Why the GOP is Racist: Episode 2


obama_monkey_nigger

My original intent with this series was to cite past incidents I recall clearly and recent ones I see almost daily, in which GOP members, eyes bugging, temples, pulsing, nostrils flaring, are caught with their exposed red necks barely concealing bulging blood vessels, as grinding teeth scarcely muffle words of hate toward minorities.  I’ve kept a record for several weeks now and have ample resources to proceed…and I promised a series.

Form, however, stumped me.  After ruminating considerably, I decided to provide perspective, because out of context, there are many quotes attributable to democrats before both parties passed through the looking glass that indeed –again, devoid of context– could seem credible rebuttal or at least “everybody does it” trivialization.

To avoid this, I think it’s important to review the history of both parties in the late 19th and 20th Centuries. To some, this may be a yawn. But for those  who skipped or slept through history classes  only to regret it later in life due to a keen, recent interest, this post may be worthwhile. If you’re already up to snuff on this stuff, move on.  I’ll be posting another without this background later this week.

While the GOP loves to refer to itself and the “Party of Lincoln,” Lincoln’s true “party of record” shares little  with the man they so frequently invoke as theirs.  In fact, on the matter of race, today’s GOP is a photo negative of itself back in Lincoln’s day.

An Abbreviated History of Racism in America…

An “inconvenient” reality for a nation whose charter purports to guarantee personal liberty and equality is that slavery–quite common and in fact, essential at the time our founding documents were penned– isn’t mentioned in the Constitution...not even tangentially.  Its omission boldly sidesteps the standard clearly stated in America’s Declaration of Independence; We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  This simple omission effectively legitimizes or at least makes acceptable the denial of freedom and equality to an entire class of Americans.  American freedom is inherently overarching.  Like being pregnant,  one is either free or one is not.  Freedom isn’t a spectrum of hues on a palette.  It’s black and white.

Not that Lincoln set out to be racial equality’s poster child.  But being a product of anti-slavery parents, before running for president, he did point out the incongruity,  “Slavery is morally wrong and it is contrary to our highest ideals as expressed in the Declaration of Independence.”

Slavery was a fact of life in Colonial America, as integral to its economy as it was to its social structure.  While the Civil War had myriad causes, its most lasting legacy is Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, which put into motion an ongoing challenge to America’s stated principles that continues to this day.

Lincoln was an astute politician and a product of his times.  His views had tempered somewhat by the time he ran for president.  Although he still held that slavery was morally wrong , numerous influences: prevailing socio-political and economic conditions along with a dynamic, evolving pragmatism tempered his take on how America’s founding principles applied at that point in history.

He knew that success in Illinois demanded his understanding the needs of slave-owners.  Mastering this, he applied lessons learned there to help him pursue bigger ambitions.  Slavery continued to be a point of controversy.  Although he campaigned against slavery, it was definitely “back burnered” on his agenda. Instead, he dwelled on preserving the union.  Abolition of slavery could come later.  But by 1862, that view had changed and Lincoln felt it was time to move on slavery, which he did.

This was the “party of Lincoln,” one torn by crossed purposes, conflict, a leader that initially tolerated situations he was deeply against.  Southern Democrats of the day were clearly pro-slavery. Their northern counterparts were primarily against slavery.  The Republican Party was split on slavery.

For his second term, Lincoln chose Democrat Andrew Johnson, running on a “unity ticket”.  Upon Lincoln’s demise, the Democratic party essentially became the “pro-slavery” party.  This held throughout the 19th century.

Why is today’s Republican Party so far removed from the one Lincoln embraced?  In a word, race.  Oh, sure, they talk tax breaks, religion, prayer in schools, pro-life, family values, patriotism, states rights, small government and so on but their entire genesis was racism.

The outcome of the Civil War forced a nation that had not merely long tolerated slavery but whose economy (especially in the south) depended on it  to change its course.  Old habits die hard.  Bigotry easily survives generations. Cross-generational change occurs only as accepted biases are proven false by first-hand experience and even then, it may take many lessons before long-ingrained programming softens or relents.

Such was true of both major parties in the early 20th century.  Having abolished slavery, Republicans floundered.  Where did blacks belong?  No one seemed to have a solid answer.  Democrats became more progressive, eclipsing the Republicans on civil rights as  Harry Truman included it in his platform in 1948.  Republicans chose to oppose Civil Rights.  Subsequent iterations, including the “Dixiecrats,” were against integration. No discussion of either would be complete without exploration of Strom Thurmond, the Dixiecrat’s Moses. Thurmond loomed large for decades, inviting turmoil even upon his departure from the planet. Suffice to say, his legacy was in good hands.

By the 60’s, the tables had turned. Most conservative southern democrats couldn’t tolerate Civil Rights.   Blacks were inferior, period.  They did not deserve equal treatment under law.  “States Rights” became a code phrase for “segregation.” No nationally imposed law should regulate how a state dealt with education, housing, use of public and commercial facilities; all of these were to be the sole purview of the states. As a democratically led federal government pressed its case in the south, opposition mounted.   Staunch southern dems started to change alliances in droves, a trend that intensified due to Nixon’s “Southern Strategy,” which aimed to pull democrats into the GOP primarily on their opposition to racial integration.

Ultimately they morphed into today’s GOP, which expanded its reach by incorporating other wedge issues. The GOP consistently and methodically worked to keep racial minorities from voting. “Jim Crow” laws and practices, community and state-sanctioned organized terror, rape, murder, lynching, racketeering, destruction of property, theft, jury nullification, gerrymandering and even ethnic cleansing failed as the South tried desperately to subjugate black citizens. Such practices continued largely unchallenged until the Federal Government took notice of criminal reactions to a growing Civil Rights movement.

Although Dwight D. Eisenhower spoke out against racism, his words wrought little. Racially motivated violence and discrimination, while common and even flagrant in the south were far from limited to it.  Racism was a national problem.  Enforcing the promise of our Emancipation Proclamation and Declaration of Independence was failing miserably in deference to “states rights”.  We were failing to deliver basic freedoms upon which our nation was built. In 1957, the Federal Government under Eisenhower mandated that public schools be segregated.

Many school systems  had used “Separate but equal,” standards (which were anything but, in most cases) to get around segregation.  “Brown v. Board of Education”  set out to change that.

In the 60’s, a growing, highly publicized Civil Rights movement demanded Federal attention. Democrats, then in power, made it a pivotal issue. Employing Federal resources, they started to enforce current law and passed new legislation that forced integration, abolished “Jim Crow” and unleashed a whirlwind that continues in may forms to this day. In the south, the reaction was swift and violent. Federal presence exacerbated tensions. Violence dominated the southern political landscape.

When JFK was assassinated, the War in Vietnam became Lyndon Johnson’s responsibility.  Surrounded by hawks, LBJ escalated the War.  Although Lyndon B. Johnson continued to pursue determined actions to enforce new Civil Rights laws and indeed made great progress, as he ratcheted up troop strength, bombing and aggression in Vietnam, public focus shifted to the war.

As much as we escalated, we lost. Our mission was murky.  Troop morale was low.  Drug abuse was widespread and troops were bringing drug habits home.  Eventually, the public came to see Vietnam as a debacle, one that claimed the political career of LBJ, who refused to run again.

Seizing opportunity, Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” used race as a wedge issue to draw disgruntled Democrats and “Dixiecrats,” to the Republican Party. Richard Nixon’s rise marked the beginning of what would be a trend for the Republican Party, where the south became a republican stronghold, as it once had been for Democrats. The result was two parties that had essentially switched sides. Republicans were reliably conservative, democrats, predictably liberal.

After Nixon‘s fall from grace and transition to Ford, who summarily pardoned him, a backlash based on reform led an honest ineffectual Democrat to the Oval Office for one one term before he was bludgeoned by Ronald Reagan, who reverted to and refined the GOP’s tried and true racial formulas (introducing, among others, “Welfare Cadillac Queen” into our lexicon).   Willie Horton haunted Dukakis at the hands of Bush Senior’s spinmeisters.

If you’re naive or brainwashed enough to think governance isn’t sinister, consider Bush senior, an ex-CIA head.  No skeletons in that closet, right?  Can one run the CIA and NOT know where the bodies are buried?   I’d love to know what really went on while that effete son of a bitch had his finger on the button.

And I don’t use “bitch” casually here. I’m describing the matriarch who, upon viewing Hurricane Katrina evacuees relocated to the Houston Astrodome,  chirpily opined:  “This is working very well for them…And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this–this (she chuckles slightly) is working very well for them” -Barbara Bush at the Astrodome after Katrina, referring to evacuees).

Until recently, Republicans dominated American governance even when not in power, by railing on ethics and values, despite the fact that the GOP record is far from enviable when it comes to what most organized religions define as sin and debauchery. Fancy that.

Coming Soon: Episode 3:  GOP Racists, In Their Own Words.

This entry was posted in Activism, Caring, Economy, Government, History, Human Behavior, Institutionalized Hatred, National, Philosophy, politics, Race, Religion, Right-Wing Haters, Soul-searching, Soup du jour and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Why the GOP is Racist: Episode 2

  1. MG says:

    Yeah and then people like Sean I Never Met a Lie I Didn’t Like Hannity always fall back on the Sen Robert Byrd thing, and how he was a former Klansman. Big deal-he repudiated that past, and hell, there people in the Rep. party who seem to think the Klan way without wearing the white robe.

  2. Mr. Turkey says:

    Why are liberals so fascinated with race all the time? They need to listen to Dr. Martin Luther King and stop judging people by race. Articles like these are just made to divide people and cause more hate.

  3. Paul Sonderman says:

    We’d all do well to read, study and listen to Dr. King.

    I don’t think that we’re so much “fascinated with race all the time” as we’re sensitive to racial stereotyping, hate speak and propagation of inequality among classes, races, religions, genders, and sexual preferences. Preservation of freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution omits no citizen.

    I assure you that my intention isn’t to further divide people and cause more hate. If you read through my archives, this should be apparent. I do, however, intend to expose hypocrisy and I’ll do that regardless of ideology. Although I’m a proud liberal, when Democrats say such openly bigoted things in public or route hateful emails, etc. targeting race, I assure you that I’ll post about them in this series as well. If you care to, send me some links. Keep in mind, I’ll need to authenticate anything before I post it. If proof falls short, I’ll let you know why it failed to pass muster.
    email me at: paulsonderman@gmail.com

    Thanks for your interest and taking the time to comment.

  4. anon says:

    what i dont get is why the picture above the article is called ‘obama_monkey_n*gger’. surely the n word isnt necessary

  5. Paul Sonderman says:

    That’s the way it was posted on Google Images. And yes, not only is it unnecessary, I’d venture to say that whoever photoshopped the pic took perverse pleasure in so naming it. Hate is unnecessary. So is racism.

    Thanks for your comment.

  6. Pingback: Steele on Ried: “Step Down” « New World Odor

  7. Mark Weber says:

    The GOP is going to take back the White House from that Socialist pig Obama, and take back the Congress from those cum drinking Demoncrats.

    All you liberals can such my giant, Republican DICK

  8. Paul Sonderman says:

    If your member is as massive as you claim, perhaps you can “such” it yourself. New World Order extends a hearty “thank you” to Mr. Weber, who is obviously the brain trust of the GOP. Come back again, preferably AFTER you’ve acquired a view worthy of expression. See you at the next tea party.

  9. danny d bitch says:

    shut up aging liberal hippie douche

  10. Og fuck the 407 says:

    Ahahaha you fucks! you couldnt handle what i was saying and you deleted it! fuck you America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Geah go danny D mi homie! ill see you in a bit im with yer bro and were throwing down tonight and fucking mad skeezz crazy ass 18 year old Slores!!!!!!! have stevie pick up a flat and some goodies son! Peace NIGGERS! =}

  11. Og fuck the 407 says:

    Obama is nothing but a hood nigga holding his hood side in and itching to go and fuck some fat blonde skalliewops And smack them with baby powder hands

  12. Paul Sonderman says:

    Such literate, considered responses…Thanks for just being you! BTW, I remove SPAM my filters miss but don’t otherwise moderate comments. I prefer to let folks speak their minds, even if, as the past two of you who posted here clearly demonstrate, you have none. I will however, not permit attacks on others who comment stand.

    So if it validates you in some way to continue to show others how anonymous, hairless ass-clowns reason, please come back soon.

  13. Barack Obama says:

    Where the white women at???

  14. Paul Sonderman says:

    looking for your brain…

  15. Paul Sonderman says:

    If anyone cares, I’ve removed 2 piles of worthless, totally imbecilic brain poop penned by the nefarious, anonymous “ogf the 407,” whose lamentable emissions stand unaltered above. Apparently he or she just hasn’t found the right medication cocktail to yield sanity or impulse control.

    I prefer not to moderate and will do so only if deposited comments lack any redeeming value. If one insists on being an ass, I suggest he or she do so elsewhere. Thanks for your indulgence.

  16. Allin says:

    Hey paul i thought america was about freedom of speech and press wich i beleve is the first one??? Is that true?? or are you like everyone else that blocks others opinion if you dont like what they have to say?

  17. Paul Sonderman says:

    Not lately, “first one,” what? Amendment, I assume? Collect your wits, man. I can’t read your mind. And no.

    I welcome dissenting opinions. Please check my links.

    I don’t moderate this site but do remove racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, libelous, slanderous content that serves no purpose but to inflame, hurt or insult. Idiotic, anonymous graffiti may be well-suited for shit house walls but doesn’t belong here.

  18. usuary says:

    ES DE UNA FALTA DE RESPETO CON EL PRESIDENTE OBAMA ESTA IMAGEN LA CUAL ES DE MUY MAL GUSTO.

  19. Paul Sonderman says:

    Sí. Imágenes similares están fácilmente disponibles en Internet. La gama y la rabia de comentarios racistas tanto gráfico como reflejado en la escritura son una vergüenza para los Estados Unidos. Yo esperaba fueron más allá de esto, pero como puede ver, racismj está vivo y bien en los Estados Unidos. Gracias por su visita y por comentar.

  20. dennis says:

    There is sure a bunch of winy republicans out there with their peon opinions.And opinions are like ASS HOLES everybody has one. So shut the F… up and go back down to the basement.

  21. anon says:

    To somehow generalize one of the two political parties (that we have a real choice for when voting) is and the other is completely devoid of that same characteristic is completely batshit insane and smoking “their” party’s pipe.

    Crap like this keeps people from being objective and more blindly loyal to their party, which of course is the wrong way to go.

    As a note for the photo, it’s unfortunate it was named that, but I don’t see the actual content being any different than all the Bush monkey images.

    Calling the same kind of image manipulation racist just because it is a black person depicted… is racist. You’re picking something out purely because of color. So, go pat your overly sensitive self on the back.

    The same principle applies beyond images and extends into things people say. If anything is treated different because it’s coming from a person, besides honest observation, is racist in itself. You’re only stoking the damn fire.

  22. anon says:

    I’ll correct a couple things from the last post, as it appears wordpress removed some things. Surprise.

    “anything is treated different because it’s coming from a person”
    was supposed to be
    “anything is treated different because it’s coming from a (choose a color) person”

    and

    “political parties (that we have a real choice for when voting) is and the other is completely devoid of that same characteristic”
    was supposed to be
    “political parties (that we have a real choice for when voting) is (pick an adjective) and the other is completely devoid of that same characteristic”

  23. Paul Sonderman says:

    Anon,

    First, I never wrote or implied that dems are “completely devoid of that same characteristic. (eg, racist behavior)” If I did, show me. Otherwise, please don’t make shit up.

    Next, it’s not a generalization when the record, which I take pains to cite, backs up my claims. And don’t try to defuse my argument by saying everyone’s guilty of like behavior. We’re not. That’s called projection. Nice try.

    To your point, “As a note for the photo, it’s unfortunate it was named that, but I don’t see the actual content being any different than all the Bush monkey images.” You can’t be serious.

    Comparing a white guy to a chimp v. a black guy to a chimp is NOT the same…period. Calling me a nigger doesn’t sting a bit because I’m an old, white guy. Use “nigger” in the hood, though and see how far you get before you deeply regret it (with good reason). Words and images convey meaning. Wise up. And the record is the record. You may have your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.

    If I’m racist, what are these guys?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s