The Democrats are not "The Party of the KKK".

[goaded]

This myth regularly comes up on this site, and I'd like to cover it once again, so I don't have to keep repeating myself.

The same falsehood is implied when people like Ben Shapiro point out that a larger proportion of Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act than Democrats (a true, but very misleading statement, as I'll explain below).

For a long time after the Civil War, the Democratic Party did very well, especially in the former confederate states. The alternative was voting for the party of Lincoln, who had defeated them.

Look at the voting record for the Voting Rights Act, the bellwether for the parties' beliefs chosen by Ben Shapiro.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/h182

Votes for 1964 Civil Rights Act, by party:
House: Dem 153 of 244 (63%), Rep 136 of 171 (80%)
Senate: Dem 46 of 67 (69%), Rep 27 of 33 (82%)

80-something is higher than 60-something, obviously, but both parties voted in favour by a significant majority.

Sort the votes instead by states who were part of the union vs. confederacy, and you get:

Votes for 1964 Civil Rights Act, by civil war side:
House: Union 281 of 313 (90%), Confederacy 8 of 102 (8%)
Senate: Union 72 of 78 (92%), Confederacy 1 of 22 (5%)

A much more significant difference (more than 9 to 1 in all four cases).

From that point on, the Republican Party consciously courted disaffected Democratic voters, by pushing the idea that the Democratic Party was working for "the blacks", against them. (It appears to me that they're using a similar tactic today, by pointing to Democrats opposing an unnecessary wall, and defending immigrants who have never known another country from deportation, and saying the Democrats are working for immigrants and against "you", their potential voter.)

Here's how a Republican operative described the strategy, in 1970:

"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats." Kevin Phillips, in the NYT, 1970.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/books/phillips-southern.pdf

It seems pretty clear the type of voter they were going to gain by that approach. (Which is not to say all Republican voters are racist or bigoted, just that racist or bigoted voters are more likely to be Republican, today.)

[Celtero]

Not sure how the voting rights act votes sorted by union vs confederacy proves republicans guilty or dems innocent. For all we know the confederate states were democrat. And I'm pretty sure democrats tried to filibuster it for 75 days.

That quote is just acknowledging that racists will now be more likely to vote red.

Look at the supreme court case of Dred Scott vs Sandford which ruled that slaves were property, not citizens. 7 out of 7 democrats voted yea, with 2 republicans voting nay.

Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president.

Democrats opposed the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment. Only reason they passed was because of overwhelming Republican support.

There were 22 elected black Republican congressmen by 1900. Democrats didn't elect a black man to congress until 1935.

Woodrow Wilson, Democrat, screened the first movie at the white house, "Birth of a Nation," based on the book "The Clansmen."

Lyndon B Johnson allegedly said, "I'll have those niggers voting Democrat for 200 years."

The Klu Klux Klan was established by Democrat, Nathan Bedford Forrest.

On this list, only 3/20 politicians affiliated with the Klan were Republicans.

en.wikipedia.org/.../Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United_States_politics

So I dunno man, I don't think it's productive to assign either side as "the racist one," but Dems should stop being hypocrites.

[Celtero]

I just realized the irony of your quote too.

Basically, it says "now those racist democrats will want to vote republican!"

[goaded]

Note the use of present tense in the title! Things change.

I'm not trying to make the case that either party has always been guilty or innocent, just that to associate the Democratic Party of today with the KKK is disingenuous, when it hasn't even arguably been the case for generations (apart from anything else, which of the 3 versions of the KKK is being referred to?).

Like I said, the confederate states were mostly Democrat at the time of the Civil Rights Act, and they were the states voting 9:1 against the act (and, I suspect, the ones doing the filibustering), whereas the other states were voting 9:1 for it, pretty much independent of whether they were Democrat or Republican. It's not like southern Republicans were voting for the act.

The Kevin Phillips quote isn't just "acknowledging that racists will now be more likely to vote red", it's recommending a course of action to ensure that's the case: don't try to weaken enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, or the racists will stay with the Democrats.

Dred Scot was in the mid 19th century. In England, the Whigs were still around, opposing both slavery and the Tory party (who are currently in power); would you say the British government is even slightly in favour of slavery today?

I did say that the Republicans were the party of Lincoln. That, too, has changed. Can you imaging a 21st century Republican saying "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."?

