What do you think about the idea that Democrats are the party who have a history of being racist?

—I don’t have an answer, but thanks for the great question! I’ve been wondering this also.—

There’s no question that many significant democrats were racist, including George Wallace, segregationist governor of Alabama, while many republicans, including president Teddy Roosevelt, were progressives who opposed racism. Roosevelt was the first American president to invite an African American (Booker T. Washington) to dinner at the white house. But generalizations aren’t particularly useful. Politicians of either party can be racist or not.

From the time of the Civil War until the election of President Kennedy and his administration’s support of the civil rights movement, white southerners were predominantly Democrat. This was manly because Lincoln was a Republican and it was the succeeding Republican administrations that enforced the bitter, punative policies of Reconstruction upon the defeated Southern States which severely retarded economic recovery. The memory of carpetbagging Yankees, lost family fortunes and the economic desolation of whole regions ran long and deep.

The perceived liberal policies of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations began to change all that and many Southern Democrats began switching over to the Republican Party.

the big shift was during the 1968 campaign with Nixon and the southern strategy. Nixon courted disaffected “Dixiecrats” (southern Dems) with veiled racist scare tactics. From Wikipedia: ”...several Republican candidates expressed support for states’ rights, which some critics claim was “codewords” of opposition to federal enforcement of civil rights for blacks and intervention on their behalf, including passage of legislation to protect the franchise.”

When Lyndon Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act he said, “We have lost the South for a generation.” The GOP became the preferred home of racists after that, and actively worked to get their votes. Longtime unapologetic segregationists like Senator Strom Thurmond moved to the Republican party after that.

Lee Atwater, Republican strategist explained, “You start out in 1954 by saying, “ni~~er, ni~~er, ni~~er.” By 1968 you can’t say “ni~~er” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “ni~~er, ni~~er.””

@GeorgeGee I doubt Teddy called Booker an “African American” and I doubt Booker wanted to be called that either. The “African-American” label is SO liberal USA PC. I am particularly conscious of this because at this very moment, my son, a Naval Officer, is on a plane returning from 3 weeks in Ghana working with the military forces of 17 nations on an exercise in online communication between the countries. All 17 nations are African. The military of all 17 nations are darker colored, from lighter to very dark, and none of them call themselves African Ghanians, or whatever their country happens to be. Further, they identify in no way whatsoever with Black Americans, whom they consider just another American and in no way African.

@plethora It was American blacks who started calling themselves African-Americans at a certain point in recent history. As a liberal, I believe it is any group’s right to decide how they want to be named and I will follow their lead to the extent that I can; not my yob to criticize.

I haven’t watched the video but I’m familiar with the arguments that Black Americans have been tricked into their loyalty to Democrats. If you want to read more about it, Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America by John McWhorter and Uncle Tom’s Plantation by Star Parker are really excellent reads. McWhorter doesn’t necessarily castigate Democrats outright, but he is strongly against some very liberal Democrat ideals, like affirmative action, whereas Star Parker, whose book is much more of a narrative than an academic work like McWhorter’s, is extremely conservative and anti-Democrat and talks a lot about how Democratic policies harm Black people. I personally find the arrguments a bit hooey, but it is absolutely fascinating to read about them.

That’s just wrong. In the sixties when the Dems were behind civil rights all these racist Dems became Republicans.

Historically, it was Democrats who owned slaves.

This was many years ago, so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to connect current members of the party to atrocities long past.

To misquote Republican pundits, “Hitlerize Me.”

I’ve never heard of this.

@GeorgeGee has it right. The only reason most southerners were democrat is that they felt betrayed and unjustly punished by the Lincoln Republican. Since then, the two parties switched and racist democrats like Robert Byrd changed their tune and became pro-civil right advocates. Racist Democrat Strom Thurmond switch to the republican side. When the Christian Right joined the Republican, that pretty much defined the party as racist, separatist, and fascist leaning as it remains today.

It’s so retarded that it hurts my brain to try to imagine what perverted drivel pool that idea might have oozed out of. So I’m stopping trying.

