why are blacks a key constituency for democrats?

[xj0hnx]

Hahaha, that's why I wrote 'in before the Democrats opposed civil rights red herring'.

As has been repeated ad nauseum on here, Democrats at the time were split into southern and northern factions. The northern Democrats are what Democrats are today, and the Southern Democrats were folded into the Republican Party, a party that later explicitly adopted their racist concerns through the southern strategy. This history really isn't in dispute.

The Republican Party as it exists today represents those parties who were a backlash against civil rights legislation. Period. If anyone can't grasp why black people don't vote for the anti black rights party more, I don't know what to tell you.

Like I said, rush to disown your own when they don't/didn't hold the popular side.

 

[fskimospy]

Like I said, rush to disown your own when they don't/didn't hold the popular side.

What side? I'm a liberal, not a Democrat. The problem was racist conservatives, and they have since been folded into the Republican party. It's not really up for dispute.

Attempting to discuss the issue without mentioning the differences between the southern and northern Democrats as they pertain to the modern Democratic party is a willful attempt to distort reality.

 

[BladeVenom]

Before the Civil Rights Movement that began in the 60's, blacks were usually Republican.

Which party objected to Civil Rights (and still does)?

The Democrats. The Democrats were the ones most strongly against civil rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights_act_of_1964

Total Votes by party:

The original House version:

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

Cloture in the Senate:

Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)

The Senate version:

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)

 

[fskimospy]

The Democrats. The Democrats were the ones most strongly against civil rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights_act_of_1964

Total Votes by party:

The original House version:

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

Cloture in the Senate:

Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)

The Senate version:

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)

I flat out love how this vote quote from wiki is ALWAYS selectively edited. Why is it selectively edited? Because if they quote the whole thing, their blatant dishonesty shows up.

In case people haven't seen it before, here is the rest of the passage that BladeVenom forgot to post. (by sheer accident I'm certain):

By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)

Any honest person would look at those totals and say 'holy crap, the South is pretty racist' as opposed to a party in particular. They would also note the rapid shift in Congressional representation towards Republicans after the passage of the act as a clue to where all those racists went. This is of course never done however, because trying to find excuses as to why Republicans aren't racist but are instead unfairly picked on is a vital component to the modern conservative culture of victimhood.

 

[1prophet]

Why are the white religous evangelicals a key constituency for the republicans?

Because some self righteous assholes decided to use the IRS to go after the Bob Jones university tax exemption for not allowing interracial dating in their private bigoted club.

Before that the Evangelical movement stayed out of politics and most members didn't want to get involved in the abortion debate.



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5502785

In the 1980s, in order to solidify their shift from divorce to abortion, the Religious Right constructed an abortion myth, one accepted by most Americans as true. Simply put, the abortion myth is this: Leaders of the Religious Right would have us believe that their movement began in direct response to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. Politically conservative evangelical leaders were so morally outraged by the ruling that they instantly shed their apolitical stupor in order to mobilize politically in defense of the sanctity of life. Most of these leaders did so reluctantly and at great personal sacrifice, risking the obloquy of their congregants and the contempt of liberals and "secular humanists," who were trying their best to ruin America. But these selfless, courageous leaders of the Religious Right, inspired by the opponents of slavery in the nineteenth century, trudged dutifully into battle in order to defend those innocent unborn children, newly endangered by the Supreme Court's misguided Roe decision.





It's a compelling story, no question about it. Except for one thing: It isn't true.




Although various Roman Catholic groups denounced the ruling, and Christianity Today complained that the Roe decision "runs counter to the moral teachings of Christianity through the ages but also to the moral sense of the American people," the vast majority of evangelical leaders said virtually nothing about it; many of those who did comment actually applauded the decision. W. Barry Garrett of Baptist Press wrote, "Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision." Indeed, even before the Roe decision, the messengers (delegates) to the 1971 Southern Baptist Convention gathering in St. Louis, Missouri, adopted a resolution that stated, "we call upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother." W.A. Criswell, former president of the Southern Baptist Convention and pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas, expressed his satisfaction with the Roe v. Wade ruling. "I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person," the redoubtable fundamentalist declared, "and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed."




The Religious Right's self-portrayal as mobilizing in response to the Roe decision was so pervasive among evangelicals that few questioned it. But my attendance at an unusual gathering in Washington, D.C., finally alerted me to the abortion myth.




In November 1990, for reasons that I still don't entirely understand, I was invited to attend a conference in Washington sponsored by the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a Religious Right organization (though I didn't realize it at the time). I soon found myself in a conference room with a couple of dozen people, including Ralph Reed, then head of the Christian Coalition; Carl F. H. Henry, an evangelical theologian; Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family; Donald Wildmon, head of the American Family Association; Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention; and Edward G. Dobson, pastor of an evangelical church in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and formerly one of Jerry Falwell's acolytes at Moral Majority. Paul M. Weyrich, a longtime conservative activist, head of what is now called the Free Congress Foundation, and one of the architects of the Religious Right in the late 1970s, was also there.



In the course of one of the sessions, Weyrich tried to make a point to his Religious Right brethren (no women attended the conference, as I recall). Let's remember, he said animatedly, that the Religious Right did not come together in response to the Roe decision. No, Weyrich insisted, what got us going as a political movement was the attempt on the part of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to rescind the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University because of its racially discriminatory policies.


Bob Jones University was one target of a broader attempt by the federal government to enforce the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Several agencies, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, had sought to penalize schools for failure to abide by antisegregation provisions. A court case in 1972, Green v. Connally, produced a ruling that any institution that practiced segregation was not, by definition, a charitable institution and, therefore, no longer qualified for tax-exempt standing.


The IRS sought to revoke the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University in 1975 because the school's regulations forbade interracial dating; African Americans, in fact, had been denied admission altogether until 1971, and it took another four years before unmarried African Americans were allowed to enroll. The university filed suit to retain its tax-exempt status, although that suit would not reach the Supreme Court until 1983 (at which time, the Reagan administration argued in favor of Bob Jones University).


Initially, I found Weyrich's admission jarring. He declared, in effect, that the origins of the Religious Right lay in Green v. Connally rather than Roe v. Wade. I quickly concluded, however, that his story made a great deal of sense. When I was growing up within the evangelical subculture, there was an unmistakably defensive cast to evangelicalism. I recall many presidents of colleges or Bible institutes coming through our churches to recruit students and to raise money. One of their recurrent themes was,We don't accept federal money, so the government can't tell us how to run our shop—whom to hire or fire or what kind of rules to live by. The IRS attempt to deny tax-exempt status to segregated private schools, then, represented an assault on the evangelical subculture, something that raised an alarm among many evangelical leaders, who mobilized against it.


For his part, Weyrich saw the evangelical discontent over the Bob Jones case as the opening he was looking for to start a new conservative movement using evangelicals as foot soldiers. Although both the Green decision of 1972 and the IRS action against Bob Jones University in 1975 predated Jimmy Carter's presidency, Weyrich succeeded in blaming Carter for efforts to revoke the taxexempt status of segregated Christian schools. He recruited James Dobson and Jerry Falwell to the cause, the latter of whom complained, "In some states it's easier to open a massage parlor than to open a Christian school."


Weyrich, whose conservative activism dates at least as far back as the Barry Goldwater campaign in 1964, had been trying for years to energize evangelical voters over school prayer, abortion, or the proposed equal rights amendment to the Constitution. "I was
trying to get those people interested in those issues and I utterly failed," he recalled in an interview in the early 1990s. "What changed their mind was Jimmy Carter's intervention against the Christian schools, trying to deny them tax-exempt status on the basis of so-called de facto segregation."


During the meeting in Washington, D.C., Weyrich went on to characterize the leaders of the Religious Right as reluctant to take up the abortion cause even close to a decade after the Roe ruling. "I had discussions with all the leading lights of the movement in the late 1970s and early 1980s, post–Roe v. Wade," he said, "and they were all arguing that that decision was one more reason why Christians had to isolate themselves from the rest of the world."

"What caused the movement to surface," Weyrich reiterated,"was the federal government's moves against Christian schools." The IRS threat against segregated schools, he said, "enraged the Christian community." That, not abortion, according to Weyrich, was what galvanized politically conservative evangelicals into the Religious Right and goaded them into action. "It was not the other things," he said.

Ed Dobson, Falwell's erstwhile associate, corroborated Weyrich's account during the ensuing discussion. "The Religious New Right did not start because of a concern about abortion," Dobson said. "I sat in the non-smoke-filled back room with the Moral Majority, and I frankly do not remember abortion ever being mentioned as a reason why we ought to do something."
During the following break in the conference proceedings, I cornered Weyrich to make sure I had heard him correctly. He was adamant that, yes, the 1975 action by the IRS against Bob Jones University was responsible for the genesis of the Religious Right in
the late 1970s. What about abortion? After mobilizing to defend Bob Jones University and its racially discriminatory policies, Weyrich said, these evangelical leaders held a conference call to discuss strategy. He recalled that someone suggested that they had
the makings of a broader political movement—something that Weyrich had been pushing for all along—and asked what other issues they might address. Several callers made suggestions, and then, according to Weyrich, a voice on the end of one of the lines said, "How about abortion?" And that is how abortion was cobbled into the political agenda of the Religious Right.


The abortion myth serves as a convenient fiction because it suggests noble and altruistic motives behind the formation of the Religious Right. But it is highly disingenuous and renders absurd the argument of the leaders of Religious Right that, in defending the rights of the unborn, they are the "new abolitionists." The Religious Right arose as a political movement for the purpose, effectively, of defending racial discrimination at Bob Jones University and at other segregated schools. Whereas evangelical abolitionists of the nineteenth century sought freedom for African Americans, the Religious Right of the late twentieth century organized to perpetuate racial discrimination. Sadly, the Religious Right has no legitimate claim to the mantle of the abolitionist crusaders of the nineteenth century. White evangelicals were conspicuous by their absence in the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Where were Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham on August 28, 1963, during the March on Washington or on Sunday, March 7, 1965, when Martin Luther King Jr. and religious leaders from other traditions linked arms on the march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, to stare down the ugly face of racism?


Falwell and others who eventually became leaders of the Religious Right, in fact, explicitly condemned the civil rights movement. "Believing the Bible as I do," Falwell proclaimed in 1965, "I would find it impossible to stop preaching the pure saving gospel
of Jesus Christ, and begin doing anything else—including fighting Communism, or participating in civil-rights reforms." This makes all the more outrageous the occasional attempts by leaders of the Religious Right to portray themselves as the "new abolitionists" in an effort to link their campaign against abortion to the nineteenth century crusade against slavery.

Sometimes its better to let the pigs play in their pen as long as their not forcing their ways on others, but someone thought that their pig pen should be open to all not realizing by opening their door to get in they are also allowing what's in to get out, the father of the religious right Paul M. Weyrich.

 

[Craig234]

The Democrats. The Democrats were the ones most strongly against civil rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights_act_of_1964

Total Votes by party:

The original House version:

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

Cloture in the Senate:

Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)

The Senate version:

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)

That's misleading.

Break it down to southern Democrats (now largely Republicans) and non-Southern Democrats.

Non-southern Democrats had the highest support for civil rights, then Republicans, then almost unanimous opposition from the south (Democrats and Republicans).

 

[MovingTarget]

Fuck the poor!

It isn't exactly rocket science. :thumbsdown:

Although the suggestion I made above is admittedly hyperbole, there is a nugget of truth to it. Blacks are a core constituency of the Democratic party simply because the policies that Republicans support aren't in the self interest of the vast majority of blacks. Whether those interest are based on economic policy, civil rights policy, or even mere cultural acceptance, the Republican party simply isn't that attractive to them as a whole.

 

[xj0hnx]

The Democrats. The Democrats were the ones most strongly against civil rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights_act_of_1964

Total Votes by party:

The original House version:

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

Cloture in the Senate:

Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)

The Senate version:

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)

Come on man, don'tcha know, it's just the Democrats that they don't agree with, which aren't really Democrats, which would be fine and dandy, except when a Republican takes a unpopular position all the progressives rush make sure that all right leaning, conservatives are painted with the same brush. Kind of a do as we say, not as we do sort of thing, it's a lefty thing I guess.

 

[xj0hnx]

...the modern conservative culture of victimhood.

LOwholefuckingshitL!!! THAT is funny. The "conservative" culture of victimhood? WOW.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

The idea that black people are voting for Obama because he is black isn't supported by the evidence.

could've fooled me. the blacks on my campus were celebrating like it was NYE when obama won in 2008.

 

[sandorski]

could've fooled me. the blacks on my campus were celebrating like it was NYE when obama won in 2008.

That's another issue. The reason lies within History, might wanna check into it.

 

[dmcowen674]

Why are the white religous evangelicals a key constituency for the republicans?

Money

Money = Power

 

[Ausm]

Money

Money = Power

Also they corner the market on paranoia

 

[BarneyFife]

Lets see. Because Republicans hate blacks. Why would you join a group of people that hate you?

There are 3 types of Republicans.

1. The greedy ones who will sell their own mother.
2. The religious ones who are backwardass US Taliban that don't believe in science
3. The racist ones who hate black people.

 

[BladeVenom]

I flat out love how this vote quote from wiki is ALWAYS selectively edited. Why is it selectively edited? Because if they quote the whole thing, their blatant dishonesty shows up.

Because it was the relevant section. The liberals here all lie and try to pretend it wasn't Democrats who opposed Civil Rights.

So after I prove them all to be liars, you want to change it from Republican vs. Democrat to North vs. South, even the whole time we were discussing party not region.

No one falls for your or believes your endless BS.

 

[Craig234]

Because it was the relevant section. The liberals here all lie and try to pretend it wasn't Democrats who opposed Civil Rights.

95% of what's said here about liberals is wrong or lies, I can't remember the other 5%.

You're not honest.

 

[BladeVenom]

I've proven you wrong, and all you have left is insults.

 

[bfdd]

lols you are all fucking idiots fighting over labels that can't possibly define a person. Jumbuck stop denying history as well it doesn't matter etc happened later, the democrats were the bulk of the people against the civil rights shit. Yeah things changed afterwards, but Byrd was still a dem and a racist til the end so cut the spin and stop trying to change history because it doesn't fit into your world of labels and groupthink you stupid fucks.

 

[MovingTarget]

I've proven you wrong, and all you have left is insults.

You haven't proven him wrong on any point that matters. Yes, people opposed to civil rights back then did have a D after their name. So what? Things changed. Many switched parties, and the black community began to support Democrats overall instead.

Past party affiliation does not matter. What matters are the policies that politicians support today. Anything else is a red herring.

 

[BladeVenom]

Party affiliation matters to most voters. It certainly matters to the media who distort the news. And the Democrats have a long history of racism, yet they are the ones who tend to call other people racists. The Democrats had a former KKK member in the Senate until just last year.

 

[Spikesoldier]

Why are Corporations a key constituency for the republicans?

because the corporations know that democrats would raise capital gains taxes, and especially corporate taxes to support their welfare and entitlement programs.

when you add the fact that the dems and unions are in bed with one another, now you can see why they flock to the repubs.

too bad the higher taxes would cause said corporations to pack up and leave. everyone knows this.

 

[fskimospy]

LOwholefuckingshitL!!! THAT is funny. The "conservative" culture of victimhood? WOW.

Absolutely. Conservatives believe the media is victimizing them, they think that the education system is victimizing them, they think that scientists are victimizing them, they think that popular culture is victimizing them.

You name a major part of American life, and there's a really good chance conservatives believe that they are being unfairly persecuted by it. They do this while stubbornly insisting on self reliance without even a single hint of how ironic it is.

 

[ProfJohn]

Before the Civil Rights Movement that began in the 60's, blacks were usually Republican.

Which party objected to Civil Rights (and still does)?

umm Democrats....

Which party had a former KKK member as its Senate leader?
The same Senator that filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights act.

The same party that dominated the south for a century. The party that passed all the Jim Crow laws. The party that had a sitting governor block the integration of schools. The party that let the dogs loose and turned the water cannons on blacks in Birmingham. The party that put the confederate flag onto their state flags.

And the Republicans... voted for the civil rights act in greater percentages than the Democrats.

ONE southern Democrat switched parties, the rest died Democrat. Bill Clinton own mentor was a segregationist Democrat. The Democrat control of the south was so strong that it wasn't until the 1994 election that Republicans gained control of the majority of southern House seats.

You can cry southern strategy all you want, but the undeniable truth is that the Democratic party dominated the south until the 1990s

 

[fskimospy]

Because it was the relevant section. The liberals here all lie and try to pretend it wasn't Democrats who opposed Civil Rights.

So after I prove them all to be liars, you want to change it from Republican vs. Democrat to North vs. South, even the whole time we were discussing party not region.

No one falls for your or believes your endless BS.

It's only the relevant section for people who feel compelled to reinforce their world view at the expense of reality. I get it, you're threatened by inconvenient facts because if you actually spend any time learning about the civil rights act you'd realize how full of shit you are.

What's strange is that this isn't even a contentious issue in historical circles and the population at large. The only people who try to push the 'DEMOCRATS WERE AGAINST CIVIL RIGHTS LOL' thing is ultra right wing opinion makers. I understand that acknowledging the racist parts of your chosen political football team is threatening to you, but life isn't fair.

 

[Ausm]

because the corporations know that democrats would raise capital gains taxes, and especially corporate taxes to support their welfare and entitlement programs.

when you add the fact that the dems and unions are in bed with one another, now you can see why they flock to the repubs.

too bad the higher taxes would cause said corporations to pack up and leave. everyone knows this.

Please jump in a time capsule and join us in the 21st century this isn't the 80's anymore.