Comment Post: Based on Republicans versus Democrats on Race Issues

Comment Post




This is what I'll call a Comment Post. It is not a true post, as it is more informal. It elevates a comment, or a comment exchange between a reader and myself, into a post. It can give prominence to an extended or astute comment. I'll be using these occasionally on Tuesday through Sunday's, as I post on Mondays now.

The following is a comment exchange between paz y amour and myself on Friday's post, Republicans versus Democrats on Race Issues.

The Comment Exchange

Paz, thank you so much for your comments. You said:

I wasn't arguing the historical merits of Democrat/Republican help to the causes of Black progression, I was saying that the perception of Republicans is not popular in the Black community as a whole and giving the historical elements that give rise to that sentiment. I'm not saying one is better than the other- in fact, they're more alike than ever before in history!

Interesting point. My goal, as you know, is to counter wrong perceptions. The perception that Republicans are anti-Black now is wrong. The idea that both parties are the same on this issue is wrong. I've stated my case in my comments in the post. I can't state it any better. I still think there is a qualitative difference between the pandering Democrats and the homage to Blacks given by Bush, in the form of real power.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

"Paz, every time a White Democrat goes into a Black church or speaks to a Black audience and agrees with the audience that there is widespread racism against Blacks...this is pandering and enabling"

How is this any different than a "conservative" politician speaking in front of a Evangelist Christian audience and saying that there are wide-spread anti-Christian activities, the government is anti-family values and gays shouldn't be able to get married. Isn't THAT what the audience would want to hear in order for them to support that lawmaker seeking election? Politicians of both sides pander to get support- that's what they do BEST. Isn't that how Bush and A LOT of Republicans got elected in 2000/2004- pandering to jaded religious conservatives? In fact I would argue that the folks in office who DON'T pander are vastly in the minority.

You have a point here. Bush does pander. When I've seen him do it I've cringed. Yet, he genuinely likes Blacks too, and he's proven it. Again, he's given them real power. As far as issues like anti-Christian activities, anti-family values, and gays not being able to be married, yes, these are wedge issues. The Republicans do use them when they are in trouble in elections. They did it in 2006 and it didn't work. The idea that all politicians pander might be true for most politicians, but we can always hope for a true leader. I don't see one at present.

I've noticed more Black republican strategists and spokespeople on CNN and Fox "news" over the past few years. Could giving Republicans more color on television be perceived as gratuitous pandering? Maybe.

How cynical, paz. This means that FOX can never win in your eyes. Whites can never win. If you ignore Blacks you are racist. If you include them you're racist. Give me a break. Again, this is the liberal tendency, whether you classify yourself as liberal or not, to place so much emphasis on motive. Forget motives. You can't read people's minds. Pay attention to their behaviors. If they include Blacks, be happy, no matter the motivation.

Pandering means doing or saying things just to gain favor, while abandoning core values. If you are anti-Black and you honor Blacks, who cares? If this is the way they "pander" then pray for more pandering! Destructive pandering is when a politician says to Blacks, "You haven't a chance to succeed in this racist society," gaining votes, but causing real psychological harm to his audience.

You cannot ever watch FOX news and find any concrete evidence of any anti-Black sentiment. In fact, they are very inclusive. To accuse them of pandering by having Blacks on the program is absurd, and an example of reaching to find discrimination. A real paranoia.

"Historically, the Republican Party was founded on an anti-slavery platform, as opposed to the slave-holding and pro-slavery Democrats."

And historically, Black people overwhelmingly supported Republicans- that is until the late 30's when most overwhelmingly shifted to the Democratic party, due in large part to the lack of REAL social change since Reconstruction and feelings of political abandonment. Democrats as a whole weren't opposed to civil rights as you claim- you're referring to the so-called racist Dixiecrats of the 50's who were "democrats" by name, but didn't embrace the ideals of their noble predecessors. They obviously had NO support from Black folks. And just a side note, the most vehement Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond became a (gasp) Republican in 1964-right in the heart of the civil rights movement. I'm sure that helped bring Black people back into the Republican folds.

