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.
People might not know this but the Democratic Party has historically been the party choice of Southern whites, most of which were racist. Lincoln was a Republican and his freeing the slaves bolstered the popularity of the Democratic Party even more.
During the civil rights movement, a greater percentage of Republicans supported civil rights legislation than Democrats. However, many southern whites were upset with the Democratic Party for its supported of civil rights legislation, because most southern whites were democrats but also racist at that time.
In opposition to the support the Democratic Party gave to civil rights, many southern politicians defected and formed the Dixicrat Party. The Dixicrat Party was formed for racist reason. It wanted to uphold segregation and deny black people rights and the pursuit of equality. In other words, it wanted to deny black people scarce resources and thus preserve white privilege and status.
The Dixicrat Party proved not able to get enough vote to win national election for Presidency, and the party eventually became defunct. However, its member and followers did not fold back into the Democratic ranks, but rather, became Republicans. In other words, the “movement” (of political racism) shifted to the Republican Party and a Southern strategy was born for Republican presidential candidates boosted by an infusion of southern racist who wanted to keep black people down.
Anyone who knows history knows that racism always has had a political conduit or manifestation. There have always been people who wanted to keep black people down and who picked the political party that seemed to best represent that interest. Over time the political conduit of racism interest has shifted from Democrats to Republicans.
This is not to suggest that there are not racist liberals. There are people who are racist that are also liberal, but they are not “one issue voters” who will cut off their nose to spite their face. They may have labor interest and find the democrats best represent their labor interest, even though they are racist and hence chose to vote not to keep blacks down, but to keep themselves up.
In conclusion, politics has always been conduits for racist interest and the most passionate racist have always gravitated to the party that best represented their interest to keep blacks down. That party used to be the Democratic Party but since the civil rights movement that party has become the Republican Party. It really does not take rocket science to figure out why the US is the only majority white Western nation that does not have socialist type policies. Its primarily because many people do not want to see people who do not look like them as the disproportionate benefactors of such liberalism.
Indeed, based on their 2001 study—which they say is still applicable today—the three researchers concluded that race is a major factor in the generosity or lack thereof built into American social assistance programs.
With unabashed bluntness, the study—completed by Harvard economics professors Alesina and Edward Gleaser, and Bruce Sacerdote of Dartmouth—stated: “Race is the single most important predictor of support for welfare. America’s troubled race relations are clearly a major reason for the absence of an American welfare state.”
The study goes on to conclude that, “A natural generalization of race-based theory is that Americans think of the poor as members of some different group other than themselves, whereas Europeans think of the poor as members of their own group.”
The racist party is the Democrat party again. Yes, it shifted to the Republicans for a while but it has shifted back. It was never an inherent part of conservatism. They played on racism for votes 40 years ago. The idea that conservatives have been forever after defined by the Southern Strategy is myth. The Democrats continue to use race baiting as a method of obscuring that fact. "The guy with the D by his name gave me free stuff. The guy with the R next to his name didn't. The D must be my friend and the R must hate me" is what it boils down to. It's schoolyard level analysis but it is far simpler to understand and appeals to the emotions more than the reality of entitlements creating a permanent underclass so entire swathes of the population have eaten it up.
Secondly, the idea that racism is the primary reason why America is not socialist is, quite honestly, absurd. The Constitution is the reason America is not socialist. Racism doesn't have squat to do with it one way or the other.
It’s said that if you give a person a fish that person can eat for a day but if you teach a person to fish the person can eat for a lifetime. This, however, assumes an infinite supply of fish in the area.
"Fish" in this context is an icon for work. There is an infinite supply of work.
Quote:
In our economy, there is not an infinite demand for educated people. There is not an infinite demand for doctors, lawyers, chemist, engineers, lawyers, etc. The fact is that only about 26% of the jobs in the economy require a college degree and many of those jobs don’t care what the degree is in, which means that the degree is not really needed, but rather, simply a filtering criteria.
True, but there is an infinite demand for skilled workers. And by the way, you only need the model to work for one person; YOU. There are several million job openings today. Many for educated people, many for skilled people and many for unskilled people.
Quote:
When society tells people that they can have the same status and wealth as others if they simply work hard and follows the rules, it’s not really true.
Society does not say that. Nobody says that. What most of us do say is that people can have a comfortable life with self discipline and hard work.
Quote:
Secondly, we all cannot have high status because status is a relative construct.
True. So what?
Quote:
Thirdly, when we accept the lies then we also accept that if people don’t “make it’ that it’s their own fault for not working hard and following the rules like those who have “made it” did, which makes it easy to rationalize not helping people.
