The Proverbial Rug

Bruce Bartlett responds to my post on his book:

Matt's reaction is exactly what I expected from the left. Since the history cannot be denied they will sweep it under the rug as old news--and boring news at that. But considering the recent flap about Reagan's Philadelphia, Mississippi speech in 1980, I don't think liberals can dismiss my argument without also dismissing their own efforts to use 27 year old speeches to damn the Republican Party for racism. They can't have it both ways. Either history matters or it doesn't.

No, no, no! I don't think the history should be swept under the rug at all. What I think is that the history reflects well on present members of the Democratic Party. The political views of the Southern Democrats were unconscionably evil, and the corrupt bargain national Democratic Party figures struck with them was a terrible thing. But in a series of intense political battles, the Democratic Party eventually broke decisively with that heritage, prompting breakaway segregationist campaigns in 1948 and 1968 and eventually leading the bulk of the white supremacist constituency to drift to the Republican Party.

The significance of the history of race in America -- and of the centrality of the Democrats' corrupt bargain with white supremacy to American political history -- really shouldn't be minimized. But what it shows is that the Democratic Party's decision to embrace the civil rights movement and the Republican Party's decision to embrace opposition to civil rights has been integral to the Republican Party's political successes toward the end of the 20th century.

Comments

I think the difference can be expressed thusly: Every single Republican wants to claim that he is the heir to Ronald Reagan, while not a single Democrat wants anything to do with Orval Faubus.

Posted by Boots Day | December 24, 2007 4:52 PM

From his Scandinavian perch Bruce Bartlett needs to revisit American history and the South's unique role as well as its shifting political allegiances. The very Southerners who voted Democratic during the New Deal started voting Republican with the rise of Goldwater and then Reagan. They're the same people (many of them my relatives). Matt is right, of course, and Bartlett is willfully misreading his argument, or else he's thick as mud.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | December 24, 2007 4:55 PM

Bartell's is among the most disgusting and disingenuous acts of political misdirection in recent memory. He is asking Americans to ignore the Republican Party's racist present and instead focus on the Democratic Party's racist past.

For more details, see:
"Misdirection: Bartlett Ignores GOP's Racist Present for Dems' Racist Past."

By the way, the transformation of Southern Democrats into Southern Republicans is apparently the only theory of evolution conservatives believe.

Posted by Furious | December 24, 2007 5:00 PM

"Matt's reaction is exactly what I expected from the left."

Always a National Review moron, writing on race to incite racism. Brucie the Right teaching us all of racism, how white of Brucie.

Posted by Jennifer | December 24, 2007 5:02 PM

Very well said, Boots Day. You nail it exactly.

Posted by Kyle | December 24, 2007 5:05 PM

Heh. Poor Bruce Bartlett. The more he excoriates the Democratic Party for its racist past that it abandoned, the more he castigates, by implication, the present-day Republican Party, which has picked up the mantle of race-baiting that the Democrats discarded.

Posted by Joel | December 24, 2007 5:07 PM

"Either history matters or it doesn't".

Um, I agree. Yes, it really does matter that the Republican party betrayed their founding ideology and became the party of reaction and Dixiecrat racism.

Posted by MattF | December 24, 2007 5:10 PM

I would ad that Barack Obama's candidacy is testing the Democrats' current progressivism on race issues. When you have Billy Shaheen dropping the "drug dealer" poison pill into the political dialogue, you see the operation of the "first Black President" changing its tune when seriously threatened by a credible African American candidate. And then there are the not so-subtle attmept to tie his African name and heritage to a muslim thology. Even "roll the dice" is a subtle way of saying, "Hey guys....he's Black....he'll never win!" Should Hillary win the nomination by playing either to racism or more subtlely, fears of racism impairing electability, look to see a fault line develop in the Democratic party over issues of race that had previously been papered over. A Bloomberg candidacy in the wake of a Hillary nomination, might just lead to disaffection of a this core dem voting block and electoral disaster for Hillary in the fall. The past hisotries of the democratic party on race is, of course, interesting...but I have a feeling a new chapter is about to be written should Hillary win the nomination.

Posted by RKA | December 24, 2007 5:15 PM

There are decent comebacks out there. Not "Well dang, I was on the wrong side of this all along" good, but at least "Huh, ok, I guess I can see that" ones. This was not one of them.

Posted by Senescent | December 24, 2007 5:18 PM

Opposition to civil rights law - at least as envisioned by progressives - is not the same thing as opposition to civil rights. Regardless of how much you want to believe otherwise, Matt, some of us are neither racists nor fans of activist government.

Posted by James Robertson | December 24, 2007 5:27 PM

As Paul Krugman has said, the political success of the Republican party since 1968 can be traced to one thing: Southern white men voting Republican.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XhvG_fD0HA

Or as LBJ put it to Bill Moyers immediately after the Voting Rights Act of 1965: "Bill, I've just handed the South to the Republicans for fifty years, certainly for the rest of our lifetimes." It's 42 years later, and the South is more Republican than ever. Bill Moyers is still alive, but he won't be when the South starts voting Democrat, if it ever does.
http://www.the-ridges.net/lbj.html

Posted by blah2 | December 24, 2007 5:30 PM

Only a moron would accept the following logic: all Southerners are racists and all Southerners are Republicans, therefore all Republicans are racists. Yet many of those who write on this subject implicitly make exactly this connection.

I think Democrats deserve credit for breaking with their long and deep history of racism in the 1960s and I say so in my book. But in the process, Democratic racism somehow got airbrushed from the national consciousness and magically attached to the Republicans.

