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.
Goldwater opposed it on Civil Rights grounds. LBJ championed it. But apparently not on grounds of moving forward towards King's dream. Otherwise he would not have be out there using the divisive tactic of the false accusation. Which approach was more honorable? Which would get your vote:
LBJ had to talk like that to the Southern senators to secure their votes and show that he was "still one of them". You'll find tapes where he is using that language with influential Dem senators like Dick Russell of Georgia, Smathers of Fla and other assorted men. He had to "play both sides" to influence them. Anyway, his actions and results count for more than his use of the "n" word. Without LBJ's influence, I'd hate to think what this country's civil rights laws would be.
LBJ had to talk like that to the Southern senators to secure their votes and show that he was "still one of them". You'll find tapes where he is using that language with influential Dem senators like Dick Russell of Georgia, Smathers of Fla and other assorted men. He had to "play both sides" to influence them. Anyway, his actions and results count for more than his use of the "n" word. Without LBJ's influence, I'd hate to think what this country's civil rights laws would be.
I have to admit I don't know all that much about LBJ. In the few US history surveys I've read, he seems to get short shrift, sandwiched between the drama-packed JFK and Nixon presidencies. But running across this info has whetted my appetite and I'll look for some more reading material about LBJ, Goldwater, and the race of 1964.
You have to admit that being rated as the #1 dirtiest campaigner, and apparently basically inventing 'call them racist' does not look good on LBJ's resume. Nonetheless, OTOH you look back and he did play a role in getting the ball rolling in progress on civil rights/race relations. Thie history is interesting to me because it's a rare case where a small voting block (blacks @ about 12 pct or so of US pop) were nonetheless able to fight a political war and eventually triumph (even if some now don't want to admit that they did triumph).
In the end, the problem isn't that democrats call republicans racist, it's that republicans continue to say racist things. Want to recruit minority voters? Stop calling Hispanic people "aliens" or "illegals". Stop insisting that black people are all lazy or violent. And please stop carting out some black guy to blather about "Dat democrat plantation".
Not that you guys will listen - let's be honest, you only want minorities on your side to make you feel good about yourselves. The actual work of building a coalition, welcoming others, as the democrats have done, is far beyond you.
In the end, the problem isn't that democrats call republicans racist, it's that republicans continue to say racist things. Want to recruit minority voters? Stop calling Hispanic people "aliens" or "illegals".
All hispanics aren't aliens or illegal but several are.
The IRS calls aliens "aliens." Do you think we made it up? It's the title of tax returns. Here's the IRS definition:
Taxation of Nonresident Aliens
An alien is any individual who is not a U.S. citizen or U.S. national. A nonresident alien is an alien who has not passed the green card test or the substantial presence test.
A resident alien's income is generally subject to tax in the same manner as a U.S. citizen. If you are a resident alien, you must report all interest, dividends, wages, or other compensation for services, income from rental property or royalties, and other types of income on your U.S. tax return. You must report these amounts whether from sources within or outside the United States.
An alien who is legally permitted to remain in a country which is foreign to him or her. On specified terms, this kind of alien may be called a legal alien of that country. This is a very broad category which includes tourists, guest workers, legal permanent residents and student visa resident aliens.
An alien who has temporary or permanent residence in a country (which is foreign to him/her) may be called a resident alien of that country. This is a subset of the aforementioned legal alien category.
An alien who is visiting a country (which is foreign to him/her) may be called a nonresident alien of that country. This is a subset of the aforementioned legal alien category.
An alien who is present in a country (which is foreign to him/her) unlawfully or without the country's authorization is known as an illegal alien of that country.[2] An undocumented alien commonly refers to a foreign national who resides in another country unlawfully, either by entering that country at a place other than a designated port-of-entry or as result of the expiration of a non-immigrant visa.
An enemy alien is an alien who is a national of an enemy country."
I think you'd agree that Dems and LBJ didn't invent racism and the exploitation of it for political purposes.
Did LBJ use Goldwater's alleged racism against him and was he in fact racist are the question. What did LBJ say or do to paint Goldwater as a racist and did Goldwater's words and actions indicate racism?
In the 1964 Presidential election Team LBJ produced a children's coloring book showing Barry Goldwater dressed in KKK robes. I hadn't heard that before so I went looking for more info. It comes from a book from several years ago entitled "Anything for a Vote" by historian Joesph Cummins. The Politics of Personal Destruction | PoliNation
In fact Goldwater was always way ahead of the curve on the issue of diversity. As a military officer he was proud to have worked in an all-black unit, and later was an unabashed supporter of allowing gays in the military, before it became fashionable. Barry Goldwater on the Military Ban
In the North, Team LBJ said Barry was KKK, while in the South they spread the true Goldwater record to white voters, calculating that Southern white voters would be turned off. Cummins rated the 1964 LBJ campaign as the #1 dirtiest ever.
So "call them racist" for Democrats and liberals is nothing new--not even recent. It goes back just about a half century now...and counting.
LBJ said Goldwater was a member of the kkk?? Link?
1968--Nixon wins, largely because of his southern strategy and invoking the fears of the so-called silent majority in terms of law and order. Reagan was the Gov. of CA at this time. George Wallace's bid as an Independent helped as he somewhat unexpectedly peeled some blue-collar urban white voters from the Democrats. Wallace won MS, AR, GA, LA, and AL. (See The Silent Majority and Suburban Warriors).
1972--Nixon wins re-election, largely by using the same tactics as before (anti-busing, pro law and order, etc.). McGovern was hurt by late revelations that his VP had been treated for mental illness, plus his campaign was not handled well. He only carried MA and the District. Here you can see the South turning more solidly red.
1976--Carter wins, boosted by his somewhat outsider status given Watergate, his "native son" appeal to southerners, and his faith-based appeals. Much of the South again voted for Carter even though by then, national politicians like Thurmond and Lott had switched parties.
1980--Reagan wins, running on a campaign of optimism bolstered by dog-whistle appeals to white southern voters (for example, extolling that he believed in states' rights in Neshoba County, MS). He also continued the blue-collar defection from the Democrats that began in '68. Carter inherited some humongous political and economic problems, and I don't think he was equipped to deal with them; he was too decent to engage in the realpolitick skills needed to negotiate those times.
1984--Reagan wins re-election in a huge landslide, with Mondale carrying only MN and the District. The right-wing populism and grassroots activism discussed in Suburban Warriors regarding Goldwater reaches its fruition here.
1988--during the George H.W. Bush and Dukakis race, according to polling, it arguably appeared that Dukakis would win until a couple of months before the election. The economy, while not great, had improved, but the campaign floundered--there was the Kitty Dukakis/rape question and the Willie Horton thing, but I think Dukakis also failed to connect with the American people, something Reagan was really good at. Arguably, though, being able to make a personal connection with people is not a substantial criterion for whether one is qualified to be the POTUS.
1992--Cue in neo-liberalism and Clinton vs. Bush the elder. Clinton's campaign focused on the economy and Clinton's charisma, while moving the Democrats to the right in terms of economic policy. This move to the center was meant to bring both southern whites and urban blue-collar workers back into the fold. Clinton carried AR, LA, and GA in the Deep South, most of the NE and Great Lakes region, and the West.
1996--more of the same, this time against Dole, although the South was moving back into the red column, with GA turning red. Clinton survived the Lewinsky scandal as he had the previous sex scandals, and he presided over the dot.com boom/bust cycle--a bubble that thankfully didn't last as long or have as devastating effects as the recent real estate one has had.
In any case, I have totally flattened a lot of history here, but suffice it to say that it is a gross oversimplification to say that one or another party engages in race-baiting or whatever other divisive tactic to the exclusion of the other. The Democratic party that LBJ, a native Texan, had to contend with in 1964 included unabashed segregationists like Thurmond and Eastland. Both JFK before he was assassinated and RFK before he was killed had to deal with segregationist Democratic governors like Wallace and especially Ross Barnett during the crisis at Ole Miss in '62.
The political realignments that DD mentions have been ongoing throughout our history; politicians and others have used us vs. them sentiments, whether based on fears of other races, immigrants, creeds, or classes since before the formation of the Republic. It seems to me that it is silly to blame one contemporary political party of doing so without taking something of a long view of history that could extend back as far as your free time for researching will allow. That being said, as humans we can always do our best to make the best judgments that we can about any decisions we make about our shared interests given the available information at the time.
Is that why the last Klansman in Congress was a democrat from West Virginia?
No such thing as civil rights, that's another thing you've made up in order to fit your twisted agenda. Personal liberties were taken from people by the big government YOU support. That happened with help from both parties.
Of course for a bigot there is not such things as civil rights. A bigots worse night mare is for everybody to have an equal opportunity to participate in the political process.
In fact Goldwater was always way ahead of the curve on the issue of diversity. As a military officer he was proud to have worked in an all-black unit, and later was an unabashed supporter of allowing gays in the military, before it became fashionable. Barry Goldwater on the Military Ban
In the North, Team LBJ said Barry was KKK, while in the South they spread the true Goldwater record to white voters, calculating that Southern white voters would be turned off. Cummins rated the 1964 LBJ campaign as the #1 dirtiest ever.
LBJ had to talk like that to the Southern senators to secure their votes and show that he was "still one of them". You'll find tapes where he is using that language with influential Dem senators like Dick Russell of Georgia, Smathers of Fla and other assorted men. He had to "play both sides" to influence them. Anyway, his actions and results count for more than his use of the "n" word. Without LBJ's influence, I'd hate to think what this country's civil rights laws would be.
Wow - a liberal justifying a white man's use of the "n" word.
Makes one wonder what one might hear if they bugged the homes of a cross section of your average race-baiting liberal.
Of course for a bigot there is not such things as civil rights. A bigots worse night mare is for everybody to have an equal opportunity to participate in the political process.
That explains why many liberals want people of faith to not be able to be part of the political process.
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.
