Can Catholics be Democrats?

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

So if Republicans had always been on the forefront of fighting racism, they did not show it any more than the Democrats.

This is sophistry. Properly you mean to say that Republicans “did not show it” anymore than the Democrats IN THE 1964 VOTE YOU REFERENCED.

Yes, and a very important vote it was, being the most significant civil rights legislation in the 20th century.

This is really a back-handed way of saying the Democrats finally caught up to the Republicans in advocating for the black citizens after 100 years of racism.

Republicans backed the bill by over 80% and Democrats also backed the bill by a little under 70%. Both parties finally backed the civil rights that Republicans had tried to implement 100 years previously. The Democratic Party in their 1948 party conference started moving towards the Republican position and good on them.

I’ll give the historical Republicans their due for being the first to recognize the evils of slavery. But the division in the Democratic party in 1964 was strictly a North/South thing. Southern Democrats opposed the bill. Northern Democrats supported it 94% in the House and 98% in the Senate. The divide among Republicans was similar, but less significant because there were only 10 of them in the house and one of them in the Senate. But if we look at Northern Republicans, they supported the bill by 85% in the House and 84% in the Senate. Good, but not quite as good as the Northern Democrats.

If you are going to use something about the historical Democrats and the historical Republicans to conclude something about them today, you should start with something that was universally true of them historically. In 1964, it could no longer be said that Democrats were against civil rights. If they were “catching up” to the Republicans, it seems from these figures that they passed them up by about 1964.

In any case, historical data about these parties are not as significant as what they are doing today.

 

[abucs]

If you read the conversation that you stepped into you will find that the question was whether the Democrats supported slavery or not as only a southern thing in the 1860’s.

You are 100 years late in referencing your 1960’s vote.

and no they didn’t pass them, but that is a different question.
and no one said their historic racism towards negroes says anything about Democrats being racist today toward the negro. In fact what was said was quite the opposite which is also a problem.

instead of creating non sequiturs leading to sophistry you are welcome to address the issues discussed.

 

[Vonsalza]

You mean the one and only Democrat that both voted against civil rights and then joined the Republican party?

The only democrat? Virtually the entire south did this…

Shall I re-post the electoral maps 1960 to present? Forgotten them that quickly?

In your mind this is the Republican party. That is being brainwashed.

Nonsense. I’m only posting the argument that if you’re a racist bigot today, then you probably vote republican. Not that all republicans are presently racist bigots.

Similarly, in the past if you were a racist bigot, you probably voted democrat. But that didn’t mean all democrats were then racist bigots.

How about Tim Scott, also a Republican from South Carolina, or do you shut your mind to that?

How does this disprove that racism largely went republican?

Of course there are individual exceptions - such is the nature of any human endeavor. I think we all know pretty well that the skinheads and closet racists of the present didn’t vote for Hillary. or Obama. or Kerry. or Gore. or Clinton. Or Dukakis. Or Mondale.

This is one of the really negative things about the Democrats that they need to see racism everywhere…

No. We just see it where it is.

It poisons society even to the point in defending people who wanted slave states to have the power to enslave black people and not admitting how morally reprehensible that is.

No, I’m just capable of seeing that northern and southern dems were not unified on the institution of slavery and that anyone who broadly lumps the two together are either ideologically motivated to do so or so sloppy in their research that they don’t have anything of value to add.

Of course, you also openly cite Breitbart; so we can fairly guess which one. I highly recommend picking sources that are not openly critiqued as dubious.

 

[Vonsalza]

You seem to be re-editing repeatedly, so apologies if you raised a later point that was not addressed.

 

[abucs]

The only democrat? Virtually the entire south did this…
Shall I re-post the electoral maps 1960 to present? Forgotten them that quickly?

You are wilfully wanting to see racism in the southern Republicans today. If Republicans who were the natural home of the Negro civil rights historically and also voted pro civil rights by over 80% for the 1964 act and over 90% for the 1965 civil rights act why would your RACIST south vote Republican?

