Typical of your kind - when you cannot win the argument, you ignore the facts and dismiss the messenger.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The KKK: left/progressive.....or.....right/conservative?
- Thread starter Daemon Sophic
- Start date
Typical of your kind - when you cannot win the argument, you ignore the facts and dismiss the messenger.
I don’t accept your premises that KKK members vote for Republicans nor that Republicans have a more pronounced problem with diversity and racism.
In light of recent news reports of the top three Virginia elected Democrats facing racially and sexist issues I feel confident stating that Republicans are not alone dealing with racial and diversity issues.
youknowme
Whatever you want me to be.
Well "winning" an argument with a faceless stranger on the Internet is not really high on my to do list today.
youknowme
Whatever you want me to be.
I didn't say they were alone, I said the problem was more pronounced with Republicans, and anyone who is being honest with themselves can see this.
youknowme
Whatever you want me to be.
PureX
Veteran Member
No, conservatism seeks to maintain the status quo, period. Tgat's what it's trying to "conserve". But that means most conservatives are those who are benefiting or who have been benefiting most from the practices of the status quo, and in our culture that's the wealthy white males.
Oh, grow up and learn to read what the posts actually say, and not what some imagined enemy would be saying if he were actually posting.
That is one definition, but not very applicable to politics in Americastan.
Ref....
Conservatism - Wikipedia
Under the above description, conservatives have often wanted to change
things which liberals would leave in place, ie, preserve the status quo, eg,
ending affirmative action.
That is one definition, but not very applicable to politics in Americastan.
Ref....
Conservatism - Wikipedia
Under the above description, conservatives have often wanted to change
things which liberals would leave in place, ie, preserve the status quo, eg,
ending affirmative action.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
That's pretty much a massive line of BS.
Look at the Democrats vs Republicans and race relations and you tell me what's what.
Long after the supposed "switch" took place.
Before Charlottesville, Democrats voted for racist policies for more than 100 years
That ridiculous line of **** doesn't fool anyone anymore.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And in the past it was a problem with the Democrats in the south. Under Nixon the Republicans began the Southern Strategy and many of the people that they appealed to were the KKK types. I don't think they did that on purpose, but as a result of that those former Democrats now tend to be Republicans:
Southern strategy - Wikipedia
I don't think anyone would deny the history of the political parties in question - whether Democrat or Republican. However, as I am not a fan of either party, I find myself being skeptical of any kind of rhetoric which paints one side as total demons while implying that the other side is a bunch of angels and choir boys. If anything, both parties were rife with demons.
Much has been written about the Civil War - its causes and effects. We also have an extensive history of racism in America, not just with blacks in the South or areas where the Democratic Party was predominant. It's also been evident in the North - and especially the West which (as a result of the Civil War) became open territory for the Republicans and their cronies to exploit. Up until the Civil War, the North and South kept making compromises as the size of the nation got bigger and bigger. Too much expansionism (favored by both sides) happened too fast, and multiple factions were fighting over the spoils of our conquests.
Racism against anyone who was not considered "white" was rampant throughout America, and there was a fair amount of bigotry and rivalry among different nationalities and religious groups within America. The Republicans had a lockhold on power for decades following the Civil War, so they could have stopped it, but they didn't. They tolerated the KKK and the doctrine of "separate but equal," and they divided up the Western territories, turned them into states and forced the Natives to live on "reservations."
The North also had its sweatshops, child labor, union busting, racketeering, slums, raw sewage running down the streets in the cities. The downside of rapid industrialization and urbanization was creating a good deal of dissatisfaction, which is where the Democrats started to become more "progressive-left" as some people might see it today. The Northern Democrats weren't necessarily politically aligned or similar to their party compatriots in the South, who still backed the KKK. But it led to a process where the Democrats had to change from within, which eventually culminated in many "Dixiecrats" splitting from the party ranks entirely.
By that time, the goals of both parties were fundamentally different, but with the Republicans being blamed for all the misery of the Great Depression, the Democrat FDR probably had the greatest influence in reshaping and reforming the Democratic Party into what is now seen as more "progressive-left." The Republicans had fallen out of power and had to find ways of re-inventing themselves. They switched from becoming isolationists to zealous, hardline interventionists and anti-communists. All in the name of the "free world."
Concurrently, the Democratic Party was becoming internally fractured partly due to the Dixiecrat split, but not just that. There were also internal divisions between the more progressive-left elements in the party and the more moderate liberals who didn't want to be painted as "soft on communism." The '68 Democratic Convention turned out to be an utter fiasco.
And again, that is simply your opinion. And anyone who is truly honest would admit we can’t possibly know such a thing. Ballots are still private in America. You can’t possibly know with certainty how members of the KKK have voted nor that they vote more often for Republicans.
youknowme
Whatever you want me to be.
That Wikipedia page is just a biased regurgitation of the false leftist myths about the Southern Strategy. Ergo I share quote a reply from a conservative:”
The Democratic Party’s claim to be the party of the good guys, while the Republicans are the party of the bad guys, hinges on the tale of Richard Nixon’s so-called Southern Strategy. According to this narrative, advanced by progressive historians, Nixon orchestrated a party switch on civil rights by converting the racists in the Democratic Party — the infamous Dixiecrats — into Republicans. And now, according to a recent article in The New Republic, President Trump is the “true heir, the beneficiary of the policies the party has pursued for more than half a century.”
Yes, this story is in the textbooks and on the history channel and regularly repeated in the media, but is it true? First, no one has ever given a single example of an explicitly racist pitch by Nixon during his long career. One might expect that a racist appeal to the Deep South actually would have to be made, and to be understood as such. Yet, quite evidently none was.
So progressives insist that Nixon made a racist “dog whistle” appeal to Deep South voters. Evidently he spoke to them in a kind of code. Really? Is it plausible that Nixon figured out how to communicate with Deep South racists in a secret language? Do Deep South bigots, like dogs, have some kind of heightened awareness of racial messages — messages that are somehow indecipherable to the media and the rest of the country?
This seems unlikely, but let’s consider the possibility. Progressives insist that Nixon’s appeals to drugs and law and order were coded racist messaging. Yet when Nixon ran for president in 1968 the main issue was the Vietnam War. One popular Republican slogan of the period described the Democrats as the party of “acid, amnesty and abortion.” Clearly there is no suggestion here of race.
Nixon’s references to drugs and law and order in 1968 were quite obviously directed at the antiwar protesters who had just disrupted the Democratic Convention in Chicago. His target was radical activists such as Abbie Hoffman and Bill Ayers. Nixon scorned the hippies, champions of the drug culture such as Timothy Leary, and draft-dodgers who fled to Canada. The vast majority of these people were white.
Nixon had an excellent record on civil rights. He supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He was an avid champion of the desegregation of public schools. The progressive columnist Tom Wicker wrote in the New York Times, “There’s no doubt about it — the Nixon administration accomplished more in 1970 to desegregate Southern school systems than had been done in the 16 previous years or probably since. There’s no doubt either that it was Richard Nixon personally who conceived and led the administration’s desegregation effort.”
Upon his taking office in 1969, Nixon also put into effect America’s first affirmative action program. Dubbed the Philadelphia Plan, it imposed racial goals and timetables on the building trade unions, first in Philadelphia and then elsewhere. Now, would a man seeking to build an electoral base of Deep South white supremacists actually promote the first program to legally discriminate in favor of blacks? This is absurd.
Nixon barely campaigned in the Deep South. His strategy, as outlined by Kevin Phillips in his classic work, “The Emerging Republican Majority,” was to target the Sunbelt, the vast swath of territory stretching from Florida to Nixon’s native California. This included what Phillips terms the Outer or Peripheral South.
Nixon recognized the South was changing. It was becoming more industrialized, with many northerners moving to the Sunbelt. Nixon’s focus, Phillips writes, was on the non-racist, upwardly-mobile, largely urban voters of the Outer or Peripheral South. Nixon won these voters, and he lost the Deep South, which went to Democratic segregationist George Wallace.
And how many racist Dixiecrats did Nixon win for the GOP? Turns out, virtually none. Among the racist Dixiecrats, Strom Thurmond of South Carolina was the sole senator to defect to the Republicans — and he did this long before Nixon’s time. Only one Dixiecrat congressman, Albert Watson of South Carolina, switched to the GOP. The rest, more than 200 Dixiecrat senators, congressmen, governors and high elected officials, all stayed in the Democratic Party.
The progressive notion of a Dixiecrat switch is a myth. Yet it is myth that continues to be promoted, using dubious case examples. Though the late Sens. Jesse Helms of North Carolina and John Tower of Texas and former Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott all switched from the Democratic Party to the GOP, none of these men was a Dixiecrat.
The South, as a whole, became Republican during the 1980s and 1990s. This had nothing to do with Nixon; it was because of Ronald Reagan and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.” The conservative appeal to patriotism, anti-communism, free markets, pro-life and Christianity had far more to do with the South’s movement into the GOP camp than anything related to race.
Yet the myth of Nixon’s Southern Strategy endures — not because it’s true, but because it conveniently serves to exculpate the crimes of the Democratic Party. Somehow the party that promoted slavery, segregation, Jim Crow and racial terrorism gets to wipe its slate clean by pretending that, with Nixon’s connivance, the Republicans stole all their racists. It’s time we recognize this excuse for what it is: one more Democratic big lie.
The myth of Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy’
Yes, I did get it right. Thanks for agreeing.Right. . . .
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
You may want to look through the sources (over 100 of them on that page), as some of them are Conservative/Right sources.
PureX
Veteran Member
They only want to change things back to what they think was the status quo when they were the empowered ones.
Keep in mind that "illiberal liberals" is a contradiction in terms. And so is "radical conservatism". Both are the result of modern day fascist plutocrats desperately trying to mislabel reality so as not to be recognized for what they are. These inherently misleading and self-contradictory terms come right out of their media propaganda machine. And you, like many others, have accepted them as part of your idea of reality. And that's very unfortunate for all of us.
I think you limit definitions too much.
tytlyf
Not Religious
Correct, the KKK and the southern confederate DemoKKKrat party were conservatives. You act like conservatives in the south have never been democrats.
The south has never been liberal/progressive, especially in the 1800s. You're showing that you don't understand the ideology of the parties in the past.
The moral of the story, confederate democrats were conservatives.
You should watch that new movie called "Death of a Nation." It explains the history of the conservative Democratic party and their racist views.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
LOL! Oh, the above is hilarious.
Well, I don't think "young people" much refers to me since I'm 73, and I am a retired educator that started out teaching American History but then for 30 years I taught Anthropology and over 25 years I taught Political Science. I've long done the research. To use an example, last week's State of the Union I believe was the first one I've missed since the late 1960's.
BTW, if all you're going to do here at RF is to use stereotypes to demean others, I think you'll find some of us just pretty much ignoring you after a while as we have had more than enough trolls here to fill our quota. Just a friendly piece of advice.
To put it another way, let me recommend that that you actually deal with the issue(s) at hand instead of issuing personal slams and using left/right stereotypes.