Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Original Sin Why the GOP is and will continue to be the party of white people

Original Sin Why the GOP is and will continue to be the party of white people

5 posters

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

knothead

knothead

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112365/why-republicans-are-party-white-people#

I found this to be an excellent article explaining the evolution of the GOP and the misadventures into the realm of nullification as a means to an end, It is somewhat lengthy but a good read for those of you who enjoy politics and this article is worth the short time to read . . . . . so I'm sharing to benefit from other forum members' views.

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

knothead wrote:http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112365/why-republicans-are-party-white-people#

I found this to be an excellent article explaining the evolution of the GOP and the misadventures into the realm of nullification as a means to an end, It is somewhat lengthy but a good read for those of you who enjoy politics and this article is worth the short time to read . . . . . so I'm sharing to benefit from other forum members' views.

Whew! What a history.

One paragraph stood out explaining in Calhoun's own words his justification for figuring out ways to limit the voting rights of people he basically didn't think were worthy citizens. History repeats itself in the recent efforts to do the same during this last election. This time they had to cloak their efforts in the guise of trying to keep dead people from voting or some such but the end is the same...limiting the number of voters. This view is saying, we may not have the numbers but things should go our way because we are right.

In his most notorious editorial, "Why the South Must Prevail," Buckley drew on Calhoun's championing of the "concurrent voice" to defend voting restrictions since "the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically," even if it meant violating the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Buckley repeated the argument in his book Up From Liberalism(1959), suggesting that African Americans needed to be properly educated and trained before they were brought up to the level of the enfranchised whites who were holding them down. And just as Calhoun had defended the "positive good" of slavery, so Buckley defended Jim Crow as being born of "custom and tradition ... a whole set of deeply-rooted folkways and mores." As long as the South did "not exploit the fact of Negro backwardness to preserve the Negro as a servile class," segregation was acceptable.

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

Obama really spoke to the problems we have with voting; especially the faulty distribution of an adequate number of voting machines per precinct and the unnecessary shortening of early voting days and times. There is no excuse for this other than it is a plan to reduce the number of voters who are able to participate.

knothead

knothead

Thanks to you OS for taking the time and effort to read through this somewhat lengthy but well written article . . . . . I appreciate you and your effort/comment. It really is a valid explanation of the evolution of the GOP's strategy of nullification and this clearly explained that evolution of their determination to win by hook or crook.

knothead

knothead

Thanks to you OS . You are an articulate poster and I appreciate your thoughtful and intellectual posts . . . .

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

knothead wrote:Thanks to you OS . You are an articulate poster and I appreciate your thoughtful and intellectual posts . . . .

Well, thanks. I appreciate your posts too, that's why I read the article. You know the WG's (wing nuts) get off arguing about which party was/is most in favor or more strongly supported the Civil Rights laws and point to all the NO votes coming from "Democrats" back in the day when the Southern segregationists were calling themselves Democrats because they still couldn't swallow the Republican tag because of Lincoln and the Civil War, etc. This article clearly points out why those so called "Dixie-Crats" voted No. (Because they were really what we now know as Republicans.)

To me they were always Republicans and I was entertained watching their discomfort as they struggled with the reality of their true party affiliation. Took them long enough, didn't it?

It seems they have a penchant for struggling with reality! LOL Some things never change!

Guest


Guest

Gosh... Y'all might have taught us unenlightened folks a lesson you'll never forget.

Question

knothead

knothead

PkrBum wrote:Gosh... Y'all might have taught us unenlightened folks a lesson you'll never forget.

Question

***********************************************************

Even if you meant your comment in jest, it is my hope you too have become more enlightened as did I . . . . we are never too old to learn something pkr .. .

Guest


Guest

We have a collective history... any attempt to disentangle one side from the other in it is propaganda.

But please... don't let reality diminish your joy.

Guest


Guest

PkrBum wrote:Gosh... Y'all might have taught us unenlightened folks a lesson you'll never forget.

Question

...............................

Apparently not.

