Apologies ... from the wrong party

While we're apologizing, shouldn't the political party that did the filibusters make a special apology?

Note that the overnight AP news story on this apology stated that previous Senate bills were filebustered by 'southern conservatives' -- no political party specified.

I suspect that if any of you were truly angry about lynchings past and present, you would not be complaining about what party was identified most with them in the media, but would instead spend your energies by calling Thad Cochrane and Trent Lott's office to request that they stop embarrasing the Republican party by refusing to condemn the practice.

Why are you defending the convergence of conservatism with racism? Do you think it helps the cause?

Andy, There were no white Southern Republicans after the Civil War (party of Lincoln!!!).
Southern white folks did not become Republican until the Democrats passed Civil Rights Legislation, (see Strom Thurmand).
Why don't we just have the Southerners make a special apology?

Tim Z,

Might behoove you to check into the Civil Rights Legislation (see Sen Everett Dirksen (R) for passing and Sen Robert Byrd (D) for filibustering). The legislation would not have passed if the republicans had not voted for it in a much higher proportion than the democrats (see history).

The apology is bad enough, but the reporting on this makes it appear that only blacks were lynched. In fact, many Jews and Catholics were also lynched, accounted for 30% of lynching victims in some places.

Dick, that legislation was supported by liberals and opposed by conservatives (see history).

Thank god the democrats kicked out the southern racist conservatives and became the party of progress, and shame on Republicans like you, Dick, for letting them into the GOP without ever paying a price for the evil they've done. My great grandfather had a cross burned in his yard for preaching desegregation in the fifties in Alabama. in the sixties, liberals were called traitors, nigger lovers, and commies, and many were killed. And guess who did all that stuff, Dick? It was conservatives. To this day you can find accusations of communism and treason directed at Martin Luther King on conservative sites like freerepublic.com

It might behoove you, Dick, to read about how the parties were utterly remade ideologically by the race issue in the wake of Civil Rights legislation. Dick, you act like you want us to learn more about the issue, but sadly it's obvious that you care more about attacking Democrats than attacking racism in your own party.

Dick, That was precisely the point. The only Southern Senator to vote for The Civil Rights Act was Sen. Ralph Yarborough (who had defeated GHW Bush who opposed Civil Rights). Yeah Republicans supported The Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, and yes Southern Democrats filibustered.

The split was not along party lines, it was along regional lines with the North supporting and the South opposing. After Civil Rights passed under Johnson the Southern Democrats fled (Strom Thurmond) the party. Todays Republican party in the South is composed of the people who's racist daddies and granddaddies were Democrats.

Today's 109th Congress has 43 black democrats and not one black Republican. If you want to go far enough back in history, I can assure you that the black Representatives relatives were Republican.

So you see party history has nothing to do with it. We might as well, and it is just as useful go by state.

States that had over 100 lynchings (1882-1967): Alabama-347
Arkansas-284
Florida-282
Georgia-531
Kentucky-205
Louisiana-391
Mississippi-581
Missouri-122
N. Carolina-101
Oklahoma-122
S. Carolina-160
Tennessee-251
Texas-493
Virginia-100

Typical. The admin deleted my comment where I pointed out that conservatives voted against the civil rights act, and liberals voted for it. I also mentioned that Republicans should never have let southern racist conservatives into their party if they didn't want to be tarnished with the legacy of racism. I will further point out that conservatives killed liberal activists in the south throughout the sixties, and people who call Martin Luther King a communist and liberal agitator are still given a pass by conservative websites like freerepublic.com.

So why did my comments get deleted without comment?

I apologize, every comment from the fifth one on wasn't displaying for some reason. I jumped to conclusions.

I came in with the instalanche.

I'd like to see something on how the prohibition laws affect popular sentiment for gun control. You could start with machine guns and work your way to the present.

=======================

Back on topic.

I grew up in the Civil Rights Era. It was Northern Democrats who agitated for civil rights. In fact the Communists were the most vocal (I now understand this as a tactic in a larger war rather than real sentiment on the part of the leaders, the rank and file were sincere). I don't recall Republicans being out front on the issue. Their support was mostly silent from what I can remember of the news of the day.

A lot of what happened in the civil rights arena was due to what we learned about Germany. We saw the results of unequal rights and singling out groups for second class treatment. We didn't want to go there. Anti-semitism in America peaked in 1944.

