Skip to main content

Here's Kevin D. Williamson at National Review complaining about the Republican party's image as the white people's party.  Naturally he protests that the Republicans are victims, yes VICTIMS of a nefarious conspiracy by the Democrats to ... make ... them ... look ... BAD!

This magazine has long specialized in debunking pernicious political myths ...  but worse than the myth and the cliché is the outright lie, the utter fabrication with malice aforethought, and my nominee for the worst of them is the popular but indefensible belief that the two major U.S. political parties somehow “switched places” vis-à-vis protecting the rights of black Americans, a development believed to be roughly concurrent with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the rise of Richard Nixon.
Williamson goes on to point out that back in the early 1960s, there were plenty of racist Democrats and many decent and honorable Republicans.  He criticizes the Republican Party for not reminding people about this.  

Now, Williamson is completely correct that the hard core of opposition to the 1964 Voting Rights Act came from Democrats, and that the south was ruled by Democrats.  And there were many, many decent Republicans back in the day.  Jacob Javits comes immediately to mind, but also so does George Romney.

What occurred in the south is that the whites switched from the Democrats to the Republican party.  This was occasioned and encouraged by Nixon's famous Southern Strategy.  

But more than that, there was also a purge in the Republican party, which jettisoned its liberal wing.  I mentioned Jacob Javits -- this fine man was defeated for renomination in 1980 by the declassé Alponse D'Amato.  

In states such as Oregon, Washington, and California, where a moderate brand of Republicanism had once been dominant, the local R parties gradually lurched to the right, nominating, and, it must be said, electing increasingly polarizing R candidates such as Pete Wilson, with his anti-Hispanic 1994 Proposition 187, until the voters simply rejected the Rs, and these west coast states came to be strongly associated with the Democratic Party.  They have given their electoral votes solidly for the Ds in the last 5 elections, (California) and six elections (Oregon and Washington.)

Williamson wanders around for four pages trying to finger out some other explanation for why the Republican Party is the favored party among white southerners, but ultimately he can only come up with the dubious proposition that it was the Democrats seeking black votes through expanded welfare programs (no dog whistle there!), and not the Republicans seeking white votes, that flipped the South Republican.  

But Williamson provides no explanation for the Pacific Coast states, including the largely white Oregon and Washington, becoming solid for the Ds.   Washington, except for the New Deal and the 1948, 1964 and 1968 elections, was a good reliable state for the Republicans, where they won in 1972, 1976, 1980, and 1984.  But they haven't won one since.  Oregon was even more reliably Republican,   Outside of the New Deal, the Democrats won the presidential election in Oregon just three times from 1860 to 1984.  After that, the Ds have never lost.  California presents a similar history.  Together these states, plus Hawaii, will deliver 88 electoral votes to the Democrats in 2012.

Williamson provides no explanation for this, but back in 1981, Lee Atwater did.  From the Wiki quoting Atwater:

You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—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.[36]
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 "Nigger, nigger".
The problem for the Republicans is that they don't do abstract very well.  When they start talking about "state's rights", we know exactly what they mean, especially since the whole state's rights idea, for the Republicans is the Procrustean bed of constitutional principles.  

Similarly, when we hear the Republicans talking about President Obama as a foreigner, not really an American, "arrogant" etc., we know exactly what they mean.  

So let me proffer this explanation: the same racist appeals, whether you call them "coded", "dog whistles" or what have you, that bought the Republican party the south as their base of operations, also forfeited the west coast states, and may indeed cause the Rs to lose Arizona and Texas depending on how rapidly the whites are supplanted in those states by Hispanics.  Now we find the Republican party scrabbling to find a way out of the box they've painted themselves into.


The Republicans claim they are the "Civil Rights Party"

10%7 votes
7%5 votes
8%6 votes
73%51 votes

| 69 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (18+ / 0-)

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Mon May 21, 2012 at 06:13:16 PM PDT

  •  Sever frontal lobe damage (4+ / 0-)

    would be required for me to buy that crap. Sorry GOP, you can't erase the facts.

    Romney - 2012 - If You Want Honesty, Vote For The Other Guy!

    by kitebro on Mon May 21, 2012 at 06:23:58 PM PDT

  •  For a lot of their followers, though, they have (4+ / 0-)

    Have erased the facts, that is.

    The whole "credit really belongs to the Republicans for the Civil Rights Act" thing is one of those talking points that are so pervasive on the right that a lot of their less articulate followers go around just tossing out the big line without being able to back it up with anything whatsoever. That is usually a sign that they've succeeded in embedding the lie in the greater political discourse.

    The last time I ran into it (just a few months ago), the guy couldn't even be bothered to trot out the cynical statistical trick on which it's all based (i.e. a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats supported the Act - true but absolutely irrelevent once you recall that there were twice as many Dems as Republicans in Congress that year, and it also ignores the political sea changes that have come in most states since then). When I pushed him on it, he dug in his heels but couldn't even recite the usual right-wing propaganda. Instead, he resorted to "Well, I don't recall any Democrats supporting that Michigan Civil Rights Initiative!" You know, the Michigan Civil Rights Intiative backed by Ward Connerly and Jennifer Gratz...kind of hard to even know where to begin to reply to that one, isn't it? I guess he's right, though, not too many Democrats supported that.

    Certaines personnes disent qu'il y a une femme à blâmer, Mais je sais que c'est ma faute sacrément.

    by RamblinDave on Mon May 21, 2012 at 06:35:06 PM PDT

  •  Wow, I guess they really think they (4+ / 0-)

    can make up their own facts.  I guess I shouldn't be the least bit surprised...

  •  Guess I can't trust my own lyin' eyes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Peril

    Where  grew up in Hanover County, Virginia, in the Seventies and Eighties, if you were white and racist, you were Republican.  Plain and simple.  The conservatism of "traditional values"  was itself a dog whistle for racism.  

    For me, this is like a sun rises in the East discussion.  President Johnson knew what he was talking about when, after signing the Civil Rights Act, he said that Democrats had lost the South for a generation.  

    Wholly-owned subsidiaries are people, too, my friend.

    by deminva on Tue May 22, 2012 at 03:41:23 AM PDT

  •  The GOP is the Party of the Big Lie (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, Cartoon Peril

    Although the phrase "Southern strategy" is often attributed to Nixon's political strategist Kevin Phillips, he did not originate it, but merely popularized it. In an interview included in a 1970 New York Times article, he touched on its essence:

    "From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site