If that were true, this conversation would never need to be repeated, and we both know the reality in that situation.

Just sayin'...

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

Here's the problem as I see it that the current Republican Party is struggling with: how do they become attractive to voting groups other than their shrinking white base? In order to do this in any sustainable way they need to change not only their rhetoric but their positions on many issues.

Given that they are now seen by many as the "party of stupid" as Jindal recently pointed out; how do they change without alienating their base which consists of the unlikely pairing of members of the top 1% (who don't care what they say they stand for as long as they keep throwing tax breaks their way) and the remnants of the "moral majority" cobbled together by Gingrich in the '90's?

This, from the article, points to a turning point when the Republicans were on the road to appealing to a broader base but decided to pull back from that position. Now the changing demographics of the country are working against them.


In the 1950s, when the civil rights movement began, Republicans helped lead it. The president during this period, Dwight D. Eisenhower, was skeptical about intervening on behalf of black equality and, in his first campaign, courted segregationist officials like James F. Byrnes and Harry F. Byrd. But Eisenhower also "advocated the end of segregation in the armed forces and the District of Columbia and urged the lifting of black voter restrictions," Robert Fredrick Burk writes in The Eisenhower Administration and Black Civil Rights. It was Eisenhower, too, who appointed another Republican, his vanquished rival Earl Warren, to the Supreme Court, resulting in the Brown v. Board of Education decision that outlawed legalized segregation—a bolder step than many in either party were ready for when it came in 1954.



Eisenhower, a Republican president, stood at the forefront of civil rights in the '50s.
Yet the Eisenhower campaign also saw potential advantages in Brown—and a possible route, through the nation's cities, to recapturing the House, which they had lost in 1954. "GOP strategists regard this election as a period of maximum opportunity in their dream of shattering the Roosevelt coalition and regaining the allegiance of the Negroes," James Reston wrote in The New York Times. In 1956, the GOP improved its totals in black precincts by double digits in New York and Chicago, and made gains below the Mason-Dixon Line. Overall, Eisenhower received between 35 and 40 percent of the black vote, about 5 percentage points more than he did in 1952.

polecat

polecat

Let’s see, Michael Steele? Marco Rubio? Alan West? Clarence Thomas? Yup, we love minorities. Can’t you see? Only three more zillion to go to convince. Come to our side and we might even not make you jump through hoops to vote

Guest


Guest

As much to the dismay as some would like to think.

The republican party is not going away.

We simply can NOT have a one party society and why anyone would want that is beyond me.

One might also ask why the democrats are the party of black people, when in reality all parties should be the party of the AMERICAN people.

Perhaps the left sees themselves as the party of minorities, which they use to get power. At the end of the day this type of thinking is anti-productive to the country and has led to this nation being more devided than ever.

Political leanings should not be based on race, gender or even sexual preference. It should be based on what your individual idea is of what it takes to make this country properous and great to reside and work in.

knothead

knothead

Chrissy wrote:As much to the dismay as some would like to think.

The republican party is not going away.

We simply can NOT have a one party society and why anyone would want that is beyond me.

One might also ask why the democrats are the party of black people, when in reality all parties should be the party of the AMERICAN people.

Perhaps the left sees themselves as the party of minorities, which they use to get power. At the end of the day this type of thinking is anti-productive to the country and has led to this nation being more devided than ever.

Political leanings should not be based on race, gender or even sexual preference. It should be based on what your individual idea is of what it takes to make this country properous and great to reside and work in.


**************************************************

Chrissy, no one is advocating a one party system here . . . . it is a discussion about how and why the GOP has a shrinking base and the basis for that dwindling older white voting base. The article, if you read it, did a much better job of explaining the historical evolution of the politics regarding race and the impact that is having on the political fabric of America.