The biggest push came after the lynching of a couple of Northern white boys.

In addition I think a lot of sentiment against the Vietnam war was driven by American racism.

The Communist of that era worked the issue hard.

It was a hard time for America. We are better for it, but we are still paying the cost.

Since you're so interested in history, Dick, you will no doubt also be interested to learn that there were democrats and republicans on both sides of the civil rights bill. But the common factor in that vote was that liberals were for it and conservatives were against it. History also shows us that southern conservatives left the democrats in dribs and drabs, being attracted to the republicans by Nixon's Southern strategy. Why didn't you mention that, Dick?

So why doesn't the Republican party continue its tradition of "racial progress" by making its Senators toe the line on the anti-lynching resolution? They can do it on a bankruptcy bill, but not something basic like that? I submit that it's because republicans have coddled southern conservatives, and are simply too cowardly to call them to account for their past, and too afraid to own up to exactly who it is that they let into the party after 1964.

And why is the moderator removing replies without explanation? Is this post going to be deleted, too?

Uhh, sorry again. You can delete my prior posts. Why am I not seeing anything after the 5th post until after I post? I've never seen a blog that did this.

I guess I can comment to my own blog (grin). I haven't deleted any comments on this posting (and I think none but spam on the others -- got to hunt down one trackback spam post just now). I see all the comments now (I'm running Safari on a Mac platform). A wild guess-- I've got MT Blacklist to guard against spam postings, and it may delay the appearance of a post. Just a guess. If you don't have protection like that, there are robots that will go up and post msgs along the lines of "great site and here's my url" just for the sake of getting that url a high ranking in search engines. MT stops about 2-3 a day, and right now I've gotta hunt down one that got thru...

Byrd is still with the Democrat party. All history.

Heck Republicans and Democrats were responsible for helping to overthrow the Kingdom of Hawai'i.

Today things are different. Republicans are more willing to serve their country and answer the call to duty, honor and sacrifice than Democrats. Democrats are more likely to fraternize and sympathize with America's enemies, which probably explains why the overwhelming majority of military and veterans are Republicans and/or Democrats who become Republicans.

Kalroy

Racist filibusterers in the Democratic party, like Byrd, were made to apologize for their sorry past, and did so. Racists in the republican party, like Strom Thurmond, have never been made to apologize for anything. In fact, the Republican party went after racist conservative southerners as laid out in Nixon's Southern Strategy. Were you aware of that, Kilroy?

And has the Republican party *ever* held its own racist base -- ie the voters -- to account for the things they did in the name of conservatism, or is the party still coasting on its progressive laurels from the pre-Goldwater years? Check your history books to see where liberals and conservatives came down on lynching and civil rights if you're so interested in the issue.

Re: the blog: I can only view all the comments if I either post one, or hit the preview button on the front page. Otherwise, it only displays the first five.

Tim Z

"Southern white folks did not become Republican until the Democrats passed Civil Rights Legislation"

Actually, not even then. It was not until the 1980's that the South swung Republican, and that trend has continued to this day. Since after forty years a large percentage of "Southern white folks" from the sixties are no longer around, it is statistically impossible that current GOP dominance in the area is due to those old time racists.

But your storyline is too attractive to the left to allow mere facts to get in the way.

It's also a storyline that Gerard Alexander of the Claremont Institute effectively punctured last year with his article titled "The Myth of the Racist Republicans". See the following:

http://www.claremont.org/writings/crb/spring2004/alexander.html

Flenser, it's hard to take your commitment to "facts" seriously when you've ignored everything that's been said by the critics of southern conservatism in this thread. No one's saying that conservatives switched parties overnight in 1964; the critique is that Republicans made clear appeals to conservatives on the basis of race and racism which began with Goldwater and came into its own in Nixon's Southern Strategy (fact warning). That it took only twenty years to accomplish such a diametrically opposite switch in party identification is testimony to its success, not its failure. And if it's statistically impossible for so many racists to be voting republican these days, by all means call Trent Lott and Thad Cochrane's offices and tell them so; they're apparently too scared of a pro-lynching challenger to sign the resolution (fact warning).

In the south, conservatism and racism are disturbingly linked, and have been since reconstruction, which is why the only thing conservatives have to fall back on is the GOP's lukewarm support for *liberal* bills in the 60s, and reciting Robert Byrd's name like a mantra. Are you aware (fact warning) the Robert Byrd has apologized repeatedly, not only for the KKK afiliation but for being wrong on racial matters generally? Has any republican, ever, demanded the same from the Johnny-come-lately conservatives (both elected and the voters themselves) who now make up the electoral backbone of the GOP? But since you won't address those questions that have been brought up repeatedly in this discussion, at least tell me again how the Republicans used to be as liberal as LBJ, it puts a smile on my face.

Thanks for the link, Jon, but what you and every other objectively-pro-lynching commenter (have *you* called Trent Lott's office yet?) on this board has failed to address is the connection between Southern conservatism and racism, not Republican-ness or Democratic-ness and racism.

The typical Republican strategy is to just pretend it doesn't exist, (even to claim that racist conservatives are a statistical impossiblity!), and that when the daylight hits it, and they can't deny it, simply accuse Democrats of being worse 40 years ago, or of exaggerating the whole thing for political gain; but neither point disproves the fundamental connection.

Funny, I read the article, and nowhere did it say that David Duke was a myth that liberals dreamed up. Remind me who funded him, again? Was it liberals? Perhaps Barbra Streisand or Hitlery? Strange that the northern LA parishes, the bedrock of Duke's support, are also the most Republican part of the state (fact alert, Flenser!). Very strange. Maybe Michael Moore's fatness is somehow responsible.

But since you're just contributing links at this point, here's one for you to read:

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2002/12/wilentz-s-12-20.html

"Racists in the republican party, like Strom Thurmond, have never been made to apologize for anything."

Well, seeing as Thurmond's dead, it's going to be pretty hard to get him to apologize for anything now. But when he was alive, and Trent Lott made comments that were interpreted as praising his racist past, he was ousted from his leadership post by his own party (quite rightly I would add) and was roundly condemned by rank-and-file conservatives- in spite of, yes, issuing numerous public apologies. Does that sound like a party in thrall to racist interests? On the other hand, when Sen. Chris Dodd made strikingly similar comments regarding Bob Byrd, the silence was deafening.

I think this whole tit-for-tat regarding who's the more racist is pretty foolish and doesn't contribute to reasonable debate, but if we're going to get into it, let's not gloss over relevant recent events.

Well, now we're starting to prove the axiom that the longer any comments thread goes on, the less useful it becomes. Calling me "objectively pro-lynching" is a pretty low ad hominem smear. I haven't insulted you at all, and I'm not going to.

In short, Tom, you've constructed a self-referential, unbeatable argument because throughout your posts you've implicitly defined "conservative" as "anti-civil rights" and "liberal" as "pro-civil rights". This enables you to dismiss pro-civil rights Republicans like Everett Dirksen while eschewing anti-civil rights Democrats. Of course, if you take such a view, no amount of cajoling will persuade you to abandon the position that anyone who is, was, or ever has been in anyone "conservative" is also racist by default. Nevertheless, I will still try to bring some sanity to this discussion.

Let's stipulate what can't be denied: historically, there have been, and still are, racists on both sides of the aisle, and throughout the ideological spectrum. Yes, racism still exists. But despite what you most fervently believe Tom, racism is not inextricably linked to any particular aspect of conservativism. True, many "Dixiecrats" used the mantra of federalism as a shield against desegregation (although they were pretty lax in adherence to federalism otherwise). But I fail to see how anyone can argue racism is more or less intellectually compatible with, say, support for low taxes and regulatory burdens than it is with Keynesian economic policies. The smear of "racism" has become too much of a crutch for those who either can't or won't defend their policy arguments on the merits- and liberals aren't necessarily the only ones guilty of playing this card either.

Racism is a real problem, although I think anyone who think it's more or equal of a problem to what it was in the 50's or 60's is fooling themselves. But by bringing up people like David Duke- avowed racists that have no base of support whatsoever among serious mainstream conservatives today- and accusing Republicans or conservatives of being heirs to their legacies, we are simply fanning overheated partisan flames and not advancing a solution to that problem in any meaningful way.

I was glad to see Trent Lott punished, and I'm glad to see you agree with me that there is no question that "who's the more racist" is rather foolish when it comes to political parties (a pissing match begun by the Republicans, at least on this board). It is all too real an issue, ideologically, though. Conservatism in the South has done nothing but appease and ignore racism, and liberalism has only a toehold even in the bigger Southern cities. But if you don't like the fact that the Republican party gets a bad racial rap in the media, then the GOP never should have made Southern conservatives the backbone of its electoral support. And you should call the offices of the Senators who refuse to co-sponsor a freaking anti-lynching resolution!

