...according to the current republican party leadership seems to be that African-Americans just want free stuff. They want government hand-outs, and since the republicans aren't into that, so they vote for the Democrats. This was Romney's retrospective take, and Rand Paul seems to have a similar view:
Rand Paul at Howard University, after his maladroit history lecture:
African Americans languished below white Americans in every measure of economic success and the Depression was especially harsh for those at the lowest rung of poverty.
The Democrats promised equalizing outcomes through unlimited federal assistance while Republicans offered something that seemed less tangible: the promise of equalizing opportunity through free markets.
Now, Republicans face a daunting task. Several generations of black voters have never voted Republican and are not very open to even considering the option.
Democrats still promise unlimited federal assistance and Republicans promise free markets, low taxes and less regulations that we believe will create more jobs.
Should the Federal and State government(s) "create" more bureaucratic jobs simply to offer employment? Isn't debt-financing an economy essentially a Ponzi scheme? And what happens to this vast and bloated bureaucracy when it's sequestered, and people who haven't developed the skills to live in the "real world" are suddenly vulnerable?
The question is how can you move a bloc of people off reliance on government assistance, whether it's "job" creation or straight up welfare (food, money, housing, etc...) to a place where they're willing and able to make it in a free-er market economy.
Not many politicians can convince their bloc or other politicians' blocs to voluntarily wean themselves off the teat. It's a hard sell.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Republicans offered something that seemed less tangible: the promise of equalizing opportunity through free markets.
Hmmm, the idea that something which inevitably creates monopolies and plutocracy, without stringent controls, leading to equalization of opportunity is ludicrous.
Republicans offered something that seemed less tangible: the promise of equalizing opportunity through free markets.
Hmmm, the idea that something which inevitably creates monopolies and plutocracy, without stringent controls, leading to equalization of opportunity is ludicrous.
+100
by the way, I'm attempting a more serious discussion of this problem on this thread:
The purpose of my OP was to demonstrate the inherently flawed attempts of the Republican party to rebrand itself as more appealing to minorities. It's a joke. They can't help but insult and offend even as they attempt to "reach out".
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
It is true that most Republicans in 1964 held vastly more liberal positions on civil rights than Goldwater. This strikes Williamson as proof of the idiosyncratic and isolated quality of Goldwater’s civil rights stance. What it actually shows is that conservatives had not yet gained control of the Republican Party.
But conservative Republicans — those represented politically by Goldwater, and intellectually by William F. Buckley and National Review — did oppose the civil rights movement. Buckley wrote frankly about his endorsement of white supremacy: “the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically.” More often conservatives argued on grounds of states’ rights, or freedom of property, or that civil rights leaders were annoying hypocrites, or that they had undermined respect for the law.
Rick Perlstein surveyed the consistent hostility of contemporary conservatives to the civil rights movement. Ronald Reagan, like many conservatives, attributed urban riots to the breakdown in respect for authority instigated by the civil rights movement’s embrace of civil disobedience (a “great tragedy that began when we began compromising with law and order, and people started choosing which laws they'd break, thundered Reagan”). Buckley sneered at the double standard of liberal Democrats — in 1965, he complained, Vice-President Hubert Humphrey attended the funeral of a white woman shot by the Klan for riding in a car with a black man, but did not attend the funeral of a white cop shot by a black man. The right seethed with indignation at white northern liberals, decrying the fate of their black allies while ignoring the assaults mounted by blacks against whites.
And of course this sentiment — exactly this sentiment — right now constitutes the major way in which conservatives talk about race. McKay Coppins has a fine story about how conservative media has been reporting since 2009 on an imagined race war, a state of affairs in which blacks routinely assault whites, which is allegedly being covered up by authorities in the government and media. “In Obama's America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering,” said Rush Limbaugh in 2009.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
It is true that most Republicans in 1964 held vastly more liberal positions on civil rights than Goldwater. This strikes Williamson as proof of the idiosyncratic and isolated quality of Goldwater’s civil rights stance. What it actually shows is that conservatives had not yet gained control of the Republican Party.
But conservative Republicans — those represented politically by Goldwater, and intellectually by William F. Buckley and National Review — did oppose the civil rights movement. Buckley wrote frankly about his endorsement of white supremacy: “the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominant numerically.” More often conservatives argued on grounds of states’ rights, or freedom of property, or that civil rights leaders were annoying hypocrites, or that they had undermined respect for the law.
Rick Perlstein surveyed the consistent hostility of contemporary conservatives to the civil rights movement. Ronald Reagan, like many conservatives, attributed urban riots to the breakdown in respect for authority instigated by the civil rights movement’s embrace of civil disobedience (a “great tragedy that began when we began compromising with law and order, and people started choosing which laws they'd break, thundered Reagan”). Buckley sneered at the double standard of liberal Democrats — in 1965, he complained, Vice-President Hubert Humphrey attended the funeral of a white woman shot by the Klan for riding in a car with a black man, but did not attend the funeral of a white cop shot by a black man. The right seethed with indignation at white northern liberals, decrying the fate of their black allies while ignoring the assaults mounted by blacks against whites.
And of course this sentiment — exactly this sentiment — right now constitutes the major way in which conservatives talk about race. McKay Coppins has a fine story about how conservative media has been reporting since 2009 on an imagined race war, a state of affairs in which blacks routinely assault whites, which is allegedly being covered up by authorities in the government and media. “In Obama's America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering,” said Rush Limbaugh in 2009.
We had a term for people like you back in the seventies, Beastie, and it was "space cadet."
Your lack of intellectual seriousness, legitimate education, and deep, underlying anti-intellectualism are alarming, Beastie, but this very well defines the "low information" voter that in turn defines the modern Left, even among a number of its most elite intelligentsia.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
We had a term for people like you back in the seventies, Beastie, and it was "space cadet."
Your lack of intellectual seriousness, legitimate education, and deep, underlying anti-intellectualism are alarming, Beastie, but this very well defines the "low information" voter that in turn defines the modern Left, even among a number of its most elite intelligentsia.
How surprising that, once again, Droopy refuses to offer specific examples of his charges. Which one of the assertions are untrue, droopy?
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
We had a term for people like you back in the seventies, Beastie, and it was "space cadet."
Your lack of intellectual seriousness, legitimate education, and deep, underlying anti-intellectualism are alarming, Beastie, but this very well defines the "low information" voter that in turn defines the modern Left, even among a number of its most elite intelligentsia.
How surprising that, once again, Droopy refuses to offer specific examples of his charges. Which one of the assertions are untrue, droopy?
Do you ever get sick of asking? You'll never get an answer...
As soon as you concern yourself with the 'good' and 'bad' of your fellows, you create an opening in your heart for maliciousness to enter. Testing, competing with, and criticizing others weaken and defeat you. - O'Sensei
Do you ever get sick of asking? You'll never get an answer...
Of course I get tired of it and give up after a while. That's the whole point of droopy's game. If he's humiliated badly enough, he stays away from the whole board for a while. It's a break - kind of like when a two-year-old finally gives up the tantrum and falls asleep.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
One and a half. Please don't insult the two-year-olds!
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei