This is a quote from another thread, I think it raises questions that are best debated outside the context of the original thread, which was meant to focus on the actions of one man.

Let's explore the mass behavior.

What are the root causes of antipathy between Republicans and African Americans?

Why are there comparatively few elected officials of color form the republican party? Does this matter?

Why does the Democratic party garner the vast majority of African-American voters?

PS: The title is meant to be "Blacks" and Republicans, could I get a little aid on that?

What are the root causes of antipathy between Republicans and African Americans?

There is supposedly an old Indian saying “walk a mile in my moccasins.”

In 1970 Joe South wrote and recorded a popular song that borrowed this concept. A couple of lines were:



http://joesouth.byrdsnet.com/index.html#mile

Try as one might, there is no way anyone can truly walk in anyone else’s moccasins or shoes. For that reason, I have been reluctant to engage in debates involving race. As a white liberal, I can indeed find common interest with my Black brothers and sisters, I can sympathize with minority causes, argue for fairness and justice, etc. Although I can come to an approximation, I can never really comprehend completely what it is like to be a Black person. Hence, I have avoided speaking for the Black community.

That said, I read an interesting article by the Miami Herald’s Black opinion writer Leonard Pitts that was reprinted in the Fort Worth Star Telegram a week or so ago. It may shed some light on the above question.



http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/10845279.htm

Link may require registration, but it's free.

What are the root causes of antipathy between Republicans and African Americans?

I had a conversation a couple of weeks ago with a very Republican, conservative friend of mine - the mother of an acquaintance. She asked me why black people hate sucessful blacks. I asked her to elaborate, and she pointed to Condelezza Rice and Colin Powell, much as I had expected her to. I've found it is a common line amongst white conservatives, that they pass along to each other and group reinforce, that the reason many black people dislike Condi Rice and Mr. Powell is because of their success. I sure don't know what I'd give to be in a position to suck up to and defend the likes of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfield I asked her why, if black people hate sucessful blacks so much, don't we hate Michael Jackson, or Michael Jordan? Or Halle Berry, or Beyonce? She had no response, because obviously that blame-shifting excuse doesn't hold any water. I asked her why wasn't it possible that black people disliked Rice and Powell because of their actions and policies?

This is something I've thought about a lot and I'd like to offer my explanation for, what seems to me (and yes, this is in opposition to what my favorite ADer Nighttimer supposes) to be almost an inherent distrust and dislike of conservative Republicans. I don't think it's really a matter of the party at all, it's more the ideology - liberal, conservative, independent, etc. Because we all know 50 years ago the Democrats were relatively conservative and the Republicans were relatively liberal. The problem, I feel, lies at the heart of conservative ideology - the fight against change, the fight to preserve tradition and to keep things the way they are. This ideology would be all well and good if the way things are now was the best that they could be. However, when you are fighting change, and in many cases progress for the sake of abstract concepts like tradition, you are not going to win the hearts and minds of people who could do better with change. Case in point, in the 1800s it would have been conservatives (no matter what the party) against abolition, fighting to preserve the tradition of slavery and fighting against a radical change in the status of Africans in American society. In the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, it would have been the conservatives against changes in the societal status of both blacks and women. They would be fighting to preserve the tradition of the woman in the home, raising the children. They would be fighting to preserve the tradition of school and transportation segregation.

It's my honest, personal opinion that conservative ideology will never win over a majority of blacks because I feel that at its core, it is opposed to the progress of black people. Liberals have taken to calling themselves progressive, and I don't think that calling conservatism a regressive concept is all that off-base. Conservatives, or at least the ones in charge, want to go pre-Roe v. Wade, pre church-state separation (which, since that has existed since its founding, would take us roughly back to Puritan times)... and yes, I'm sure more than a few wouldn't mind going pre-Brown v. Topeka - it's practically what they (conservatives) ran on during the 60s and 70s. Surprisingly, based on my experience, if it weren't for their position on racial issues, I think that more blacks would vote conservatively than liberally, because in my experience blacks as a whole are very socially conservative. At least, on abortion and gay marriage. The death penalty and welfare are up in the air but that's another topic.

Why are there comparatively few elected officials of color form the republican party? Does this matter?

Well if few people of color vote Republican, then I guess it follows that there would be few people of color running for Republican office. And I really don't think it matters at all, no matter what your color you can parrot the ideology... see Alan Keyes.

Why does the Democratic party garner the vast majority of African-American voters?

Because the Democratic party is seen as having and endorsing policies most beneficial to African-Americans.

What are the root causes of antipathy between Republicans and African Americans?

I would rephrase this as: What are the root causes of antipathy between African Americans and Republicans?

For whatever reason, Republicans have been successfully stereotyped by Democrats as a bunch of rich white fat cats who care nothing about anyone else and only wish to increase their own bank balance, at anyone else's expense.

Have Democrats ever met a good decent black Republican? Every single black Conservative anyone mentions is reviled as a sell-out, an Uncle Tom, or a token help up to appease blacks. Clarence Thomas, is is argued, isn't on the Supreme Court for his views, but simply because he is black. Condaleeza Rice is a yes-person. Powell is a token. J C Watts (who retired from the Congress voluntarily) was the fourth ranking Republican in the House when he retired.

Blacks largely flocked to the Democrat party during LBJ's Great Society, where the image of Republicans blocking Civil Rights legislation was put forward. Of course, the Civil Rights Act would never have passed without the support of key Republicans and was staunchly opposed by certain Southern Democrats.

Why are there comparatively few elected officials of color form the republican party? Does this matter?

Isn't it really a numbers game? When only about 10% of blacks voters support Bush (for example), while over 50% of Americans in general do, the numbers are against Blacks statistically being elected. Blacks comprise about 13% of all Americans. But if only 10% are Republicans, that means that only 1.3% of Republicans are black (contrast the Dems, who would be approximately 11.6% black).

Demographically, blacks are concentrated in urban areas. Wikipedia says that 88% of blacks live in urban areas. Urban areas are largely controlled by Democrats. So blacks (who are far and away Democrats) live in areas controlled by Democrats. A vicious cycle.

Why does the Democratic party garner the vast majority of African-American voters?

Ah, here's the rub. It's easy enough to say that blacks vote for Democrats or that blacks live in areas that vote Democrat. But why?

My feeling is that is boils down to a contrast of styles between the Democrats and Republicans. Democrats are the party of promises to individual groups. Their various constituencies are all expecting something. We can see that the Democrats are mainly comprised of various single-issue groups held together by a leadership who promises them something. The individual groups do not interact with each other much across the broad spectrum of issues.

The Republicans (I feel) are more broad in their promises, which does not appeal well to those that want specific issues addressed. They don't promise blacks (in particular) anything especially for them. They only offer the promise that "prosperity lifts all boats", which is easily lampooned and scoffed at.

Hopefully, Republicans can appeal to blacks in the future. I can't offer much for those that openly doubt my principles and question my motives. Perhaps the skepticism will change and more people of color will get past the paradigms of the past and look to the future and wonder why their erstwhile champions (the Democrats) have failed to deliver on their promises.

Things may be changing. Here is an interesting read: Young, Black, Strong and…Republican?