BTW, Byrd apologized for his immoral racial past repeatedly throughout the 80s and 90s. Thurmond was never held to same standard while he was alive. Glad to see the GOP making progress, though.

Tom

"The typical Republican strategy is to just pretend it doesn't exist, (even to claim that racist conservatives are a statistical impossiblity!), "

If you had any kind of case to make, you would make it. The fact(!) that you need to make up statements like this suggests that you really don't have a case.

Your simple equation of "southern conservative" = "racist" is absurd mud-slinging. How do you know what southern conservatives think?

That's not a rethorical question. By what right do you brand all GOP supporters from the Old South as racist?

By what right do you assert that all racists in the sixties South were "conservatives"?

By what right do you assert that all sixties Southern racists moved to the Republican party?

You can ramble on about what is on the thread all you like, but the FACT is that you cannot answer my questions.

It's worth nothing that the Southern Democrats were an important part of the FDR coalition. That is, they supported his social and economic policy.

There was a political party which sought the support of southern racists, and turned a blind eye to their activities in return. That party was the Democratic party up until 1964.

When you describe them as "conservative" you are simply taking your own sterotype of what you imagine conservatives to be and finding people who fit the bill. The FACT is that the social and economic views of the southern racists did not fit in very well with conservatism. It seemed to work very well indeed within the New Deal Democratic party, one which is not normally considered to be conservative. Why was that?

Grr!

It is worth "noting".

“Objectively pro-lynching” – you like that, huh? I picked it up from Glenn Reynolds when he called everyone against the Iraq War “objectively pro-Saddam.” But since he’s such a reasonable, moderate, even keeled guy, I figured I could nick it to use in sane discussions everywhere. In this case I think it’s more than fair – you’ve got a party that can enforce discipline on quotidian, abstract bankruptcy bill, but not on an utterly toothless anti-lynching resolution? Anyone who wanted their party not to be embarrassed would have called the offices of those renegade senators by now.

I also stand by associating liberalism with pro-civil rights and conservatism with being against it, because in the South, those were those most important features of the ideologies. Southern conservatives have never been budget hawks, or libertarian in their social views, or Kissinger realists on foreign policy. It has always been very heavy handed, state directed, pork barrel, pro-military spending/anti-communist, pro-law enforcement, pro-states rights and anti-civil rights under both Democrats and then Republicans, Trent Lott being a reasonable contemporary incarnation (I would say modern, but that would be a stretch for Trent). Just as being a liberal in the South meant you were pro-civil rights before other liberal goals, like say, nuclear disarmament or the Bretton Woods system, being a conservative in 1965 Birmingham meant above all you were against civil rights in your city. This isn’t some debating tactic I dreamed up to troll on conservative message boards, this was the reality of the South. You and I both know that conservatism means a lot of things to a lot of people. I certainly don’t think all conservatives are racists or that conservatism is necessarily tied to racism; I simply believe that *Southern* conservatives are responsible for the worst racial crimes in our country’s history, and that the party they currently support buys them off for that support by ignoring that history. Nothing I have seen stated on this board has addressed this.

Incidentally, I have never dismissed liberal Republicans, Jon. It was the Republican party that dismissed them, starting with Nelson Rockefeller, going through to Barry Goldwater, and culminating with Reagan. There are a few left, of course, (often called RINOs), but it’s pretty inconceivable that they or anyone like them could win anywhere in the South. You read Tim Z’s message, right, about how civil rights was a north/south issue much more than a Republican/Democrat issue?

As far as David Duke goes, we agree that he does not have support among mainstream Republicans. Clearly the people who voted for him are not like, say, Republicans in Alaska or Colorado. But my point all along has been that Southern conservatism is not like Reagan conservatism, or Goldwater conservatism, or George Bush conservatism. It is its own culture, and people who buy into the appeal of David Duke are not turning around and voting for Bill Clinton the next go-round. They vote red, Jon, and then they go post on freerepublic about how the PC media driven MLK day is a scam, and how he was a secret communist. So with regard to your final point about “advancing a solution” to the problem of racism (did anyone here claim things are as bad now as they were in the 50s and 60s? I didn’t see it.) – it is very hard to see how Republicans are solving any problem at all so long as they pretend racist conservatives simply don’t exist. The first step is admitting they exist, Jon, and that their coddling constitutes a real stain for the GOP and the conservative movement. In fact, I would argue it is the worst moral stain on conservatism’s record since 1945.

There was a time, Flenser, when both parties aspired to have both liberals and conservatives in their ranks, on the theory that they could be truly national and represent America. The conservative wing of the Democratic party in say, 1955, liked TVA and much of the spending of the New Deal, but governed the South in ways that were much more objectively conservative than in liberal Republican New England, or Republican Ohio, by contrast. Naturally they don't match up one-to-one to modern conservatives, because conservatism itself has changed. But there were clear liberals and conservatives, even so, and they opposed one another even if those battles took place entirely within the Democratic party. Southern conservatism was very concentrated on the social sphere, like in temperence laws, anti-miscegenation laws, strict segration ordinances, the fact that in South Carolina there was no secret balloting until the 50s, etc. And it was liberals (usually called Communists by their opponents) who were most vocally against segregation, and pro-black voting registration. The combination of pork barrel spending, nationalism, and social repression worked well within the Democratic party because the opression of blacks didn't directly affect voters outside the region, and because not many Americans outside the South particularly cared. After LBJ dragged the party kicking and screaming to the liberal side, southern conservatives didn't really have anyone to vote for between the "party of the black man" and the party of Lincoln, so they voted for George Wallace out of protest. But eventually they were seduced by a GOP that let them have their military bases, their limitless highway bills, and which simply let the racial issue drop off the table. What's not as well known is that Eisenhower had a real chance to win the black vote by pushing for civil rights legislation in the 50s, something that terrified Democrats, who foresaw permanently losing big industrial zones like Michigan, Chicago, and NYC as a result. But he passed the buck, and the parties realigned in the opposite direction. But it's clear that the breaking point was over the social effects of LBJ's programs on the *society* of the south. It was never about free markets or private enterprise or the bulk most mainstream conservatives were excited about.

It seems like you guys are arguing that because Southern conservatism doesn't match up well with Hayek and George Will that it's not conservatism. We agree that it's not mainstream, but it is a real ideology, and it has not gone anywhere. Liberals in the south may be somewhat different too, probably much closer to the Church than in Boston, but it's still liberalism. It's just a regional variant.

"I simply believe that *Southern* conservatives are responsible for the worst racial crimes in our country’s history, and that the party they currently support buys them off for that support by ignoring that history. Nothing I have seen stated on this board has addressed this."

Well, you keep saying that, don't you? As I keep saying in reply, this is not something that can be addressed, since you are giving your own perceptions of what "southern conservatives" were. (Are?)

It is simply your own opinion that Southern Conservatism equals someting very like liberalism, plus racism, and that this is why they found such a congenial home in the Democratic party for so long.

It is also simply your opinon, and a rather bizarre one at that, that the racists who were "responsible for the worst racial crimes in our history" are currently supporting the GOP.

While it's true that the modern South does support the GOP, it is now 2005. That is forty years after the Civil Rights Act. If you have any evidence, any at all, that those responsible for "the worst racial crimes in our history" are (1) still alive and (2) voting Republican, than maybe you should share it. That would be the factual thing to do.

But I expect it is much easier just to go merrily on your way, stating your opinions as if they were handed down on stone tablets from a mountain.

This will be my last contribution to this thread; I didn't want to get involved in the first place, and I should have followed that instinct, because I've had more productive conversations with sheetrock. Tom, you say:

"it is very hard to see how Republicans are solving any problem at all so long as they pretend racist conservatives simply don’t exist..."

There's your first straw man, because I've already stipuated that there are racists of every ideological stripe. On the other hand, why can't you seem to admit that there are those on the Left whose racial motives have been less than pure? Margaret Sanger and the push of the eugenics movement for greater acceptance of abortion-specifically for those in society less biologically and intellecutally "fit" (wink, wink)- come to mind.

"The first step is admitting they exist, Jon..."

Way ahead of you, and again, I think it's fair to say that you've been taking a more utopian view of your ideological brethren than I have of mine.

"...and that their coddling constitutes a real stain for the GOP and the conservative movement. In fact, I would argue it is the worst moral stain on conservatism’s record since 1945."

What prominent, mainstream conservatives today are "coddling" racism, and in what way are they doing it? Where are all your quotes and supporting evidence, Tom? In fact, when Bill Buckley began to remake the modern conservative movement in the 50's, one of the first things he did was to work to deligitimize the John Birch kooks and racist fringe. Today, most conservatives take a color blind view of race matters; it's liberals who by and large still want the government to able to discriminate on the basis of race (i.e. racial preferences in college admissions). Granted, they think that such discrimination will achieve positive social ends...but then again, the Dixiecrats of the old south felt the same way about the particular brand of racial discrimination they were pushing.

At the end of the day, this whole discussion has proven what I was inclined to believe at the outset: that the term "racist" has largely degenerated into a cudgel used to bludgeon anyone with a differing partisan agenda.

"By what right do you assert that all sixties Southern racists moved to the Republican party?"

I don’t. It's not one to one. It’s possible that there are racists out there who still refuse to vote for Lincoln’s party. But the white vote in the South has always been extremely monolithic, back when the conservative Democrats controlled it and got 99% victories, as well as now that the GOP controls it. Look at the margins for the last presidential election. In what other region of the country is the white vote so uniform? Bush got 85% of the white vote in Mississippi in 2004. He got 80% of the white vote in Alabama. 78% of the white vote in South Carolina. You think that’s because Southerners just love Milton Friedman so much? If you were a racist, and you could either vote for a party that promises to kick the ass of foreigners, cut your taxes, and which will never, ever, discuss race in any way, it would be quite hard to turn around and vote for the party that almost ran Jesse Jackson as its candidate not too long ago, no? I’m not saying that all southern conservatives are racists, and certainly not that Bush or even that the GOP is racist; only that many southern voters are, and that the GOP has positioned itself deliberately to avoid ruffling their feathers. *Appeasing* them, if you will, even if it has never made explicitly racist overtures, because that was never necessary. The Democrats alienated racist conservatives on their own, and the GOP swooped in and gave them a home. And then the storyline it told is that there are no racists in the South anymore, that we live in the “New South” where the races live in harmonious equality, where all we have to quibble about is how much to cut taxes in order for us all to get rich; which is all in all a much more appealing narrative than the liberal one saying that the South has never really addressed the evil stuff we’ve done. But that’s politics for you.

"But the white vote in the South has always been extremely monolithic, back when the conservative Democrats controlled it and got 99% victories, as well as now that the GOP controls it. Look at the margins for the last presidential election."

If your underlying premise is correct, that those rascally racists moved into the GOP in response to Tricky Dicks infamous southern stratagy, then we should expect that the movemnt would be rather sudden. When a region of the country moves from one party to another over a period of forty years, there are more likely explanations than the one you are proposing.

New England used to be a Republican stronghold. Now it is not. California was a winnable state for the GOP twenty years ago. States shift their political affiliation over time, as new people move in from outside. That is how Vermont became NY North. The South and the Sun Belt have had a huge population boom over the last forty years, largely dur to people moving from the north and mid-west.

Although you keep pretending otherwise, people die. At least fifty percent of the population of the Southern states in the sixties is dead now.

What all this means is that in order to tar "southern conservatives" as racist, which clearly you are desperate to do, you have to assume that most of those who moved to the South were racist, as were their children. And that so were the children of the original Southerners, who we will pretend for the moment were uniformly racist.

Clearly, you can show no such thing. Which is why I say that you are simply repeating myths which are comforting to you, and not engaging in a factual discussion.

“What prominent, mainstream conservatives today are "coddling" racism, and in what way are they doing it? Where are all your quotes and supporting evidence, Tom?”
We’re talking past one another, Jon. There’s no question that there are racists of every ideological stripe. It is a human problem, first and foremost, before any ideology or party. Indeed, modern mainstream Conservatism is quite colorblind, something I would theoretically praise as admirable if it didn’t dovetail quite so conveniently with their appeal to southerners. Again, my consistent point is that the GOP makes it easy for racists to join because it implicitly promises *never* to discuss race issues, in opposition to the Democratic appeal, which at the minimum makes people feel guilty, and at the maximum, exacts a tax burden to recompense the victims of oppression in one way or another. I don’t know Sanger, but my point is that southern conservatism has exponentially more violence and suffering to answer for in the American context in recent times for racism than liberals or any other ideology does over, say, the past 100 years. It was not liberals who lynched black kids for whistling at white women; it was southerners who were upset at blacks who in their mind were threatening the social order. Threatened by progress, if you will. Another word for that kind of belief system, that seeks to keep things the same, and which sees itself in opposition to liberals, is “conservative”. Again, not the conservatism of Ronald Reagan, not the ideology of today’s FOX news anchor, but it was most certainly a mind set that defined itself in direct opposition to liberalism, whether those liberals were Republican college kids from Vermont who got killed for trying to register black voters (at the time called communist liberal agitators), or “pointy-headed liberals” in the White House, especially Kennedy, but later LBJ. You and I both know that liberal, libertarian, and whatever other kind of racist you can come up with has not carried the hideous human cost that Southern racism has, so why even mention Sanger?

Look, the race issue is not a tool to bludgeon the GOP because of its stance on other issues; it is the central moral indictment of the GOP from my perspective as a Southern liberal. It is the issue. Everything I have written to describe the southern political context was done out of conviction, not some cynical desire to win an argument on a blog I’ve never read before. Call me sheet rock, but I think I’ve listened and responded honestly to the comments of everyone on this thread. I do feel that few have attempted to address my critiques of southern conservatism, preferring to deflect the issue.
“If you have any evidence, any at all, that those responsible for "the worst racial crimes in our history" are (1) still alive and (2) voting Republican, than maybe you should share it.”

What I’m saying is that Republicans have coddled racism by not talking about it. They have accommodated racists’ beliefs so long as the racists keep quiet about them, and which have facilitated the re-segregation of the South through zoning measures, housing policies, education policies, and tax appeals that pit “keeping your money” against “making payments to welfare queens.” In return, the South has kept its massive amounts of government spending and gets told by its leaders that it has changed and atoned for its past. I don’t think all southern GOP voters are racists. I think most southerners of every ideology are ashamed of their racial past. But, understandably, it’s hard to find polling data on people where they admit to actually being racists. What kind of evidence do you expect? I have argued that the southern white voter has consistently voted for a specific combination of policies, whether offered by the Democrats or the Republicans, and that the consensus on that set of policies has not changed, and has only shifted parties. But I think the fact that David Duke can run as a Republican candidate for governor what, 12 years ago, and derive his strongest support from parishes that just happen to be the most Republican part of the state is not a coincidence. The fact that racists always cloaked their resistance to reform in the language of states rights, and that the strongest advocates for states rights today have murky associations with the concerned citizens councils (white supremacist organizations), is no coincidence. That the confederate flag movement (which itself became more a symbol of segregation than of the confederacy in the 50s) is most associated with republicans is no coincidence. But above all, the fact that southern blacks all entirely vote Democrat and that almost Southern whites all vote GOP is no coincidence. These people have been pitted against each other since long before either the United States existed, and really, only a person with their head in the sand would just dismiss that fact as a coincidence.

Flenser, I would like to know exactly what kind of evidence would satisfy your definition? Polls where people identify themselves as racist, perhaps? Is your alternative suggestion is that these people and their beliefs just died off, or that they stayed with the Democrats as they became increasingly liberal?

" But above all, the fact that southern blacks all entirely vote Democrat and that almost Southern whites all vote GOP is no coincidence. "

Strawman. Ninety-somthing percent of blacks vote D all over the counrty, not just in the South. By you logic, this means the whole country is racist.

All whites in the South do not vote R. In many of the big cites they follow the same pattern as whites around the country and vote D. Overall, most whites in the US vote R. I suppose because they are racist.

"But, understandably, it’s hard to find polling data on people where they admit to actually being racists. What kind of evidence do you expect?"

I expect that if these dreadful southern racists are still alive and kicking, and if they still have their hands on the levers of power, as you say they do, that we would not need to resort to polls to answer the question. We should be able to count bodies. We should be able to look at racialiy discriminatory laws. We sould expect todays south to look a lot like the South of the 1950's. It does not.

What evidence would satisfy me? Look, I'm not demanding some scientific level of proof that no member of the Texas GOP is racist. But YOU have proposed this theory that by and large, most of them ARE racist. You have made all these sweeping assertions about what you think most conservatives think, and what liberals think.

All I want from you is some acknowlegement that virtually everything you have said is based on speculation. You are making the claims, it's up to you to provide SOME evidence to back them up.

Facts, remember?

"I do feel that few have attempted to address my critiques of southern conservatism, preferring to deflect the issue."

Tom, your critique does not give anyone much to respond to. You pretty much take it upon yourself to decide what is in others people hearts, then ask for objective proof that you are wrong. The only objective proof is what you see around you. If you look around and see white racists, then there is literally nothing that anyone can possibly say to you that can change your mind.

And if all you can offer are your own opinions, that is not going to change our minds, either.

So it ends as most of these things do, at deadlock.

>>“Strawman… All whites in the South do not vote R. In many of the big cites they follow the same pattern as whites around the country and vote D. Overall, most whites in the US vote R. I suppose because they are racist.”

It would have been great if you’d provide some facts for that assertion, Flenser, since you’re suddenly so down on speculation; but don’t worry, I’ve got some of both in this post. Let’s go back to the white vote in the South. Bush’s 2004 margins among white people nationally are nowhere near what they are in the South. (Facts again!) White voters in the South vote far more monolithically than do white voters in the rest of the country (58-41 nationally). For 2004, here are Bush’s top states for the greatest victory margin among white voters. The percentage indicates the percentage of black residents in the state. Notice how the more black voters there are, the greater the Bush margin. Maybe you can explain this away without using race and racial politics, but I’m hard pressed to see how. Stark, stark results. Notice the correlation between the states with the biggest margins and the states with senators who won’t sign on to the anti-lynching resolution, too.

Mississippi - 85-14 (34%)
Alabama - 80-19 (25%)
South Carolina - 78-22 (30%)
Georgia - 76-23 (25%)
Louisiana - 75-24 (27%)
North Carolina - 73-27 (26%)
Texas - 72-16 (12%)
Virginia - 68-32 (21%)
Tennessee - 65-34 (12%)
Kentucky - 64-35 (8%)
Arkansas - 63-36 (15%)
Florida - 57-42 (12%)
Nationally - 58-41

Are you interested in the numbers on Wallace’s 68’ Southern voters switching to Nixon in ’72? Would you believe it was nearly all of them? Apparently Nixon’s southern strategy was quite successful. I’m sure that all of those Wallace voters had changes of heart over those tumultuous four years, though, and were legitimately just voting on “law and order,” instead of “fear of black people.” And anyway, you would just send me to the library to look up how many of them were dead by 2004, otherwise I’d just be “speculating.”

Your next point was that if the South was still racist, we would still have a southern society that looked like the 1950s, or at least politicians who talked that way. Well, it’s harder to do that now that black people can vote there, for one thing. Also, that sort of talk tends to attract embarrassing attention from the librul media, too, so they try to keep the remnants of it under cover. But your argument is apparently that since the South doesn’t look like the 1950s, racism must not exist. Do you really even believe that? Honestly? Racism can both still exist, AND the South doesn’t have legislators laughing about lynchings on the floor of Congress anymore. The mind boggles.

>>“What evidence would satisfy me? Look, I'm not demanding some scientific level of proof that no member of the Texas GOP is racist. But YOU have proposed this theory that by and large, most of them ARE racist. You have made all these sweeping assertions about what you think most conservatives think, and what liberals think.”

Here is my assertion. It is not that conservatives in the south are all or even mostly racists, though I believe their numbers to be considerable. Having grown up in the South, most people I knew were conservative, and most were not racist. My contention here is simply that for what racists are out there, the GOP has given them a comfortable home. And since racists despise liberalism, and since the Democratic party has only gotten more liberal in the last 40 years, I conclude that most racists in the South are now republicans, and my experience has borne out this conclusion.

>>“All I want from you is some acknowlegement that virtually everything you have said is based on speculation. You are making the claims, it's up to you to provide SOME evidence to back them up.”

Flenser, you’ve done your fair share of baseless speculation. Remember this? “It was not until the 1980's that the South swung Republican, and that trend has continued to this day.” Republican Barry Goldwater carried the South in 1964 (in response to the Civil Rights Bill, which he voted against!). Wallace got it in ’68, but Nixon won it again in ’72. Carter won most of the South back in ’76, but Reagan took it all back but Georgia in ’80, and only Clinton has been able to get LA, AR, and FL back at all ever since. To claim that the South only swung Republican in the 80’s is simply wrong. And anyway, how are people supposed to discuss politics without speculation? No one can know the voting history of every individual voter; it’s a matter of discerning trends in vast masses of information. But the trend for the GOP has been to ignore race in the South and rack up the victory margins.