Why would there be a landslide to the Republican party in 1968? Why would the whole country vote for the Republican party in 1972?

and why did the south then switch back to the Democrats in 1976?

You are reading the maps in a very irrational, self serving way.

How does this disprove that racism largely went republican?

You sighted the one Democrat/Dixicrat politician from South Carolina who became a Republican trying to imagine racism without referencing the fact that the same electorate voted for the Black senator Tim Scott. If this electorate was racist they would not have voted for Tim Scott.

Nonsense. I’m only posting the argument that if you’re a racist bigot today, then you probably vote republican.

and I have already answered that if you are a bigot in the way you are suggesting and your choice is between a race neutral Republican party and a mildly anti-white identity poliitics Democratic party then you are going to choose the first one. Rationally this does not make the Republican party racist.

In the same way Islamic Jihdist terrorists would be more likely to vote Democrat but that doesn’t mean the Democratic Party are pro Jihad. You are not being rational with your thinking.

No, I’m just capable of seeing that northern and southern dems were not unified on the institution of slavery and that anyone who broadly lumps the two together are either ideologically motivated to do so or so sloppy in their research that they don’t have anything of value to add.

and I have asked you repeatedly to say whether the Northern Democratic position in the 1860’s is moral and you have not answered and we both know why. The northern democrats were wrong to want pro slave states to have the right on whether black people should be enslaved. Rationally a lot of your argument falls right there and you are ignoring the rational outworkings of giving pro slave states the right to enslave black people.

Of course, you also openly cite Breitbart; so we can fairly guess which one. I highly recommend picking sources that are not openly critiqued as dubious.

First of all the link was for Leaf and secondly I cited a variety of sources including wiki and politico. If you don’t like one source then use the others. But if you don’t like something because of the source it would be really good to read what it says and point out what is incorrect.

 

[Vonsalza]

You are wilfully wanting to see racism in the southern Republicans today.

No I don’t. That’s just how you’re trying to warp my argument.

I’m merely saying that since the Civil Rights Movement, the republican party has been the party of preference for racist bigots; particularly in the south as they enjoy slightly greater concentration there. This isn’t really open for debate. You think David Duke went for Hillary?

If Republicans who were the natural home of the Negro civil rights historically and also voted pro civil rights by over 80% for the 1964 act and over 90% for the 1965 civil rights act why would your RACIST south vote Republican?

In 1964, it was a vote against that traitor LBJ!

In 1968, they tried the third-party option for the umpteenth time, which promptly failed for the umpteenth time.

In 1972, McGovern was an even more progressive liberal than LBJ was! Couldn’t vote for THAT guy…

I’ll happily admit that racist southern dems were largely a people without a comfy political home for a decade or so until after the election of Carter. When Carter obliterated his republican opponent, the GOP was in panic-mode. They then solidified their hold on this group when they began using “God” and “faith” in their platform. As most of your racist southerners were also stalwart evangelicals, the clarion call for republican support went out.

The rest is history.

You sighted the one Democrat/Dixicrat politician from South Carolina…

As representative of the path that racially motivated southern dems took in microcosm. And it’s an excellent example. He was a southern dem. Then tried the dixiecrats. Then ultimately went republican when the evangelical courtship began.

And Tim Scott kinda proves my point. He was the first black republican elected to public office in SC in a century.

and I have already answered that…

Then thank you for the concession.

Islamic Jihdist terrorists would be more likely to vote Democrat…

ok, buddy.

and I have asked you repeatedly to say whether the Northern Democratic position in the 1860’s is moral…

By modern standards, of course not. By modern standards, in 1860 only the republican view on slavery was acceptable.

But then judging other culture’s moral decisions by contemporary standards in also a clear anachronism, which is a rhetorical error - if you didn’t know.

By modern standards, virtually every culture that existed before the Victorian Enlightenment was racist and employed slavery in some form. And the abolition of slavery in the west happened over a fairly rapid period, relative to how long the institution existed. Portugal was the first in 1761 and Brazil was the last in 1888. Northern dems were simply “par for the course” for their time.

But if you don’t like something because of the source it would be really good to read what it says and point out what is incorrect.

For Breitbart, I’ll pass. If they make the rare, credible point, I’m sure it will also be published in other, more reputable sources.

 

[abucs]

I’m merely saying that since the Civil Rights Movement, the republican party has been the party of preference for racist bigots; particularly in the south as they enjoy slightly greater concentration there. This isn’t really open for debate. You think David Duke went for Hillary?

and I would note that by bigot you are talking specifically about a white person having a hatred for black people. A black person having a hatred of a white person is more likely to be in the Democratic party as is an Islamic Jihadi. This has little relevance to discussing the position of political parties which is what we were discussing. You have gone off track here.

In 1964, it was a vote against that traitor LBJ!

In 1968, they tried the third-party option for the umpteenth time, which promptly failed for the umpteenth time.

In 1972, McGovern was an even more progressive liberal than LBJ was! Couldn’t vote for THAT guy…

and how would you prove that this is actually why the south voted this way?

1964 even if you are correct this doesn’t make the Republican party racist.
1968 they jumped ship from the Republican party here so they were not happy with that party.
1972 everyone voted for Republicans this year so again you can’t say the Republicans were racist without inferring the whole country voted for the racist Republicans. Was there any moves here to reverse the civil rights legislation? Of course not. There you have it.
1976. The south jumped away again from the Republican party so they can’t be the racist party here either.

I’ll happily admit that racist southern dems were largely a people without a comfy political home for a decade or so until after the election of Carter. When Carter obliterated his republican opponent, the GOP was in panic-mode. They then solidified their hold on this group when they began using “God” and “faith” in their platform. As most of your racist southerners were also stalwart evangelicals, the clarion call for republican support went out.

The rest is history.

and you are going off track again here because God and faith have nothing to do with race. If you have similar examples based on race then what are they? If you don’t have them in a meaningful way then that says a lot.
If the pro civil rights Republicans won over the Southern Democratic racists because of God and religion and not race, then that is a great victory for everyone and might explain why groups like the Ku Klux Klan are largely irrelevant today.

As representative of the path that racially motivated southern dems took in microcosm. And it’s an excellent example. He was a southern dem. Then tried the dixiecrats. Then ultimately went republican when the evangelical courtship began.

Saying the party appealed to God and faith contradicts the allegation they appealed to race.

 

[abucs]

And Tim Scott kinda proves my point. He was the first black republican elected to public office in SC in a century.
…

Then thank you for the concession.

No it doesn’t and no I didn’t.

By modern standards, of course not. By modern standards, in 1860 only the republican view on slavery was acceptable.

Yes, exactly. Neither set of positions from the Democrats (in general) North or South is morally acceptable. This is what we were discussing, everything else is noise.

By modern standards, virtually every culture that existed before the Victorian Enlightenment was racist and employed slavery in some form. And the abolition of slavery in the west happened over a fairly rapid period, relative to how long the institution existed. Portugal was the first in 1761 and Brazil was the last in 1888. Northern dems were simply “par for the course” for their time.

Leaving aside the Victorian Enlightenment claims what you have said here is that people were generally racist and pro slavery and this applied to the Democrats (north and south). This is exactly what we had been discussing.

If the dems were par for the course then Republicans were trailblazers for civil fairness and freedom. A position that has now been accepted by the overwhelming number of people that we call todays modern moral standards.

 

[Vonsalza]

A black person having a hatred of a white person is more likely to be in the Democratic party as is an Islamic Jihadi.

I unambiguously demand that you proof this statement with something that has even a shred of objective credibility (vis-a-vis, not Breitbart)

This has little relevance to discussing the position of political parties which is what we were discussing. You have gone off track here.

and how would you prove that this is actually why the south voted this way?