Aha, i shall start here. it is my personal belief that the situation is the complete opposite of what you just said. I think it's the Republicans who want minorities to progress...not Democrats. The logic is simple, government programs and such...they keep people down. They keep people locked in the status quo with little chance of advancement. People who are on welfare, will probably stay on welfare until the program no longer meets their living standards. I will be blunt, but it doesn't seem to me that Democrats particularly WANT minorities to succeed. Because if they started gaining wealth...they would become Republicans. If they have money...they would want the government to take less of it because they earned it. However, people in poverty depend on the gov't and want them to give more hand outs. So basically, if every minority started making lots of money, do you think they would support a raise in taxes cutting into their income?



Another good point. Most of the areas minorities reside are Democrat-controlled areas. So wouldnt it make sense that it is the Democrats who are mostly responsible for those living there? I always laughed during the 2004 Election, when some would say that minorities were disenfranchised because they didn't have enough voting machines or the lines were too long. These are areas controlled by Democrats...not Republicans.

Slowly but surely, minorities are beginning to come around to the Republican party. Obviously because as generation after generation live in the US, the education improves and so does the life status. This is why the Repubs and Dems should always have a balanced percentage of the vote.

I think there's a lot of history behind Blacks and Democrats, much of that with Lyndon Johnson and all of his war on poverty programs and civil rights legislation. The democrats were more pro-civil rights than the republicans and so that momentum has carried on until today.

Political momentum is a hard thing to stop. You wouldn't expect funamentalists to just switch to the democrats overnight. There are core causes that they believe in that the republicans support. And so it is with the majority of black americans.

Face facts, black americans on average are worse off than other demographics. Just look at unemployment, the gap for home ownership, etc. etc. So why would you support a party for the status quo or worse? Wouldn't you want welfare support, grants for college, etc. etc. stuff that the Republicans generally shun?

I can see if you're Bill Cosby or Michael Jordan, being a republican makes sense. But not on average. Most people vote with self-interest, so the antipathy makes sense to me.

When I was growing up my mother told me "Republicans want to make rich people richer and poor people poorer." This is the reason why!!! NOT!!!! While my mother did say it this is not why.
I didn't see anything that Suzy said that was off the mark. I'll add:

Conservative rely heavily on nationalism to push there politics through to the people. Due to American history towards Blacks, not just slavery, but also Jim Crowism, Blacks often aren't as nationalistic to the core. We have pride in our nation, but not the blinding love where anything said bad about America makes us cringe.

Another thing that Suzy touched on that is of the utmost importance. It is not Republican vs Democrat, as much as it is Conservative vs. Liberal. A conservative wants to promote the status quo. Blacks, in general, are not the status quo, therefore are more unlikely to be conservative on political issues. However, to be honest you will find many Blacks are conservative on social issues especially those targeting homosexuals, because Blacks do stand with the status quo in religious issues.
It is not some picture portrayed by Democrats, it is the inherent nature of the conservative movement in this nation. Look at the debate board, look at the stances that conservatives take. How often do they support anything that majority of Blacks support?? Now I am NOT saying they should, I'm just saying it makes sense that few Blacks are conservatives.


So do you realize that you have just admitted to some kind of connection between wealthy and Republicans... So my Mom wasn't totally crazy....
Seriously, you really make me feel like your nationalism is blinding you. What takes the biggest portion of our tax dollars. Military!!! Between Liberal Democrats and Conservative Republicans whos the biggest supporter of war, nukes, new jet fighters and warships and war in general?? Well, well that would be the conservatives. Yet I truly believe you believe that conservatives want to be in our pockets less?? Oh sure they want to cut taxes, but is military research the place thats likely going to get cut??? Republicans will spend an arm and two legs on the military so please don't tell me they want to stay out of our pockets.


O.K. Amlord I loved your little story at the end. "Don't give me fish, Democrats... The Republicans are about teaching me to Fish... yeah baby" Only tell me Amlord... When the "Young, Black, Strong and…Republican" man comes to some college or law school with scores not quite there and some white man is going to get bumped due to some affirmative action program. Tell me where will majority of the the Republicans stand?? Will they say "Teach, teach, teach" ??? Because the only lesson I think our young Black Republican is going to learn is "Social Darwinism"

Hey some Democrats want to give fish, others want to teach others to fish, but Republicans..... there main priority is to make sure no one is touching "their" fish.

Let me tell you a story, leder. And I'm almost certain I've stated this elsewhere on this site, but I'll state it again, just for you. This story is about my father. My father was born in 1962 in Alabama to a relatively normal father and a batcrap-crazy mother. My father's parents divorced when he was young, and he was shifted back and forth from his mother in New York City to his great-grandmother in Chicago. Neither of these locations, not then and not now, are exactly known for providing a nurturing environment for young black men.

And today? My father has a bachelor's and master's degree, makes over $130,000 a year before taxes, and guess what? Has never voted Republican in a single election in his life.

But how can this be? you may wonder. My father had no programs to help him. He paid for college himself, he practically raised himself. This sort of "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality is quite common amongst conservatives, is it not? "Don't expect the government to do it for you" sort of thing? So why, oh why would someone whom according to your stereotypes should be a Republican consistently vote liberal?

Maybe because he believes in helping those less fortunate than he is. Not everyone has access to the resources and contacts they need to get out of their environment. Maybe because he supports affirmative action? Well I just asked him, and he states that indeed, it's because he believes in helping those less fortunate than he is, and giving them all the opportunity and assistance they need to help them succeed. It's a part of him being a decent human being, to be in one place and see others in a lower place and want them to be equal with yourself. And I'm sorry leder, but you're honestly going to have to do a lot better than Democrats supporting programs that provide food and assistance to black families, like welfare, and Republican's opposition to helping these families in need with nonsense rationalizations like "it makes them dependent" as proof that Republicans really give a damn about black people and Democrats really aren't the party better suited to blacks' interests. So I'll ask you directly: what have the (conservative) Republicans done to help black people? What assistance have they offered to better inner city schools, besides the alternative of school with a side of religious indoctrination? What have they done about the AIDs crisis in Africa, how much money have they spent helping those people in need? What programs have they proposed to assist with the elderly who genuinely cannot help themselves get better?

Or, instead, have they supported and enacted a global gag rule that prohibits funding clinics that pass out condoms and literature, that educate, that provide testing if they speak about abortion? What have they done to actually address the root causes of poverty, instead of complaining aobut the rare bird who cheats the welfare system? Because you know what I see about conservative ideology and its adherents? I see people who love to complain about reverse discrimination like it's an epidemic but have no problem with James Hart, I see people who blame affirmative action when a minority gets accepted to a job or school and they don't, and never even entertain the idea that maybe the minority was better qualified. What have they done to help black people, other than turn their noses down and say "if I give you an inch, you'll take a mile?" and "let them eat cake?"

Yeah, conservative ideology really holds black interests' dear to their hearts. I don't know why I didn't understand before that the global gag rule, the war on welfare, the attacks on affirmative action were all out of love!

Leder, I am a black upper-middle-class girl who has grown up around upper-middle-class whites and a handful of upper-middle-class black families. I can tell you without a doubt that all of these people vote Democrat. So I'm sorry, I have anecdotal evidence that just because a black family may have money doesn't mean they will vote Republican, and I'm quite sure that in some of these cases Republicans may be better for their financial interests. But these people put racial issues before financial, they deem the party more benevolent to their race more important than the party more benevolent to their wallets. So I'm going to need some proof of this higher-income-more-Republican ratio you're postulating.

My dad tutors inner-city children weekly in a very dangerous part of Cincinnati. Do conservatives volunteer in similar positions? Do they donate to the UNCF? Or would they rather sit around complain about minorities instead of offer a helping hand?

And I wonder at where the stereotypes about Conservatives come from and who perpetuates them...

Do conservatives volunteer? Does this even need to be answered? What kind of person believes that an entire group of people turn a blind eye on society? It is a difference in approach, not a difference in goals.


It is the conservative philosophy to allow people to give of their own free will rather than steal from them and force them to donate. There is a real sense of doing something good when you volunteer or donate to a worthy cause. There is no such sense when the government takes your money and does the same thing.

I'm flat out stunned by some of these statements.

Amlord, if you go back and look at my statement, I didn't ask if conservatives volunteer. I asked if they volunteer in similar positions. Instead of being filled with righteous indignation, maybe you should provide evidence that conservatives give generously, either financially or by volunteering, to organizations that help African-Americans. If you need a place to start, try AIDs.

You want to know where my stereotypes come from, Amlord? Try observation of conservative rhetoric and research behind what it really means and the goals they ultimately want to achieve, for starters. From the welfare queen to Bob Jones University... I really don't think the image your party has as held by many black people is something that we've pulled completely out of our butts and has absolutely no basis in reality. Do you need some examples? I have a list.

It is that same conservative philosophy that holds that things are fine the way they are now, and we don't need social change - or if we do, it's a change to the way things used to be - like in the 1960s. Are you really confused as to why this doesn't have massive appeal to black voters?

I think lederuvdapac may be on to something here.

What are the root causes of antipathy between Republicans and African Americans?

Politics is the root cause and the Democratic Party chose African Americans like Mexican Americans are up for grab now between the two major parties. My daddy was a southern democrat, a member of Senator Robert Byrd’s KKK club. He told me so many times why blacks were so bad and his reason were because the republicans gave them handouts, they are thieves and lazy while white folks had to work hard and earn their own way while carrying the thieving blacks on their shoulders because of the republicans.

I grew up in WV and went to school in Pt. Pleasant WV the home of Mothman Prophecy and it was a white town thanks to the KKK club. The town was so white my dad said he never burned a cross against blacks but did participate in a cross burning at the base of Ohio side of the Silver Bridge (the last scene in the movie) on the lawn of a white man who left his family without money while spending his money on booze, dad called this man white trash or white N interchangeably.

The 1950’s were a different world than a young person could even comprehend today. My family bought our first TV when I was seven years old and I watched Amos and Andy show on network broadcast TV. I had never seen a black person in person and thought they were black but actually they were white people mimicking stupid black people in a situation comedy. Real black people were not allowed on TV confirming all that my dad had said was true. The only real black people I had seen were on the cover of a National Geographic magazine or in cars passing by on the way to town. My dad worked delivering milk in the inner-city of Charleston WV and in the early morning he witnessed two blacks fighting with strait razors and one cut open the others stomach and his intestines fell out on the ground and the story was one of my dads favorites. Well, guess how I made my first contact mono a mono with a black person? My dad took my brother me and to the N barber in another town and I squirmed in my seat as the large black man sharpened his strait razor on the leather strap. I peed my pants when he pointed to me with the strait razor and said, next and I was seven years old.

I worked in a town in the mountains of WV by the name of Parsons before being drafted into the army. This town was also segregated and the friend who had invited me there showed me pictures of a billboard sign leading into town that was removed in 1955 that read If you are black do not let the sun set on you in this town. He showed me pictures of a black man hanging from the town bridge with newspaper articles from 1953 that said the black mans truck had broken down and when found in the town was lynched and left hanging for three days as warning to others.

With that short story recorded I guess we could say the blacks of the period in my “world” only savior was the republican. Then, not unlike now with Mexican American and illegal Mexicans a party has to choose. Then the democrats choose to throw a towel over the glass case with their cone hats for the vote.

Why are there comparatively few elected officials of color form the Republican Party? Does this matter?
The democrats convinced the blacks they were their only hope and gave them stuff to keep them obedient, not much stuff at first but stuff the republicans wouldn’t before.

Why does the Democratic Party garner the vast majority of African-American voters?
Because the African Americans actually believe the Dem’s want to help them. They like all the laws like racial profiling, now what is this? A black guy robs a bank so don’t stop only black people fitting the description, a Japanese, white or Mexican? Oh yea I forgot about Amos and Andy.

Black people have been taught to hate the white man who holds them down, the exception the Dem white man who helps them through the process of being lifted up. The black people are a very proud people who have been stripped of their pride by the Dem’s. Not all but many have lost their identity of family values and personal responsibility, they have been taught to trust the democrats for all that is possible of good to come to them. When the Democratic Party threw the towel over the glass case it was purely political. Today, many, if not most democrats are sincere in their support for the African American people. The Republican Party has never disliked the African American people any more than the Dem’s, in 1955 both parties watched and laughed out loud at Amos and Andy. The Repubs were simply framed as the enemy to hold down the good the Dem’s would do for blacks. And, in conclusion not every white guy was a slave owner, or a super businessman no more than every Repubs is using Mexican illegal labor today. If you want to understand the political affiliation of blacks transition into the state it is today watch how the same desire for political clout will be applied to the Mexicans over the next few years.

[
Why are there comparatively few elected officials of color form the republican party? Does this matter?

Simple percentages. More Blacks are democrats and therefore that is who you see getting elected to office. If Republicans should push to have their Black members elected. They could do this in a lot of ways : party finance; endorsements etc. I also think that appointments are extremely important and Republicans have done alot of those.


Why does the Democratic party garner the vast majority of African-American voters?


The fundamental difference that I see between Dems and Repubs is that Republicans have this strong idea that if you work hard enough you will get ahead. And to a certain extent that is true. Hard work is rewarded in American society. However, they fail to remember that life is not always fair and it can sometimes throw you a curve ball. Blacks as a group can identify with not starting at a level playing field. Policies like affirmative action acknowledge that there is not a level playing field in the first instance and they find support from african americans more. Personally, I support leveling the playing field, but affirmative action doesn't do this entirely as it looks only to race. IMO, it should look to social circumstances. But that is just an aside. I think the Democratic party is more appealing to Blacks because it recognizes the real life fact that life is not completely fair.

What are the root causes of antipathy between Republicans and African Americans?

The idea that Repubs work to benefit people of money makes sense to me. The party's funds come from large contributors mostly. That use to be the case with Demos too, but this looks like it's changing, especially with Dean as DNC top dogger. The Demos have also attracted more Hispanics than Repubs.

Still, where you are on the economic spectrum probably makes the most difference. For example, Demos (new majority) in our state legislature are pushing for more renter rights. This directly benefits people of not much money. Repubs have worked here for just the opposite -- removing renter rights in the hopes of raising all ships. It's the old trickle down stuff -- and a strange attitude that the landlord/renter relationship never gets adversarial.