I agree with you that in a Utopian societal scheme race, gender, sexual preference, etc., should not be determinants but rather based on 'ideas' to use your term. In the real world this does not materialize as you envision it. During the last election cycle, the nation witnessed state after state changing the rules regarding voting with one objective: limit minority voting or at least make it harder. This, in a nation who professes to value the right to vote as sacred. The result was a backlash against the GOP machine as people across the country stood in line for up to 10 hours or more determined to cast their vote . . . . . and cast their votes they did. This is one example but the template is cast for the GOP and they are now contemplating tinkering with the electoral college but only in strategic states to tip the scales in their favor . . . . not because their message has changed but only because it could keep them in power despite the lack of votes.

You are intelligent Chrissy but read the article and I hope you will reassess your position.

polecat

polecat

Rubio: government helped my father, government helped my mother and government helped me. it's time to get rid of all this expensive government. my new very rich friends wish to be richer.

knothead

knothead

polecat wrote:Rubio: government helped my father, government helped my mother and government helped me. it's time to get rid of all this expensive government. my new very rich friends wish to be richer.

*********************************************************

polecat, we didn't miss the irony in those mixed messages did we? The GOP has put Rubio as point man as the GOP's face of diversity . . . . . I just don't see the depth of character or a dedication to his core beliefs. In other words Rubio is an empty suit in my mind.

Guest


Guest

knothead wrote:
Chrissy wrote:As much to the dismay as some would like to think.

The republican party is not going away.

We simply can NOT have a one party society and why anyone would want that is beyond me.

One might also ask why the democrats are the party of black people, when in reality all parties should be the party of the AMERICAN people.

Perhaps the left sees themselves as the party of minorities, which they use to get power. At the end of the day this type of thinking is anti-productive to the country and has led to this nation being more devided than ever.

Political leanings should not be based on race, gender or even sexual preference. It should be based on what your individual idea is of what it takes to make this country properous and great to reside and work in.


**************************************************

Chrissy, no one is advocating a one party system here . . . . it is a discussion about how and why the GOP has a shrinking base and the basis for that dwindling older white voting base. The article, if you read it, did a much better job of explaining the historical evolution of the politics regarding race and the impact that is having on the political fabric of America.

I agree with you that in a Utopian societal scheme race, gender, sexual preference, etc., should not be determinants but rather based on 'ideas' to use your term. In the real world this does not materialize as you envision it. During the last election cycle, the nation witnessed state after state changing the rules regarding voting with one objective: limit minority voting or at least make it harder. This, in a nation who professes to value the right to vote as sacred. The result was a backlash against the GOP machine as people across the country stood in line for up to 10 hours or more determined to cast their vote . . . . . and cast their votes they did. This is one example but the template is cast for the GOP and they are now contemplating tinkering with the electoral college but only in strategic states to tip the scales in their favor . . . . not because their message has changed but only because it could keep them in power despite the lack of votes.

You are intelligent Chrissy but read the article and I hope you will reassess your position.

I am very intelligent. Most people who know me, know this.

I dont need to reassess my position. I am very well aware of the movment going on to anniliate the other side, the other side being republicans.

This thought of trying to anniliate the other side is not American at all. Its a hitler action really.

We need both sides and differing opinions. We need to have compromise in our governments thoughts and actions. Its that compromise that has made this country great. Without it we will fall. Simple as that.

We are so devided now that we cant even work on policies that are in the best interest of AMERICA in general. While we sit and fight about how strong our differences are, the people at the top are fucking us ALL to high heaven, no Hell actually.

Our media is controled, yes even fox news. all of it.

No one thinks for themselves anymore.

and as far as the altering of the electoriats. It needs to be done. simply because we CAN NOT have a ONE party system.

If you or anyone else does not see the negative effects from having a one party system, well, I dont know what to tell you.

You go ahead and participate in the killing off of the other side. If you do, you will regret it. It has always been the compromise that worked.

good luck

knothead

knothead

Chrissy wrote:
knothead wrote:
Chrissy wrote:As much to the dismay as some would like to think.

The republican party is not going away.

We simply can NOT have a one party society and why anyone would want that is beyond me.

One might also ask why the democrats are the party of black people, when in reality all parties should be the party of the AMERICAN people.

