Quote:
Originally posted by Colin@May 3 2003, 09:32 PM
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.
|
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.