Posted on 12/23/2007 10:00:02 PM PST by Aristotelian
In his new book, "The Conscience of a Liberal," New York Times columnist Paul Krugman makes a strong case for his belief that the political success of the Republican Party and the conservative movement over the past 40 years has resulted largely from their co-optation of Southern racists that were the base of the Democratic Party until its embrace of civil rights in the 1960s. A key piece of evidence for Mr. Krugman is that Ronald Reagan gave his first speech after accepting the Republican presidential nomination in 1980 near Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964. In the course of this speech, Reagan said he supported "states' rights." Mr. Krugman says this was code declaring his secret sympathy for Southern racism.
Others, including Mr. Krugman's Times colleague David Brooks and Reagan biographer Lou Cannon, have come to Reagan's defense, denying that he was a racist or had any racist intent in his 1980 speech. That's fine but unlikely to change the minds of those like Mr. Krugman who are determined to smear the Republican Party with the charge of racism, and who are adept at finding racist code words like "law and order" by Republicans that are completely convincing to liberals and Democrats in support of this accusation, even though they are invisible to those with no political ax to grind.
However, if a single mention of states' rights 27 years ago is sufficient to damn the Republican Party for racism ever afterwards, what about the 200-year record of prominent Democrats who didn't bother with code words? They were openly and explicitly for slavery before the Civil War, supported lynching and "Jim Crow" laws after the war, and regularly defended segregation and white supremacy throughout most of the 20th century.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
They know no bounds.
Also, why would the Democrats who filibustered against the Civil Rights Act (save one) remain Democrats? I never saw racists like Robert Byrd, Richard Russell, Lester Maddox, Orval Faubus, William Fullbright, Sam Ervin, George Wallace, etc. decide to become Republicans later in their political careers.
Bump
Krugman is the biggest NUT going in the MSM today. Wait till he sees what happens if his beloved Democrats nominate Obama. The racism will come from disaffected democrats and will be something to behold.
IMHO, people who are always spotting “code words” are projecting — they, themselves, never say what they mean, or mean what they say; so they think that everyone else must be speaking in secret code words.
Dixiecrats are still a problem (see Bob Bird)
Most of the political books I see in the bookstore are simply attempts by the writer to pull a Jedi mindtrick-like brainwashing on the public. Forget the facts, they just want to say over and over and over things about Global Warming and the greatness of Clinton, because by repetition the public will buy into these comforting fantasies.
“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”
—Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1957
Exactly right. I had this concept introduced to me by a lefty friend; I had no idea what the hell he was talking about. I walked away from the conversation concluding that 'code words' was some kind of liberal thing that was, as is the case with so much that they do, incomprehensible to the rest of us.
Ah yes, the typical liberal canard on this subject matter. They never get tired of trying to pass this one off. Most of the "states rights" racists from the 50s and 60s are now dead. When they were alive, they were democrats. When the civil rights laws were put in place, I don't recall too much opposition from republicans but there certainly was from democrats.
What this does show about the democratic party is that they really don't have core convictions other than they they will anything to get political power. Democrats will make any compromise necessary to hold on to power. They controlled congress for 40+ years thanks in large part to their compromise with a group diametrically opposed to their convictions on equality and civil rights. If the liberal can comprise on that, what else would they be willing to compromise on and with whom would they be willing to do it.
Have things changed today? Just think of moveon.org , the ACLU and all the Sorros 527 organizations that do nothing but strengthen our enemies and the Democratic party's embrace of them. As was the case back in the 50s/60s, the Democrats will do anything to assume power even if it means selling out their convictions. Is that the party we want to lead the US?
What else would Liberals/Communist be willing to compromise on:
Read a bit of “Blacklisted by History”, Stanton Thomas or the Venona Files for the answer to with whom would they be willing to do it.
Though I think it’s extremely unlikely that Obama would win most of the primaries...what if he did? And what if it were “Gore close?”
Would the Dems do some finagling at the convention to deny him the nomination? Can’t put it past them.
The riots that would ensue, inevitably, would begin before the white nominee opened her mouth to accept.
But of course the Dems could foresee this too. They’d be stuck with Obama and a loss in November, or with the wrath of black Americans and a bigger loss in November.
That does it. Vote Obama in the primary! :)
This is an important article and I agree with both the conclusion that the Democratic Party was the home to racists and also institutionalized racism itself.
But I wonder why the Democratic Party, and not the Republican Party, became the home of immigrants from all over Europe — Irish, German, Italian, Russian, Eastern European Jews? What was so attractive about the Democrats in the Northern cities?
Socialism was part & parcel for the EU immigrants as it superceded the Royal/Serf relationships!
“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”
—Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1957
Shifty old Lyndon. From there to here in seven years...........
The Great Society was a set of domestic programs proposed or enacted in the United States on the initiative of President Lyndon B. Johnson. Two main goals of the Great Society social reforms were the elimination of poverty and racial injustice. New major spending programs that addressed education, medical care, urban problems, and transportation were launched during this period. The Great Society in scope and sweep resembled the New Deal domestic agenda of Franklin D. Roosevelt but differed sharply in types of programs. Some Great Society proposals were stalled initiatives from John F. Kennedy’s New Frontier. Johnson’s success depended on his own remarkable skills at persuasion, coupled with the Democratic landslide in 1964 that brought in many new liberals. Anti-war Democrats complained that spending on the Vietnam War choked off the Great Society. While some of the programs have been eliminated or have had their funding reduced, many of them, including Medicare, Medicaid, and federal education funding, continue to the present.
“But I wonder why the Democratic Party, and not the Republican Party, became the home of immigrants from all over Europe — Irish, German, Italian, Russian, Eastern European Jews? What was so attractive about the Democrats in the Northern cities?”
The Democrats have always bought loyalty with public money. Those lowest on the income ladder are cheapest to buy, therefore, more can be bought. Conversely, those who are taxed the most finance Democrat vote buying. Look at Hillary’s Christmas video.
Notice also that it was a Democrat (Woodrow Wilson) who federalized segregation, while it was a Republican (Dwight Eisenhower) who brought an end to it (Little Rock).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.