Is the Progressive movement racist?

Well, excuse me for "jumping" to LBJ.

I was obviously under the mistaken impression that he was actually president in '64 and '65. :BangHead:

What you say was the "main catalyst" is merely your opinion. Obviously mine is different and just as valid.

Passage of the civil rights act does not explain why blacks started voting democrat. Democrats faught hard against it's passage with 40% voting against it versus only 20% of republicans voting against passage.

But it does sound better than the fact LBJ began to buy the loyalty of poor blacks in a big way. So I understand why you have the opinion you do.

 

The article attests to the civil rights acts (and also, the Republican, Goldwater opposing it) as being the deciding factor. Just because more Democrats voted against it than Republicans doesn't change that. The major presidential candidates had switched positions, and that was what led them to switch. Obviously, there were both racists and civil rights advocates in both parties. No one was looking at percentages within the whole party. And again, they had already begun moving over with FDR and Truman.

I don't care how LBJ "buying out the loyalty" sounds, but still you are making the deciding issue "getting something for nothing", and that is not what the blacks as a whole were looking for back then (even if people may have abused the programs afterwards).

 

Someone wasn't paying attention...

There was a Civil Rights Act of 1957 and another one in 1960 (Eisenhower was president) that were passed , but badly weakened by amendments put up by...you guessed it...democrats.

So if you continue to contend that blacks vote overwhelmingly for democrats because of civil rights legislation, there must be a serious gap in the historical education of black people. They are living a lie. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

The scales were tipped by a lack of education and by payola. Slavery ended in 1865 only to begin again, politically, in 1965. Strange.

But AFDC had absolutely nothing to do with it? Ludicrous.

 

Yes, the article points out that Eisenhower still got a large slice of the vote (and even Nixon in 1960). But the shift was by then well under way, and LBJ was simply the final point.
If what you're insisting is true, that blacks switched over en-masse, so they could get "something for nothing" under AFDC, then we would have seen a near 100% switch from Republican to Democrat with LBJ. But no matter how much you try to make it exclusively about LBJ and AFDC, that is just not how it happened.

Now, what I'll grant to some extent, is this article, mentioning blacks' anger
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30592
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=16957

and how this ends up leading to:

What remains omitted, is also that a lot of the rhetoric of the Right is also cause for concern, and keeps the fear and anger going; such as this whole business about blacks only wanting "something for nothing", and the other sweeping, generalistic rhetoric we see, like on the "State of the Blacks" thread, ("all their dysfunctional behavior", and "spiritual problems", etc) that makes them out to be single-handedly destroying the quality of life in the nation.
Plus, the "celebration" of the country often becomes jingoism (including, as we see right here, bold claims of "cultural superiority"), which of course is going to be lumped in with the same premise of "superiority" that led to slavery and discrimination in the first place.

He also omitted the flipside of this; the "Southern Strategy" that brought many of those racist Democrats over to the Republican Party in the 70's and afterward. This is how the total swap in the reputations of both parties became complete.
(He's also dead wrong on antisemitism having been European only).

So this is what is going to keep the blacks from reconsidering the Republican party now.
(The article even mentions how "socially conservative" they tend to be, making it more ironic they aren't Republican, and in total contrast what the portrayals I saw on that other thread). Again, the Democrats seem to be the "lesser of two evils".

So even if the Democrats really are the true racists, trying to enslave the people with their programs, at least they have the tact to hide this sentiment better. That's what "fools" the people, if you insist. (but many ARE in fact suspicious of them too!) Many conservatives do nothing but openly blame the people for nearly everything wrong in the country (especially economic and crime), and then constantly try to "scold" them for it.
That is not going to win them back to your party.

So you can trash the Democratic Party all you want (and I and others could actually care less, or even agree with a lot of it), but it would do a lot of good if people stop using the blacks as a pawn in this battle against that party. Just keep them OUT of it already. They're not the ones making the Democrats that way. They're not getting all your tax money. They're just citizens just like you, being used by politicians, who you all seem to agree, care more about their own positions than they do the country.

 

Until they wise up, who needs 'em? :wavey:

 

Michelle Malkin has compiled some recent hatred from the liberal side...

http://townhall.com/columnists/mich...t,_racist,_homophobic_rage_of_the_left/page/2

 

Sorry, but when any constituency votes at a 90%+ clip for the Democratic party...they're not innocent pawns; they're part of the problem.

Black, green, whatever--the point is, they can't claim, "Oh, we're just being used." When you're voting at a 90% rate, that's known as "willing participant." (It also shoots down your idea that as a whole, they're skeptical of the Democratic party and its leadership--that idea simply won't fly!)

 

Dose the same apply to the Tea Party where I expect the vote is 90% Republican?

 

Perhaps you missed the word "problem."

The Tea Party movement (and no movement is perfect) by and large seeks to diminish the role of government in modern-day America. There's a solution afoot. Core values of individual liberty and freedom are being preserved in this movement.

Democrats? Not so much.

The key difference is that little word--"problem."

I'm sure you missed it.

Of course, there's another possibility--a very real one--that you're trying to insinuate a racist element to most Tea Party folks (and by association, most or all Republicans). Wouldn't be the first attempt for you at intellectually dishonest comparisons.

But...I'm hoping that it was the less sinister of the two possibilities. One can always hope...

 

Part of what "problem"(see below)? The claim was being made that they all switched over just to gain "something for nothing". So they're not "innocent pawns", then does that mean they're in cahoots in some great conspiracy with the Democrats to rob you of all that's yours?

Aren't there a lot of conservatives who believe the Republican party is "no different than the Democrats", but still vote for them because they're the "lesser of two evils", and either there's no third party, or they fear any votes for one will ultimately go to the evil Democrats (or lack of voting at all will allow them to win)?

Sorry, but in comparing the two parties, you cannot make adherence to one like some sort of crime where one is "innocent" or "guilty". Neither one is really solving any of the moral or economic problems you are complaining about. By many on your side's own complaining, they're both "the problem".
So people go with whichever one pitches the best sell to their concerns.