Atwater's Strategy

I have, in the past, been known to argue that the role of race per se in the GOP "southern strategy" has often been overstated by liberals. Bob Herbert disagrees and would seem to have the proverbial telling quote:

In 1981, during the first year of Mr. Reagan’s presidency, the late Lee Atwater gave an interview to a political science professor at Case Western Reserve University, explaining the evolution of the Southern strategy:

“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger,’ ” said Atwater. “By 1968, you can’t say ‘nigger’ — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things, and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.”

Now that said, Herbert's more recent examples of "sustained mistreatment by the Republican Party" of black people mostly involve efforts to prevent black people from voting, which I'm fairly sure they do for purely partisan reasons than out of racism as such.

Comments

so they deny black people the right to vote, but only qua likely democratic voters, not qua black.

oh. well, that's okay, then.

not a bit racist, that.

Posted by kid bitzer | September 25, 2007 10:41 AM

"Now that said, Herbert's more recent examples of "sustained mistreatment by the Republican Party" of black people mostly involve efforts to prevent black people from voting, which I'm fairly sure they do for purely partisan reasons than out of racism as such."

Ummm...

I'm not sure you're entirely clear on the Republican Party's cynically clear-headed partisan reasons behind pursuing the Southern Strategy.

Posted by Petey | September 25, 2007 10:43 AM

Well, they may do it for partisan reasons, but their success relies on their willingness to charge rampant fraud where none exists, and on the population's willingness to believe it. The fraud charges stick largely because they are aimed at blacks, and I don't see how you can doubt that the party bosses know it. Whether or not it is the prime motivation, racism is an integral part of the scheme.

Posted by anon | September 25, 2007 10:49 AM

Now that said, Herbert's more recent examples of "Now that said, Herbert's more recent examples of "sustained mistreatment by the Republican Party" of black people mostly involve efforts to prevent black people from voting, which I'm fairly sure they do for purely partisan reasons than out of racism as such.

Ummm, how is using overt or coded racism to increase your votes is different from using 'sustained mistreatment' to decrease your opponents votes?

Posted by Steve in Sacto | September 25, 2007 10:59 AM

The longer version of the Atwater quotation is, IIRC, more open to charitable interpretation. In specific, I seem to recall him saying that as openly racist appeals go away, so does the open racism that made it work. And so on down the list of race-related ills.

Agree with Petey that you seem unclear that the point of the Southern Strategy was always to win elections.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 25, 2007 10:59 AM

I'd think that some tax cuts like Bush's $1k per kid child credit and the EITC (admittedly, both effectively transfer payments rather than tax cuts in the strict sense) would benefit blacks more than whites.

Anyhow, Bob Herbert's attack on the GOP, in spite of Bush's bending over backwards to kiss the black community's ass, highlights the thanklessness of outreach efforts by the GOP. Bush has gone out of his way to appoint blacks to his cabinet, his administration wrote an amicus brief in favor of affirmative action in the U. of Michigan case, Bush has doled out record amounts of aid to Africa, and the GOP nominated black Senate candidates in Maryland and Ohio. All that and 90% of blacks still vote Democrat.

Since blacks tend to be poorer and less educated than other groups, and thus more dependent on government largess and less liable to pay income taxes, it's in their economic interest to vote for Democrats (unless they care about things like school choice). So why the continued attempts at outreach by the GOP? I think it's really kabuki: the realistic hope isn't to attract significant numbers of blacks but socially liberal whites whose hearts are warmed by the outreach efforts and affirmative action.

Posted by Fred | September 25, 2007 11:00 AM

I don't see them trying to stop union members, old people, gays, or other dependably Democratic groups from voting. It's hard to escape the conclusion that there's more to it than just partisan advantage.

Posted by Ron | September 25, 2007 11:02 AM

fred, you could have made your point more concisely by just saying "nigger, nigger, nigger".

Posted by kid bitzer | September 25, 2007 11:03 AM

I think it's really kabuki: the realistic hope isn't to attract significant numbers of blacks but socially liberal whites whose hearts are warmed by the outreach efforts and affirmative action

I think Rove was explicit about this at one point: the reason to be nice to African-Americans is because white women appear to care.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 25, 2007 11:03 AM

I think Matt needs to take a step back and think through this issue a little more. In fact, this Herbert column is a great response to some earlier comments of Matt's that he alludes to about how really the Democratic solid south was held together by racism more than the current Republican dominance of the south. While the Democratic party was the safe haven for racists until about 1880, after that they wasn't a lick of difference between the parties on issues of race until 1948 or so, which is when the southern racist party had to essentially form a new party until they were finally welcomed into the Republican party.
Also, really, think about that distinction between discrimination for being a democrat versus black. It just so happens that the only democrats they discriminate against are blacks? Please. It goes deeper than that and it possible because of racist attitudes.