*19th Century* Democrats opposed the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment.

Wilson watched a movie, early 20th century Texan Johnson *allegedly* made a racially insensitive remark, while designing "Great Society" legislation to expand civil rights, public broadcasting, Medicare, Medicaid, aid to education, the arts, urban and rural development, public services and his "War on Poverty"

[goaded]

The only politician in your list that was active in my lifetime is David Duke.

Was Forrest a Democrat before he "infiltrated the Democrat's campaign for the presidential election of 1868. Prominent ex-Confederates, including Forrest, the Grand Wizard of the Klan, and South Carolina's Wade Hampton, attended as delegates at the 1868 Democratic Convention"? Even if he was, that wasn't the KKK of the 20th Century.

I don't think the Dems are being hypocritical, I think associating them with the horrors of yesterday is hypocritical, when it's coming from the people who are associated with the horrors of today (e. g. David Duke).

[Celtero]

Ah, I understand your point with the voting rights act now.

Historically speaking, the Democratic party is the party of racism and the KKK, and I think that's what people like Mr. Shapiro are referring to when they say that.

Like I said, assigning a status like that isn't really an argument or any way productive. Looking at current proposed policy matters a lot more.

Republican opposition tries to paint them as racists, and it's kind of a knee-jerk reaction to defend against that with the history. Basically, "No u."

[goaded]

I think you're being far too kind to Shapiro. I think he's the one saying "No you", to reasonable observations.

Am I an imperialist because I'm British? Do I support Nazis because I pay tax in Germany? No reasonable person would say so, and that's why I think Shapiro, and anyone bringing up such ancient, in terms of politics, history to smear a political party is being unreasonable and dishonest.

David Duke did support Trump, and Trump didn't exactly leap to refuse that support, did he? That Jimmy Dore video I posted to jaquesvol showed a 33 year old first time voter (and her immigrant grandfather!) supporting Trump, complete with 88 and Celtic cross tattoos on her hands. Finally, she had someone running she thought supported her.

What was it on the Simpsons? "Not racist, but #1 with racists!".

[Celtero]

Perhaps, it's been a while since I've heard him bring it up so I don't recall very well.

It's fair to say white supremacy is on the far right these days... but the only reason they vote Republican is because the Democrats are the party of intersectionality and open borders.

I don't think either party is CURRENTLY the party of the KKK, but historically speaking...

[jacquesvol]

[jacquesvol]

But Republicans like to spread fake 'news'

[jacquesvol]

And people like Ben Shapiro made it their way of debating

[goaded]

They do. But the thing is, it's not entirely fake; there was a time when it was true, just as there was a time when the Tories were OK with slavery. It's just a long, long time in the past.

On the other hand, you have this sort of thing, where first time voters who have been encouraged to vote by Trump, and just happen to have white supremacist tattoos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv8zBoeZ_yo (Skip to 2:50.)

[madhatters4]

it's funny that people seem to not recognize the incredible changes in the ideologies, leadership and constituencies of the different parties in nearly 250 years

[OlderAndWiser]

This seems to be one more approach at politics that has the result of dividing people instead of unifying them.

[SkyRez]

@goaded you realise you just stated facts that Democrats did not support civil rights, right?

Abraham Lincoln was elected, and this spurred the, yes slave owning, racist, south to leave the union, thus forming the confederacy.

It is no wonder we are not taught this in schools. I can't seem to figure out how to add links here... do a google search or whatever, "Was the confederacy republican or democratic". This is why there is so much confusion today, the left says that the right is racist, and say the south was right... nope! In fact the left is, and always was focused entirely on race, while the right focuses on individual accountability and ability.

[SkyRez]

Shit, lol I got lost in my thoughts, to add in statements of political partys. The south was left wing, and the north was right wing. Abe Lincoln, right wing. In fact, compared to today, all north was right, save 1.

[SkyRez]

I'd also mention, I found this post of yours from a statement from a statement of the history being in favor of democrats being for the rights of blacks, minorities. The most infamous example of racism (practiced by every nation, but somehow more important/notable in the usa) is slavery. I crafted my reply with that in mind. After the civil rights were taken care of, the south and north essentially flipped politically, but this doesn't matter, as the event of focus was over.