I disagree with your facts and conclusions. See my post comments. You ignore many of the points I brought up. You label Democrats who were racists as "Dixiecrats." Yes, that's what they were called, but they were registered Democrats, and racists. Period. You can't just disown them from the party. While the Northern Republicans fought the Civil War to free the slaves, Blacks after the Civil War won seats in legislatures and statehouses, and these Blacks were removed, and the election laws were changed. By whom? By Democrats.

Hey, the Dems have Rob Byrd (among others), the Repubs have George Allen (among others)...

You compare Robert Byrd's leadership in the Ku Klux Klan with George Allen's faux pax? How insulting, and how absurd.

"Again, "trickle-down Reaganomics" did work, as evidenced in the Clinton years"

As your reliable Wikipedia says, Reagan's economic success is still being debated (just like global warming, no?). All I know is that when Black people talk of the 80's, not much positive is said about it. I can agree that Clinton may have benefited from Reagan's policies, but the perception is that Black prosperity was hindered in the 80's, not helped.

Again, wrong perceptions are what I am fighting.

By the way, if you haven't noticed, Wikepedia veers far left. It is not reliable in its politics; it is dead wrong. Every article has a leftist slant. So, I never trust its conclusions. However, it is pretty good on facts. So, when it concludes something like, "global warming is caused by human pollution," they are in the hysteria, cuckoo, twilight zone. But, when they say that the earth has been warming, a fact, I trust them.

"Katrina.... This was not a race thing, paz. This was an incompetence thing."

Grand ole Katrina. I didn't say that Bush's incompetence was racially based, I was saying the PERCEPTION is that it was and another "example" of Republicans not caring about the welfare of Black people. Regardless, it's hard for be to believe that if Beverly Hills had been flooded that it would have taken almost a week for help to arrive- hmmm....

Bush took the same time to respond in Mississippi. You don't hear about any Bush "racism" in Mississippi, though, because that state had a competent governor and local governments that did not have busses left unused. The equally incompetent Mayor and Governor of Louisiana pass unscathed with your criticism. Are they racist?

"Lincoln, Eisenhower, and Bush are three presidents who have made great contributions to Black advancement."

2 out of 3 aren't bad. It's hard to say what contribution Bush has had on Black advancement. Yes he has high ranking Black members of his cabinet- some of the smartest people in US government I might add, but don't you think it's a bit too early to tell how it will effect Blacks in the future?

Appointing Blacks to high office can't hurt. Plus, the perception that he is racist, if anyone believes this, is absurd.

I know how much you love the guy, but we'll be able to judge in say 20 years, but not now.

I don't love the guy. Sarge Charlie loves him, and I understand why he does. I am personally disappointed in him. He is too much a panderer for my taste, too much of a "good guy" in Iraq, and has given away our country with his immigration policies. I like him because of his War on Terror, and invading Iraq, and keeping taxes low. Otherwise, he is a leftist or a panderer, and an ineffective communicator.

click to hide most of this post

"Republicans have the best record, on everything from civil rights to economics, that can lift the Blacks into the middle class."

Another debatable point. It seems that each "good" leader with regard to race has made good decisions based on their predecessors- FDR-Truman-Eisenhower-JFK-LBJ etc. Are Republicans really the "best" or is it your bias? I can readily admit that growing up in a house that voted for Democrats has caused me to look less favorably at Repubs, BUT I will vote for anyone if I like their politics better than the next person- thus bucking the "perception" of republicans. I don't believe either of them have Black interests at heart, regardless of what they say.

Respectfully, I believe Republicans are sincere in their caring for Blacks, while Democrats are using them to gain votes. Again, you put Whites, and Republicans, in no-win situations. If they ignore Blacks or do them harm, they are racists. If they do good things for Blacks, they are still racists, because of what is in their hearts, according to you. They can't win, and that's not fair, paz.

Rock