Posted by Doug | September 25, 2007 11:05 AM

This might be the most embarrassing MY post to date. Just this month or last, the major GOP presidential candidates have refused to participate in yet another debate moderated by Tavis Smiley, and hosted at (if memory serves) one of the traditional black colleges. For a party that's always frantically trying to gull people into buying its "big tent" claims, this is a pretty strange move. And of course, nowadays we can't even have a national election without Republican hysteria about "vote fraud" -- which according to them seems to occur pretty much exclusively in city precincts with black or Spanish-speaking majorities.

So OK, the consultants running the spreadsheets don't have it in for blacks personally -- a rebel flag tattoo on the forearm isn't a ticket to RNC HQ. Great.

Posted by sglover | September 25, 2007 11:07 AM

But Atwater's quote includes "forced bussing." That was not just a racial issue. Many parents, both black and white, did not want their kids being sent an hour away to a different school for the sake of integration when a better school was a block away. There have been plenty of former bussing advocates who now acknowledge that forced bussing was a mistake. Maybe some politicians used that issue in a demogaugic way, but I don't think the hostility to bussing can be blamed solely on racism. Is a politician who is running to be the representative of his constituents wrong to run on such an issue?

Posted by some don't call me tim | September 25, 2007 11:08 AM

"This might be the most embarrassing MY post to date."

Meh. He averages about one wildly embarrassing post per day, and about 33% of his posts are merely mildly wrong.

It's the curse of the generalist.

Posted by Petey | September 25, 2007 11:09 AM

Antagonisms based on race = racism. Willingness to harness antagonisms based on race != racism.

Lord love a duck.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 25, 2007 11:15 AM

"Forced Bussing" sounds so ... Victorian.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 25, 2007 11:17 AM

"I don't see them trying to stop union members, old people, gays, or other dependably Democratic groups from voting. It's hard to escape the conclusion that there's more to it than just partisan advantage."

First of all, none of these groups are as reliably Dem as blacks are; the closest are gays, with about 70% Dem votes, but that's still 15-20% lower than blacks. Second of all, blacks are much more highly concentrated than most of these groups as well; there are a ton of precincts where blacks make up a huge majority, which is rarely if ever true of these other groups. So from a purely partisan Republican standpoint, it would make sense to concentrate voter supression efforts on black precincts. Also note that the precincts targeted are the most likely to be poor and have a low # of powerful people with connections, which is why you don't see Dems trying to limit the number of voting machines in rich suburbs.

Posted by Dan Miller | September 25, 2007 11:18 AM

I have, in the past, been known to argue that the role of race per se in the GOP "southern strategy" has often been overstated by liberals.

I don't think it's been so much overstated as given the wrong emphasis, ie, Southerners/the GOP are all simply Evil because they have a visceral hatred of black people. But i don't see how developing a long-term racist campaign to cynically achieve an apparently unrelated goal (winning elections) is any different from enslaving a group of people and then building up a rationalizing mythology which says that the people in this group are inferior humans, because the latter is also in service to cynically achieving an apperantly unrelated goal: to make a lot of money. From an ethical POV, the Southern Strategy is actually worse than putative 'honest' racism, because they sort of know better; they're making the cesspool bigger - actually, making it bigger by polluting other water.

Posted by jonnybutter | September 25, 2007 11:21 AM

Really? This is the first time you've heard that Atwater quote? Wow. I guess they'll let anybody be a Very Serious Person these days.

Posted by nikkos | September 25, 2007 11:24 AM

Fred, I appreciate your willingness to out and out lie to make your point re: the Bush administration. It shows an admirable amount of chutzpah. You said:

[Bush's] administration wrote an amicus brief in favor of affirmative action in the U. of Michigan case

When in reality, the administration filed an amicus brief in each case (Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger) opposing Michigan's admissions guidelines. Furthermore, Bush himself made a statement opposing the guidelines. See here

Posted by Milind | September 25, 2007 11:28 AM

There woudln't be a "purely partisan reason" if there weren't racist reasons to begin with.

Posted by eriks | September 25, 2007 11:32 AM

" ... which I'm fairly sure they do for purely partisan reasons than out of racism as such."

It's such an obvious two-fer for them, why do you think they would parse it out?

Posted by drinkof | September 25, 2007 11:42 AM

The widespread objections to allowing DC a voting representative, and not just from the right-wing, indicate a continuing racism in the U.S. Everyone has a different reason for opposing a rep. for DC, and a different solution. Someday, everyone says, DC voters will be able to vote for a representative, somehow. Just not now. Just be patient, folks!

Posted by Alan Vanneman | September 25, 2007 11:44 AM

How many times do I have to type "Somewhere, a Harvard History professor is crying" before you finally quit, Matt?

Posted by norbizness | September 25, 2007 11:48 AM

The money-quote about the ethics of this whole thing also comes from Atwater: 'I'm sorry'. He knew exactly what he had done, and apologized for it (yes, on his deathbed).

Posted by jonnybutter | September 25, 2007 11:50 AM

I'm fairly sure southern planters enslaved black people purely because they wanted to make money growing cotton, rather than out of racism as such.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 25, 2007 11:51 AM

This is the classic dodge on racism, assuming that only intentional racism "counts."

Posted by RM | September 25, 2007 11:52 AM

"Herbert's more recent examples of "sustained mistreatment by the Republican Party" of black people mostly involve efforts to prevent black people from voting, which I'm fairly sure they do for purely partisan reasons than out of racism as such."

Now, first of all, this isn't mutually exclusive, since you can support the disenfrenchising of blacks because you are racist and because you think your party gains from this strategy. Moreover, being willing to disenfrenchise blacks is in itself racist, regardless if the motive is primarily partisan. You can't say "Oh, I'm not racist, I've nothing against blacks, I just don't want them to vote because they tend to vote for my opponents". If you are willing to disregard minorities that way, then that's racism.

And Fred, nobody can fool me into thinking that the effords of the GOP to disenfrenchise blacks in the South are just some kind of self-defense by well-off whites against unreasonable blacks addicted to the welfare state and therefor firmly in the Democrats' bag. As if supporters of Jim Crow turned into cool-headed capitalist pragmatists overnight. What the Republican party uses are deep-rooted animosities among Southern whites which have, for the most part, nothing to do with economics. Pandering to these kind of animosities is racist, even if it is purely for partisan gain.

I would presume that there are few GOPers who wouldn't call a Democratic party dominated by blacks trying to disenfrenchise whites in a district with a 50/50 raial makeup racist.

Posted by Patrick | September 25, 2007 11:55 AM

Milind,

"Fred, I appreciate your willingness to out and out lie to make your point re: the Bush administration. It shows an admirable amount of chutzpah."

That was a sloppy mistake on my part, not a deliberate lie. While you are right that the Bush administration opposed the use of quotas in their amicus briefs, the Bush briefs didn't attempt use this case as an opportunity to challenge the validity of the broader status quo of affirmative action in higher education, as many conservatives had hoped. This is the point I was trying to make. Howard Sutherland makes the wingnut case here: "On the Home Front, Bush Caves on Quotas"

Posted by Fred | September 25, 2007 12:01 PM

"I have, in the past, been known to argue that the role of race per se in the GOP "southern strategy" has often been overstated by liberals."

Please, someone tell me (Matt included) that this is one of those times that Matt is being smarmy, sarcastic, or ironic and that he didn't just recently read the quote form Atwater, so I can tell him that "Well, Matt, I get your snark, but I might suggest that your sarcasm is not entirely coming across and some of your readers may assume that you may not know what's been an open "secret" discussed in Democratic and Republican circles since 1967 (if not earlier) or that one trip on a NR cruise can dissuade you of your beliefs about what motivates the leadership of the Republican party....

Posted by Rihilism | September 25, 2007 12:02 PM

"While the Democratic party was the safe haven for racists until about 1880"

!!!?The Democratic Party was a safe haven for (white) racists well into the FDR era. It was the welfare policies of FDR's New Deal that first attracted a majority of blacks to vote Democratic, and FDR skillfully maintained a diverse coalition that included southern racist whites and northern blacks.

Posted by Fred | September 25, 2007 12:06 PM

"Economics" does not feel the same in a prosperous, urban/suburban community dominated by college-educated professionals, as it does in a rural/exurban community dominated by business owners.

If you see your prosperity as depending on your ability to pay a small wage to ill-disciplined and ungrateful people, you have a rather different politics from the corporate lawyer or computer programmer commuting downtown.

A significant part of the Republican base are white men with "some college", who are conscious of how their superior economic position depends on keeping negroes down and immigrants out. Maybe, that's not racism.

Posted by Bruce Wilder | September 25, 2007 12:07 PM

The phenomenon does not seem to me of the Repubs taking over Dixie. It is the reverse, that Dixie has taken over the Republican party.

We who grew up in the OldSouth in the 50s understood that there was a state religion. The salvationist conservative one, typified by the SoutherBaptists. Years later when I met people who came from countries that actually had state churches I recognised instantly the tone of voice of, say, an Englishman listing his church pref as 'Anglican'. Same tone of voice as an Alabaman claiming 'Babtist' (spelled as pronounced).

We knew what 'limited government' really meant: Limited to our side, that taxes were a way of transferring money from the poor to the rich. We understood that anyone not for us was against us, that 'if your heart aint in Dixie' you should 'get your ass out.' And that all our problems began when we lost The War.

We knew that 'state's rights' implied that not only did Alabama and Mississippi have the right to legally enact JimCrow but that 'the state was right' to do so.

All that was necessary was for an Arizona senator and later a California governor to visit and proclaim their belief in 'state's rights' and for a Texan as President to usher the southerners to the door of the Dem Party.

We knew what to do after that.

Posted by JohnMcC | September 25, 2007 12:09 PM

Can someone tell me why requiring voters to show a valid government-issued photo ID is somehow unfair toward blacks? Are blacks less capable of getting a driver's license or other form of government ID? I fail to see how this would inconvenience blacks more than any other race. It makes no sense to me that I'm required to show a photo ID when walking into any building in Manhattan but I can vote without showing any proof of identification whatsoever.

Posted by Fred | September 25, 2007 12:11 PM

I have to say, Matt, you're off-base here. Brooksfoe's slavery analogy gets it right. Don't be an accidental apologist for racism. Down that slope is "I have nothing against blacks, I just prefer being with my own kind." That sentiment, like systematically disenfranchising blacks, is racist on its face, no matter how one tries to obfuscate it or pretty it up. A follow-up post or addendum might be in order here.

Posted by John | September 25, 2007 12:15 PM

Bruce Wilder:

"A significant part of the Republican base are white men with "some college", who are conscious of how their superior economic position depends on keeping negroes down and immigrants out."

I can see how keeping unskilled immigrants out would help support wages for "white men with 'some college'" who work in fields like construction, but how, exactly, are "negroes" being kept down, and how would keeping them down help "whites with some college"?

Posted by Fred | September 25, 2007 12:17 PM

Way to vanquish that man of straw, Fred.

Posted by John | September 25, 2007 12:19 PM

I was referring to Fred's 12:11 post there. Fast-moving comments on this one.

Posted by John | September 25, 2007 12:20 PM

"Way to vanquish that man of straw, Fred."

John, for it to be a straw man, it would have to be true that the Democrats are cool with requiring valid government-issued IDs for voting. Are you saying they are OK with that?

Posted by Fred | September 25, 2007 12:23 PM

While the Democratic party was the safe haven for racists until about 1880"

!!!?The Democratic Party was a safe haven for (white) racists well into the FDR era. It was the welfare policies of FDR's New Deal that first attracted a majority of blacks to vote Democratic, and FDR skillfully maintained a diverse coalition that included southern racist whites and northern blacks.

Posted by Fred | September 25, 2007 12:06 PM
************************************************

It was a safe haven until the mid-1960s. More Republicans than Democrats percentage wise voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act

Posted by Campesino | September 25, 2007 12:50 PM

Fred, I have a better idea. I think there should be only one form of ID acceptable: a universal government ID card which would be handed out on the first day you attend public school or became a naturalized US citizen, and would be valid for the rest of your life. If you didn't attend public school, obviously, you'd have to go to a specific government office to get a card, but that shouldn't be a barrier to anyone, should it? Now, it's true that people who attend private school disproportionately vote Republican, but we shouldn't allow partisan considerations to influence policy on this important question.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 25, 2007 12:56 PM

One thing is that this Herbert piece gets at why he's not more read -- he already wrote this column. He quotes that same Atwater quote in a piece written almost one year ago today:

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/opinion/28herbert.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

September 28, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
A Platform of Bigotry
By BOB HERBERT

George Allen, the clownish, Confederate-flag-loving senator from Virginia, has apparently been scurrying around for many years, spreading his racially offensive garbage like a dog that should be curbed. With harsh new allegations emerging daily, it’s fair to ask:

Where are the voices of reason in the Republican Party — the nonbigoted voices? Why haven’t we heard from them on this matter?

Mr. Allen has long been touted as one of the leading candidates for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. But this is a man who has displayed the quintessential symbol of American bigotry, the Confederate battle flag, on the wall of his living room; who put up a hangman’s noose as a decoration in his law office; who used an ethnic slur — macaca — in an attempt to publicly embarrass a 20-year-old American student of Indian descent; and who, according to the recollections of a number of his acquaintances, frequently referred to blacks as niggers.

The senator has denied the last allegation. But his accusers are low-keyed, straight-arrow professionals who have no obvious ax to grind. They, frankly, seem believable.

Dr. R. Kendall Shelton, a North Carolina radiologist who played football with Mr. Allen at the University of Virginia in the 1970’s, recalled a number of incidents, including one in which Mr. Allen said that blacks in Virginia knew their place. Dr. Shelton said in a television interview that he believed then, and still believes, that Mr. Allen was a racist.

Beyond the obvious problems with the senator’s comments and his behavior is the fact that he so neatly fits into the pattern of racial bigotry, insensitivity and exploitation that has characterized the G.O.P. since it adopted its Southern strategy some decades ago. Once it was the Democrats who provided a comfortable home for public officials with attitudes and policies that were hostile to blacks and other minorities. Now the deed to that safe house has been signed over to the G.O.P.

Ronald Reagan may be revered by Republicans, but I can never forget that he opposed both the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act of the mid-1960’s, and that as a presidential candidate he kicked off his 1980 general election campaign in Philadelphia, Miss., which just happened to be where three civil rights workers — Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner and James Chaney — were savagely murdered in 1964.

During his appearance in Philadelphia, Reagan told a cheering crowd, “I believe in states’ rights.”

The lynching of Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney (try to imagine the terror they felt throughout their ordeal) is the kind of activity symbolized by the noose that Senator Allen felt compelled to put up in his office.

One of the senator’s Republican colleagues, Conrad Burns, is up for re-election in Montana. He’s got an ugly racial history, too. Several years ago, while campaigning for a second term, Mr. Burns was approached by a rancher who wanted to know what life was like in Washington. The rancher said, “Conrad, how can you live back there with all those niggers?”

Senator Burns said he told the rancher it was “a hell of a challenge.”

The senator later apologized. But he has bounced from one racially insensitive moment to another over the years, including one occasion when he referred to Arabs as “ragheads.”

You don’t hear President Bush or the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, or any other prominent Republicans blowing the whistle on the likes of George Allen and Conrad Burns because Republicans across the board, so-called moderates as well as conservatives, have benefited tremendously from the party’s bigotry. Allen and Burns may have been more blatant and buffoonish than is acceptable, but they have all been singing from the same racially offensive hymnal.

From the Willie Horton campaign to the intimidation of black voters in Florida and elsewhere to the use of every racially charged symbol and code word imaginable — it’s all of a piece.

The late Lee Atwater, in a 1981 interview, explained the evolution of the Southern strategy:

“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger! By 1968 you can’t say ‘nigger’ — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.”

It’s been working beautifully for the G.O.P. for decades. Why would the president or anyone else curtail a winning strategy now?

Posted by joe | September 25, 2007 12:57 PM

Brooksfoe's slavery analogy gets it right.

Hey, I made it first! Fast moving thread...

for it to be a straw man, it would have to be true that the Democrats are cool with requiring valid government-issued IDs for voting. Are you saying they are OK with that?

The people behind the Georga bill knew very well what the point of their 'government issued ID' law was, and it certainly wasn't to quell massive voter fraud. It was a (Black) voting suppresion bill straight up. You are either dishonest, or ignorant about your own talking points, Fred. Which?

The idea is not only to charge a fee to get the
State card, but also to make the offices issuing the cards strategically difficult-to-get-to or do business with (for black people); and possibly extra-stringent standards for being issued those cards. That Georgia law was no different in kind from other voter suppression techniques that have been in use for years: incorrect or purged voter rolls; not enough voting machines in black districts; GOP creeps with fake badges roaming black neighborhoods in 'official-looking' sedans before elections telling (black) people that they could be arrested for voting; that election day is some other day, etc. etc. It's just another choke point. Rove knew it. Atwater knew it, as does Schlotzman, Bush, et. al.

Posted by jonnybutter | September 25, 2007 1:14 PM

Brooksfoe,

"Fred, I have a better idea. I think there should be only one form of ID acceptable: a universal government ID card which would be handed out on the first day you attend public school or became a naturalized US citizen, and would be valid for the rest of your life."

The first day you attend public school? So this ID would have a photo of you as a six year old? Would it have killed you to put just a little more thought into this? Any ID for an adult activity approach here would be to require government-isssuch as voting should only be made available to adults.

Posted by Fred | September 25, 2007 1:14 PM

Brooksfoe,

"Fred, I have a better idea. I think there should be only one form of ID acceptable: a universal government ID card which would be handed out on the first day you attend public school or became a naturalized US citizen, and would be valid for the rest of your life."

The first day you attend public school? So this ID would have a photo of you as a six year old? Would it have killed you to put just a little more thought into this? Any ID for an adult activity should only be made available to adults.

Posted by Fred | September 25, 2007 1:15 PM

"The idea is not only to charge a fee to get the
State card, but also to make the offices issuing the cards strategically difficult-to-get-to or do business with (for black people); and possibly extra-stringent standards for being issued those cards."

If memory serves, those ID cards were to be offered at no charge, and delivered to people's homes if they were unable to make it to a state office.

Posted by Fred | September 25, 2007 1:20 PM

Johnnybutter,

If IDs are offered free of charge at convenient locations such as post offices, what would be your objection to requiring valid IDs for voting? Why would this, on its face, be racist against blacks, anymore than requiring black drivers to get driver's licenses like the rest of us?

Posted by Fred | September 25, 2007 1:24 PM

"One thing is that this Herbert piece gets at why he's not more read -- he already wrote this column."

Perhaps people weren't listening the first time.

Am I the only one that did one of Kathy Griffin's patented gay gasps upon reading "Bob Herbert disagrees and would seem to have the proverbial telling quote..." (it's a rhetorical question intended for dramatic effect...). Certainly, MY wouldn't have DARED discussed the GOP's southern strategy with ANYONE without having come across probably won of the most infamous quotes from one of the most infamous political hacks, er, I mean consultants. He is joking, right?

Back when I was a closeted gay self-hating Republican (I voted for Reagan, I was 18, I was young and stupid, what can I tell you other than I grew out of it) we used to talk about this quite openly at the gay bar, er, I mean College Republican meetings. Fred can tell you, he was there. 'Member, Fred, when we used to talk about how, if only there was a way to bring the poll tax back but make it look like we were being reasonable and all friendly-like?

The older I get, the more I'm convinced that we are doomed to making the same mistakes over, and over, and over again... For the longest time I didn't quite get how downright meanly cynical George Carlin had "appeared" to become (though still being hilariously funny). I'm finally starting to understand...

Posted by Rihilism | September 25, 2007 1:29 PM

"Why would this, on its face, be racist against blacks, anymore than requiring black drivers to get driver's licenses like the rest of us?"

Just keep in mind that you'll have a lifetime of opportunities to demonstrate that you are a racist, while I (for obvious reasons) will never have the ability to to prove you are not.

Posted by Rihilism | September 25, 2007 1:33 PM

Yes, but...the Republican Party tries to keep blacks from voting because Republican voters want the party to keep blacks from voting.

There is no large loud dissident group in the Republican Party insisting that voter disenfranchisement is wrong. There are plenty of Republicans who think that what their party is doing is right, and they think the party should do more of it.

Racism is and always has been a socio-economic driver of the Republican Party. In the 1850s they ran as Know-Nothings against the Democrats. Then, as now, many Republicans believed that emancipation did not in any way imply equality.

It's a slow process. It was only in the early 70s that Republicans began to accept the equality of the Irish. We just have to give them time. Lots of time.

Posted by serial catowner | September 25, 2007 1:49 PM

If an ID is made easy enough to get that it doesn't discriminate against minorities then conservatives will be hollering about fraudulent IDs and will start demanding evidence unlikely to be readily available to the targeted minority population.

Conservative intentions are easy to spot if you know what to look for. They don't care about voter fraud, they care about minorities voting in large enough numbers to have an effect on a close election.

It is just another form of racism.

Posted by ken | September 25, 2007 1:53 PM

Memo to Campesino, Fred, and other GOP apologists:

1964 was a long, long time ago. Remind me: What party did Strom Thurmond belong to when he died? When did he join it? And why did he join it?

Sheesh.

Posted by Emartin | September 25, 2007 1:57 PM

Ha ha, strange to say, your lifetime ID card is your high school yearbook. If you lost everything else (known to happen when you're disabled and have to let strangers take care of your stuff) that yearbook, with your photo and name, is what you need to establish who you are.

It happens- I learned this by helping someone with this problem.

Posted by serial catowner | September 25, 2007 2:10 PM

I'm still not hearing any valid objection as to why someone shouldn't have to show valid ID to vote. Tossing around accusations of "racism" doesn't cut it: we're not talking about Jim Crow-era poll taxes, just a little piece of plastic that shows you are who you say you are. You can't pick up a package from Fed Ex without showing an ID, you can't drive a car without a valid ID, etc. It's not an inherently unreasonable request (it's not as if there haven't been large cases of voter fraud in this country) and there is no reason that I know of why members of one race would be less able to apply for an ID than members of any other.

Posted by Fred | September 25, 2007 2:11 PM

Even the head of the RNC not too long ago admitted to the NAACP that the Southern Strategy was racist. Threads like this prove that Fred and company are not only racist, but too stupid to know they are racist. Fred, just because you got beat up by black kids at school doesn't mean your racism is justified. It just makes you pathetic.

Posted by Reality Man | September 25, 2007 2:11 PM

Ok, in fairness (teeth gritted) to Republicans, the Dems have been just as enthusiastic about the War On (Some) Drugs. This has been the primary mechanism of destroying the black family, impoverishing them with legal fees, barring them from employment, and, of course, keeping them from voting. In short, segregation by other means.

Over 10 years ago the American Public Health Association called for the legalization of marijuana to reduce the severe public health problems resulting from the WOD.

Democrats have been absolutely spineless, or even champions of the WOD, and if they now find that black people aren't allowed to vote, they have only themselves to blame.

Posted by serial catowner | September 25, 2007 2:18 PM

Fred says,

"If IDs are offered free of charge at convenient locations such as post offices, what would be your objection to requiring valid IDs for voting? Why would this, on its face, be racist against blacks, anymore than requiring black drivers to get driver's licenses like the rest of us?"

Nobody is arguing against reasonable measures for preventing voter fraud, nor is anybody arguing that such measures are inherently racist. What people are concerned about is that such laws tend not to be uniformly applied and enforced against voters of all races and social classes, particularly in the South. Like the death penality, measures against voting fraud historically tend to be applied more often and more readily against blacks than whites, particularly in Southern states. It's amazing that white Southerners tend to obsess so much over the possibility of black voter fraud, but don't worry about the possibility of white voter fraud to that same degree. The net effect of this selective application of a reasonable measure is that one group of voters (blacks) tends to be disenfranchised to a greater degree than another group (whites).

Doesn't this bother you in the least, Fred, that whites who commit voter fraud are far less likely to be caught than blacks who commit voter fraud?

Posted by eltoro | September 25, 2007 2:20 PM

Atwater's point about saying "nigger" in other ways is exactly it: the Republican party has developed a whole range of ways to tell white racists "we're on your side" which sometimes have actual policy corrolaries, and sometimes are just signals. The message is clear and it hasn't changed.

Posted by Alan in SF | September 25, 2007 2:22 PM

It would be interesting to hear conservates express why don't want minorities to vote, in their own words.

Fred, what's your argurment against minority voting? If you are not a racist then what are you? Is conservatism enough of a reason?

Please expain.

Posted by ken | September 25, 2007 2:23 PM

Well, Fred is right- poor and disabled whites find it just as hard to get ID as poor and disabled blacks.

However, whites are not subject to the racist harassment of the WOD, where police concentrate enforcement efforts in black neighborhoods, stop people of color more often than they stop whites, etc etc through the whole chain of "justice" which repeated studies have consistently shown is tilted against people of color.

Naturally, you get your ID when you're arrested- the kind of ID that makes it hard or impossible to vote.

Posted by serial catowner | September 25, 2007 2:25 PM

Emartin,

Exactly, those liberal Republicans from 1964 are Democrats today and those conservative Southern Dems are now Republicans.

FDR started the transition, LBJ mostly finished it and Nixon cam along from the other side to close the deal.

Posted by Eric K | September 25, 2007 2:26 PM

Fred,

Your memory does not serve you well.
You would be wrong again... about getting a voter id card mailed to you. According to Georgia state websites you have to go to a county registrar's office or any Georgia Department of Driver Services office.
While the card is now free, the initial law - the one first inacted before revisions required because of adverse court decisions - required the payment of a fee in order to purchase the card. Can someone say: a bald-faced attempt at a 21st century poll tax?
Also, originally, potential voters had to pick up the card at specific offices designed to provide the cards and they had conveniently NOT located one of these offices in close proximity to Atlanta.
Now, that was only a coincidence, right?
That Atlanta is the center of Georgia's black population and the original law was just so tough on Atlanta?
Of course, the fact that it would have been difficult for most black folks who just happen to live in Atlanta to get one of these cards has nothing to do with racist intent. Right? That was just a sloppy mistake, an oversight, by the people who drafted the legislation?
Also, lest we all forget...Karl Rove was one of Atwater's prized pupils. He obviously learned his lessons well. What we've been seeing for the last 7 years is a more sophisticated, a more evolved version, of Atwater's game. Sorta like Southern Stategy 2.0.

Posted by frankie d | September 25, 2007 2:31 PM

Let's be clear about it -- the strategy of the Freds is to appear to be proposing something as bland and reasonable as possible (who could be against preventing voter fraud?), while making sure the actual, practical implementation of the policy has the real-world effect of disenfranchising the desired target groups.

Whether any given Fred is fooling him/herself with this tired tripe is unknowable, but there's no reason for the rest of us to fall for it.

Posted by live | September 25, 2007 3:55 PM

Matt,

You're really missing something important here (see above comments, except Fred).

Suggestion: Call Bob Herbert and tell him his column was interesting (i.e. not boring), but you're not sure you fully understand this racism thing. Then email him your post and sit back for a long discussion. Herbert's a nice guy, not at all a snarky DFH, so he won't hurt you.

Alternative: Have McM bail you out on this.... Nah!!

Posted by Adams | September 25, 2007 4:09 PM

MY's conclusion begs the question. Partisan motives aren't ends in themselves; they're a means of pursuing underlying interests, including interests in racial subordination. The question is why partisan motives should be so racially marked. What more basic social conflict do they reflect? Why are the races so divided along partisan lines? A lot of reasons, obviously, but one of them is racial animus. In a racially divided polity, even if different racial groups initially affiliate with the same party (e.g., Democrats in the South), racial conflict will tend to lead to a divergence of partisan affiliation. Explanations based on partisan conflict aren't just an alternative to explanations based on racial conflict; they also describe a mechanism through which racial subordination is imposed.

Posted by K | September 25, 2007 4:43 PM

The Georgia ID card is free. And was just upheld by a fed judge appointed by Carter.
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2007/09/07/voterid0907.html

it's hardly a poll tax.

Posted by chris | September 25, 2007 6:22 PM

eltoro:

"Nobody is arguing against reasonable measures for preventing voter fraud, nor is anybody arguing that such measures are inherently racist."

Are you reading the same comments I am? Of course they are.

Sixty five comments in and no one has mentioned the real issue here. Dems aren't afraid of valid IDs preventing black people from voting. This isn't Selma, Alabama in 1950. You know black people are perfectly capable of getting driver's licenses and other sorts of IDs, so they'd have no problem showing am ID like everyone else at their local polling center. What Dems are worried about (aside from crimping the voting fraud some of its local machines are fond of) is that once Americans start expecting valid IDs for voting, they will start expecting valid IDs for getting a job, etc. -- and this will shut down illegal immigration, which holds the promise of the Dems' next reliable voting bloc.

Considering that unskilled illegal immigrants disproportionately hurt blacks, by lowering their wages and competing with them for government benefits, the real party threatened by requiring valid IDs to vote is the Democratic Party, not blacks.

Posted by Fred | September 25, 2007 7:15 PM

Oh, this was a good post. May I suggest you adapt it to other historical episodes? "I'm fairly sure they put the Jews in the camps to seize their assets, not out of anti-Semitism as such."

I'm sure the argument is there to be made. Maybe you could ask a libertarian friend to help flesh it out.

Posted by calling all toasters | September 25, 2007 8:26 PM

Have you checked out the WH's "intellectually lazy" comment about Obama? In addition to being a (presumably unintentionally) case of the pot calling the kettle black, the "lazy" part calls many racist stereotypes of African-Americans to mind. It definitely sounded like dog-whistling to the racist part of the GOP base to me.

Posted by beckya57 | September 25, 2007 9:20 PM

Also, as least one other commenter also pointed out, the refusal of almost all of the GOP presidential candidates to appear in debates aimed at Hispanic and African-American audiences is pretty damning, if you ask me. It looks like they're afraid the base will reject them merely for appearing in these debates.

Posted by beckya57 | September 25, 2007 9:22 PM

The Georgia ID card is free. And was just upheld by a fed judge appointed by Carter.

As Frankie D points out, the original law, which career lawyers at the Gonzo Justice dept. objected to, but political appointees waived through (overruling them), did have a fee attached, and did provide for obtaining the card at inconvenient places for poor people (not around Atlanta). It didn't prohibit voting by black or poor people, just inhibit it, which was the point.

There's also this amusing quote from the ruling Judge (same article cited above):

"Murphy [the Judge] did note that election rules allow someone to register to vote without presenting a Social Security number or other documentation, including a photo ID. This means, the judge said, a voter could register and then get a voter ID card without showing any other form of identifying information.

But Murphy said the additional step of obtaining the card could deter fraud."

Someone on the other side of the case said that the law allows 'anyone with a picture of themselves' to get a card. Nice. It's just another hoop for people to jump through, as Judge Murphy admits. That's all it's supposed to be.

Fred: A national ID is another issue. If everyone gets one of those, I'd be fine with having to show that to register. That isn't the issue here, however.

Posted by jonnybutter | September 25, 2007 9:51 PM

Fred,

I noticed you ignored my point about the selective application of valid measures to prevent voter fraud, and suddenly decided to bring up illegal immigration. I've got news for you Fred: people are already required to have valid ID to get a job legally. The problem is that many industries (such as the produce industry) tend to selectively apply such measures, just as certain state, country, and municipal governments (particularly in the South) tend to selectively apply measures against voter fraud.

So, no, the requirement of IDs for voting is not going to necessarily stop illegal immigration, any more than it's going to stop voter fraud BY WHITES. Moreover, Fred, you don't need IDs at work to stop illegal immigrants from voting. All you need to do is to require valid IDs at the polling place, which is the measure we are already talking about.

Again, I ask you, aren't you bothered that the focus of preventing voter fraud tends to be disproportionately placed on black voters, particularly black voters in the South? Doesn't it bother you that white voters, particularly Republican ones, are far more likely to get away with voter fraud?

BTW, Fred, Republicans also have political machines, and as a resident of the State of Illinois, I can tell you that they are just as sleazy as the Democratic ones.

Posted by eltoro | September 25, 2007 9:52 PM

Fred,

You also forget that requiring a valid ID at the polling place is nothing new. Is there really a state that doesn't require a valid ID in order to vote? Again, the problem is how these legal requirements are applied by the officials and volunteers at each polling place. Are they uniformly & fairly applied to each voter in every precinct throughout the state, regardless of the race, economic status, or party/political organization of the voter? Is every voter in the state truly given an equal opportunity to fulfill these requirements? Are decisions to revoke voter eligibility and purge voting rolls based on impartial and accurate information about all voters? If these conditions are not fulfilled, then valid legal measures can be perverted by the ruling political factions or machines as tools for voter suppression. This is just as true now in the 21st century as it was in the Jim Crow era South.

Posted by eltoro | September 25, 2007 10:15 PM