[SkyRez]

Essentially you are flawed by splitting first by party, then by war side. If you had looked at political affiliations within the sides of the war, you would have seen the fault.

[goaded]

"you realise you just stated facts that Democrats did not support civil rights, right?"
Of course. Did you read it at all? So did some Republicans. At the time of the civil rights act, almost all the southern state's representatives and senators voted against it, and at the time, most of them were Democrats.

Are you really not taught that Lincoln was a Republican in school? That seems odd. If there's any confusion, it's because some people are trying to pretend that the party's positions didn't change over the last century and a half.

For example Lincoln once said:
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Does that sound like a modern Republican?

Slavery had been practiced all over the world, but America was one of the last of the western countries to give it up; the British Empire finally abolished it in 1833, having already abolished the slave trade in 1807.

The "flaw" is the precise point of the take; there was not an especially clear difference in votes by party, but the split by civil war side is unmistakable.

[SkyRez]

School teaching: Nope. I have taken many political sci and other socials in college, along with standard high school classes. Parties are never taught, unless it is the Republican party that made the mistake in that case, then we are told how bad them republicans are.

As for your Abe lincoln quote, yes. That is at least what myself and those around me essentially believe. We must protect, and encourage labor, the free market, the ability for anyone and everyone to produce income, capital. Without that view we would not be in the country we are in, with the GDP the USA has. Nor would we be able to have the international affect we do today.

20 percent is not especially clear?

First of, race. I don't make excuses for minorities because I believe, as do any conservatives/classical liberals that are following classic values, that a person of any race is just as capable of performing in any situation as myself, and anyone i judge such as myself.

I do not support left policies as such. Many are condescending, and negative to the lives of m in minorities. For example, the ability to test in with lower scores at large universities. First, this assumes that minorities are stupid. Second, it sets them up for failure. Minorities dropout rates are higher, not to mention, I, a white person, would never make it to Stanford, or similar. A minority of equal intellect, could. Neither of us are going to do any better at that school.

This is why I find it ridiculous when left screams racist, or any other exchangeable word. I see this policy as being a hell of a lot more racist, at the least condescending. And that's really what it is today. When there is a minority riot, the left speaks of how there was no options remaining for them. They defend them. They treat them as though children, unable to defend their own action. Is this not ridiculous? It completely demeans their whole protest, reducing it to a hissy fit.

[SkyRez]

Frankly I am supporting my own beliefs at this point... not that of the "mainstream 'racist' Republican" as seems to be the standard view of the right.

[goaded]

While I appreciate your thoughts, I'll not have much, if any, chance to respond in the next couple of weeks, sorry.

It sounds like your politics lessons should be more nuanced. The Abe Lincoln quote is almost Marxist, in case you didn't notice; you might like to look into that. Myself, I think people ought to be able to get rich, but their children should have to make do with nothing more than an amazing education, network of contacts and similar advantages their parents can provide, not inherit wealth beyond the dreams of avarice.

"20 percent is not especially clear?"
Not nearly as clear as 90%+.

I agree with you that a simplistic bonus for minorities is unreasonable; I'd much rather see something like a bonus for excelling in a school with a lower average level. Do reasonably well in an inner city or small rural school deprived of funds, you probably would have done much better in a more affluent school. (Of course, you could just ensure that every child is funded well, and not dependent on local taxes, which obviously favours rich areas.)

What do you think of Legacy students? They get a bonus for being the offspring of an alumnus; what's that about, if not maintaining inter-generational privilege?

Racism does exist, and awareness of it allows people to recognise when policies, like Crosscheck en.wikipedia.org/.../Interstate_Voter_Registration_Crosscheck_Program, or treating crack cocaine differently from powder cocaine have disproportionate effects on people of colour, and to try to work against them, or compensate for them.

[SkyRez]

Southern Republicans are racist. Since I have no experience, and it is such a widely upheld belief, I cannot deny, nor confirm it. That is what the 90% plus is arguing. Then at the same time that was a far different form of racism than we have today.

On legacy students, again, first I've actually looked it up. From what I can tell, you get a huge increase in acceptance if your parents were at that college, correct?

Businesses wise for the college, obviously a great idea, it pretty much guarantees a family to keep sending their kids to that college. I am not aware whether it applies no matter grades/scores, or "if your parents went here, come on in, I don't care if you have straight D's!". Again, as stated about keeping the family in, i think it would work well, and as long as it only applies to students that have similar grades to the top of applicants. I get your point though, if it applies no matter the legacy students grades, then I cannot support it and deny race based benifits.

So, to answer, as long as it only gives benefits to legacy's that are also top of class, then it makes cents ;) and I support it. If however, a alumni shows up with their dumb ass kid, and expects them to get in, and they do, over a far more intelligent and more importantly, a kid with far more potential, then no.

This is simply to support the business side of school, and because there is a certain level of dignity with have a full family of "_____ college" grads.

[SkyRez]

And yes, I agree. I am surrounded by food stamps. A woman will walk up to register in fron of me, 4 children, whips out fifty little pieces of paper to pay for her bread and butter. I've actually paid for a few people's shit because I was in a hurry. My problem with it, aside from it being such a time waster for people, the benifitie included, is that people are fed for nothing but the tax payers money. I know 20 family's, all 2+ kids, both single and two parent, that are on every kind of government aid imaginable. 4 of them have a full time job in the family, 8 have a job of any kind.

They have all been in that situation for at leas 6 years, and 3 of the families parents were raised in it, and are still in poverty.

This is why I don' believe in handing out money, or stamps, or whatever. When you are handed shit your whole life, you don' know how to make any of it yourself.

I think government aid should require an income. Something like you have to be making 10,000 a year for government aid to step in.

[goaded]

I've got to leave in a few minutes, but wikipedia says: "As a body of entering freshmen, legacies almost invariably have substantially lower GPAs and SAT scores than the larger body of entering freshmen, and, during their undergraduate careers, legacies as a body of students typically perform worse than the overall student body."

Also, how does it help the college financially? As long as all places are filled, they get the same amount of money, surely? (And if they fill them with quality students, the graduation rate would improve, as well.)

I don't recall making a comment about food stamps, but aiui, the US has quite strenuous work requirements for most benefits. And $10,000 is 27 hours a week at minimum wage, which is a lot for a single parent.

[SkyRez]

Guaranteeing a good relationship with the wealthy and influential? I don't know. Anyway, if that data on wiki is correct, then that needs to be worked on/abolished.

I brought up food stamps just speaking of inequality. Simply stating I don't see them working, ever. Not I live in the state with the highest number of those in poverty, and in the poorest country of cali. Needs a reform. That's all I meant.

Well, whatever you are heading off to, good luck!

[goaded]

Thanks, I survived!

I don't know exactly how food stamps work, but I can get behind the basic idea that no-one should starve to death in the richest country in history.

[SkyRez]

Welcome back! Good to hear.

I agree, and it's human nature... okay it is in the nature of all living beings, to find a way to eat. The USA produces enough food in country to feed our population, including illegals, homeless, everyone, with only a third of our production. It really isn't hard to grow enough food to feed people. It also isn't hard to acquire that good, hearty food.

Problem is, we eat so damn much "food" not for the calories, the physical stuff, but for the vitamins and minerals in that food. There is so little of it in the packaged food we get from overseas. And that is the American diet of the lower and middle class. Few people know how to make a good hearty meal.

My argument is: food stamps have many different renditions. Whether is be a deposit each month that is supposed to be for food, or a ticket for safeway saying exactly 2 pounds of cheese, a pound of meat, etc. This is very inefficient, and a draw on taxes that is not effective in its goal.

No one is going to starve without it. Living beings figure out how to survive, and in learning skills like cooking etc. With market grown food, rather than a box of cheerios, you end up needing less of that good food, and a sense of pride is built, rather than essentially being given everything. And pride is a will to live, and make a better life to liven

[SkyRez]

Simple google search for how much is 2000 calories:

Based on a standard 2000-calorie diet, the researchers found a diet consisting primarily ofcalorie-dense foods costs $3.52 a day, but a diet consisting primarily of low-calorie food costs$36.32 a day.

Continuing to say an average American spends 7 dollars a day. That's a half hour to an hour of work. Anywhere. I made 10 dollars an hour at 12.

Let's put an upper number on that. Calorie rich, nutritious foods arnt to hard to find.

6 house members, 4 children. 10 dollars a day per,

10x6x

[SkyRez]

Hit the button to soon...

[SkyRez]

My point is, a STANDARD American diet is 7 dollars according to google. At 10 dollars, with 6 mouths to feed, likely 2 working, that's 20,000 a year.

If bo tf h adults work only 5 hours a day round the year, at 10 dollars an hour, that's 35,000.

My point isn't moral. Its mean to make people fend for themselves, I get it. But it also gives people a reason to work, a reason to better themselves. A reason not to drift to the lower class because it is easier to get food from the government than hang in the middle.

I also think help should be provided, but only in a case that a person is completely incapable of working or getting food on their own, in the case of an injury and no family sort of thing.

[goaded]

There are people going hungry, though, and food isn't the only cost in keeping a family, you also need a place to live - hundreds of dollars a month. If you live in a poor community, who's going to pay you to work for them? If you need to travel to somewhere where you can get paid, that takes time and money, too.

(Just out of interest, do Americans really eat much imported junk food?)

[SkyRez]

YESSS! which is a shame. I think I mentioned it before, we produce enough on our land to feed the entire nation with fresh meat and veggies, it mostly gets exported.

Yes, living is expensive. But barely supporting people isn't working. And adding on the mentality of working just enough to get by, or being lazy, or accepting who you are, including your income, all those mentalities that are being, at least, accepted if not encouraged is not helping. Our goal should not be to barely support those at the bottom, it should be to provide a ladder that allows everyone, or near to it, to climb and become the most productive people on the planet, not the least. If you want to be supported by the government, recieving the money of others in the form of care and housing etc. Move just north to Canada. Or head out east.

America was founded for the growth of everyone. ANYONE can come here, and start a business. ANYONE can come here and work at those businesses. A small amount of taxes comes from those people, to pay for security, and federal infrastructure to allow more busines, the people may do as they please as long as it continues to allow this system, and does not pose danger to others, or the nation. That is the ideal. And it is ruined by increased legislation/taxes, increased public assistance, which both translate to higher taxes.

If you don't want to prosper, meaning have growth. If you are not driven by developing something succesful, then you should not try to conform such a beautiful system to the way the east has it. America is powerful BECAUSE it does not follow the systems of ANY other nation.

If you think it is bad that one nation, or one person, or one anything, is more powerful than another, I'm sorry, I can't agree. We are not in a stage, a world, that power can be evenly distributed.

🎵"If you got a problem with that, ha, ha, you can kiss my country ass"🎵

[SkyRez]

That was an excited yes, to both the hunger, and the junk food.

Side note, are you American? I've been assuming you are.

Side side note, I used you in my speech, I was referring to anyone, not you you

[goaded]

No, I'm European. I have some family that's American, though (and Australian, French, English, possibly even Thai).

America is powerful because it's a huge country full of resources, and it was largely unscathed by the two World Wars. The days when someone can walk in, head west, and get givern a parcel of land are long gone. Actually, now I type that, I realise that was the government giving resources to poor people...

[SkyRez]

That was unclaimed land poor people came in and took. On which the government forced itself.

And yes, of course that doesn't happen. But that was over very quickly. Every day new businesses, and new immigrants come to work, and make a better life. 100% still happening. Trick is to MAKE a better life. Not to take a portion of a better life as their own.

Unscathed due to being powerful... nevertheless I get your point.

I also understand now why our conversations have been interesting to me. When I discuss these topics with my peers I sense hatred for my country. You are an outsider, and all I sense from you is a clear statement things arnt working over here. I appreciate that.

[goaded]

"Unscathed due to being powerful..."
No, due to being thousands of miles away from any fighting. We're still digging up unexploded bombs around here, over 70 years later. One even exploded a couple of months ago. www.thevintagenews.com/.../

I think there were some people who didn't think their land was "unclaimed". :)

For decades, America has been the land of opportunity, now other countries have caught up and even overtaken it, especially in terms of social mobility.

It is a great country, founded on admirable ideals, but it's having problems with greed and desire for power. Hopefully you'll get over it, again.

[Waffles731]

Is this really your first mytake

[goaded]

Apparently, yes! I just ask questions and create polls. This time I wanted to put this somewhere for the inevitable next time someone uses it.

[goaded]

Hope you don't mind, I can't update the take, but I wanted to keep this video @Soteris posted handy.

https://youtu.be/MwuFIJlY7fU

[awesometjgreen]

Excellent mytake, you hit the nail on the head.