Couple of things first Historically it was ALL WHITE LAND OWNERS Republican and Democrats who owned slaves. Second @GeorgeGee is correct Booker T. would have never called himself African American that’s some new crap by liberal Blacks who think they’re beyond being called “Black” Third I don’t think you can call a party racist. There are racist people in both parties. It would be absurd to think that only Republicans are racist and all Democrats are not. That’s just not how the human mind operates on the basis of prejudices. I’m a Black man and Republican, does that make me a racist as well? Fourth We as a people should be able to decipher politics from life issues that occur everyday within our communities. I should know that all White people aren’t racist just like all White people should know that all Black people aren’t uneducated and criminals. These are common sense issues that we allow to produce stupid stereotypes about each other and politicians use fear as a element to win votes and to get us, the voters all upset over insignificant things that really mean absolutely nothing in the political arena. Its time that we start dispelling these biases and hold our politicians to task for issues that affect us all as humans beings and Americans not just as White and Black people. But there is some catching up that needs to be done before Blacks are equal and treated fairly within this society because after all racism and prejudice still exist among our society and not talking about it will not make it go away.

@lccurtis1 Thank you…Your sentiments are very true. And welcome to Fluther.

Nowadays, I’d say that they’re less generally racist, though I see some of their various social programs and philosophies as detrimental to the well-being of some minority populations. Poorly-executed good intentions, or subtle malice?

@janbb
@lccurtis1 speaks to this issue, so I will not…..
Booker T. would have never called himself African American that’s some new crap by liberal Blacks who think they’re beyond being called “Black”

@lccurtis1 Glad to have you on Fluther, Sir.

Not just histry… bill clinton said about obama, “under normal circumstances, this guy would be serving us coffee” and them there is dr howard dean… never mind… vote the person, not the party. But you will get some people here foaming at the mouth with hate… namely the liberals here.

Nice post @lccurtis1. Welcome.

I don’t know about the past, but I do have relatives who are white, ranchers, live in Eastern Colorado, and are VERY Democrat. I mean door-to-door convert you Democrats. However, I guaran-god-damn-tee you they are as racist as any general pool of Republicans you might care to imagine.

City Democrats are entirely different than Midwest farmer Democrats: to be sure.

I don’t remember any black folk in The Grapes Of Wrath (1940). That’s their version of “Democrat”.

There absolutely is a history of Democrats being racists, there is also a history of Republicans being racists. It was and is a terrible thing. To delegate racism to a party in general just doesn’t wash. People are racist, not parties. I thought that we were at the post racial point in this country, but it seems that I hear the awful word more than ever now.

As a child, my grandfathers generation in the south was very Democrat. I’m not sure there were any Republicans in the South in his day. I did know that Republican was a dirty word. I also know that, knowing my grandfather, if he were alive today, he wouldn’t touch the Democratic party. As the Democrats changed, and became synonymous with the 60s/70s generation, so did the old Democrats become Republicans. NOTE: I’m working with memory here, some of it childhood memories, so this is my perception, looking back on it.

As others have noted, the South became solidly Democratic after the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, and the Southerners held his war efforts, emancipatin proclamation and Sherman’s devastating march against all Republicans. Southern Democrats were an arch conservative brand dubbed Dixiecrats. They were often at odds with their more liberal colleagues elsewhere in the country, but they were nonetheless Democrats.

Republicans were the early champions of voting rights and equality for Southern Blacks. Republicans today like to point to that as proof they are the party of equality for all, even though that stance ended over 50 years ago. Today that is a bald-faced lie. In the 1960s as the Brown vs. Board of Education decision by the US Supreme Court and the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act went into effect, Democratic President Lyndon Johnson sent federal troops into Alabama to force Racist Governor George Wallace to allow black students to attend the University of Alabama as the COurt had ordered

Dixiecrats were infuriated that a fellow Democrat had interfered in their version of Apartheid. The Republican Party, sensing an opening to win the solidly Democratic South to Republican folds, made a deal with the devil. The South rapidly became a Republican bastion. Slowly, the overt racism and KKK rallies gave way more subtle Jim Crow laws and racism performed with a wink and a nod. And Republicans took to race baiting as an election strategy to whip up their largely white base.

The course of history is clear. As much as we still have racial tensions today, equality steadily marches forward. The Republican Party’s deal with the devil put them on the wrong side of history. They are now the party of NO for any form of equality. Gay bashing is good election strategy to fire up the base. Labeling women who want equal treatment feminazis works for Rush Limbaugh and his ditto-heads. Willie Horton type ads win elections. The demonization of Barack and Michelle Obama has been like nothing ever seen since the run-up to the Civil War.

But America is on its way to being a nation with a majority made up of ethnic minorities. The current Republican white supremacist strategy is one doomed to ultimately fail, to their great embarrassment.

@ETpro WOW…speaking of racial and ethnic baiting. I will leave you to your own version and not comment any further.

@plethora Like “Give ‘em Hell” Harry Truman said, “I don’t give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it is hell.” What I said above is all fact. It is falsifiable. Feel free to rebut it.

Look, I have a lot of conservative in me. I used to be a Republican. I own a small business and would love to see the US a more business friendly climate. But I call them like I see them. The Republican Party has lost its way. It has sold out to corporatism. I sincerely hope it finds its bearings. That’s why I post such direct criticism. I do not for a moment want single party rule no matter what the party. That always leads to nothing but corruption. But as long as the Republican Party stays on the course it is currently on, trying to take wealth from all the rest of us and transfer it to the richest 1%, I will oppose them with everything I have. Their policy ideas, if fully implemented, will slowly turn the USA into a banana republic, and I want no part of that.

@ETpro This I can respond to. I don’t think the Republican party has been sent down from the mountain with stone tablets. Nor do I think the Democratic party is the spawn of the devil. They’re both a mixture of good and evil. I was not surprised when Pelosi and company rammed Obamacare thru congress. Why shouldnt she? She had the votes to do it. Good deal, bad deal, didnt matter. It made her and Obama look good and, so they thought, would reap a harvest of votes for the midterm. No other justification needs be made. I can understand that and accept that, and forget all the drivel and palaver shoveled out to the masses, sound and fury meaning nothing.

Now a question for you. You got a problem with tax cuts? I’m certainly not one of the “rich”, but when income taxes get cut, I pay less taxes. I have no problem with that. It applies to everyone who earns money and pays taxes. We all pay less in taxes. The only people who don’t get a tax cut are those who ALREADY HAVE THEIR TAXES ELIMINATED by government fiat. So for this argument, they don’t count.

The Republicans, unless Im mistaken, are the only party in memory to cut taxes. Thats a plus. And its a huge negative for the Dems. As for the really really fat cats, they have the wherewithal (money and expertise) to cut their taxes without any tax cuts, by manipulating the very complex and massive IRS code.

My personal preference is to see the Dems lose both houses of congress in about 75 days or so, thus taking the reins away from Obama, followed by Obama’s one term ending in 2012. I don’t necessarily want the Repub to have an unbeatable majority in either house because better results are achieved when they have to bargain and compromise.

What’s your preference for the short term (if we are not too much off topic here)?

It’s important to note that neither political party has been remotely long-term consistent in its ideology over the past 150 years.

The Democrats today are a completely different party than the Democrats of 1960. The Republicans of 1960 were a completely different party than the Republicans of 1930.

Society changes.

@plethora. The Republicans are not the only party to cut taxes. John Kennedy proposed a very large tax cut and Johnson signed it into law after Kennedy was assassinated. More recently, Obama cut taxes for 95% of working Americans. Only the top 5% didn’t get a break.

The Republicans are calling the coming sunset of their ill-advised tax breaks for the top 2% a missive tax increase. Some of them, resorting to their typical overblown hyperbole, have dubbed it the largest tax increase in history. That’s a big fat lie. Republican Herbert Hoover has that distinction. The Revenue Act of 9132 raised the top rate from 25% to 63%

The tax cut law passed by the Republicans in 2001 and signed by Bush calls for those rates to sunset n 2011. Obama is proposing to extend ALL the Bush cuts except for those affecting the top 2% of income earners. That is people earning over $250,000 in income after all deductions. And they will pay the lower rates on all the income up to a quarter of a million dollars. Te top rate of 39.6% only kicks in on income above that level.

Republicans are saying that will mainly punish small businesses. That is another big fat lie. Less than 2% of America’s small businesses earn more than a quarter of a million after deductions.

We have been hemorrhaging debt since Reagan slashed the top tax rates to 28% for the richest Americans. We were paying down the WWII debt right up to that point. We have to put revenue generation back on a rational track like it was during the Clinton Administration. I don’t like taxes any more than anyone else, but I don’t want to starve investment in our 21st century future and I don’t want to leave my kids and grand-kids trillions of dollars in debt because I was a greedy bastard that always wanted something for nothing.

My personal preference is that until the Republicans stop running on lies and obstruction, till they stop trying to serve the interest of the richest billionaires in America to the exclusion of all the rest of us, they never regain power. If they do, they will drive the economy right back into the ditch again.

@ETpro Obama has cut taxes? Got a link?
You are truly hung up on this top 2% aren’t you. Don’t you realize that this group of the very very rich have the wherewithal to manipulate the tax code to get their taxes down to nothing?...regardless of whether taxes are cut or not?

Herbert Hoover raised income tax rates only, and it was a huge increase in brackets. But very very few people were touched by that increase because you had to be making megabucks for the brackets to hit you. So yes, the Bush cuts will constitute the biggest increase in history (and that @ETpro is not a “big fat lie”) because it increases income tax rates that hit everyone AND it drives estate taxes back up through the roof. And don;t think its the fat cats that pay the estate tax. it’s also the guy who is iiving on SS, but has an old family farm that is seeing the city encroach upon it and suddenly the taxes he is having to pay are more than he can afford and he is forced to sell the farm and his home. It hits mom and dad too.

Less than 2% of America’s small businesses earn more than a quarter of a million after deductions. Got a link for this? You might want to stop using “big fat lie” [removed by Fluther]. You’re wrong every time so far.

Here we go again, “those richest Americans”. Who would that be [removed by Fluther]? Yeah, ya think maybe Reagan made a deal with that top 2%.

This should be simple, but for you, I’ll spell it out. It you cut taxes across the board, then the people that are paying the most taxes are going to save the most dollars in taxes. Cut out your stupid rhetoric and just deal with the facts. One fact would be that tax rates were slashed to 28% for everyone….not for the richest Americans.

Rates were cut and spending cuts were on the table to keep spending in check. Congress didnt go for it and failed to live within their means. The cuts didnt produce the deficit. Spending more than we took in produced the deficit.

THIS IS UNADULTERATED BULLSHIT:
until the Republicans stop running on lies and obstruction, till they stop trying to serve the interest of the richest billionaires in America to the exclusion of all the rest of us, they never regain power.

@plethora Restoring the Clinton rates on only the top 2% will NOT be the biggest tax increase in history, even if you insist on figuring it in non-inflation adjusted dollars. It is a big fat lie. THe Republicans that are spreading it are claiming that all the Bush tax cuts for every bracket will expire. They wont. Just the top bracket is targeted. And they are looking at the revenue change without adjusting for inflation. In plain and simple terms, they are lying in a desperate attempt to keep funneling the nation’s wealth to the top 2%.

In inflation adjusted dollars, there have been a whole series of tax increases that were larger not just in percentage, but in revenue increase (amount taken out of American pockets).

Clinton raised the follwing rates:
– The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%
– The 25% bracket rises to 28%
– The 28% bracket rises to 31%
– The 33% bracket rises to 36%
– The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%

Read more: http://www.atr.org/six-months-untilbr-largest-tax-hikes-a5171##ixzz0xPMFWHX3

This increase affects only the 35% rate, taking it back to 39.6%.

But in inflation adjusted dollars that wasn’t the biggest increase either.

2011 Reset 4.60%
1968 5.25%
1944 6.00%
1951 6.64%
1993 8.60&
1936 16.00%
1933 38.00%

All of those, in inflation adjusted dolars, were larger tax increases. There is no way you can spin it to say otherwise. Republicans claiming it is the largest tax increase in history are knowingly lying.

@ETpro It’s a tax cut that has been in place for 10 years. To let it expire would be a tax increase….period.

@plethora If the top 2% will get out of paying the increase why do the Republicans use it to wind up the people in the party? If it is seemingly nothing to argue about. Obviously they like to be able to whip up hysteria, both political parties can be accused of this. But, the republicans go on to say that taking rom the rich will result in fewer business being opened or being able to survive, and a total fall of the America economy…that to me is beginning to sound like an outright lie if what you said is true, that 2% will have no effect in the end. Not to mention that peole seem to have i their minds that the top 2% is also all of the small business owners, the percentage is more around 25% of those 2% own small business. People do not know the real deifinition of small business, for most industries that includes companies up to 500 employees, some industries more.

I love that you said this, because I always complain that the people who are superrich, the most wealthy in the country actually pay less as a percentage of their income then the middle class, because of tax shelters, and loopholes. I still believe the tax increase will help us collect more tax money, the amount is somewhere in the middle of what the actual tax hike will be, and how much can be written off.

Meanwhile, I hope this isn’t modded for being a little off topic, although I feel it is related, because I think there is some racism in it sometimes. I saw a show about how happy people in Denmark are, that they have an incredible amount of social systems and high taxes. In the report they mentioned the idea that people in Denmark are very ethnically, racially, and religiously homogenious for the most part, and giving to and supporting people we identify with is more acceptable to people than giving to people we don’t identify with.

@plethora, you do know that Obama’s stimulus bill cut taxes for 95% of Americans, yes?

If you don’t know this basic fact, you probably shouldn’t even be participating in this discussion.

@JLeslie I don’t doubt what you say about Denmark and I can understand that as well. The catch here in the US is taxing anyone and running it through the govt to give to someone else is anathema, most certainly to the business person who knows what it takes to earn every dollar and also that every bill that passes congress has pork attached to it…..as well as unintended consequences…and that the govt is profligate and that the bigger it is, the more profligate it is.

@Qingu You do know that 50% of Americans pay no income taxes, yes?
So perhaps you can tell me how their taxes were cut.

@plethora, payroll taxes.

Do you have a job? You know when you get a paycheck, there’s a chunk that’s taken out for state and federal taxes, yes?

And @plethora, it’s not really a matter of opinion that Obama cut taxes for 95% of Americans.

Are you going to acknowledge this basic fact? Or are you going to continue spouting nonsense about how Obama is a tax-raising fiend?

@Qingu The “tax cut” was a $400 (single) $800 (married) tax credit good for 2009 and 2010 only. You can call that a tax cut if you want, but a one time credit is hardly a permanent reduction in tax. (Not that anything is permanent in tax law.) But this wasn’t even intended to be permanent. It was just enough for Obama to harp on and give himself credit.

@plethora Didn’t Bush do the same crap? I think his was $600 per couple back to tax payers? I thought it was ridiculous. And, I think we still paid the same in the end? We had to pay it back so to speak at tax time the following year if I am not mistaken.

@plethora, so you want a permanent reduction in taxes for 95% of Americans.

How do you plan on paying for this? I’m guessing it would come out to, what, a trillion or so dollars?

@Tomfafa, I’ve been a liberal all my life and don’t recall ever foaming at the mouth with hate except once, when a bully kicked me in the shins in junior high for no good reason. I detest these kind of generalizations about any group. Oh, and might want to proof your comments for misspellings and capitalization before you send ‘em out. ;-)

I think that the world is a party that has a history of being racist.

@ETpro excellent synopsis of party history and tax rates. You are going to drive @plethora nuts but he’s a smart guy. Eventhough he likes to argue, I thin, in private, he’ll see the truth of your facts. Of course, @plethora I doubt that you’ll agree…publicly. That’s o.k., I enjoy that you take the devil’s advocate position, even when the facts are sketchy/

@plethora You wrote here that: “It’s a tax cut that has been in place for 10 years. To let it expire would be a tax increase….period.” Nobody is arguing that taxes will not increase for the top 2% except you. You stated here that “You are truly hung up on this top 2% aren’t you. Don’t you realize that this group of the very very rich have the wherewithal to manipulate the tax code to get their taxes down to nothing?” Now, if it does nothing, how can it POSSIBLY the largest tax increase in history, as you also claimed in the same comment? You do know, don’t you, that ONLY the top tax bracket will see their tax cut expire? The Democrats plan to extend the Bush rates for all the other tax brackets.

And it is not a Obama tax increase because the 10 year sunset law was written into the Bush tax cuts by Republicans. They did so because they didn’t want to pay for those tax cuts, they wanted to just put them on the debt. And the rules required that any legislation affecting finances for over 10 years must be paid for, not just tacked onto the deficit.

Also, your statement here that “50% of Americans pay no income taxes…” is misleading spin. They pay payroll withholding taxes, FICA withholding, etc. They get some money back and don’t have to send in a check at the end of the year, but almost all working Americans do pay income taxes.

You said here “The catch here in the US is taxing anyone and running it through the govt to give to someone else is anathema…” All taxes involve a transfer of wealth. Since Ronald Reagan cut the top rate by 60% the transfer has been flowing from the poor to the very richest. The bottom 60% of income earners have actually seen their earnings; in real, inflation adjusted dollars; fall. The next 30% have just held their ground. They have not gained real income at all in the last 30 years. Only the top 10% have benefited from “trickle down” economics. And the top 1% have grown fabulously more wealthy. They now own over ⅓rd of all the wealth in the USA, and their share is rapidly expanding. All the Republican lies about taxes are nothing but a sham to ensure we keep transferring the nation’s wealth to the top 1%.

America’s billionaires are simply not an endangered species in desperate need of Republican protection from a thieving bunch of people living in poverty.