The lies are yours. Any healthy American can build a comfortable life for themselves with self discipline and hard work.
People might not know this but the Democratic Party has historically been the party choice of Southern whites, most of which were racist. Lincoln was a Republican and his freeing the slaves bolstered the popularity of the Democratic Party even more.
During the civil rights movement, a greater percentage of Republicans supported civil rights legislation than Democrats. However, many southern whites were upset with the Democratic Party for its supported of civil rights legislation, because most southern whites were democrats but also racist at that time.
In opposition to the support the Democratic Party gave to civil rights, many southern politicians defected and formed the Dixicrat Party. The Dixicrat Party was formed for racist reason. It wanted to uphold segregation and deny black people rights and the pursuit of equality. In other words, it wanted to deny black people scarce resources and thus preserve white privilege and status.
You were doing great, until you got to "...and formed the Dixicrat Party." There was never a "Dixicrat Party." The Dixiecrats, like the Blue Dog Coalition, where Democrats and remained within the Democrat Party. They did not form a separate political party. Dixiecrats did indeed support segregation, as you said. They considered themselves as pro-State's Rights. Their success peaked when former Gov. George Wallace ran as an Independent for President in 1968. Wallace gained the Electors from five southern States which gave him 48 Electoral Votes.
During the 1972 General Election, those five southern States that voted for Wallace voted for Nixon instead, having felt betrayed by the Democrat Party.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indentured Servant
Anyone who knows history knows that racism always has had a political conduit or manifestation. There have always been people who wanted to keep black people down and who picked the political party that seemed to best represent that interest. Over time the political conduit of racism interest has shifted from Democrats to Republicans.
I disagree. The Democrat Party is clearly still a racist and sexist party, as evidenced by their ardent support for Affirmative Action. They claim to be tolerant, but in reality are the least tolerant of any political party. The Republican Party has exactly the opposite problem. The Republican Party is overly tolerant, including bigots, religious zealots, and conspiracy theory nuts among their ranks.
During the 1990s, after the GOP victory in 1994, hundreds of Democrats nationwide switched parties to become Republicans. Including Gov. Perry. None of them were conservative, they just wanted to remain with the political party in power. They were opportunist liberals, and they are the biggest problem with the GOP to this day, and the primary reason why so many true conservatives have abandoned the GOP.
People might not know this but the Democratic Party has historically been the party choice of Southern whites, most of which were racist. Lincoln was a Republican and his freeing the slaves bolstered the popularity of the Democratic Party even more.
During the civil rights movement, a greater percentage of Republicans supported civil rights legislation than Democrats. However, many southern whites were upset with the Democratic Party for its supported of civil rights legislation, because most southern whites were democrats but also racist at that time.
In opposition to the support the Democratic Party gave to civil rights, many southern politicians defected and formed the Dixicrat Party. The Dixicrat Party was formed for racist reason. It wanted to uphold segregation and deny black people rights and the pursuit of equality. In other words, it wanted to deny black people scarce resources and thus preserve white privilege and status.
The Dixicrat Party proved not able to get enough vote to win national election for Presidency, and the party eventually became defunct. However, its member and followers did not fold back into the Democratic ranks, but rather, became Republicans. In other words, the “movement” (of political racism) shifted to the Republican Party and a Southern strategy was born for Republican presidential candidates boosted by an infusion of southern racist who wanted to keep black people down.
Anyone who knows history knows that racism always has had a political conduit or manifestation. There have always been people who wanted to keep black people down and who picked the political party that seemed to best represent that interest. Over time the political conduit of racism interest has shifted from Democrats to Republicans.
This is not to suggest that there are not racist liberals. There are people who are racist that are also liberal, but they are not “one issue voters” who will cut off their nose to spite their face. They may have labor interest and find the democrats best represent their labor interest, even though they are racist and hence chose to vote not to keep blacks down, but to keep themselves up.
In conclusion, politics has always been conduits for racist interest and the most passionate racist have always gravitated to the party that best represented their interest to keep blacks down. That party used to be the Democratic Party but since the civil rights movement that party has become the Republican Party. It really does not take rocket science to figure out why the US is the only majority white Western nation that does not have socialist type policies. Its primarily because many people do not want to see people who do not look like them as the disproportionate benefactors of such liberalism.
Indeed, based on their 2001 study—which they say is still applicable today—the three researchers concluded that race is a major factor in the generosity or lack thereof built into American social assistance programs.
