I congratulate my “Democratic” friends and their leadership for finally recognizing that Black lives matter. I just do not understand why they so loudly proclaim that we Republicans, who have valued Black lives for years, should also acknowledge that Black lives matter. We know that ALL lives matter. It is the Democratic party that vehemently opposed the abolition of Black slavery. It was the Republican Party that fought for and won that (14th) Amendment to the Constitution. And let’s see - which Party was it that had KKK members in it? It is the Democratic Party that has torn apart Black families through their welfare programs. It is the Democratic party that advocates so strongly for the killing of Black babies through Planned Parenthood. When will they extend their new-found value for Black lives to Black babies? It is the Democratic Party that doesn't allow Blacks to defend themselves in the inner cities by denying them their 2nd Amendment rights - as a result innocent Black citizens are killed daily. The only true interest that the Democratic party has in Black lives is to use Black issues and Black bosses to enslave Black citizens to their controlling ideology and power. It is time for Black America to throw off the Democratic yoke and rejoice in the liberty Republicans achieved for them. Embrace liberty, family values, and the Republican Party as Ben Carson has so well illustrated. Obama has been nothing but a Democratic Boss under whom Black unemployment and welfare slavery has dramatically increased - the same will happen with Hillary Clinton! Black lives do matter - to Republicans! Once again I congratulate my Democratic friends but have to impatiently wait for them to extend their condescending graciousness to the rest of America's Black citizens whom the Republicans freed from slavery so many years ago. Wake up Black America!
The democrat party exhibits several of the problems that you mentioned, including not owning up to its own history or obscuring it, and a general "condescending graciousness" that I find annoying - so in that sense I agree with your criticisms. However, no offense, but you essentially make these same two errors in your paragraph above.
ReplyDeleteFirst, on history. I wish that both political parties would recognize and own their own history, but at a certain point history becomes irrelevant, and the present is what matters. Yes, it was the newly-forged Lincoln Republican party that essentially won the rights of the 14th amendment. They were also the party which extremely expanded the powers of the federal government, with resistance from the democrats of the time.
By FDR's time, this aspect of the parties had completely switched, because times and politics change. We should praise the Republican party of Lincoln's day for their contributions in ending slavery, but that aspect of the party's past can't be used to predict anything about the party today - just as their expansions of federal power can't be used to characterize republicans today.
Ultimately, ending slavery wasn't an innately Republican or Democrat thing to do, but a progressive endeavor, vs. regressive and iniquitous slavery. During the 100 years after Lincoln both the republican and democrat parties had progressive elements. Taft and Rockefeller for example were very economically and socially progressive republicans.
During the civil rights era support for civil rights were split within each party, with support for civil rights being determined more by geography (north and south) rather than republican or democrat. Progressive and northern Republicans and Democrats advocated for equal rights, while many other Republicans and Democrats alike resisted the movement, through calling the movement and its advocates "communist", or through KKK hate crimes. In the end, it was republicans and democrats together that pushed forward the civil rights act of 1964, granting further liberation and rights to blacks.
After 1964 things began to change for the parties, as they do over time. Southern Democrats, angry about the progressive direction of their party, became Republican. Each Southern State eventually transitioned to a majority Republican control, as they are today.
Progressive Republicans on the other hand, became fewer and fewer in number, with Nixon being the last major Republican I am aware of who described himself as economically progressive. Most Rockefeller style to Nixon style Republicans simply became Democrats over the last century.
So the history of political parties is complicated, and I think pretty interesting, but not always relevant to the present. Can you characterize the Republican party today by its 19th century efforts to end slavery? Not really. Can you characterize the Democratic party today by the KKK affiliation of southern Democrats 50 years ago? Not really, especially since many of those Southern Democrats more recently became Republican?
Can you characterize parties today by their modern extremist racist elements? Yes and no. No, they don't represent the values of the whole party, but if a party does not actively push against those elements then they can quickly become characterized by them, at least to outsiders. A man recently went on a shooting rampage at a Black church after adopting anti-black lives matter rhetoric, and to many people he is the face of the dark aspects of the Republican Party.
Colby, sorry, I had not noticed your response. I will respond but first I see nothing that says Dylann Roof was or is Republican. I see he lamented that there was no more KKK action against blacks, and KKK members were Democrats. Is this then another example of Democrats attempting to label Republicans as racist, and did you just participate in that?
DeleteI didn't say that Dylann Roof was a Republican, I doubt he is old enough to have ever voted, but I said "to many people he is the face of the dark aspects of the Republic Party", which is accurate. Now maybe some of that has to do with Democrat labeling - but I think most is just plain old Republican rhetoric. And it was rhetoric of at least one individual who had contributed thousands of dollars to Republican candidates that inspired Dylann, so it is not like it is difficult to label him as a right-wing radical.
DeleteAs for the KKK history - I would like for each party to own up to its history, but to a certain extent history is irrelevant in comparison to the present. And in the present, Conservatives are not coming up with solutions to the issues that matter most to minorities, and instead vault fear-mongering candidates like Trump up to conservative celebrity status.
Whose rhetoric are you referring to?
DeleteEarl Holt and the Council of Conservative Citizens. And before you attack that, I realize that CofCC of course does not advocate for violent action. However, the white nationalist rhetoric of this group, and others like it, are a part of the modern conservative movement, whether you agree with them or not, and their presence, coupled with the failure of moderate conservatives calling them out, has made the Republican party the new home for radical and racist ideas.
DeleteYou have mentioned several modern critiques of the Democratic party. They follow Ben Carson's rhetoric, but do you really believe them?
ReplyDeleteDo you really believe that welfare tears black families apart? The largest beneficiaries of food stamps for example are children, and the second largest seniors. How would a program like that tear a family apart?
Then there's abortion. I am all for acting to save lives, all lives, especially the vulnerable and helpless. Studies show that sex education, female healthcare, and easy access to birth control all lower abortion rates, as they have been lowering abortion rates since the 90's; while not having these things, and extreme poverty, increases abortions. So why would attacking Planned Parenthood make sense? If Republicans hate abortions and also hate planned parenthood then they should encourage the creation of non profit clinics who can compete with PP for federal funding, and not encourage abortions like they fear PP does.
Gun freedoms. I agree that the right to bear arms for stable law-abiding citizens should be maintained, but do you really think that would save lives? What about this 4th grader who was lured into an alley and killed, would a gun have helped him?
Or what about all of the scores of black people shot recently because cops thought they had a weapon on them (or they actually had a weapon on them, and either didn't use it, or used it because they feared for their lives), a weapon wouldn't have helped them. Less guns in the hands of criminals, and a discussion about police strategies would have helped these people. So let's have the discussion and make the necessary changes with input from both parties.
Then you claim that Democrats use black issues to enslave black people. What? Let's set aside for a moment the phrasing is offensive, are you saying that issues which are important to Black people are also being use to control them? Because listening to what issues are important to people is so evil.
To whatever extent the Democrat party is not genuine about its adoption of black issues, you are correct, it is not right to adopt issues for political points without sincerity. So let's see the Republican party do better. Let's see them provide solutions that will address the poverty of many black communities. Let's see them listen and then do a better job.
Instead, you extend an offer which has more condescension than any democratic position I am aware of. You essentially say that Black people are really ignorant for supporting the disingenuous Democrats who did not free them from slavery 150 years ago. They they have been fooled into being controlled by issues important to them, and re-enslaved by "Black Bosses". Then you have ignored whatever rights and privileges they have fought for themselves and told them to join the party that achieved all of the liberty they need.
Honestly, how much more "condescending graciousness" can you get?