Posted by 
Allen West is one of a small group of black Republicans who hope to capitalize on the race card controversy being perpetuated by Obama supporters, in 2010.
As has been reported on Political Integrity Now in the past, accusations of racism based upon political disagreements are not only wrong, but they do a disservice to those who are true victims of racism. PIN hopes that Allen West is on to something. It is a disgrace that so many citizens believe the hype that Democrats have always been a friend to black people.
As reported by Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, on www.FoxNews.com.
When former President Jimmy Carter said racism was an underlying factor in attacks on President Obama, it’s safe to say he had no intention of boosting Allen West’s campaign for Congress in Florida’s Broward County.
But according to West, a retired Army colonel who is running for the second time against Democratic Rep. Ron Klein in Florida’s 22nd congressional district, that is exactly what has happened.
“Since (Democrats) have thrown out the race card, it has made me more appealing,” says West, one of a small but determined group of black Republicans running for seats in the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives in 2010.
Eager to overturn the “conventional wisdom” that the GOP is mainly a white bread party that offers few opportunities for minorities, these black Republicans believe they can attract increasingly agitated conservatives, as well as independents, to make 2010 their year.
They also conceded in interviews that the injection of race — a familiar theme since Obama’s election last year — has given them a certain edge and authority when they speak out against the president’s agenda. Because they’re black, they say, they can lead the charge against Democratic policies without being called “racist.” In fact, they say, their skin color may make them more attractive candidates.
“A lot of people who don’t want to be part of Obama’s policies are being called racist,” West said. “Then they say, ‘Hey, this guy, Colonel West — he’s black and I support him.’”
“It’s made me more appealing,” West told FOXNews.com, “because it shows the contrast of our principles — how different we are even though we both have permanent tans.”
Continuing from the Fox story:
The GOP still calls itself the “Party of Lincoln” because of its historical ties to the abolition of American slavery, and blacks remained loyal to the party after Reconstruction as Southern Democrats established segregationist Jim Crow laws. But the scene began to shift during the Depression, as blacks voted in large numbers for President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his New Deal policies.
The Democrats cemented their lock on black voters in the 1960s when President Lyndon Johnson pushed his Great Society programs and, more importantly, the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 through Congress. Four years later, in 1968, Richard Nixon wooed disenchanted Southern Democrats to win the presidency, setting the GOP on its current course, demographically, with voters of color. Read more.
The interesting thing to note about this particular segment is that the turning point for black loyalty to the Democrats is bathed in the facade that Democrats were the ones pushing for Civil Rights legislation under Johnson. This is something that Republicans had been pushing for over a long period of time, but were repeatedly shut down by Democrat majorities. Lyndon Johnson went against his party and some Democrats and a majority of Republicans came to his aid. THIS is how the Democrats clinched the black vote. They (as a party) did not wish to secure civil rights for blacks, however they repeatedly said that they did and expected that the public would believe them. They banked on this deception and the gamble paid off. To read more in depth and look at the Democratic and Republican party platforms, through the years (along with factual records to back up or debunk claims made in those platforms) see this document. This is a detailed 124 year side-by-side comparison of the two major political parties and their civil rights efforts–or lack thereof.
In order to maintain any level of political integrity, we must all do our own research. You sell yourself short if you just accept as fact what you see or hear reported. Find out if the facts back up the claims and then make your own decisions. Black or white, purple or green, we all owe it to ourselves to own our choices.
Related Reading
Natalie,
Nice post. It is interesting to note how much the political parties have changed over the years. I have often said that I would certainly have called myself a Republican if I had come of age during the Eisenhower administration. (and then probably jumped ship when Nixon began his southern strategy).
It is worth noting that although the purity of the Republican vote in favor of passing the civil rights act of 1964 was quite high (83% supported), the vast majority of the votes came from Democrats. I think that is the main reason why they ended up with the credit. A Democratic President, with a Democratic Congress passed a Democratic bill, with 198 Democratic votes (and 99 Republican votes). Like you said, it could not have happened without that Republican support though. Republicans in today’s congress would do well to recall that example. By working with the Dem controlled congress, today’s Republicans could be shaping important Health care reform legislation. By ceding the playing field and just climbing into the bleachers to “boo”, they do no service to the American public, and decrease their own ability to shape and improve the legislation to nearly zero. In the senate their Republican refusal to stand behind any of their own good ideas with the promise of a vote, forces the Democrats to cater to the most liberal of the senators in the chamber, because they cannot afford to loose even a single vote. If even 4 or 5 Republican Senators were willing to stand up for their ideas with a vote, they could move the whole bill to the middle, loosing 2 or 3 fringe votes on the left, and picking up broad support in the middle. It is unfortunate they have chosen this path.
Given the opportunity to elect a conservative Democrat (Blue Dog) who would actually participate in the legislative process, shifting the ideological balance of the process more to the conservative side – OR – to elect a conservative Republican who will follow the lead of the Republican leadership and attempt to block all efforts at legislation, forcing the Democrats to go it alone and shifting the balance in the chamber to the left – which is the better choice for a conservative voter?
Not a lot of time to respond, PJ, but I do want to address the “Democratic President, supported with a Democratic Congress (with a little help from the Republicans) passed a Democratic bill” idea. If you actually read the history you will see that NUMEROUS Republican bills had been killed over the years from the DEMOCRATS lack of wishing to pursue civil rights for blacks. To state it the way you did implies that a few Repubs jumped ship to help out and get this legislation passed because it was the right thing to do. That is not the case. Repubs had been pushing this type of legislation for years and FINALLY a Democratic President had the gall to stand up and push it as well. Some in his party stood with him, as did the Republicans. But this is not to negate the fact that his party had a strong track record of killing similar legislation, and that many members of his party repeatedly tried to “undo” the legislation after it was passed. They were very proud to claim the KKK as their organization, which absolutely disgusts me, especially to hear Dem supporters these days try to throw the asinine Duke into Repubs faces as “an example of Repub racism”. There are bad apples in every bunch and sometimes that’s going to happen. But this was a history of behavior among the Democrats and then they just attempted to rewrite history and many bought it hook, line, and sinker. We’re too lazy in this country to dig up the facts of the matter for ourselves.
Natalie:
I am right with you there.
That intolerant racist, xenophobic element which was once a part of the Democratic Party’s coalition (the original Dixiecrats), being cast off by Johnson, breaking off to become the Repuplican Party’s southern strategy, allowing the Republicans to hold the South even to this day. That was no gift the Democratic Party gave the Republican Party, a group of racist xenophobes that Nixon hopped could sweep him into office.
You are certainly correct, the civil rights movement was originally a Republican movement, the Democrats were late to the issue. I was just pointing out why I think the Democrats ended up getting most of the credit, even if it was originally a Republican idea that the Democrats stole.
And imagine the horror of the Eisenhower Republicans. Once the proud party of Lincoln, now the big tent that holds the leftover racists that could not stay with the party that past the civil rights movement, and offered equal rights to “those people”. It had to be some cold political calculus that lead the Republican Party to take in the old Dixiecrats, drawing the white south into the Republican Party and sending Blacks to the party that was second to champion civil rights.
I still think you miss the point PJ. I’m just trying to point out the actual historical data which contradicts public perception these days. You, like others, seem to acknowledge it, but try to excuse it away or point to something else that makes someone else a bad guy. Why can’t we just call a spade a spade? I think that you and I both know that the black (and I’m not using the phrase African-American verbiage purposefully as many blacks that I know are tired of being hyphenated Americans) community has been disenfranchised and disillusioned with the Republican party, all based on a lie. You seem to want to excuse the lie or pretend that even though you can say out loud it happened, somehow it didn’t REALLY happen. It’s almost like the woman who says an abortion would just make it like the baby never existed. Oh he existed alright, you just killed him. The Democrats were pros when it came to holding blacks’ heads under water and now they claim to be their champions. I can’t help but think that’s because, and only because, so long as they can keep enough of them dependent on the state, they can keep raking in their votes. If I need you to help me make it through the month, I sure don’t want you to fail because if YOU fail, what does that mean for little old me? I’m about empowering those who have been held down or held back. That relays into many aspects of life…blacks, women, all sorts of religions, unborn children, would-be-aborters who are uninformed and lied to, the list goes on. What the heck is wrong with the truth these days? It used to be good enough, and I say it still is.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3400:
Check out the republican solution. No National ID, No home visits, and it has Tort reform and it has nothing like a public option.
PJ, I thought they were just sitting in the bleachers and “booing”, and have not proposed anything????
hmmmm
PJ – Why do you constantly lie? Haven’t you realized that nobody here buys into your BS and you are now starting to be characterized as…IGNORANT, and rightfully so. I will take it a little bit further than what Natalie (you were too kind to him)…
You have ZERO credibility here.
The truth is that true Republicans (conservatives)do not want a system based on entitlements, we prefer the systems that creates incentives for ALL people (black, white, Asian, men, women, ect.) to better themselves, especially the poor. We are all for hands up, but not hand outs. We believe that our country should help people get on their feet, not give them incentive to stay knocked down. We want a society based on the Constitution, as it is the foundation that has made this extremely young country, a place that people DIE trying to come to. We believe that the Constitution, and support of it by the people, is what has made us successful. We believe in free speech and the right to bear arms.
We also believe that jab a sharp object in the back of an 8 month old unborn child’s head to suck the brains out of it, crush the skull and abort it is murder, but pouring water on a known terrorist face to save the lives of thousands of American citizens…is acceptable!
That is what the majority of conservative republicans believe. You can disagree with us, and that is okay, for it is your right that was fought for and shed blood over.
But to come here and TELL US what WE BELIEVE is beyond comical and shows your complete ignorance. It is delusional.
I can’t stop you from doing these things, and I wouldn’t if I could, as that would infringe on your rights. But, like a couple of people have said here before, I will now ignore you because you carry very little weight in your post. Although you are not irrelevant as a person, your hypocrisy is.
God bless you and have a nice life.
Natalie – Do you think it is fair to say that democrats abandoned the notion, years ago, of forcing Black Americans down, to keeping them down by offering entitlements…thus “buying” their votes? i would guess, this applies to anyone who is poor as well, to now inlcude, illegal immigrants.
Just curious as to your take on my observation?
I would like to include that I support people from all over the world to come to our country, and work towards a better life. Hence the word “work”, such as work toward becoming a citizen in this country, not being entitled to it.
I can say this, a good majority (at least in my area) of the ones who have gone thru the process of being a legal citizen, are not for giving out all these entitlement to those who have not…health care for children aside.
Natalie,
Nicely done.
So long has the misconception ever been that if you are black, then you are automatically a Democrat. Talk about political slavery!
For too long has this been allowed to be propagated and fostered and nourished by the Democrats. To them if you are black and are not a Democrat, you are some kind of “race traitor”. On the flipside, does this mean white people who aren’t Republicans are race traitors as well? (Oh, wait, unless you are either a very poor white person or rich and famous like Hollywood elites, then it’s okay to not be a Republican. Hey, stereotypes work both ways, folks.)
For myself I cannot really comment too deeply here as I have no black friends or associates to speak of. I cannot use that old, “Well, I have a friend who’s black and he says…”, phrasing. I can, however, comment upon the attempts from the liberals and progressives to be sure they keep black America right where they want them.
Racism, to me is moreso when I would tell a person that since they are black, they need my help.
Or, since they are black, they will never be allowed to achieve, so they need my help.
Or, better yet, since they are black and have had to endure years upon years of racial hatred from all white people, they deserve to be taken care of by us white liberals and we can make it all better by forcing equality between the races. There’s your racism. I like to call it liberalism.
So out of this you have some black folks who decided that they didn’t want to be treated thusly and to make their lives their own by becoming race traitors and going the way of the elephant. Bravo.
Liberals call it being “Uncle Toms” and “house n****rs”. I call it being true Americans who have broken the bonds of political slavery put upon them by the Democrats.
It’s more than okay to be a Conservative and be black. Actually, it’s only logical. Conservatives have always dug on other Americans based on their character, not their color. You want to be treated like a real human who has a voice that matters? Welcome to Conservatism.
Brandon:
I am not saying the Republicans have not offered many good ideas. I have repeatedly said they HAVE offered good ideas, and it is regretful that they won’t stand up for their own good ideas by committing their VOTE to a plan that includes their good ideas.
When I say the Republicans in congress have moved to the bleachers, I am referring to the fact that several weeks ago they made it clear that even if all of their amendments were take up, and all the changes made to the Senate Finance Committee bill that they were asking for, they would still not vote in favor of passage. At that point it was clear – they had moved to the bleachers.
As I have said before, I think health care reform would be improved if Hatch’s tort reform measures were included. Hatch should put his vote down to support it! If he will not support his idea with his vote, he is choosing NOT to participate in the legislative process. This is not good for anyone.
Sissy:
Nice affirmative statement of your own beliefs.
I am not trying to tell you, (or anyone else) what you believe. If I mischaracterize your beliefs, please correct me.
Natalie:
I did misunderstand your original point, but now that you have clarified it for me, I can see we disagree a bit.
Your original post contained a nice brief history of the Republican Party, which stops at THE pivotal moment in modern political history (the civil rights movement).
I strongly agree with your post, in its characterization that it was the Republican Party that strongly supported civil rights throughout the last half of the 19th and first half of the 20th century. I think, as well demonstrated by many of the posts on this site, most people have little or no understanding of the history if their political party.
I disagree with your assertion that blacks in the 60s, 70s and 80s flocked to the Democratic Party based on a lie. That voting behavior was based on the political realities that they were experiencing in real time.
I acknowledge, as would any person that read a bit of history, that the Republican Party was the first to the cause of civil rights. Also, it is a clear that Republican votes were essential in the passage of the civil rights act. I think you are glossing over the fact that it was a Democratic congress and Democratic President – and way way way more Democrats voted in support of the civil rights act than Republicans (by a 2:1 margin).
Republicans DID definitely champion the cause of civil rights, and the act would NOT have passed in 64 without them.
Saying that blacks flocked to the Democratic Party based on a lie, ignores what happened after your nice history stops. That is the very sad part of the story for the Republican Party, and explains black voting behavior and political alignment very well. The racist Dixiecrats left the Democratic Party, and became Republicans. There was a MASSIVE political realignment in the south. In the 50s the Democrats were the party of the KKK – by the 70s it was the Republicans.
For the first half of the 20th century (and about a century prior to that) white southerners were overwhelmingly Democrats, but in 1948 many bolted the party, angered by Truman’s efforts against racial segregation. These Southern whites flocked to Strom Thurmond’s third-party candidacy for president. Over the next several decades, the southern whites realigned away from the Democrats and to Southern Republicans, with race issues being the dominant driver.
I am not shifting blame, or even assigning it, these are just the realities of history.
The Republican Party of today, is left with some very difficult to reconcile positions, that are remnants of the realignment around racial segregation. To cloak outright racial hatred, more acceptable phrases like “states rights” or “local control” were used. The political practice of wrapping a divisive social issue in a nice friendly phrase persists today. (fear of gays = family values or fear of gays = support of marriage)
Fortunately PJ you and Merriam Webster’s are not one in the same. I believe in family values, yes, right down to a man and a woman being put on this earth to procreate, by the same God who gave us our natural rights. But I do not “fear gays.” That is your ignorance if that’s what you believe. (I trust you’re intelligent enough to know that my use of the word ignorance means lack of knowledge and understanding about the views of others, not stupidity as some would claim.) Like it or not, you are not the thought police and don’t get to decide what others “really” mean when they say this or that. Sometimes a nut is just a nut. What is it with all of this deciphering these days? We want to reinterpret what the framers meant when they founded the country, we want to reinterpret what our neighbor means by flying a flag, we want to try to decipher what a preacher means when he has a Bible passage and is teaching his parishioners about God’s will–according to God Himself! Enough already.
Yes, Democrats were a bunch of racist lunatics in my opinion, and I think it’s insulting to blacks to pretend that part of history didn’t exist. Yes, there were some racist Republicans and I WISH that part of history didn’t exist. I didn’t “not tell the whole story” to try to fool people. Most of us are familiar with relative recent history, but MANY of us need a history lesson when it comes to distant history. Contrary to what you seem to believe, I didn’t write the history lesson you’re referring to, I only cited it. I am not responsible for it’s depth or continuing coverage. It was advertised as a 124 year history, I think we can all assume that it stops after the 124th year without much argument. I did not try to sneak one in on ya. My point, and one that seems to elude you, is that no more can Republicans pretend that racial tensions never existed in our party than the Democratic party. But to this day, it is advertised (either outright or by implication), by yourself and others, that the Republican party is a bunch of racist hillbillies and the Democratic party is one of brotherly love and does (from the beginning of time until eternity) embrace its black brethren–to the dismay of Republicans who’d just assume blacks line up for welfare as long as “we” don’t have to pay for it. Nonsense. It’s not racist to want for blacks and whites alike to better themselves, and to give a hand up as opposed to a handout! There are welfare queens in this country, the only problem is that the label has been erroneously applied to one race. I’ve personally witnessed people proudly using, and abusing, the system with varying skin shades. To lay that claim of racism to Republicans is dishonest, and I have a strong distaste for telling only one side of a story.
Natalie:
I am not accusing you of trying to slip one by. I suspected that you did not write the history that you cited. I was just saying that black americans in the 60s 70s and 80s were not flocking to the Democratic Party based on a lie. It was the racism of the Republican Party in the south. (Mostly Republicans who had for most of their lives called themselves Democrats until that point)
As for “deciphering”. I am not claiming that you specifically fear gay people, or that when YOU say “family values” you are using a cloak instead of saying what you mean. However it is clear that this was happening in the late 60s and early 70s. Today political operatives like Paul Begala and Karl Rove speak of “Dog Whistle” messaging. Using specific phrases and specific vocabulary to send a particular message to a targeted group, while the rest of the public remains unaware that any message was sent. Use of the word “guile” is a good example of “dog whistle” messaging. To most of the American public, just another word, to some religious conservatives, an “I am one of you” word.
I do not claim to be nor do I want to be “the thought police”, but I am very interested in what people say, and what they mean (and yes what they “really” mean). A big part of political messaging is the art of drawing people to a specific message, without alienating others. For instance, if someone says, “I think its fine if the people of Alabama don’t want to let black kids attend their white public schools”, some people will support that, and MANY people will be outraged. On the other hand if that same someone says, “I think it is appropriate for states to have the final say about how they use their own money to fund education”, most people would think, “yeah, sounds right to me.” This was the messaging of the 70s and 80s, and it was a cloak, that allowed politicians to have it both ways. This gave them support from a cadre of racists, and did not alienate the general public, who heard that as a perfectly reasonable statement. Thinking about the historical use of this kind of political messaging, and seeing how it is used today, informs the way I listen to political messages.
Yes, sometimes a nut is just a nut, but very often a word or phrase is carefully crafted or selected, especially where political rhetoric is concerned. Often those same phrases are picked up and used in the general public by people who are completely unaware of the reason that specific wording was chosen, and any special messaging that was intended. (and political messaging is often selected for that very reason, how well it is picked up by the public).
I have read many of your post. I did not suspect you were trying to mislead, that does not seem to be in your nature.
Well of course I don’t think that you meant me in particular, but you meant YOU in the collective sense, and I take offense to broad generalizations, especially when they generalize hatred. We (both you and I as well as the Republicans and Democrats) have a difference of opinion. That need not always boil down to ill will and more importantly racism. I know that phrases are pulled for their punch. Much like the way the Obama camp stopped claiming to support “Health Care Reform” and started using the phrase “Health Insurance Reform” because polls suggested that was more politically expedient. I guess for me it’s kind of a “yo momma” sort of thing. You just don’t talk about someone’s momma and you just don’t blindly suggest that others are racist. It’s highly insulting to those you’re accusing of racism and it’s even more degrading to those who are true victims of racism to be placed on the same level as someone who is not. I don’t like it when it happens on either side of the aisle or in any political camp. I think that is a disgraceful tactic and we have far too many Americans who are ignorant enough to buy into it. It’s just reckless. Yet people wonder why we’re still dealing with race issues after all these years…THAT is why. The issue is brought up whenever a particular person seems to be losing a debate…hey, who can keep arguing when you (not you personally) just called him a racist? In my opinion it just shows ignorance.
As a 61 year old proad black American women who lived in the 60’s, let me tel you young man, we of the south did experience many decits of the democrats in that time frame, and still today. For you to say it the way you did is wrong. i guess you were not there to experience. I tell my kids (adults) this all the time. Most educated black people do know this. I did not go past high school, but I can see a snake when I see one.
If you want to know the truth from a smart black man perspective, I suggest you go to http://www.machosauceproductions.com, and for a smart black womens perspective http://www.motivationtruth.com.
The democrats are not are frineds, they support killing of black babies by abortion, keeping us one walfare, and making us dependant on them instead of ourselves. They no longer force us down, they “buy” us down. That is the new age slavery. I bought into that when I was younger, which is one reason why I never made myself better. I will make sure my kids do not make the same mistake.
The term racist I hear today buy the media and dem. politicins is a slap in the face to us who experienced it.
A proud black southern momma (I am old, i cannot type well)
Yeah, name calling is no good. But calling out racism when it is truly present, although impolite, is the right thing to do (I do not do this blindly). Pretending that racism wasn’t at play when the white south turned Republican is just denying history. Just like, failing to realize that most of those Republicans were formerly Democrats would be denying history.
I personally think it will be good for blacks in America, and good for race relations in America (and therefore good for everyone), when more blacks who identify with the Republican party decide to start participating in that party and voting Republican. I believe this will make the Republican Party more responsive to black and other minority issues. You need only check history as far back as the recently failed comprehensive immigration reform package to see how divided the Republican Party remains on issues of race (and how divided America remains).
To me personally, the Republican party still seems obsessed with a “US vs. THEM” mentality. Even among fellow Republicans there is this paranoid, “well sure he SAYS he is a Republican, but I think he is a Republican in name only”. You even do the “US vs THEM” thing to yourselves. This same “US vs Them” factionalism is used to motivate Republicans to vote, and tell them what to think. It is part of the standard Republican messaging. ( “Real Americans do _______” or ” A TRUE conservative acts like this” or “Real Patriot thinks ________” ) I think a Republican leader that conservative see as “one of US”, but speaks the language of inclusion and really believes it, would be a great next leader of the Republican Party.
CharleneB:
Thank you for the links. I will take a look.
PJ you are right that there is a suspicion in the Republican Party because the Conservative base takes offense to those who would claim to be Republican simply to get the votes in a “red” area. This happens more often than you think, and probably even more so on the “lowly” local level. It’s easier to spot in the national eye, but when you’re in your local towns, especially when elections are “nonpartisan” you’ll find this happening. Unless someone knows enough to go check a voting record, we’re pretty trusting people as a country. When someone comes out in support of ideas that go against the party platform that they claim to support, well then that pretty much is the “proof is in the pudding” scenario. If it acts like a duck and walks like a duck but barks like a dog: It might really be a dog!
I agree, speaking out against ACTUAL RACISM is an honorable thing, and I’ll be right there with you. However “racist” or “racism” has been used blindly in recent history simply because one disagrees with someone else who happens to be black. Obviously this doesn’t happen if the person you disagree with is white, but then I wonder why we don’t scream “anti-red-hairedness!” or “light-skin hate monger!” when an opponent disagrees with a white person? How do we know that it isn’t really the color of their hair or the shirt they’re wearing that is the “real” reason for all of this “disagreement”? Racism has been hijacked these days and it is a shame. It is not doing ANYONE a disservice and it certainly isn’t helping black people. This is no different than a woman going into an interview with a man, before having even heard a word, and assuming that the man has sexually harassed her and at the same time taken her less seriously for having a womb! It’s no different from a black person claiming that their coworker is probably racist, only to find later that the coworker is in a biracial marriage. Unless someone is actually the victim of outright racism, please don’t be so quick to spray the term around.
Charlene, I love “Macho Sauce”! The story behind his name is really neat, and his videos are just plain common sense. And Motivation: Truth is Adrienne Ross’s blog. She’s one of our contributors.
i do not care what you read, i lived it. natalie, you see to have a good idea of what it was like back then. and what is called racism in the news today, or by politicins, is not racism, as least the way my family experienced.
Yes, racist did happen back then, and I though it was republicans. but my eyes have been opened in my later years and I now see that the dems want to keep us dependant on them, so we will vote to keep them in place to allow us to stay dependant on them. This is not helping us (black, poor, undeducated, etc), it is cripling us because those dependent.
I wish I would have been smart enough back then to rely on myself, instead on the money thrown my way because I took the lazy way out. I elected “slavery” in a sense. I will not let that happen to my kids.