With unabashed bluntness, the study—completed by Harvard economics professors Alesina and Edward Gleaser, and Bruce Sacerdote of Dartmouth—stated: “Race is the single most important predictor of support for welfare. America’s troubled race relations are clearly a major reason for the absence of an American welfare state.”
The study goes on to conclude that, “A natural generalization of race-based theory is that Americans think of the poor as members of some different group other than themselves, whereas Europeans think of the poor as members of their own group.”
Speaking of history, the Civil rights act was passed in 1964 WITH the help from many repubs.
Rather then complaining about racism, IF you find it has happened, report it.
It’s said that if you give a person a fish that person can eat for a day but if you teach a person to fish the person can eat for a lifetime. This, however, assumes an infinite supply of fish in the area. When scarcity exists teaching others to fish, while you yourself are dependent upon fish, would likely threaten one’s own ability to eat. Hence, for those who know how to fish would it not be better to give people fish instead of teaching them how to fish? That way the supply could be rationed to those who do not know how to fish and those who know how to fish can keep their wealthy allocation, thus preserving their status.
In our economy, there is not an infinite demand for educated people. There is not an infinite demand for doctors, lawyers, chemist, engineers, lawyers, etc. The fact is that only about 26% of the jobs in the economy require a college degree and many of those jobs don’t care what the degree is in, which means that the degree is not really needed, but rather, simply a filtering criteria. If the vast majority of the labor force became educated, there would not be enough educated jobs for them, just like there would not be enough fish in a lake if too many people started catching them faster than they can reproduce.
When society tells people that they can have the same status and wealth as others if they simply work hard and follows the rules, it’s not really true. It’s only true to the degree that there is a supply demand gap where supply falls short of demand and certainly the demand for educated skills sets in the economy is much smaller than the available labor pool in the economy. Secondly, we all cannot have high status because status is a relative construct. Thirdly, when we accept the lies then we also accept that if people don’t “make it’ that it’s their own fault for not working hard and following the rules like those who have “made it” did, which makes it easy to rationalize not helping people.
In light of that, I submit to you the proposition that classism and racism are conscious or subconscious efforts to preserve status and rank. In other words, classism and racism goal is to prevent others from learning and hence competing for scarce resources that create rank and wealth. Racism and classism are really all about economics and the allocation of scarce resources. Hence, as the general rule racism seeks to keep a certain race in control of scarce resources, while classism, on the other hand, seeks to keep their disproportionate allocation of scarce resources from the lower classes. Racism and Classism are overlapping because one of the impacts of racism on the oppressed race is that it disproportionately places them in the lower classes resulting in their race being the disproportionate victims of classism as well.
How does politics in America facilitate racism, classism and the allocation of scarce resources? If one wanted to keep blacks from rising what party would one vote for or against? If one wanted to keep poor people from rising what party would one vote for or against? It does not appear really that any political party is trying to teach the lower class to fish. The democrats promote giving people fish while the republicans are against giving fish but offer no teaching, just preaching of personal responsibility. In either case, neither approach is an efficient means of making the lower class or racial groups more competitive. In other words, simply giving people fish or simply preaching to people that they should be more personally responsible, is not very effective and maybe purposely so.
National politics in America is a rich white man’s occupation for the most part, regardless if they are democrat or republicans, liberal or conservative. The fact is the minorities and the poor are underrepresented in the body politics, relative to their numbers in the general population. More than anything else, the interest of the rich are being represented and protected via our political system because money buys influence. Even if minorities due rise in the process, they are beholden to white voter and the dollars of the rich and hence that is who they must represent policy wise to be electable. Hence, scarce resources are not really threatened by redistribution as is embellished.
If the poor and some minorities are liabilities for working people, then teaching them how to fish seems to be the most logical means of turning these liabilities into assets, unless people really fear that teaching them to fish will cost them more than keeping them ignorant does. Would not the reduction of welfare rolls, inmate incarceration cost, indigent care, Medicaid put money back into the pockets of tax payers? Would not the increased incomes put extra revenues on the balance sheets of small and large businesses? I fail to see the downside in investing in the poor, if opportunity is available for all who are willing to work hard and follow the rules. Either people recognizing that there gains may very well mean their loss or people don’t believe that the poor and minorities have the innate capacities to do any better than they are. Hence, any aid is simply a waist and permanent subsidy.
Very good thread and well written. When I think about your fishing anology what comes to my mind is we have fewer lakes. With the U S being thrown into a global economy that it could never compete with low wage countries we drained a lot of lakes. On top of that we let more fishers run across our boarders illegally and still have a policy of inviting more legal immigrants to fish.
Does it make sense to get rid of lakes and at the same time invite more people to fish? Some of are other policies are just as irresponsible, take births in the U S where Medicaid picks up the tab for close to half of births. That type of policy encourages people that can't or won't fish to create more fishermen. Would n't be better to make them take responsibility for their sex lives considering massive amounts of different B/C and all the education in schools.
America's troubled race relations? The biggest trouble in race relations are left wing politicians who use race as a form of power. They will separate everyone based on race and class as much as they can so that they can say to the people they want under their power "Look at what I have done for you and look at how you have been oppressed. We will give you money and food so vote for me." The bottom line is that it is not abou thelp but it is about power.
It really does show the how the "free ice cream" mentality pervades everything.
That might very well be true, but when you couple that with the real racism that exist from the right.....then one could see the quagmire that puts blacks under.
The right likes to talk about the racism on the left and the left wants to talk about the racism on the right but when blacks want to talk about racism people act as if it does not exist or is a non issue.
The racist party is the Democrat party again. Yes, it shifted to the Republicans for a while but it has shifted back. It was never an inherent part of conservatism. They played on racism for votes 40 years ago. The idea that conservatives have been forever after defined by the Southern Strategy is myth. The Democrats continue to use race baiting as a method of obscuring that fact. "The guy with the D by his name gave me free stuff. The guy with the R next to his name didn't. The D must be my friend and the R must hate me" is what it boils down to. It's schoolyard level analysis but it is far simpler to understand and appeals to the emotions more than the reality of entitlements creating a permanent underclass so entire swathes of the population have eaten it up.
Secondly, the idea that racism is the primary reason why America is not socialist is, quite honestly, absurd. The Constitution is the reason America is not socialist. Racism doesn't have squat to do with it one way or the other.
Note that you site no studies or point to a juncture in history which would explain how and why the political conduit to racism manifested back to the democratic party and away from the Republican party. Why would that change have taken place and when did that change take place?
You have absolutely NOTHING to back up your conjecture.
1 "Fish" in this context is an icon for work. There is an infinite supply of work.
2 True, but there is an infinite demand for skilled workers. And by the way, you only need the model to work for one person; YOU. There are several million job openings today. Many for educated people, many for skilled people and many for unskilled people.
3 Society does not say that. Nobody says that. What most of us do say is that people can have a comfortable life with self discipline and hard work.
True. So what?
4 The lies are yours. Any healthy American can build a comfortable life for themselves with self discipline and hard work.
1 There might be an infinit supply of work, if one accepts your version of the abstract meaning of the parable, but there is not an infinit supply of pay. Furthermore, to demonstrate the absurdity of your proposition, there would never exist recessions or depressions if there was an infinit supply of work and pay.
2 Demonstrate how and why there is an infinite demand for skill workers. The fact is that in our modern economy productivity has increased to the degree that it takes less input of labor to produce a unit of output of production. Mass production and automation and artificial intelligence has improved pruductivity to the degree that fewer people are needed for production. Indeed, productivity and automation, once it becomes recursive, reduces the need for workers. Most jobs lost to manufacturing has been do to gains in productivity via automation and not offshoring as many people think. Thus, there is no infinit demand for skill labor. What do you think the demand is currently for architects and construction workers now that realestate is in the dumps? I am actually insulted by such a feable rebuttal.
3 Society does offer that education and hard work is the explanation of how and why the rich became rich, which suggest that if one wants to be rich also that education and hard work is the path. What you are suggesting is that education and hard work does not explain, totally, why and how the rich are rich....and I would agree.
4 Again, if this was true there would never be recessions or depression. I guess, based upon your theory, recession are the result of increased laziness that fluctuates in cycles.
Yep. The top dogs of the Democrats are white elitists who do not want minorities anywhere near their manicured suburbs so they continue to give them fish lest they wander away from the inner cities.
Republicans (actual republicans, not neo-cons) do not offer fish nor do they offer fishing instruction. That's up to the individual. The republican, while not out to help the minorities, doesn't purposely bar their way.
Well, thats simply not true....they bar the way by stopping funding of any public schooling, or trade schools. Do you seriously think Republicans are simply innocent hard working victims of the lazy selfish Dems? Get real
Well, thats simply not true....they bar the way by stopping funding of any public schooling, or trade schools. Do you seriously think Republicans are simply innocent hard working victims of the lazy selfish Dems? Get real
It's not my responsibility to educate you. You're not my kid. I'm not stopping you. It's up to you.
You are a shining example of the entitlement mentality.
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.