Perhaps the left sees themselves as the party of minorities, which they use to get power. At the end of the day this type of thinking is anti-productive to the country and has led to this nation being more devided than ever.

Political leanings should not be based on race, gender or even sexual preference. It should be based on what your individual idea is of what it takes to make this country properous and great to reside and work in.


**************************************************

Chrissy, no one is advocating a one party system here . . . . it is a discussion about how and why the GOP has a shrinking base and the basis for that dwindling older white voting base. The article, if you read it, did a much better job of explaining the historical evolution of the politics regarding race and the impact that is having on the political fabric of America.

I agree with you that in a Utopian societal scheme race, gender, sexual preference, etc., should not be determinants but rather based on 'ideas' to use your term. In the real world this does not materialize as you envision it. During the last election cycle, the nation witnessed state after state changing the rules regarding voting with one objective: limit minority voting or at least make it harder. This, in a nation who professes to value the right to vote as sacred. The result was a backlash against the GOP machine as people across the country stood in line for up to 10 hours or more determined to cast their vote . . . . . and cast their votes they did. This is one example but the template is cast for the GOP and they are now contemplating tinkering with the electoral college but only in strategic states to tip the scales in their favor . . . . not because their message has changed but only because it could keep them in power despite the lack of votes.

You are intelligent Chrissy but read the article and I hope you will reassess your position.

I am very intelligent. Most people who know me, know this.

I dont need to reassess my position. I am very well aware of the movment going on to anniliate the other side, the other side being republicans.

This thought of trying to anniliate the other side is not American at all. Its a hitler action really.

We need both sides and differing opinions. We need to have compromise in our governments thoughts and actions. Its that compromise that has made this country great. Without it we will fall. Simple as that.

We are so devided now that we cant even work on policies that are in the best interest of AMERICA in general. While we sit and fight about how strong our differences are, the people at the top are fucking us ALL to high heaven, no Hell actually.

Our media is controled, yes even fox news. all of it.

No one thinks for themselves anymore.

and as far as the altering of the electoriats. It needs to be done. simply because we CAN NOT have a ONE party system.

If you or anyone else does not see the negative effects from having a one party system, well, I dont know what to tell you.

You go ahead and participate in the killing off of the other side. If you do, you will regret it. It has always been the compromise that worked.

good luck

*************************************************

Couldn't agree more with you but you keep going back to a 'one party' system and my first comment to you was that was never advocated at all. We need at least two parties but the rest of what you said I essentially agree with.

Good day to you . . . .

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

One of the points of the article is that at one time the Republican Party was in the forefront of the Civil Rights Movement and then moved away from that position back to what Calhoun articulated. His ideas had to do with the concept of nullification and states' rights. That attracted a lot of white Southerners.

This worked for a while but now with fewer and fewer white people voting in every election due to the growing number of minorities the Republican Party is presented with the problem of how to attract voters from a wider audience. That is basically what the article is presenting.

It has nothing to do with anyone trying to do away with it. It has everything to do with what decisions party leaders will make in order to increase its own membership. It is an internal party problem or situation.

knothead

knothead

othershoe1030 wrote:One of the points of the article is that at one time the Republican Party was in the forefront of the Civil Rights Movement and then moved away from that position back to what Calhoun articulated. His ideas had to do with the concept of nullification and states' rights. That attracted a lot of white Southerners.

This worked for a while but now with fewer and fewer white people voting in every election due to the growing number of minorities the Republican Party is presented with the problem of how to attract voters from a wider audience. That is basically what the article is presenting.

It has nothing to do with anyone trying to do away with it. It has everything to do with what decisions party leaders will make in order to increase its own membership. It is an internal party problem or situation.

******************************************************

Great point OS, I think we've beat this dog to death . . . . . people want to hear what they want to hear and believe what they want to believe.

Like a circle in circle in a spinning wheel . . . . .

Guest


Guest

"....a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest..."

Paul Simon...The Boxer

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

W_T_M wrote:"....a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest..."

Paul Simon...The Boxer
Love Paul Simon! His lyrics are timeless.

