But you won't give more opportunities to people by shutting things down and by burning, breaking and stealing.
This is getting out of hand.
- Thread starter Gmoney4WW
- Start date
In other news:
Apparently the girl who torched the Wedny's in Atlanta has been apprahended. It's also suspected that she was Brooks' girlfriend who he was going to get the food for when he was shot.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/23/us/natalie-white-wendys-arson/index.html?utm_medium=social&utm_term=link&utm_source=twcnnbrk&utm_content=2020-06-23T20:46:45
Apparently the girl who torched the Wedny's in Atlanta has been apprahended. It's also suspected that she was Brooks' girlfriend who he was going to get the food for when he was shot.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/23/us/natalie-white-wendys-arson/index.html?utm_medium=social&utm_term=link&utm_source=twcnnbrk&utm_content=2020-06-23T20:46:45
LBJ made sure the black family was set assunder with his war on poverty.
Out of wedlock births have skyrocketed since 64 as the dems established a new class of slaves. The violence of the klan just drove them to electing republicans. But the money handouts created a dependant class that the dems could control like so many modern field hands.
I didn't argue that. I just thought it was an interesting tidbit. I said in a previous post that whoever did it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Notice that they were all rising prior to 1960. There is no way you can tie that back to the civil rights movement or the 'war on poverty'. If anything it tends to explode as more women entered the workplace. So, again I'll call you a liar. I wasn't saying that the rate hadn't risen. I was saying that you were lying about what it should be attributed to and that Democrats made minorities into slaves. Also, notice you had the "free love" 60's the cocaine fueled 70's / 80's and the 80's crack epidemic.
I'm sure Reagan / Bush's abstinence movement did a lot of good according to that chart though... /s
In Historian Doris Kearn Goodwin’s biography of LBJ she quoted the following from LBJ. “Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”
Ronald Kessler’s 1995 book Inside the White House quotes LBJ as saying
“I’ll have those ******s voting Democratic for the next 200 years” as he confided with two like-minded governors on Air Force One regarding his underlying intentions for the “Great Society” programs.
So, you're using a quote from a Historian who was in LBJ's staff working on "domestic anti-poverty efforts" to try and make it seem like his administration was racist? Wouldn't that be tacitly admitting that she was doing work to try and "enslave" the black race? Why would she admit to that in a biography?
Now, I'm not saying he wasn't prejudiced. He was a southern democrat in the 60's at a time when some southern democrats were honestly still members of the Klan. However his move ostracized himself and his party from those folks almost immediately. If anything his civil rights and poverty works were redemptive to a man of questionable character who had his hands full in Vietnam. His aids who wrote a biographical book said that he said this to them directly,
"I’m going to get Kennedy’s tax cut out of the Senate Finance Committee, and we’re going to get this economy humming again. Then I’m going to pass Kennedy’s civil rights bill, which has been hung up too long in the Congress. And I’m going to pass it without changing a single comma or a word. After that we’ll pass legislation that allows everyone in this country to vote, with all the barriers down. And that’s not all. We’re going to get a law that says every boy and girl in this country, no matter how poor, or the color of their skin, or the region they come from, is going to be able to get all the education they can take by loan, scholarship, or grant, right from the federal government. And I aim to pass Harry Truman’s medical insurance bill that got nowhere before"
Kearns said he was a man that wanted his good works on civil rights and the Great Society to be remembered but he was afraid his Vietnam Legacy would overshadow those achievements. She didn't ever to my knowledge allege that he was a racist or that he wanted to return blacks to slavery.
Finally, that Kessler quote is a 3rd hand quote attributed to an air force-one host that was communicated to Kessler but has never been corroborated. It probably wouldn't have been something completely out of the ordinary, but we don't know if he actually said that or not, nor do we know if he was actually pandering or not. -
Now, in the years since I challenge you to call Carter, or Clinton, or Obama racist. I'd love to hear your argument on how the first black president, elected by a huge margin via his own race hated his own people. Please. Make that argument.
LBJ is quoted as calling his own valet a ###$$$... to his face.
BHO didnt hate his race... but it didnt stop him from using them like a good uncle tom..
Seriously.. you gotta wise up and quit drinking the poverty pimp kool aid.
Uncle toms are people that betray their race. Obama didn’t do that. Asking for a vote from somebody because you care about their plight is not being an Uncle Tom. Going to the side that hates your race is being an Uncle Tom. If a lot of African American people consider Clarence Thomas to be an Uncle Tom for his refusal to acknowledge the inability of blacks to operate in the same level as white due to systematic racism and his propagation of that same systematic racism given his legal opinions. Thomas argues that the constitution should apply equally to all people as individuals, and he’s not wrong in that sense... but he has apparently become desensitized to the actual hardships that race and racial tensions place upon people of color in our country and he votes for things that make those tensions and difficulties worse.
BTW Here’s a quote from Bush’s RNC chairman in a public apology to the NAACP in 2005.
“Republican candidates often have prospered by ignoring black voters and even by exploiting racial tensions [...] by the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African-American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out. Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.”
Too bad the party at large didn’t adopt that sentiment and it’s now back to polarizing things like BLM and confederate statues so as to scare white conservative voters into voting for Republican candidates.
Last edited:
As a registered Independent and minority, history has taught me that both parties have had influential members that have pushed racist agendas. Debating who’s hands are dirtiest is the wrong focus area for this argument. However, I believe LBJ’s words and actions As President serve as an critical historical reference point in understanding the racial divide in the US at that time and represented the building blocks of a new model of slavery for minorities just as the Willie Lynch Letters were to white slave owners during early slavery times.
I find it very interesting and productive having these conversations because in many cases we find that our perspectives are actually closer to one another that farther apart.
The true divide in these conversations has primarily been on the difference of opinions of importance of minorities growing up in a two parent household. I was lucky to grow up in a two parent home and my dad was not only a father for me but many other black boys who were growing up with no father. Fathers matter and make a huge difference in a males trajectory in life. BLM doesn’t support that model and prefers the village model.
Supporting nationalism over globalism, faith in God, capitalism, entrepreneurship, and hard work over handouts are issues that for some reason absolutely trigger us on this board and I have no clue why. To your argument about LBJ, many things that seem on the outside to be positive are actually very harmful and designed to destroy.
We need to continue talking to others who are "different" than us, this is a very extreme example but I also find it enlightening what Daryl Davis was able to accomplish due to his courage:
The difference of opinion in the importance of two parent households in the minority community is one of the more puzzling things I’ve ever seen given the large amount of statistics we have showing it to be the single most important factor of future success of those children. Truly sad there are those who still ignore indisputable facts at the expense of this country’s children to further a political agenda.
I'm not debating who's hands are dirtiest. Post Republican Southern Strategy, it's not up for debate who's hands are dirtiest and it's been admitted by Republicans. Please note that the modern liberal spectrum doesn't include people that wave swastikas or wear white hoods. That only happens on one side. As much as you or anyone else want to talk about Democratic shackles, there is only one side that is really fighting for any kind of change in the status quo regarding African Americans or Latinos. If you think differently, you're sadly misguided.
I'm not arguing that ALL conservatives are actively fighting against social change for minorities, but there are certainly some who are fighting on behalf of extremely racist constituents and their votes. I'll admit that the Democrats of Dixie and even later were misguided in their racist tendencies, but by starting off with Herbert Hoover's embrace of the "lily-white" policy in the south that included removing blacks from positions of power in the party, the Republican party began to work against African Americans. Blacks made up 80-90% of the Republican Party in some states - like Texas - at the time the Lily White movement began. That culminated in the complete shift away from them and adoption of the Southern Strategy post New Deal / New Frontier / Great Society plans.
Johnson's Civil Rights Act of 68 banned discrimination in housing. That's the same act that Trump and his daddy ran afoul of 4 years later when they were discovered to be mistreating minorities.
Last edited:
I still think you're mis-attributing the statistic. The dual parent household tends to earn substantially more money. It's not the other parent's moral guidance that makes the impact it's the $$$ that makes the impact.
Figure 1. Percentage of children under age eighteen in families living in poverty, by child’s race/ethnicity and family structure, 2017
Notice, that POVERTY is the real result of living in a single parent household when compared to living in a dual parent household. (And poverty is even more likely if it's a single mother due to men tending to earn more) The presence of a father figure isn't what is making middle class kids behave better than impoverished kids who don't have a dad. It's the struggle of poverty that is making kids single parent kids act worse. I know. I was one.
For example: Middle class kids don't tend to shoplift because they know that if the item they want is reasonable and if they act reasonably to their parents, they might eventually get the item even if it takes their parents some time to get it. They know if they take the item, that the punishment will be more likely than the chances they get the item (unless it's something extraordinarily expensive, which isn't typically what kids want)
Poor kids see the item and know that there's no way they'll ever get it barring a miracle so they say, "screw the system that put me in this situation, I'm taking it and if I get in trouble so be it." They weight the odds of them getting the item and getting away with it versus the odds of them being caught and punished, and they determine that they're a lot less likely to be caught and punished than they are to ever earn the item from their parents.
Last edited:
"Southern Strategy" is mostly a bunch of inferences by dems that like to pawn off their 60s, 70s, and 80s racists on the republican party. The two guys accused of employing a "Southern Strategy" won virtually every state in the country. It was a "win as many states as humanly possible strategy." Yes, that meant prying away suburban voters in the south with a variety of issues *that also were appealing nationally* and most of which had nothing to do with race.
Last edited:
If you adjust for income, kids in two parent households still do better. This is especially true for kids who live with both biological parents.
I was raised by a single mom too and turned out fine(arguably), but I'm not going to pretend that it doesn't matter.
Last edited:
They won nearly every state in the country because they appealed to the largest voting blocks: Working Class Whites in the North / West and Racist Whites in the south. You think they're not allowed to have multiple campaign messages and strategies in different regions? It's why they picked off states in the south that had traditionally gone Democratic to that point. I'm not pawning racists off on the Republican Party. The Republican Party welcomed the racists with open arms because it helped them win majorities in congress (which they had only held for 4 years total in the period of 1933-1981) and it helped them with the presidency.
They did it by fighting things like affirmative action and school integration under the guise of constitutional individualism. Which racist (formerly) Democrats in the South supported.
I'd love to see one study that has accounted for that with a significant enough sample size of well-off single parents to make an accurate comparison. I can't find one.
I would never say that there are NO benefits to having both parents, but I will say that the benefits of having both parents irrespective of money are far lower than the benefits of having a household with enough money to support the child (irrespective of parents).
You're entitled to buy into simplistic non-historical narratives that flatter yourself, ignore more important political themes, and slander your ideological opposites. That's how most people operate. I'm just not going to indulge it.
Oh, you indulge in it plenty.
I just want you to ask yourself, why has the Republican Party won the deep south (an area they didn't win until 1964) consistently and by large margins? What made Mississippi and Alabama turn Red after voting for open racists like Wallace, Byrd, and Thurmond? I can tell you that it wasn't because of national political themes. It was because guys like Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act.
Last edited:
Truly puzzling. Pride can get the best of all of us if we let it!
Thats interesting! If that narrative were true, than surely there should be results to show progress. Sadly, I can’t name one single thing Obama did to help black or brown people when he was in office and i voted for him the first time! So far, Trump has created Opportunity Zones, signed the STEP act, improved the average household income of black people, on and on. I have no party allegiance. I only care about results. Up to this point, Trump has accomplished everything I thought he would and exceeded my expectations. To your second point about families, we can both keep throwing stats. We are both college educated and know how to support our arguments well. I dropped stats and focused my argument on common sense. Kids in single parent houses are more vulnerable to all kinds of things. The dads role is to teach and protect. From the beginning of time, the father taught the son to hunt, grow food, and do all the things necessary to survive. It hasn’t changed. We may live in a more digital world and the life lessons may be different but the job of the father is still to protect and teach. Survival is not guaranteed but it’s certainly increased exponentially when the father does his job. It’s really not rocket science.
The growth in GOP support from whites in the south was gradual from 1928 to 2010, with a brief jump for Barry Goldwater, that then reverted to the norm. This is because white southerners were more ideologically in-line with the GOP's overall national agenda(on economics, national security and other things) than the Dem's overall national agenda. If race were taken out of the picture, white southerners would have switched to the GOP sooner and in greater numbers.
Decent article on the topic
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...standing_the_southern_realignment_107084.html
From the US House Of Representatives Website on American History With Citations:
The political realignment of black voters that began at the close of Reconstruction gradually accelerated in the early 20th century, pushed by demographic shifts such as the Great Migration and by black discontent with the increasingly conservative racial policies of the Republican Party in the South. A decades-long process ensued in which African Americans either left the Republican fold or were effectively pushed out of the party because of its increasingly ambiguous stance on civil rights. By the end of this era, the hostility to black voters in both major parties in the South combined with a re-emergent activism among younger African Americans had laid the groundwork for a mass movement in the early and mid-1930s of black voters to the northern Democratic Party.166
Weakened to the point of irrelevancy, southern Republicans after 1900 embraced Jim Crow as a way to curry favor with the political power structure. They abandoned black voters in order to preserve their grasp on issues as basic as local patronage jobs dispensed by the national party. Through political factions such as the “lily white” movement, which excluded blacks, and “black and tan” societies, which extended only token political roles to African Americans, the party ceased to serve as an outlet for the politically active cadre of southern black voters.
Gradually, African-American leaders at the national level began to abandon their loyalty to the GOP. While the party’s political strategy of creating a competitive wing in the postwar South was not incompatible with the promotion of black civil rights, by the 1890s party leaders were in agreement that Republicans needed southern white voters more than they needed southern black voters. “Equalitarian ideals,” explained a leading historian, “had to be sacrificed to the exigencies of practical politics.”167
As late as the 1920s, however, some Republican officials were still trying to find a middle path. On the one hand, GOP officials sensed an opportunity to present the party as a moderate alternative to the segregationist policies endorsed by the outgoing Woodrow Wilson administration—to make inroads into the growing urban centers of African-American voters. On the other hand, in campaign efforts against northern Democrats such as Al Smith of New York, Republicans perceived the chance to cultivate southern white voters by stoking racial tensions. “The dilemma,” writes historian Lewis L. Gould, “was that the politics that spoke to one group alienated the other.”168
The party tried to walk a fine line. GOP Presidents in the 1920s hosted black leaders to discuss touchstone issues such as anti-lynching legislation. But they did little to pass that legislation for fear of alienating southern whites. The party’s relative lack of enthusiasm for challenging segregation in the civil service, enforcing the reduction clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or endorsing fully the enactment of anti-lynching legislation convinced many African Americans that the political priorities of the party of Lincoln were no longer compatible with those of the black community. At its 1926 national convention, the NAACP pointedly resolved, “Our political salvation and our social survival lie in our absolute independence of party allegiance in politics and the casting of our vote for our friends and against our enemies whoever they may be and whatever party labels they carry.”169
The Republicans’ presidential nominee in 1928, Herbert Hoover, cast more doubt in the minds of black voters.170 For one thing, Hoover’s handling of the relief efforts after the devastating 1927 Mississippi River floods disappointed the African-American community. Tone deaf to issues that resonated with black families, Hoover then catered to the lily-white delegations at the Republican National Convention. The platform ignored the interests of black voters, except for a perfunctory sentence about the necessity for anti-lynching legislation. Furthermore, during the campaign Hoover devised a southern strategy against Democratic nominee Al Smith, who Southerners perceived negatively because he was Catholic and was believed to represent ethnic and African-American interests. By courting the racially conservative white vote with tacit support for the segregationist status quo, Hoover fractured the solid South and captured the electoral votes of five southern states: Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Florida, and Texas.171
The 1928 presidential campaign marked a significant step toward the eventual black exodus from the Republican Party. Though a majority of African Americans cast their vote for Hoover, black defection from the party was greater than in any prior election. Manufacturers of public opinion within the black community, including the Chicago Defender and the Baltimore Afro-American, supported Al Smith.172 Meanwhile, the party of Lincoln seemed unresponsive to the changing electorate and lacked a strategy for adjusting to new political realities. The Great Migration made black-white relations no longer primarily an issue for the South. The new urban America offered a core constituency of the coalition that would propel Democrats into power in the 1930s.173
166Fauntroy, Republicans and the Black Vote: 41, 42–55. See also Nancy Weiss’s treatment in Farewell to the Party of Lincoln: Black Politics in the Age of FDR (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983): 209–235.
167Sherman, The Republican Party and Black America from McKinley to Hoover, 1896–1933: 256. A significant break between the black elite and the Republican Party occurred in the aftermath of the August 1906 Brownsville affair. A garrison of African-American soldiers stationed near Brownsville, Texas, were accused (on the basis of scant evidence) of several shootings in the town. Three companies of black troops (167 enlisted men) were discharged without honor by recommendation of the U.S. Army command. President Theodore Roosevelt swiftly approved the findings. When Republican Senator Joseph B. Foraker of Ohio (a would-be contender for the 1908 party’s presidential nomination) rose to defend the accused and criticized the White House, Roosevelt bristled and refused to reconsider the case. Aside from the injustice to the dishonorably discharged troops, the most lasting legacy was the alienation of a number of young black leaders, including Mary Church Terrell and Archibald Grimke.
168Lewis L. Gould, Grand Old Party: A History of the Republicans (New York: Random House, 2003): 224–225.
169Annual Report of the NAACP (1926): 32; cited in Sherman, The Republican Party and Black America from McKinley to Hoover, 1896–1933: 224.
170For more on Hoover and African Americans, see Sherman, The Republican Party and Black America from McKinley to Hoover, 1896–1933: 224–259.
171For an insightful analysis of Hoover’s southern strategy, see Donald J. Lisio, Hoover, Blacks & Lily-Whites: A Study of Southern Strategies (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985).
172Sherman, The Republican Party and Black America from McKinley to Hoover, 1896–1933: 232.
173Ibid., 258.
The political realignment of black voters that began at the close of Reconstruction gradually accelerated in the early 20th century, pushed by demographic shifts such as the Great Migration and by black discontent with the increasingly conservative racial policies of the Republican Party in the South. A decades-long process ensued in which African Americans either left the Republican fold or were effectively pushed out of the party because of its increasingly ambiguous stance on civil rights. By the end of this era, the hostility to black voters in both major parties in the South combined with a re-emergent activism among younger African Americans had laid the groundwork for a mass movement in the early and mid-1930s of black voters to the northern Democratic Party.166
Weakened to the point of irrelevancy, southern Republicans after 1900 embraced Jim Crow as a way to curry favor with the political power structure. They abandoned black voters in order to preserve their grasp on issues as basic as local patronage jobs dispensed by the national party. Through political factions such as the “lily white” movement, which excluded blacks, and “black and tan” societies, which extended only token political roles to African Americans, the party ceased to serve as an outlet for the politically active cadre of southern black voters.
Gradually, African-American leaders at the national level began to abandon their loyalty to the GOP. While the party’s political strategy of creating a competitive wing in the postwar South was not incompatible with the promotion of black civil rights, by the 1890s party leaders were in agreement that Republicans needed southern white voters more than they needed southern black voters. “Equalitarian ideals,” explained a leading historian, “had to be sacrificed to the exigencies of practical politics.”167
As late as the 1920s, however, some Republican officials were still trying to find a middle path. On the one hand, GOP officials sensed an opportunity to present the party as a moderate alternative to the segregationist policies endorsed by the outgoing Woodrow Wilson administration—to make inroads into the growing urban centers of African-American voters. On the other hand, in campaign efforts against northern Democrats such as Al Smith of New York, Republicans perceived the chance to cultivate southern white voters by stoking racial tensions. “The dilemma,” writes historian Lewis L. Gould, “was that the politics that spoke to one group alienated the other.”168
The party tried to walk a fine line. GOP Presidents in the 1920s hosted black leaders to discuss touchstone issues such as anti-lynching legislation. But they did little to pass that legislation for fear of alienating southern whites. The party’s relative lack of enthusiasm for challenging segregation in the civil service, enforcing the reduction clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or endorsing fully the enactment of anti-lynching legislation convinced many African Americans that the political priorities of the party of Lincoln were no longer compatible with those of the black community. At its 1926 national convention, the NAACP pointedly resolved, “Our political salvation and our social survival lie in our absolute independence of party allegiance in politics and the casting of our vote for our friends and against our enemies whoever they may be and whatever party labels they carry.”169
The Republicans’ presidential nominee in 1928, Herbert Hoover, cast more doubt in the minds of black voters.170 For one thing, Hoover’s handling of the relief efforts after the devastating 1927 Mississippi River floods disappointed the African-American community. Tone deaf to issues that resonated with black families, Hoover then catered to the lily-white delegations at the Republican National Convention. The platform ignored the interests of black voters, except for a perfunctory sentence about the necessity for anti-lynching legislation. Furthermore, during the campaign Hoover devised a southern strategy against Democratic nominee Al Smith, who Southerners perceived negatively because he was Catholic and was believed to represent ethnic and African-American interests. By courting the racially conservative white vote with tacit support for the segregationist status quo, Hoover fractured the solid South and captured the electoral votes of five southern states: Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Florida, and Texas.171
The 1928 presidential campaign marked a significant step toward the eventual black exodus from the Republican Party. Though a majority of African Americans cast their vote for Hoover, black defection from the party was greater than in any prior election. Manufacturers of public opinion within the black community, including the Chicago Defender and the Baltimore Afro-American, supported Al Smith.172 Meanwhile, the party of Lincoln seemed unresponsive to the changing electorate and lacked a strategy for adjusting to new political realities. The Great Migration made black-white relations no longer primarily an issue for the South. The new urban America offered a core constituency of the coalition that would propel Democrats into power in the 1930s.173
166Fauntroy, Republicans and the Black Vote: 41, 42–55. See also Nancy Weiss’s treatment in Farewell to the Party of Lincoln: Black Politics in the Age of FDR (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983): 209–235.
167Sherman, The Republican Party and Black America from McKinley to Hoover, 1896–1933: 256. A significant break between the black elite and the Republican Party occurred in the aftermath of the August 1906 Brownsville affair. A garrison of African-American soldiers stationed near Brownsville, Texas, were accused (on the basis of scant evidence) of several shootings in the town. Three companies of black troops (167 enlisted men) were discharged without honor by recommendation of the U.S. Army command. President Theodore Roosevelt swiftly approved the findings. When Republican Senator Joseph B. Foraker of Ohio (a would-be contender for the 1908 party’s presidential nomination) rose to defend the accused and criticized the White House, Roosevelt bristled and refused to reconsider the case. Aside from the injustice to the dishonorably discharged troops, the most lasting legacy was the alienation of a number of young black leaders, including Mary Church Terrell and Archibald Grimke.
168Lewis L. Gould, Grand Old Party: A History of the Republicans (New York: Random House, 2003): 224–225.
169Annual Report of the NAACP (1926): 32; cited in Sherman, The Republican Party and Black America from McKinley to Hoover, 1896–1933: 224.
170For more on Hoover and African Americans, see Sherman, The Republican Party and Black America from McKinley to Hoover, 1896–1933: 224–259.
171For an insightful analysis of Hoover’s southern strategy, see Donald J. Lisio, Hoover, Blacks & Lily-Whites: A Study of Southern Strategies (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985).
172Sherman, The Republican Party and Black America from McKinley to Hoover, 1896–1933: 232.
173Ibid., 258.
By the way, I read through that guys' article. It has so many holes in terms of assumptions and ommissions from history especially in the Hoover campaign which picks up a byline but was really the beginning of the major shift towards Republicans embracing racism. I can start to go through them if you'd like?
It's an article, not a book. If you want good statistical analysis and pages of citations, buy his book.
Last edited:
I'm not talking about statistical analysis. I'm talking about simple assumptions.
From your RealClearPolitics guy: "The same is true for Nixon in 1960, when the pro-Civil Rights Nixon, who, as Kornacki observes, was representing an Administration that enforced Brown v. Board, carried Virginia, Tennessee and Florida."
Arguing that Nixon's motives were altruistic in terms of being pro-civil rights is just ignoring what we know about Nixon and the lengths he would go to to win elections. The man ran 3 times and on at least one if not more he orchestrated felony election violations in a race where he didn't even need the assistance. Nixon was a man who would do anything to make sure that he won elections and if that meant not continuing to support civil rights like he had as Eisenhower's junior then so be it.
Nixon not only didn't defend the desegregation busing that the Supreme Court affirmed in the Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education case. In his secret tapes, he actively sought SC justices who would vote against busing:
Nixon said, "I want you to have a specific talk with whatever man we consider and I have to have an absolute commitment from him on busing and integration. I really have to. All right? Tell him that we totally respect his right to do otherwise, but if he believes otherwise, I will not appoint
him to the court."
Nixon had lobbied Burger while the case was pending and “lit into
him” on the question of busing After the case was decided, Nixon met with Burger, telling him that the Warren Court had caused the public to lose confidence.Nixon went on, saying: “They see the Negro problem[,]. . .and then there’s busing. That just drives them up the damn wall.”
Nixon was more interested in getting reelected than he was in having moral integrity on civil rights. He might have not been a racist himself but he appointed racist supreme court judges and he courted a racist electorate in order to win their votes. That's the history that your RealClearPolitics guy just glosses over.
There's literally not a single thing there that mentions or infers motives. Your cherry picked Nixon quote also isn't relevant to what you quoted from Trende. He's referring to the 1960 election (and what states he won) and what his reputation was based on the administration he had just come from.
Last edited:
No, but in the article they're arguing that Nixon won Southern States despite being Pro-Civil Rights just like Ike did while ignoring the fact that Ike actually got votes from African Americans in the South due to his defense of Brown v. Board. That was really the last time that a Republican POTUS staunchly defended a Civil-Rights supreme court ruling.
The portions of the southern states that Ike won and the portions that Nixon won 16 years later were vastly different in terms of social makeup Ike actually won a host of African Americans who were still in the Republican party post WWII while Nixon didn't.
You can see this in Nixon's 1960 win where he didn't carry the deep south. (Kennedy and Byrd did) and in 1968 he didn't carry it again because he a) didn't need to as the Democrats were split with Humphrey and Wallace and b) couldn't have run to the right of Wallace and still carried the remnants of the liberal Rockefeller Republicans. But in 76 he carried them all as his competition was weak, he had the Vietnam ending swoon and he had pandered to the fears of northern and southern segregationists without seeming like he was too racist.
Motiv is important in understanding the issues Nixon was trying to get people to vote for.
We can argue why a two parent household is so vital to a child’s success (income, supervision, role model, discipline) but in the end I’m not sure the reason matters near as much as significant difference it makes. Let’s be clear as well. When we’re talking about two parent households in this discussion we’re talking about those with a man in the house in a vast majority of cases.
A 25 year old single uneducated mom with three kids is almost always going to be poor. There’s not a lot anyone can do once they get to that point in their life path. It’s a never ending cycle of poverty, poor role models, poor supervision, etc... Most live in a environment where education is just not valued but ridiculed. Poverty is rampant and gangs run the hood. We won’t end this cycle until education and the fatherhood Responsibility becomes a priority instead of an afterthought.
I just finished watching an ESPN special about social injustice. Not once did anyone talk about our inner cities. The murders, drugs and gangs. The quality of life which millions experience everyday in these violent drug torn areas. I left thinking these people have no real hope because those with the voices refuse to acknowledge the problems. Sad.
A 25 year old single uneducated mom with three kids is almost always going to be poor. There’s not a lot anyone can do once they get to that point in their life path. It’s a never ending cycle of poverty, poor role models, poor supervision, etc... Most live in a environment where education is just not valued but ridiculed. Poverty is rampant and gangs run the hood. We won’t end this cycle until education and the fatherhood Responsibility becomes a priority instead of an afterthought.
I just finished watching an ESPN special about social injustice. Not once did anyone talk about our inner cities. The murders, drugs and gangs. The quality of life which millions experience everyday in these violent drug torn areas. I left thinking these people have no real hope because those with the voices refuse to acknowledge the problems. Sad.
The sad part is that they have been written off. No matter how much education and opportunity assistance they are given, the reality is that 16 year old boys are able to work, have little hope, their mothers are struggling and then at just the point they are able to start helping, if not before, they offered the chance to sell cellphones at minimum wage or drugs at 50 to 1000 times that. What do you think 99 out of 100 choose? How many politicians throw bad money after bad money in an effort they know if hopeless trying to stop that because they can’t say no. It’s madness. And we are borrowing money from China to do it. It’s crazy.
