to combat Segregation, WHEN it was employing powers it did not have, but he also strongly SUPPORTED the Federal Governments efforts when it was acting within it's constitutional authority, as in the case of voting rights. The quote I pasted in Point #1 is pertinent, because it shows that he was incontrovertably right. The same powers usurped by a progressive government to do good (in its view, at least) are now being used by an evil one to strip away our rights, i.e. "Free Speech Zones". HOW things are accomplished matters. Stalin managed to make Russia far more equal than it was under the Tsars, but I doubt many people would applaud.

4. Racism is bad, and it is disgusting when people hide their evil agenda behind conservative values. Goldwater specifically, and by name, rejected and reviled men such as Jerry Fallwell, Jessie Helms, and other prominent racists and bigots. Goldwater had a very stong record as a desegregationist in Arizona, and in his personal life, having desegregated his department store chain, but did not feel that the Civil Rights Act was the way to go. “no law can make one person like another if he doesn’t want to.” and he also felt that the public accommodation clauses in the act would “destroy the rights of some under the false banner of promoting the civil rights of others.”

5. Welfare is bad and in the recipient results in “elimination of any feeling of responsibility for his own welfare and that of his family and neighbors.” He felt that Welfare would create a vast underclass in the inner cities, and it's hard to see how he was wrong. He also strongly opposed corporate welfare.

6. Supported gay rights and abortion rights.

Just as Walter confuses MLK with Malcolm X, you confuse Goldwater with the people that came after him and twisted his message.

The reason I use the word "revenge" is that you seem to be determined to tar and distort the memory of a great man for no other reason than that you disagree with his political philosophy.

[Michael E Johnson]

---How is this fact?---


Thats easy. Did whats written in the paragragph ACTUALLY happen over the last 40 years or not?

[Ian the Admin]

Okay, that's enough of all that.

Michael and Walter, both of you should know better than to start flinging flames and insults at each other, and to continue such a massive argument after it has gone off topic. You have been warned.