Well, maybe in the better parts of town, eh? It hasn't proven successful for the poorer parts of town, not in this state.

Anyway, the Repub attitude is that everyone plays on a level field. The Demo attitude is that the field is not level, and folks in the low parts need help. That looks like the fundamental difference to me.

On the social level -- well, that's so obvious as to be moot. Others have expressed this well here.

Why are there comparatively few elected officials of color form the republican party? Does this matter?

I'll agree that it comes down to numbers and that it doesn't really matter. More officials of color in the Repub party won't change its policies.

Why does the Democratic party garner the vast majority of African-American voters?

As pointed out with the renter rights example, the Demo party helps out folks that the Repub party works against. Going with the renter rights example again, the Repubs want to make it easier to evict renters -- they did that here. Why would a renter want to vote for such a party? That's just casting yourself out into the cold world. Sure, under the proposed law renters still could be tossed out, but not without review of the situation by an arbitrator.

Another part of the law gives renters more leverage to get major fixes done on the rented property. Too many non-functioning furnaces and refrigerators prompted this part. The return of damage deposits will be required in 30 days instead of 60 also.

Naturally, landlords like Republicans better, and renters like Demos better. You can extend that to other examples where one group benefits while another loses. Both groups vote for their own benefit, and so there you go. Some go Repub, others go Demo.

This is something of a fallacy and no reason anyone, regardless of color, should rush out and join their local Republican Party. Every time I drive past a street repair crew and see a group of men, often mixed, throwing hot tar on a road in 100 degree plus Texas weather I think, ”My I’m glad I didn’t have to do that, that’s hard work.” Despite this hard work, I doubt many of them are doing much more than just putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their heads. I was a school teacher and I didn’t get anywhere fast financially. Neither did the Black or Hispanic teachers I worked with. To make up for that, we were at least doing something we thought important. Yes, it was hard work, but most of us didn't get very far in the myopic Republican view of getting ahead--mainly making money and more money. The definition of hard work Republicans use is much too constricted to have any meaning.

What Republican are saying is that if you work hard in business you will get ahead. I’m not even sure this is the case. I've personally known business owners who have gone bankrupt despite "hard work."

I think the idea that "if you work hard enough you will get ahead" should be labeled the The Great Republican Myth. Again I don't see why it would be attractive to Blacks or anyone else.

BTW: hayleyanne, I appreciate the fact that you qualified your statement with the phrase "to some extent." Oddly, this is the kind of thing that got John Kerry in trouble during the last election. Haven't you learned that we must have absolute, unequivocal statements? Seriously, I would add the phrase "very limmited" to your qualifier.

I guess there is a belief in the black community that welfare has actually benefitted blacks. Nothing could be further from the truth. Welfare has particularly propageted poverty and attacked the family in the black community.

We have one party that continually sucks up to the poverty pimps that represent the so-called leaders of the black community. This does ingratiate that party to black Americans. Of course other Americans recognize that when a party focuses on group rights, versus individual liberties, one group can only win at the expense of another. It is why the Democrats have lost the "NASCAR dad" vote and have lost their dominence of national politics that they held from the 30's thru the 70's.

Thee Democrats take great pains to screw others in order to maintain their domination of the black vote. It is costing them dearly. They will continue to dominate the black vote until they recognize that cost or blacks realize subsidizing the single parent is simply spreading misery in their communities.

OK Suzy:

AIDS in Africa: Bush's plan of $15 billion ring a bell? While Congress may not have fully funded it, this is a quantum leap forward on the issue.

Sorry, Suzy, you asked if Conservatives volunteer in inner city neighborhoods. I suppose you see this as substantially different. Have you heard of Arnold Schwarzenegger's Inner City Games Foundation?

Or recall this, where Republican leaders were praised for inner city programs?

And while you dismiss school vouchers out-of-hand as some evil plot to indoctrinate kids, it offers real hope for children to escape the truly aweful inner city school systems.

Churches, including the Catholic Church, have done a great deal of work in inner city neighborhoods. But I suppose they are all run and staffed by Democrat volunteers.

Don't you recall Bill Cosby's comments concerning the attitudes towards the black community?

I resent the fact that you disparage the contributions of conservatives to the plight of blacks.

Ol' Sarge, just for clarification though your Dad was a Democrat. Would you label him liberal or conservative??

The reason I ask is because both myself and Suzy pointed out it is not about Democrat/Republican... it is about liberal/conservative. Your Dad sounded pretty conservative to me and Republicans are the conservative party today.

Heyleyanne

I was going to argue against this but then I realized... You're right. Don't get me wrong, BOF was also correct to call it "The Great Republican Myth" You said it was true to an extent and you are correct. I mean it is a myth yet many Republicans for some reason are apt to believe it, more so than democrats. If you work hard in this country you can become rich, there really is no point in denying that. Problem with many Republicans is conversely they believe the same. "If you are not doing well financially, you are not working hard!" So being that Blacks are disproportionately poor is there any doubt that the conservative party may think of Blacks as disproportionately lazy??




So let me translate what you said in my best NASCAR Dad voice "You all done gon' and helped out the Negroes too much, done sucked up too much caterin' for the negro people vote and now we gon to go on ahead and get with the Republican party!!"
Well O.K. so it's not because we are confused and brainwashed that Blacks overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Whites moved from the Democratic party to the Republican party because they(democrats) were "sucking up to poverty pimps and so-called leaders of the Black community" So there is an actual reason

Thanks for opening a thought provoking thread turnea. God only knows how long it will stay open before it gets slammed shut by off-topic posters peddling their favorite pet grudges and wack conspiracy theories. But let's enjoy it while we can, huh?

1. Suzy Steamboat did a laudable job of explaining why the antipathy between Republicans and African-Americans exists. I don't disagree with her central points, but let me expand upon it.

In my experience, the higher up the food chain a Republican gets the greater the antipathy between them and African-Americans grows. On a local and state level, I have found Republicans to be very agressive in challenging Democrats for black votes. The farther away from the grass roots the less interested Republicans seem to be in vying for the black vote. The only reason that makes sense to me for this is that it benefits Republicans not to be seen as trying to draw blacks in large numbers into the party.

As Hugo, Amlord and others have made clear in this thread and past ones, they do not identify with the Democrats in part because it has become so identified as a "black" political party. Real or imagined, the Democrats have become known as the party that gives away the candy store to blacks without demanding any kind of responsibility, maturity or respect in return. The Republicans have cast themselves as the stern parents who will treat blacks with repect, BUT only once blacks have demonstrated a sense of gratitude and conduct themselves with decorum and in a responsible fashion.

The sociologist Andrew Hacker in his book, Two Nations: Black and White, Separate, Hostile, Unequal (1992), how the GOP has consciously chosen to become the party favored by conservative whites.

One of the two major parties---the Republicans---has all but explicity stated that it is willing to have itself regarded as a white party, prepared to represent white Americans and defend their interests. Of course, Republican administrations make sure that they appoint a few black officials, either vocal conservatives or taciturn moderates willing to remain in the background. An unwritten plank in the party's strategy is that it can win the offices it wants without black votes. More than that, by sending a message that it neither wants nor needs ballots cast by blacks, it feels it can attract even more votes from a much larger pool of white Americans who want a party willing to represent their racial identity.

I agree with Hacker's analysis. One can be a token in either party, but it seems that through time, effort and the accumulation of power and clout, blacks have been more successfully in influencing the policies pursued by Democrats than Republicans.

But I am encouraged that the 2004 election represented some small, but significant cracks in the black monopoly of votes enjoyed by the Democrats. To repeat a point I've made in the past: Black people have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies, only permanent interests. The only way for blacks to gain any influence upon the GOP is by joining the GOP and gathering power and influence just as the Religious Rights has and Latinos are beginning to.

Blacks belong in the Republican Party. Not as tokens, but as full-fledged members and power players who can demand the party represent their cultural identity of blacks as well as the GOP presently does for whites.

2. The lack of Republican black elected officials as mayors, governors, representatives and senators is one reason why I question whether or not the U.S. hasn't just become more conservative, but not necessairly more Republican. Since the departures of Gary Franks and J.C. Watts from the House, there hasn't been a single black Republican elected to the House. There hasn't been a black Republican in the Senate since Edward Brooke.

Blacks who are inclined to vote conservative and/or Republican are just like anyone else that every now and then they want to vote for someone that looks like them and shares a similar history as they do. Whites do the exact same thing.
But the GOP seems to have a difficult time either recruiting or promoting black candidates.

As I said elsewhere in a discussion with Amlord I don't buy his argument that black conservatives are automatically ostracized as "Uncle Toms" by running as Republicans. My criticism has always been if a black Republican only parrots the exact party line chapter and verse and brings nothing else to the table, why should I vote for them? Black people don't just vote for black faces anymore than white people will only vote for white faces.

But there is a suspicion that the lack of blacks in Congress or other high elected offices reflects more on the reluctance of whites to vote for a black man or woman.
"Crossover" politicians such as Barack Obama can succeed when they don't deny their racial identity (which turns off blacks) but don't obsess over it either (which turns off whites). Black candidates that can allay whites of their fear of being browbeaten and guilt-tripped can win their votes while assuring black voters they haven't "sold out" to curry the favor of whites. It's a delicate balancing act, but I'm willing to bet there are some black Republicans who will emulate Obama's success in 2006.

3. Blacks are joined at the hip with the Democratic Party. Not because whites are more enlightened, kind or less racist, but because there's no where else for them to go. John Kerry never galvanized black supporters, but there was no place else for them to go. President Bush paid lip service to reaching out to blacks, but put no real effort behind it. You don't have to be psychic to know when the rhetoric doesn't match the reality.

I really wish that we could drive a stake into the moldy cliche: "Republicans ignore blacks. Democrats take them for granted." When all of your political capital is invested so lopsided into the fickle fortunes of one political party over the other, when they lose, you lose and have nowhere to go. In order not to be cast into the void as they presently are, blacks must be prominent in BOTH parties. The only way black Republicans will enjoy true legitimacy among their own communities is when they can deliver and defend their interests as black Democrats can.

Definitely conservative!
About the work ethic, I thought the American work ethic was if you work hard you would get ahead. I think to say liberals are all lazy and republicans are all hardworking is the myth. The US constitution was founded on a capitalistic system to support religious hardworking folks that made their own laws and the pursuit of happiness. Some would get lucky and others would have misfortune, but the entire point was to work hard, with skills higher pay, working hard with skills even higher pay. That was the very founding idea of our government to work hard, keep your nose clean and advance and support a moral community. In the period you question of liberal or conservative both parties were conservative in their majority.

The introduction of FDR’s socialism plan created what has grown into liberalism in modern day changes in capitalism where liberals desire to adopt French, German or Spanish style social program and government care for citizens. For example the minimum wage is un-American from the founders ideals of capitalism, unions also subvert the system along with government backed medical programs. America was founded on a hen house concept of pecking order of strong surviving and flourishing. The American concept is quite clear in the military where citizens are generic and upward mobility is solely based on hard work ethic performance, skills, training for additional skills and following social norms. Blacks, whites and all races flourish in the military environment, as they should out of it. The small proportion unwilling to meet the ethic falls to the wayside. In my youth these people were the problem of their families or the church, street people or society failures were charged with a crime of vagrancy and jailed. The only social support from the government came from county medical centers where all citizens could receive basic medical treatment for emergencies.

People living in such a traditional American lifestyle saw all persons not succeeding the same and the liberal French politician was born to prop them up.

Being that I am a white American I am hesitant to get into this topic, because though I have been poor (and still am depending on who's standards you use) and I have lived in predominately black urban neighborhoods in the past, I have not lived as an African-American, so I can't truly understand the issues faced by African-Americans, or any other Minority group. I can only empathize and speculate, as I am about to do.

I have a good friend, a man I used to work with and later worked for. He is a fairly Conservative Black American whom I admire greatly. Working closely with him, and becoming good friends I learned a few things that I might not have otherwise known.

My friend, for the longest time, avoided the highways (despite the easy access and quicker routes they provided), and he NEVER drove over the speed limit, choosing instead to frequently drive a mile or two under the speed limit.

His reason for this was simple and practical. "Driving while Black" though not a crime in America does in fact exist and Black friends of mine have all experienced being pulled over for no apparent reason other then their skin color. My friend drove a nice car, that combined with him being black, and working frequently in "white" neighborhoods made him a prime target for this kind of profiling. For those who say: "He shouldn't worry about it, if he did nothing wrong he will be let go", though that may be true, even if you ignore all the stories of trumped up charges, you end up with someone who finds themselves late for work because they were black, and driving in the "wrong" area.

Now, I can understand his concern, and I can feel for him having to deal with this sort of nonsense, but I can never really relate to it as I have never had to live it.

What people need to understand, is that minorities in America do in fact have different issues and live different lives then the majority. Some of this is due to racism, some to ignorance, and some to cultural differences, but their life experiences are definitely different.

What are the root causes of antipathy between Republicans and African Americans?

I think the premise here is faulty. In my experience, those people who I have gotten to know, who are Black and politically active are more often conservative in politics then liberal. However, the vast majority of people in the Urban core, black or otherwise, could care less about politics, voting, etc either way.

Apathy, for urban voters, regardless of race comes from the belief that no one running understands their needs or cares about them, and they are rarely wrong in this regard. How many, "up from poor" people have we seen run for political office, regardless of race? How often does a Senatorial or Presidential Candidate come from lessor means? If you have never been poor, how could you truly understand the issues facing the poor?

However, at least where I lived, the Black community was pretty tightly nit. So, when local community leaders hammered the apathetic to get out and vote, they were usually fairly successful. Since, urban politics usually leans left, those leaders were usually pushing for votes for the left, and they usually got them.

When it comes to those people, specifically black people, I have known who were politically active, they generally went both ways like everyone else. I have known about as many Black Republicans as I have Black Democrats.

The problem, IMHO is that in general, people in poor areas of our cities think Republicans don't care about them.

To me, the issue is the Apathy between Urban voters and Republicans, as well as the issue of voter apathy in Urban America in general.