Guest


Guest

knothead wrote:
Chrissy wrote:
knothead wrote:
Chrissy wrote:As much to the dismay as some would like to think.

The republican party is not going away.

We simply can NOT have a one party society and why anyone would want that is beyond me.

One might also ask why the democrats are the party of black people, when in reality all parties should be the party of the AMERICAN people.

Perhaps the left sees themselves as the party of minorities, which they use to get power. At the end of the day this type of thinking is anti-productive to the country and has led to this nation being more devided than ever.

Political leanings should not be based on race, gender or even sexual preference. It should be based on what your individual idea is of what it takes to make this country properous and great to reside and work in.


**************************************************

Chrissy, no one is advocating a one party system here . . . . it is a discussion about how and why the GOP has a shrinking base and the basis for that dwindling older white voting base. The article, if you read it, did a much better job of explaining the historical evolution of the politics regarding race and the impact that is having on the political fabric of America.

I agree with you that in a Utopian societal scheme race, gender, sexual preference, etc., should not be determinants but rather based on 'ideas' to use your term. In the real world this does not materialize as you envision it. During the last election cycle, the nation witnessed state after state changing the rules regarding voting with one objective: limit minority voting or at least make it harder. This, in a nation who professes to value the right to vote as sacred. The result was a backlash against the GOP machine as people across the country stood in line for up to 10 hours or more determined to cast their vote . . . . . and cast their votes they did. This is one example but the template is cast for the GOP and they are now contemplating tinkering with the electoral college but only in strategic states to tip the scales in their favor . . . . not because their message has changed but only because it could keep them in power despite the lack of votes.

You are intelligent Chrissy but read the article and I hope you will reassess your position.

I am very intelligent. Most people who know me, know this.

I dont need to reassess my position. I am very well aware of the movment going on to anniliate the other side, the other side being republicans.

This thought of trying to anniliate the other side is not American at all. Its a hitler action really.

We need both sides and differing opinions. We need to have compromise in our governments thoughts and actions. Its that compromise that has made this country great. Without it we will fall. Simple as that.

We are so devided now that we cant even work on policies that are in the best interest of AMERICA in general. While we sit and fight about how strong our differences are, the people at the top are fucking us ALL to high heaven, no Hell actually.

Our media is controled, yes even fox news. all of it.

No one thinks for themselves anymore.

and as far as the altering of the electoriats. It needs to be done. simply because we CAN NOT have a ONE party system.

If you or anyone else does not see the negative effects from having a one party system, well, I dont know what to tell you.

You go ahead and participate in the killing off of the other side. If you do, you will regret it. It has always been the compromise that worked.

good luck

*************************************************

Couldn't agree more with you but you keep going back to a 'one party' system and my first comment to you was that was never advocated at all. We need at least two parties but the rest of what you said I essentially agree with.

Good day to you . . . .

heres my problem with this. Why should political groups even say they are after minorities etc? The poltical groups should have a idealogy, and that idealogy is what represents them. ask yourself why are not more minorites republican? It has nothing to do with race. Thats a lie. because there are plenty of minorities that are republican.

What some are saying is that they want the republican parrty to change its platform. The only thing I could agree with on that is to be more acceptant of gays. and I believe this past election a openly gay republican was elected.

and there are plenty of black elected officials. so what is it really that people want when they say the republican party need to change its platform. because we here this all the time. and it may not be in this particular article, but its very apparent through out all over that the left wants to aaniliate the right from the face of the planet.

I look forward to the day when political parties stop using minoritiees as vote fodder. it will never happen as long as our politicians, the media and ourselves continue to promise special this or that based on our race, sexual preference or what ever else we can devide and conqure people over.

Sal

Sal

Chrissy wrote:
ask yourself why are not more minorites republican?

Did you miss the last presidential campaign in its entirety?

Guest


Guest

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/06/1185119/-Denying-immigrants-the-American-dream-won-t-win-their-votes

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Original Sin Why the GOP is and will continue to be the party of white people

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum