Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Politics

Journal pudge's Journal: Civil Rights and Republicans 22

Journal by pudge

On PBS News Hour tonight, they interviewed some voters, and one black man said of the GOP: "I don't trust their party. I look at historically ... they were not for civil rights, they were not for women's rights ..."

Dammit, this is just false. More Republicans -- as a percentage -- than Democrats supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There were more Democrats in the House, but 79% of Republicans (136-35), as opposed to 63% of Democrats (153-91), voted for the Act, and it never would have passed without the support of the Republicans. And Eisenhower laid the groundwork for the civil rights act, in the 60s.

As to women's rights, the GOP *started* women's rights, first proposing the ERA in the 20s, and included it in their platform for many years. It was the Democrats who blocked it. The GOP reversed and opposed it in the 80s, largely because it was no longer necessary: not that women were treated equally, but the law and precedent was clear enough that the ERA was rightly considered redundant.

"Historically," the GOP actually has a much better overall history than the Democrats on civil rights. Of course, the question is: what have you done for me lately? And here, the GOP has had a bit of a rocky road (for many reasons, both good and bad). But so have the Democrats; they just do a better job of faking it.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Civil Rights and Republicans More

Civil Rights and Republicans

Comments Filter:
  • Yes, its absolutely true what you're saying about the dems blocking much of the civil rights, and women's voting, etc.

    I think it really has to do more with geographic tendencies. Traditionally, the north (the civic-reformers) was more the republican stronghold and dems in the south (the traditionalists). But nowadays, the parties are centered oppositely. So if you're going back to the '40s and '50s... you're really talking about parties that were radically different than they are now.

  • My area. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by clintp ( 5169 ) on Saturday September 04, 2004 @03:37PM (#10158579)
    Living in the Detroit area I have this secret hope that one day the poor, urban, mostly black folk in the area that largely control the local voting bloc will one day look up and ask "say, what has the Democratic party done for us??!"

    Nothing, except to help bond you into a state of handouts, gub'mint programs, and utter dependancy removing the hope of controlling your own destiny in favor of living at the poverty line.

    For 40+ years Detroit has been voting Democratic, and it hasn't gotten them anywhere. Damn I wish they'd wise up. At least when Bush was here speaking to the Urban League [freep.com] he made a few of these points, and some may have hit home. Now if only his audience would *VOTE* with their heads, instead of the way their parents and grandparents voted....
    • I've heard some people ask the same question the other way round -- what does voting Republican get poor rural white people?

      I'm seriously asking here. Although I follow US politics in the news, I don't know much about daily life there.

      In places like Canada, we really don't get what's appealing about Bush. Which is I guess why I'm interested in what people like you and Pudge have to say.
      • I've heard some people ask the same question the other way round -- what does voting Republican get poor rural white people?

        There are various things. It's a big country with lots of interests. Certainly a few big things are the emphasis on the military, gun rights, and "traditional values," which may include -- depending on the individual -- a perception that the Republicans are more interested in protecting the right to life, and against special rights for various other groups that appear to be threate
        • It sounds like the benefits of a Bush administration, to his average supporter, are sort of virtual. I mean, gun control is a hot-button issue, but the status quo on that isn't likely to change quickly.

          You seem to view Bush vs. Kerry as a normal sort of election. My own impression is that Bush is a radical break from traditions, many of them formerly considered fundamental to the American ideals of government.

          Kerry, the unremarkable opposition, promises a return to normalcy, even in his campaign slogan.

          T
          • It sounds like the benefits of a Bush administration, to his average supporter, are sort of virtual.

            Some of them are, but the same goes for Kerry. That said:

            I mean, gun control is a hot-button issue, but the status quo on that isn't likely to change quickly.

            Not really. Ashcroft has, for example, worked on cases as AG to protect various gun rights, that a Clinton, Gore, or Kerry AG never would have taken on. Nothing major will change any time soon, but the idea is that over time, it will lead to mor
            • The only thing I can see which fits that description is the preemption doctrine

              And his economic policies. Larger focus on corporatism (eg, dropping the MS case). Clearly different budgetary strategy (massive budget turn-around).

              And his environmental policies, such as drilling in Alaska, forestry in national parks, etc.

              And his health policies, such as focusing on abstinence-only education. Misusing/censoring science in order to further the administration's own policies (airborne mercury levels, lead l
              • You think a focus on corporations, high deficits, anti-environmentalist policies, et al are "a radical break from traditions, many of them formerly considered fundamental to the American ideals of government"? Those things have all been, at one time or another, the common way of doing things. All those same criticisms were levelled at Reagan.

                To health and science, most of what you are talking about is difference of opinions, not substantive differences in mode (e.g., many say Bush has censored science be
                • As to social policy, I don't see it; Bush is not significantly different than Reagan and his dad were. In some ways he is far more "liberal": immigration, spending on education and Medicare.