Why are there comparatively few elected officials of color form the republican party? Does this matter?

Where are the massive numbers of elected Black Democrats? Are there more Democrats who happen to be black elected to office then black Republicans? Yes. But when you consider that a high percentage of Minority voters identify with the Democrats rather then the Republicans you have to realize that the available pool of those to run for office that happen to be black, is smaller. The real issue here to mean is the sheer lack of elected officials from minority communities in general.

Why does the Democratic party garner the vast majority of African-American voters?

I think I explained this earlier. More African Americans live in an Urban setting then a Rural setting. In Rural America, there is a culture of self-reliance (which seems to fly in the face of Rural Welfare use, but that's another topic). This is because in Rural America you have more options to be self-reliant. You can farm your yard, hunt for food, sell you excess crops and meat to your neighbors, etc. In Urban America, these options do not exist. People in the Cities are naturally more reliant on government services because there is less nature there. Also, cost of living tends to be much higher in the cities then in the rural communities. To get a decent job, the poor in the city generally need to supplement their education though services like JobCore. They also need help getting to those jobs, through public transportation. Again, this is true of the Urban poor in general, not Black America.

People that have to rely on government services like these to survive, are generally going to have a more positive outlook on the potential of other services, then those that have never needed them to succeed.

Now, the main difference between the ideologies of both parties is government-reliance vs. self-reliance. If you have lived your entire life without government programs then you are going to favor the Republican Ideology. However, if your life revolves around government programs, be it public transportation, LandLord/Tenant Laws, available after-school programs, or welfare and the like, you are going to be more likely to look favorably at those solutions.

It is hard to convince someone who is barely living paycheck to paycheck and struggling to keep food on the table for his kids, that he should pay for his and his families healthcare as opposed to having government provided healthcare. If you can't get the money for a box of Band-aids, where will the money come from for a doctor's visit or an insurance premium?

To me, if you grew up in a poor Urban environment, you will be naturally more likely to support the Democrats over the Republicans because of your life experiences.

Now the Republicans, as far as I can tell, Have decided to let this ride. They believe (in some cases rightly IMHO) that their solutions to some problems facing Urban America are better then the Democratic solutions, but they fail to make the effort to really educate people on the issue and sell their side of it in Urban America. The Democrats, already having a strong presence in Urban America, have an easier time both identifying with and selling their ideas to Urban Americans.

I think one area everyone has missed, though Suzysteamboat and NT of course nailed it very close, is the fundamental difference between your average black "conservative" and white "conservative" in thier definitions. A black "conservative" may be against abortion (this I think is very common) , somewhat against gay marriage (I see more lip service by black church types than any real galvanizing issue) but that is just about where the similarity stops.

I work in the social services in a predominately white state. However, you only have to look around to see how over-represented blacks are in this field. At one time, in my hospital, we did not have one white Social worker in the building, a job that requires a Masters degree. I have been trying to find a statistic for black employment in the social services industry, and have not been able to find one, but I bet my bottom dollar they more than double thier ethnic representation percentage in the field. I think this is because so many at this level of education, despite thier (often) poor background, want to help pull poeple up with them, regardless of ethnicity.

Blacks, as a culture, seem to understand that human beings can and often do fail and thier is no amount of "bootstraps" that will ever allow many poeple to pull themselves up. Certainly the far majority will need some kind of help. That is reality. The white conservative fantasy is that poor poeple just need to work harder, and that they can leave wherever they find themselves, which is simply not true. Democrats have at least acknowledged this reality, while Republicans have been openly hostile to this reality. Democrats have not done a good job at addressing the reality, but at least they have not attempted to shoot the messenger!

Let's look at the welfare debate alone. I think every poster on here realizes that welfare primarily goes to white single mothers that are on welfare less than two years. However, during the debate by republicans AGAINST welfare, they didn't exactly harp on that fact did they? No- they pretty much were painting a picture of a black lady from the inner city with 19 kids that drove a Cadilac off of her ill-gotten goods- stolen from good white conservative paychecks.

And then republicans tell blacks that this demonization was for thier own good!

How about the Willie Horton ads buy Bush 1? Can you possibly GET a little more racial undertones than that? Jesse Helms RAN on fear of the black man!

Then there is the hypocrisy of the white conservative leader against "black' leaders. I have heard enormous critisism of Bill Clinton and Jesse Jacksons "morality" by conservatives on this board and by the media. However, when a white republican politician does the same thing, or even worse (GW Bush makes those other two guys seem like moral pillars) - they get an automatic "pass" for being white conservatives.

Taken together, I can not see how any black person in thier right mind COULD EVER identify with the republican party, unless some major changes are made.

Hard for me to respond civilly to that. So I will quote nighttimer.



I must correct NT on my reason for not identifying as a Democrat. Actually, I don't identify with the Democrats because they are the party of tax and spend big government. I don't identify with the Republicans because they are the party of borrow and spend big government. In fact I find some justification for affirmative action which is in direct opposition to the position of the NASCAR Dad's.

The fact that liberals tend to characterize NASCAR dads as racist and ignorant hicks is another reason that Democrats don't get the NASCAR Dad vote. Just like when Republicans characterize blacks as lazy.

What conservatives really must do is admit that conservatism in the 50's and 60's was a barrier to the civil rights movement and explain why that is no longer the case. As a libertarian I strongly supported civil rights actions that ended Jim Crow and school segregation. From a pragmatic viewpoint I even see the arguments for remedying some of the harm from 350 years of negative government intervention regarding the condition of blacks with some positive government intervention. On purely philisophical grounds I would oppose Fair Housing laws, yet I see some of the Fair Housing laws as probably a needed intervention to combat the condition created by slavery and Jim Crow. I also believe positive intervention to level the playing field should diminish overtime. This is the part that is hard to sell to black America. What I and the NASCAR Dad's see is a group rights philosophy and usually when government grants something to one group it is at the cost of another.

Hugo Maybe I was being a little over the top. So I will be more civil, but please reexamine what you said



Let's take it step by step. You did a great job at not labeling, but I will tell you what I inferred.



Are you talking about the Democrats here?? I think so... So the Democrats "suck up" to the poverty pimps and the so called leaders of the Black Community. Who are the poverty pimps?? Are the so-called leaders Black?? Are they elected?? I am inferring that you are saying "The democrats are sucking up to the Blacks." As you say they "ingratiate" their party to Blacks.

You go on to say



By "other Americans" do you mean white Americans. White democrats noticed that their party was becoming ingratiating to the Blacks. Due to this the Democrats lost their "NASCAR Dad" vote and their dominance.

So here is my question Hugo, what were Whites losing so much of that they had to jump ship? What were the Democrats doing so terribly wrong that all these white men just couldn't take it? All I can see is the racial undertones. Because Black needs shouldn't be addressed by any party!!! Christian needs can be addressed. Wealthy needs can be addressed. White needs can be addressed. But Black needs being addressed by Republicans that is sacrilegious.

