Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is no logical reason for Black America to switch allegiance to the Republican Party.
The Democratic Party has long been known as the party that has most adequately addressed the needs and concerns of the Black community. Democrats were at the forefront of the Civil Rights movement. For many blacks, that has been enough reason to support the Democratic Party is every election since. Also, Clinton's policies helped to lower the percentage of African-Americans in poverty to record levels.
While Democrats may not address every concern of the Black community, I think they have done a better job than Republicans, who ignore the concerns of pretty much everyone expect the rich.
The Democratic Party has long been able to take the Black vote for granted. It's one of the only reasons why they are successful during elections. If Blacks didn't vote for Democratic candidates, many times they would stand no chance against rival Republicans.
I just read this entire thread of posts, and out of all the posts, this one comes the closest to describing the current , not historical state of affairs, as to why there is a perceived corrolary between the racist-Republican argument.
The key phrase is 'needs and concerns'. Examine that, and what its translation amounts to. Then look at the overall Republican stance towards taxation, versus Democrats.
Back in 1994, Charles Rangel came the closest when he made the following remark: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=2085
in stating his feelings towards taxes and racism. And, to me, that is the largest hurdle Republicans have in courting black votes. Blacks are instinctively against tax cuts, because there is a feeling that these taxes fund programs that benefit their race over others.
That's about the best explanation I can come up with.
Are you on about the Dixiecrats? They're Republican now in case you didnt know. Their sons and grandsons.
"Republicans and Civil Rights," published by that famously nonpartisan house of truth, Newsmax?
The Newsmax article's points are addressed in the link I provided. From that link, "Barry Goldwater, the 1964 Republican presidential nominee, won five Deep South states because of his opposition to the Civil Rights Act.... Republican George H.W. Bush opposed the Civil Rights Act in his 1964 run for the U.S. Senate. (Bush lost to Democrat Ralph Yarborough, who was the only Southern senator to vote for the Civil Rights Act.)....Ronald Reagan, in his 1966 campaign to become governor of California, endorsed repeal of California’s Fair Housing Act, saying, 'If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, it is his right to do so.'"
OTOH the other link looks sincere and interesting and Im off to read that now.
Of course Barry Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act, it was not about Civil Rights but rather Federal Intervention which was against the principals of our founding fathers. Discrimination is another issue, another can of worms, for example in the course of federal intervention would affirmative action be reverse discrimination? The original Act was not of 1964 but went all the way back in 1875 by Republicans in reconstruction. Regarding the Fair Housing Act, if there is supposed to be federal regulation on non-discrimination, as of 2007 it does not apply to situations with persons with bad credit and/or even sexual orientation and gender. So if a person was of a minority group and had bad credit, certainly you could refuse to him based on credit but not based on race, it makes it all too easy to pull out the race card. The matter of the fact is, renters renting out their own property will discriminate in a way or another and it makes it a better functioning unit when people get along than renting to someone you don't want to. Social dysfunction more often leads to discrimination.
The man who eventually passed the Civil Rights act LBJ was initially against the Civil Rights Act, Kennedy and Eisenhower were also against the idea in the 50s. The 14th amendment states that States are not to discriminate individuals but we all know that discrimination in this day and age spurs from individuals and not states in a first world nation conspiring to deny the underpriviledged, if anything discrimination is based on a socio-economic status more than color, not denying that people aren't racist, but there are bad apples everywhere. LBJ didn't even run for a second term as he escalated an unpopular war, his idea of a great society failed and the democrats divided into 4 seperate groups Johnson+Humphrey, anti-war McCarthy and Kennedy who represented Blacks and Catholics, Wallace who represented White Southerners, so called today as Dixiecrats.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