                  I agree on the points you mentioned with mixed feelings. Spending on education is certainly a good thing even if he doesn't seem to get any credit for it. Immigration is an extremly difficult issue--"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," is a great history but given the realitie

                  • I agree on the points you mentioned with mixed feelings. Spending on education is certainly a good thing ...

                    I wasn't even saying those were good things. I don't think they are. I am against his spending on Medicare and education and disagree with amnesty for illegal aliens. I was just saying his policies there are not a significant digression from what's come before him.

                    I have my doubts that Bush Sr. and Reagan would have pushed for a Constitutional Ammendment banning gay marriages

                    First, let's note
                • While I'll leave the rest of your comments, because you could very well be correct, I have to take exception with your statement regarding health:

                  "To health and science, most of what you are talking about is difference of opinions, not substantive differences in mode"

                  The Bush administration has gone further than any administration in the past, so far as I know, in manipulating science to their own ends... unless, of course, The Union of Concerned Scientists [ucsusa.org] lied in their report [ucsusa.org], which documented multiple
                  • The Bush administration has gone further than any administration in the past, so far as I know, in manipulating science to their own ends

                    Key words: "as far as I know." What you have is a bunch of people who disagree with Bush so are leveraging this perception of him as a far right winger (which he isn't) to make it look like that's what he is doing. Clinton did the same thing, but most liberals agreed with his policies, and most scientists are liberals, so they didn't complain.

                    Again, look at stem cell
                    • Well, I suggest you at least read the report. After all, we're not talking about a bunch of crazy left-wingers here. Notable scientists from a wide range of the scientific community came together to back that document, which outlines many examples of efforts by this administration to manipulate science (including censorship of results and outright manipulation of reports by, for example, the EPA), as well as the usual stacking of advisory panels, etc, in order to further it's own agenda. Frankly, the one
                    • Well, I suggest you at least read the report.

                      I suggest you come over to my house and trim my grass. :-)

                      Frankly, the one example of the administration attempting to flat out *lie* about the connection between breast cancer and abortions was more than enough to shock and disturb me.

                      But you're missing my point. Simply saying you don't like something that is happening now is so far beyond the point of this discussion, which is whether this is significantly different than what has happened in the past. F
  • While more Republicans did vote for the civil rights legislation than Democrats, a certain portion of those Democrats that voted against that legislation were States Rights Dixiecrats. Strom Thurmond comes to mind here. Those same legislators in turn became Republicans later during the 60's as a response to the Democratic oppostion to Vietnam.
    • Some of them did, yes, which is part of why the Republicans are now seen as the anti-civil-rights party. That's one of those reasons that IMO isn't very good, because a. most of them are dead or otherwise gone and b. most of them changed their views (as Thurmond and Byrd did). OTOH, many of the people sympathetic to the Dixiecrat causes switched parties too, and many of them persist.
      • While the point about the the dying-off of the Dixiecrats-turned-Republicans is fair enough, most African-American voters, and particularly the influential organizing figures in their community have not forgotten a key set of facts:

        a) the Democratic party staked a hell of a lot of clout on using government to promote racial equality both in terms of economics and legal protection. Johnson's Great Society had a great deal to do with economic equality for African-Americans.

        b) The GOP has for decades opppo
        • the Democratic party staked a hell of a lot of clout on using government to promote racial equality both in terms of economics and legal protection. Johnson's Great Society had a great deal to do with economic equality for African-Americans.

          And yet, the Democrats still didn't do much for blacks until the Civil Rights Act. And since then, what have they done, but pay lip service? Not a hell of a lot.

          The GOP has for decades oppposed programs like affirmative action

          Sigh, this is almost as bad as the gu
          • I respectfully disagree with your points, and I want to address a few:

            For example:
            Richard Nixon first instituted affirmative action.
            Actually, it was LBJ, though Nixon did indeed expand it. See: http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/aahist.html [inmotionmagazine.com].
            Note Reagan's attempt in 1985 to repeal the initial executive order mandating affirmative action. Also note Dole's attempt in 1995 to introduce a bill essentially banning affirmative action. Now I'm in no position to evaluate the philosophical basis of the GOP's posi
            • Yes, I meant first instituted on such a large scale. I knew LBJ had done something ... although that shows Kennedy did something even before that. Huh.

              Note Reagan's attempt in 1985 to repeal the initial executive order mandating affirmative action. Also note Dole's attempt in 1995 to introduce a bill essentially banning affirmative action.

              I don't know about Reagan and 1985 offhand and don't have time to look it up, but what Dole was talking about is what I was talking about: the shift from LBJ/Nixon a

Slashdot Top Deals

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Close