I'm not trying to paint a picture of "racist and ignorant Hick" when describing the typical republican NASCAR Dad, but I will be lying if I didn't admit that is the visualization I get. Because of their out right disdain of any law that seems to help any minority group. Whether Black, Mexicans, Native Americans...etc
Of course you can't put everyone in ANY box, we are individuals. there will be Republicans like Arnold Schwarzennager(did I spell that right??) who are conservative on business fronts and pretty liberal on social fronts and vice versa. There are going to be some Republicans that are for Affirmative action or at least a moderated version. But these exceptions are not the rule.

Just for the record, the 1964 civil rights act passed with the following votes: Republicans supported the bill 138 to 34; Democrats favored it 152-96.
80% of house Republicans supported the bill compared to 61% of Democrats.

We tend to forget that the Democratic party struggled, possibly more so than the Republicans, on the issue of civil rights. Leading up to the civil rights act, the "solid south" which was a stronghold for the Democratic party, was staunchly opposed to the concept of civil rights. In fact, tensions within the party were so high on the issue that many Democrats split from the party and called themselves Dixiecrats.

According to this article, Lyndon Johnson himself voted with the south most of the time on civil rights issues while he was serving as a congressman.

I am not saying that black needs cannot be addressed, or christian needs addressed or gay needs addressed. Just that when government starts concentrating on group needs groups will come into conflict. In the last election the Democrats were somewhat lukewarmly supporting gay rights (actually they were trying to avoid the issue) while Republicans were attacking gays in order to gain support from Christians. Gays have not yet got to the point where they have equal protection under the law; blacks have. From an individual freedom aspect, that Republicans often claim to have when they eschew programs that reward minorities at the expense of whites, the Republicans are revealing their hypocrisy. Both parties have groups they need to woo. What they have to determine is what is the cost and what is the benefit, measured in votes, to policies favoring any certain group.

Regardless of whether anyone thinks it is fair or not Democrat policies toward black America have destroyed, what was only a couple generations ago, a whole region of the country, the South, that was prominently Democrat. Just as LBJ predicted the South is now solidly Republican. If Kerry had one one or two Southern states he would be President. Of course Kerry would probably be President if it had not been for the backlash against court decisions and a mayor run amuck in San Francisco.

The Republicans are not going to roll the dice when they have what I consider an electoral advantage which is greater than demonstrated in the last two elections. After 8 years of prosperity normal expectations would have been a Gore victory in 2000. The Bush 1st term was marked by loss of jobs and a war as controversial as Korea in 52 and Vietnam in 68. In both those years the incumbant chose not to run for re-election. Bottom line; Kerry should have won under any historical guideline. The Republicans will not give out goodies to blacks in order to increase their %of the black vote. They will have to preach their socially conservative message to blacks and try to get the message that "a rising tide lifts all boats" to be believed in black America.

The problem with deerjerkydave's reply is anything before the realigning election of 68 is ancient history. Strom switched parties for a reason. Suzie is right on that we are really speaking of a conservative/liberal divide and currently the Republican Party is the choice of conservatives.

Hugo

How how did the democratic stances and policies towards Blacks destroy the south. This is the first time I ever heard such a thing.

This is exactly why all social programs should originate and be funded in the state and not the federal government. States could compete with each other as citizens within each state would support, if one state were generous then perhaps people from other states would flock to the state that doled out the most goodies. If a state wanted a liberal government that provided generous social programs then it would clearly be the will of the citizens of the represented.

The federal or state governments owes no citizen compassion period, it just isn’t in the constitution. Any compassion doled out to citizens by the government just steals funds from the remaining citizens. Compassion is the job of family and the church. Politicians, liberals or the Democratic Party are bought and paid for by people who want them to steal for them in the name of unearned compassion, or in other words votes for sale. And as pointed out clearly it is not a black and white issue as many white and Spanish citizens also think the government “owes” them compassion.

Competitive state level compassion could possibly work to resolve problems but the federal government is just too large to police itself, people witnessing fraud need to be able to reach out and slap a lawmaker. Let me bore you with just plain human nature, some people are lazy or just will take advantage of a social program even if they don’t need it just to gain added comfort. Here a common practice is to divorce and let the wife and four kids file for federal welfare and once the checks start coming the man moves back in with the family. The fed’s never check once the checks start because it costs too much to manage a program. So, the dad goes under the table not using banks or his SSAN for any income production so he can’t be traced to pay child support. Often these folks work construction or open roadside barbeque or hot dog stands or sell drugs. These fine unfortunate citizens drive fine cars and most wake late to watch their 500 channels of TV selection. Everyone knows who he or she is and how they live but the locals know their tax isn’t paying for it so they say nothing. If these folks were taking the free ride on PR tax paid by neighbors then the mailman would be talking, the neighbors, the folks working at the bank and every construction worker and vendor would be licensed and drug dealers would be turned in. These pukes use the system to prop themselves up because they know no government official from the fed will come visit and with no consequence they live the easy life of beach, beers and luxury in comparison to their working counterparts. The government cannot legally play Robin Hood when the poor are just lazy and the rich are just working taxpayers. The government owes no love and compassion on my dime!

Just a passing thought these same folks not contributing tax or SS then at age 62 hit the system for their retirement, now how sweet is that?

The extortion of tax funds for votes should be illegal!

Boy was that poor writing on my part. What I meant to say was the Democrats destroyed their own Southern base.

Of course there are many who do argue that Sherman and reconstruction sure put the South in a hole.

Here is what the RNC emailed me this evening about black history month.



I thought this email would be appropriate for this discussion.

I see... I thought you could have meant that but wanted to be sure. On with the debate.

So let's look at it with out some moral tint. Right or wrong Whites bailed on the Democrats when they started courting the Black vote. Now Democrats were the dominant party, you say, but they gave up this dominance by becoming more inclusive. I actually agree with you, but my question is "Why did Whites leave??" Now remember you said



Now if the reason the demographic area now referred to as "Nascar Dad" left the Democrats way due to their courtship of Black votes am I wrong to characterize that as racism?? Why don't Republicans court the Black vote?? Because they know it will hurt their base.
Blacks are HIGHLY religious people. They are conservative in many the same ways as "Nascar dads" so why won't Republicans "roll the dice" and show some desire to want Blacks within their tent. Surprise us!! But they won't, precisely because it will be "Rolling the dice" They know by doing so they will anger their base. But why? We all know the game politicians "woo" us, they pander to us... all of us!!! So why.... why, why why, why, WHY will pandering, wooing, courting, whatever you want to call it, getting the Black(or other minorities) anger the Republican base???

Is it not Racism at it's heart?? And if that is the Republican base (NascarDad) is the heart and soul of that party (notice I didn't say mastermind) why am I wrong to see that party as racist.

And if this is the case why do Conservatives constantly try to blow smoke up my tail. "Oh the poor Blacks have just been brainwashed to thinking the Democrats truly care. They can't figure out that they've had the wool pulled over their eyes"
No we haven't... we're just in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" predicament. On one side we got a party that gives us a lot of lip service and a lil' something, something. On the other side, well the other side can't, no WON"T give us anything unless we are totally assimilated and fall in strict lines with their ideology, because if they do reach out to Blacks they jeopardize splintering their base.

And I'm fine with this, I just don't understand the feigned resentment and indignation when Blacks let slip we think the Republican party as a racist party. Of course, it is wrong to categorize so many people with any kind of a broad brush and I am not being inflammatory here. But if racist is too strong a word, can we agree that a party that gets their panties in a bunch at the idea of wooing other minority races has serious deep-seeded racial issues??

Ol'Sarge


Stealing?? Is that what they are doing when they take my taxes?? O.k. They steal from republicans and give to the poor, they steal from democrats to go fight a war. (hey that rhymed ) Shame on them.



Well that's an idea... they can flock to another State. And states could play good shepherd and create laws so that all the poor people would be herded to a couple of liberal states that cared. But then if all the poor were going to one or two States, the States would likely collapse trying to help them all. And then oh how would the conservative states laugh and gloat at this "See what happens when the government is compassionate? It's better to let them starve." Oh that is such a delightful idea, I think I'll turn it into a story and tell it to my babies when I tuck them in tonight!!!

I would like to comment on this question with a little common sense. The Repubs do invite the blacks into the party they just don’t have a way to woo them because the party only offers back tax and smaller government, they aren’t offering anything else to anyone. The people the Repubs want are those who want less entitlements, tax and government along with a strong defense.


National security is in the constitution and compassion is not. If an elected official is elected to give someone something other than security and basic constitutional protections then his or her vote is being traded for the spoils of Robin Hood mania.

You apparently think the government owes the poor something and I disagree. I didn’t get to choose my parents I’m poor, born into poverty and pulled myself up to maybe 85K and now by choice down to 35K and I don’t feel the government owes me a darned thing other than my basic rights and national security. The folks convinced the government owes them something also assume a standard of dignity along with it. I want electricity, AC, heat, TV, cell phone, tattoos, earrings, designer clothes, baby sitters, after school care, a nice ride because I’m an unfortunate citizen.

I wash dishes behind every meal I personally cook; I don’t have any of those things on someone else’s dime. I don’t buy sodas from a machine or go to fast food restaurants, I don’t give a bank 20% of my income so I can ride in a newer car or buy stuff I want in advance of earning money for it. I can’t afford credit because that is for rich people along with all of the standards society sets. My X had a misfortunate black neighbor with four kids with similar income as my X and she came back from the county office with a nice AC in her trunk and told my X thanks God for those nice folks working over there for Mr. Clinton, not only did they give me an AC, they offered to come over tomorrow and install it and will help me with my electric bill. I’m sorry to be cold but I saved up for three years to put a $2,500 AC in my house and finally got it two years ago. I’ve operated it less than 20 times and the average temperatures in my house in the winter are 80F in the evenings and 120F in the summer. I just can’t quite afford to run the darn thing without going into my savings or putting it on credit. The government doesn’t owe me squat!

So how do you get less taxes and a strong military?? You spend less on everything else but the military!! You destroy federal programs for the less fortunate... Hmmm, so let me get what you are saying.... It is not that Republicans lack compassionate for Blacks, it's that, on a political or Government level, they lack compassionate... PERIOD!!! Is this the message you are trying to convey or amI misinterpreting. I do have one question for that theory. Why was the mass exodus of white democrats closer, in time, to the civil rights movements, rather than FDR's social reforms??



Really..?? Article I-> Section 8-> Clause 1



Looks to me that Congress can raise taxes for the welfare of the citizens, unless you think they are talking about watering the grass!! But once again I get the point of what you are saying. You know Robin Hood was a thief, but he was good. The sheriff of Nottingham was a man of law, but very much a villain. I have a point.... but it's off topic



They don't owe you nothing "but...." "other than....." Well, stop right there!!! You have needs and interests!!! Needs that you want the government to fulfill. I don't really care what they are. Blacks, we also have needs and interests, we seek to be part of a political process that helps address those needs. As you point out, the republican party would be the wrong party, because they don't address the needs of people in a compassionate way.

And I don't think the government owes me anything, because I don't think the government is a person. I think of it as a tool of the people. We just have different ideas when the tool is being misused. I want the tool to help out urban, impoverished areas, not because the government owes me, but because it needs the help. Just like under your name where it says "very conservative..." under my name it states "very liberal" Just like you want to use my tax dollars to go fight wars and kill people and figure out how to waste a few billion dollars on some bunking busting nuclear bomb research, I want to spend your tax dollars on helping the poor and uplifting them and spend billions of dollars to fund the programs that will do it. Hey if it makes you feel better you get to spend more on yours than I get to spend on mine.

Did your unfortunate neighbor really put the s on "thanks[s] God for those nice folks?" Is this inadvertent or mocking of black speech patterns? Just thought I'd ask.



Fine, but what are you going to do when you really get old and are susceptible to heat? Should the government, under the general welfare clause droop mentioned, provide or help provide air conditioning where, for example, a child or elderly person's health is at risk. Asthmatics, for instance, would suffer and probably die in a 120 degree environment. While were on health, do you think we should dismantle CDC? Why shucks, I'm retired and it ain't in my self-interest to vaccinate kids.

Your thinking would have been extreme even for the social Darwinism of the 19th century--more in line with the Englishman Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner of Yale than John Locke. Why is it so necessary for some people to put forth such a hard, tough persona-something I've noted for years here in Texas where we led the nation in little other than executing prisoners. In all seriousness, the ruggedness of the frontier is no longer necessary or desirable. It was cool in Larry McMurtry's Lonesome Dove characters Woodrow Call and Augustus McCrae, but not in the 21st Century urban America. The Rangers hanging Jake Spoon in Lonesome Dove ws one thing, but running a conveyor belt--heavily minority--to the death house gurney is at best a dubious Bush/Perry accomplishment.

If Social Darwinism represents the Republican Party, then I want none of it and despite the Bush administration's attempt to lull Blacks to sleep with non-issues like gay marriage as Lenoard Pitts (my first post on this thread) alleges, I don't think many of them are going to buy into it either.

I suggest you read Federalist Paper 41 for an understanding of the intention of the words general welfare in the Constitution. James Madison is often referred to as the father of the Constitution...see my signature.

Do you consider yourself a racist if you support programs that benefit blacks, e.g. affirmative action, at the expense of whites? Or do you believe affirmative action is leveling the playing field? Could a white man believe that affirmative action programs are racist? Could he believe that hiring and admissions policy should be color blind without being a racist?

Maybe we all have a bit of a racist streak in us. Now the question is what brings out that streak and what serves to diminish it. IMO, equal protection under the law and a limited government that empowers individuals, instead of groups, is the best way to diminish racism.

The Republicans are not going to seek black votes by adopting the policies of the Democratic Party. If you believe welfare is a great benefit to the black community I guess you should remain a Democrat. If you study the situation and see what welfare has done to the black family you might come to an understanding that welfare is a cancer that needs to be cut out. It is one thing to be compassionate...it is another thing to be foolish.

Oddly conservatives have earned the mistrust of blacks through their opposition of equal protection under the law in the 50's and 60's. Now they seem to be making inroads in the black community through the means of opposing equal protection under the law to gay Americans.

Another thing that the Republicans have to combat is the myth that the "Southern strategy" initiated by the 68 Nixon campaign, and pretty much followed by the Republicans since, is a racist strategy. From the co-author of the Southern strategy, Pat Buchanan about the straightest shooting politician I know.

From: The neocons & Nixon's southern strategy



Later same article: