As far as the Civil Rights Act, a higher percentage of Republicans voted for the act in both Houses. So up until 1964 at least, I think one could conclude that Republicans were as strong and probably stronger on average on Civil Rights than Democrats. That is what Torone is saying, right? Though how would one measure that support in the houses against the signature of a president? Kennedy was instrumental in pushing for the enactment of the bill. Does that hold more weight? Was that vote representative of the public at large? I don't know how else one could fairly measure such a thing. Maybe there's an old poll someone could dig up and then what does that mean?

An interesting stat is that the majority of African-Americans in the US supported the Republican party until 1932. The New Deal. That's a landmark date.

Can we be specific? What is the "state of the republican party" today? I don't really know what anyone is trying to say. That the majority of Republicans today would vote to reverse the Civil Rights Act? That the majority of Republicans today are racist? That more Republicans are racist than Democrats? Only Southern Republicans will make inappropriate racist remarks? That Republicans don't care about civil rights? The only statements being made are pretty vague and refer to a southern axis of evil that presumably meets up with a north-to-south axis to form a cross.

Colin – racists in much of the South dominated the pre-1970 Democratic Party and had as one of its fundamental purposes the suppression of the rights of one group of people based on race. While moderate and centrist Republicans supported Northern Democrats on issues of Civil Rights, several prominent Conservatives – William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater among them – admitted that they were wrong to work with the Southern Democrats in efforts to block civil rights legislation. What they stood for is, IMHO, evil, in the same way the Afrikaner party was evil, the Nazis were evil, and religious fundamentalists in the Middle East and India, for example, are evil.

I don’t think of the Republicans Party today as “evil” in the sense that I viewed the Dixiecrats/Wallace gang centered in the Democratic Party pre-1970. That being said, I view race baiting as evil. Perhaps that proves my weak mind; I just don’t know of a better way to put it, since merely labeling it "wrong" doesn’t go far enough to describe it.

There are a lot of points of valid disagreement between the left and the right, between the Democrats and the Republicans –this issue is a no-brainer. I repeat again – that is my opinion. You can agree or disagree with it; or you can indulge in some pseudophilosophical semantics game about the existence of evil in a political context. I don’t view much in the way of politics from a “morality” perspective; this is one area that I do, and I assure you I am completely unapologetic about it.

I ended up in the Navy before I could get a degree in Philosophy, so I don’t have the formal training to properly debate what is evil – but as has been said about pornography, “I know it when I see it.” I was raised in the city, so I don’t know much about horseshit, either – but as I have discovered after looking at your so-called question, I know it when I see it too.

Yes - a higher % of Reps voted for the bills in 64 and 65 than Democrats did; but most Republicans were Eastern and Northern back then, and there was a left, center and right in both parties that simply does not exist today.

Politically, I'm not even sure how much effort the Democrats put into enforcing any kind of party discipline, because the split in the party was so profound. It's been too long since I've read anything about the maneuvering in the House, but in the Senate LBJ squeezed the balls of everybody he could get his hands on - and he knew everyone and where their skeletons where buried - and he managed to get Dirksen's support, which brought a lot of wavering Republicans over.

Kennedy's LEGACY was instrumental in pushing for the enactment of the bill; had JFK lived, there is considerable doubt whether he would have pushed for anything as daring as what LBJ did for fear of further alienating what Southern support he had.

The simple fact of the matter is that attempting to discuss the passage of the 1964/65/66 Civil Rights legislation in strictly terms of party is really an exercise in futility. Region played more of a factor than party did in most cases, and Torone's arguements fail to take that into account.

IMHO the "state of the Rep party today" is far more to the right than it was in 1964, or even in 1976. Whether there is a center in the Republican party is debatable; anyone trying to find the existance of a genuine left in the party would be better off pissing up a rope. There is certainly nothing compared to the divergence of views between the Goldwater/Reagan wing and the Lindsey/Percy/Rockefeller component; there is probably not much in the way of a viable alternative toward the center in the Republican Party, and hasn't been since the incumbent President's daddy sold out to play second fiddle in Reagan's symphony.

I don't think the majority of Republicans are racist; others may. I think that there is a convergence of racism and philosophy on some issues, namely affirmative action. I don't think most Republicans would vote to repeal the Civil Rights Act - but I don't think many would exert themselves too hard to protect many of the provisions regarding the Federal role in civil righs enforcement either - yet it's very possible that such oversite is the only thing keeping local control from doing exactly what it did before -erroding.

Probably not most, and certainly not everyone, who opposes affirmative action does so because they are racist, but a lot of folks hide behind the states rights and so-called reverse discrimination rhetoric.

You think it's a "pseudophilosophical semantics game" for someone to ask you to define and explain a word or the context in which you are using it? It makes more sense for us to carry on a conversation if we don't understand what each other are saying rather than if we do? Isn't that the whole point? You are obviously very knowledgable about this subject and it would be interesting to hear you views but if you're going to insist on me not being able to ask "my so called questions", what's the point? That wouldnt be a thread, it'd be a blog.

Maybe it's patently obvious to you but I just don't get the idea of an entire political party being labeled as evil. The entire CONCEPT of anti-discrimination is not labelling the sum by it's parts. I don't see much of a difference in labelling people by their chose political party affiliation to an appalling ideology such as racism from labelling a jewish [religion] person as subversive. What next? Catholics are evil? Baptists are evil? Hindus are evil? Jews are evil?

Yes, I did read your post and I'm not accusing you of such. You are very careful in what you said. I wouldn't have known until I asked and I still don't understand what Dig means.

Is George Bush evil because Pat Robertson believes the Bible that homosexuals should be stoned at the city gates?

Is George Bush evil because Pat Robertson believes the Bible that homosexuals should be stoned at the city gates?
--------

yes. And it's more than obvious to everyone that you simply try to evade points you don't want to/can't refute on their merits by engaging in obfuscation on the level of 'what is the meaning of the word 'is'. It's also obvious that you will always respond in defense of the Repubs whenever anyone attacks them, so why not drop the impartial facade? It's pretty much in tatters anyway...

can you say that Nazi's are evil? Or would that be painting with too broad a brush for your taste?

i used to think Colin was just being a pain in the ass too. i used to suggest a great idea (what i thought to be a great idea anyway) and get bombarded with very simple questions. often questions so simple, i did not understand the usefulness of asking them. "what does "....." mean" - "what do you mean when you say "...."?" etc.

i used to get a little annoyed until i started to look at things the other way. i am asking someone with a Yale degree in physics to answer a question. in the end, i began to understand that it is in fact quite natural to define the questions, the language and to make sure that the question, termonology etc is clearly defined, understood and agreed upon from the outset... otherwise moving forward in a discussion where no one understands the other guy is often not very productive. its a normal function of debate and certainly science to establish definitions of words, define the questions etc etc first. science, mathematics and logic not about assumptions

"are Nazi's evil"?

i think too that is a generalization and a typically loaded question... the question itself implies that there can be only one black and white definition of "Nazi" and that it is (or is assumed to be) mutually understood by both parties to the discussion)... and that there cannot be any category or type of "Nazi" that may fall into a gray area.

how do you define "Nazi"? the word Nazi is symbolic of what all of us would probably agree to be very evil and unthinkable acts. The word is itself is symbolic of what we could probably all agree to be evil. But do you share the same definition of Nazi as another does? ... its impossible to know without asking.

are Nazis that refused to carry out their orders evil?
are Nazis that saved the lives of Jews and others evil?
are Nazis that defected, deserted and turned against German troops evil?
was a Nazi supply clerk in Amsterdam who managed laundry services evil?




Last edited by JR at May 4 2003, 03:36 AM

"And it's more than obvious to everyone that you simply try to evade points you don't want to/can't refute on their merits by engaging in obfuscation on the level of 'what is the meaning of the word 'is'."

I don't Dig. I usually ask people what they think instead of assuming it. I don't ever know what is "obvious to everyone". It's often not the same thing I was thinking.



Last edited by Colin at May 4 2003, 06:43 AM

Just a few days ago and in this thread I said "I don't believe in evil". The construct "evil" doesn't help me to understand the world any better.

An American might think Osama bin Laden is evil while a wahhabist might think he is the embodiment of good. One person may think America is good and another may think it is "The Great Satan". If evil exists only in reference to one's personal belief system, it's relative. Some people in the world think I am evil because I'm a pornographer but I'd have to disagree with them. [Sykkboy would take the opposite approach but that's him].

Other than taking a rather solipstic view of the world there doesn't seem to me to be a way for the concept of evil to add to my understanding of the world. Since it doesn't mean anything to me, that is why I was asking you what YOU meant by it. I'm interested in what you have to say but I don't know what you mean when you say it. I'm just trying to understand what you are saying.

To one person the word "evil" means in a moral sense. It may clash with their religious beliefs for example. Maybe it clashes with their chosen ethical belief system. They might just mean something completely innocuous. I don't think it would be preposterous to think that Dig and Pat Robertson mean something different when they use the word "evil". In fact, you might completely agree.