Oh I don’t have to. You implicitly agree that the south stopped voting consistently dem. There’s lots of reasons, but dissonance with the increasingly progressive stance of the the rest of the dems is the greatest.

The reps were more than happy to claim these racist voters on appeals to God - something that wasn’t done on the platform level with any consistency until the Republicans began doing it in the early 70s.

and you are going off track again here because God and faith have nothing to do with race.

Not at all. It was the “net” the GOP used to scoop up these disaffected democrats.

You guys invited the racists right into your party.

Saying the party appealed to God and faith contradicts the allegation they appealed to race.

I never claimed the republicans appealed to the dems directly on race; particularly at the platform level.

Don’t drift, please.

 

[Vonsalza]

Yes, exactly. Neither set of positions from the Democrats (in general) North or South is morally acceptable. This is what we were discussing, everything else is noise.

Judging another time and place by contemporary norms is a quintessential anachronism - one you happily commit.

Sub par.

Leaving aside the Victorian Enlightenment claims what you have said here is that people were generally racist and pro slavery and this applied to the Democrats (north and south).

Here you go with your broad brush again. Claiming that northern democrats supported slavery in the same way as southern dems is factually incorrect. A quarter of that segment of the party explicitly rejected it en toto, the other 3/4 thought it was a state issue and not the be decided by the federal government.

Southern dems, on the other hand, openly supported the institution and argued for its necessity.

These are facts that your broad brush is errantly and fallaciously trying to paint over.

Again, sub-par.

If the dems were par for the course then Republicans were trailblazers for civil fairness and freedom.

Indeed they were. What’s equally true is that they’ve surrendered that mantle to the dems today.

If you’re progressive, you’re generally no longer republican.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Indeed they were. What’s equally true is that they’ve surrendered that mantle to the dems today.

My twitter and PM’s say otherwise…

If you’re progressive, you’re generally no longer republican.

“Progressive is what happens when a liberal goes bad”. —Pat Condell

 

[SuperLuigi]

The reps were more than happy to claim these racist voters on appeals to God - something that wasn’t done on the platform level with any consistency until the Republicans began doing it in the early 70s.

Racism started declining.

I unambiguously demand that you proof this statement with something that has even a shred of objective credibility (vis-a-vis, not Breitbart)

Statistically, it’s more probable.

 

[SuperLuigi]

You guys invited the racists right into your party.

I have yet to meet a racist conservative.

 

[Vonsalza]

Racism started declining.

I’m glad you think so. But as someone who lives in rural Appalachia, that doesn’t seem to be the case in my neck of the woods. And that’s Kentucky. Northernmost of the “southern states”.

A neighborhood near me is generally referred to by the (white) locals as “N****r Creek”. It’s where a large portion of the black population in my town live.

Statistically, it’s more probable.

Still looking for any sort of objective citation; not agreement from a co-ideologue…

 

[Vonsalza]

I have yet to meet a racist conservative.

Most folks won’t introduce their racial views in casual conversation. If you’ve met many southern conservatives (particularly any with a low level of formal education), you’ve probably met a racist.

Again, not saying all are. But very many are. They’re just usually smart enough to know that it’s not a topic to be broached in open conversation with a relative stranger.

Referring to the above post, the folks I’ve heard call the mostly black neighborhood in my town “N****r Creek” didn’t use the title until they’d built some familiarity with me.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Most folks won’t introduce their racial views in casual conversation. If you’ve met many southern conservatives (particularly any with a low level of formal education), you’ve probably met a racist.

This is a very disgusting comment. And in fact I have met the people you describe to a certain extent----except they were all Democrats.

Referring to the above post, the folks I’ve heard call the mostly black neighborhood in my town “N****r Creek” didn’t use the title until they’d built some familiarity with me.

I’ve got similar examples all from the left.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Still looking for any sort of objective citation; not agreement from a co-ideologue…

Translation: I want it from a liberal source that doesn’t cite so I can win the argument on a logical fallacy.

BTW, it’s common knowledge…no citation needed.

Also, you haven’t cited your claims that the GOP all became magically racist on some undefined day in the 1970s.

 

[Vonsalza]

This is a very disgusting comment. And in fact I have met the people you describe to a certain extent----except they were all Democrats.

I’ve got similar examples all from the left.

Look, you and @Abucs can spin this thing as hard as you want…

Racist democrat southerners didn’t spontaneously cease to exist after LBJ. As I’ve pointed out, late senator Strom Thurmond is an excellent representative microcosm. Democrat->Dixiecrat->Republican. And his views didn’t change.

They became republicans.

Translation: I want it from a liberal source that doesn’t cite so I can win the argument on a logical fallacy.

Not at all. Just a request for you to proof your claim, which you absolutely must do in order for it to stand as sound.

Again, terrorists are more likely to be democrats? Citation please… Make your case, sir.

BTW, it’s common knowledge…no citation needed.

Ah, the “ad populum” logical fallacy. More commonly known as the “bandwagon fallacy”.

Also, you haven’t cited your claims that the GOP all became magically racist on some undefined day in the 1970s.

That wasn’t my claim. My claim has been that racist (mostly southern) dems largely became republicans after LBJ, particularly after the GOP fired up the evangelical charm in the early to mid 70s. The election results charts provide extremely strong evidence for this.

These racist folks didn’t simply vanish.

The transition of the southern democrat into a southern republican is covered pretty extensively by reviews of the “Southern Strategy(ies)” of the GOP, even though I think it gets too much playtime. There are quotes from Nixon’s advisors that “there was no ‘southern strategy’” and there are quotes from other Nixon advisors that detail extensively about how to capture these racially sensitive voters.

The courting of evangelicals (the typical religious identity of these racially sensitive voters) sealed the deal, in my view.
A book on the topic: God’s Own Party

 

[abucs]

I unambiguously demand that you proof this statement with something that has even a shred of objective credibility (vis-a-vis, not Breitbart)

Leaving aside your indirect crack at Breitbart and leaving aside your obvious enveloping of yourself in emotion instead of reason, let’s look at this rationally.

Without even referencing groups like black lives matter who ally themselves to the Democrats and without referencing the Democrats white privilege rhetoric and Democrats continually pandering to race politics such as Biden saying ‘they’ll have you all back in chains’, leaving aside the racist policies of the Democrats such as ‘affirmative action’, leaving all of that aside; black people have voted Democrat in the recent past by about 90%. So of course what I say is true. Emotionally you may not like it but rationality trumps subjective emotion and this undermines your argument that white racists more likely to vote Republican defines the Republican party. If I were to make that same argument with the Democrats at least I have examples regarding racist policies and rhetoric, you basically have a wish to see the other as racist.

 

[abucs]

Oh I don’t have to. You implicitly agree that the south stopped voting consistently dem. There’s lots of reasons, but dissonance with the increasingly progressive stance of the the rest of the dems is the greatest.

You went through 3 election cycles giving your 1 sentence analysis for each on why ‘white southern racists’ voted the way they did. Yes, you do have to give some sort of proof other than a one sentence description that most fits your own prejudice. Elections are complex phenomena with people voting for a variety of reasons. All of this discussion is based on your original argument that the Republican party became racist. Your one sentence imaginings of the whole group of people called ‘southern white racists’ says absolutely zero about the Republican party. That the south should eventually, after about 30 years move from consistently voting Democrat to consistently voting Republican does not in any way mean that the racist reason they voted for the Democrats in the 1950’s is the same racist reason they are voting for the Republicans today. This is especially true since the Republican Party basically went to war with the south because of racism and there would be some residual bad feeling between the two. With the south now voting in a majority way for the Republicans, one would assume that one of these groups have given way to the other’s philosophy. Since no one wants to bring back the Democrats slavery, Jim Crow or Ku Klux Klan it Is obvious that the south have accepted the Republicans moral anti racist philosophy. You desperately are trying to see it as the other way around. Your views are based on emotion and prejudice.