The history is what the history is and if people want to dismiss Democratic racism as old news that is irrelevant to current political and policy issues, that is their prerogative. But if they are going to play the game that Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert and other Democratic partisans play of saying that the slightest evidence of Republican racism is a hanging offense, no matter how long ago it occured, then they must answer for their own party's crimes, which are vastly worse.

Posted by Bruce Bartlett | December 24, 2007 5:35 PM

There is nothing 'magical' about how racism got attached to the Republicans. It came along like a miasma when you all embraced Strom Thurmond et al. Your attempt to pretend that there was no causal factor involved is pathetic. Racism is part of the Republican party because when the Democrats broke with their racists, the Republicans were there to give them a home in exchange for votes. The reason that the past racism of Democrats has been largely forgiven is that Democrats have expelled racists from their party; Republicans need only do the same to achieve the same forgiveness.

But the case of Trent Lott suggests that you lot aren't really ready to make that sacrifice. Democrats lost more than one Presidential election because of their unwillingness to ignore the racists in their own ranks. Republicans will likely give those wins back when you finally join the rest of us in abandoning your coded racist appeals.

Posted by NBarnes | December 24, 2007 5:43 PM

eventually leading the bulk of the white supremacist constituency to drift to the Republican Party

Where's the evidence?

Perhaps Matthew can point me to a poll that shows, you know, women voted one way, and blacks another, and white suprecists a third?

Posted by Al | December 24, 2007 5:44 PM

It came along like a miasma when you all embraced Strom Thurmond et al.

And Democrats embraced Robert Byrd. I guess that means that the 2007 Democrat Party is filled with racists.

Posted by Al | December 24, 2007 5:46 PM

Mr. Bartlett -

I refer you to the Godfather, Lee Atwater:

Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn’t have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he’s campaigned on since 1964… and that’s fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster…

Questioner: But the fact is, isn’t it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps…?

Atwater: 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.
And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'Nigger, nigger.' [4][5][6]

Karl Rove conducted a blatently racist campaign in South Carolina in a desperate and successful attempt to get George Bush to win the South Carolina primary by basically shouting "N!99er N!99er". You cannot deny that. George Wallace style racist appeals are still very much part of the Republican playbook.

Posted by calipygian | December 24, 2007 5:47 PM

Bruce Said,
"But in the process, Democratic racism somehow got airbrushed from the national consciousness and magically attached to the Republicans."

Could that magic have something to do with the majority of the racist democrats in the south _becoming_ republicans? That would explain quite a lot of it, wouldn't it? Since it's true that also helps.

Posted by Matt (not the famous one) | December 24, 2007 5:57 PM

Call Bruce Bartlett disingenuous. Call Bruce Bartlett willing to distort. Call Bruce Bartlett unfamiliar with history. By all means, be polite.

Bruce Bartlett is a liar, Matt. He knows every point you made, indeed it is hard-wired into his political makeup. He knows Southern Democrats stampeded to the Nixon GOP in the wake of the Civil Rights Act. He knows Ronald Reagan cemented their support for his party through subtle (but not that subtle) acts of symbolism and code. He knows the GOP fought the Martin Luther King holiday to pimp to these people, that Gingrich and others periodically grumbled about getting rid of the Civil Rights Act for the same reason, and he knows all the rest of the dirty, sordid story.

He knows. David Brooks knows, too. We might all wish such men are merely deluded, that their decency compels them to truly believe the contemporary GOP is an alliance between Chamber of Commerce types, people who keep a copy of Burke at bedside, and some humble Christians. It isn't. They know it isn't. They're liars, Matt. Treating their remarks with respect only enables them. Happy holidays.

Posted by KC45s | December 24, 2007 6:01 PM

What republican racist present?

What horseshit!

The racism I see is Dems using thugs like Al Sharpton to intimidate and rig (selective) election recounts

You must be kidding me

Posted by Jozef | December 24, 2007 6:03 PM

A Bloomberg candidacy in the wake of a Hillary nomination, might just lead to disaffection of a this core dem voting block and electoral disaster for Hillary in the fall.

What happens if the presidential race looks like this:

Hillary
Bloomberg
Ron Paul
Rudy or Romney or Huckabee

Obviously, no one gets a majority of voters, but can anyone get anything even near an electoral majority?

Posted by Shinyk | December 24, 2007 6:21 PM

"Only a moron ..."

Oh my!

"... Democratic racism somehow got airbrushed from the national consciousness ..."

Haven't we been over this? The Democrats' racist past is taught in the history books. What Mr. Bartlett means, but can't say, is that people don't hold the Dems' racist past against them. He can't say this because the response is so obvious: there's no reason for people to do so, given the Dems' nonracist immediate past and nonracist present.

"... if they are going to play the game that Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert and other Democratic partisans play of saying that the slightest evidence of Republican racism is a hanging offense, no matter how long ago it occured, then," etc.

As someone has pointed out, 27 years ago is not the same as 90 years ago. As someone else has pointed out, Reagan followed up his dog-whistle campaigning with genuinely pro-racist policies. As a third person has pointed out, Reagan is held up as the inspiration of just about every Republican now holding or seeking office. How many of them have criticized the Reagan administration for its support of racists?

For my part, I'll point out that very few writers would drop by a comments section just to show that he cannot follow or effectively respond to an opposing argument. Mr. Bartlett is special.

Posted by Kyle | December 24, 2007 6:26 PM

As a smokescreen, Bartlett's argument above is literally pathetic. It has not escaped the notice of most people (including most remaining white Southern racists) that the GOP (including such faux moderates as Specter and Gordon Smith) is STILL defending the racism of such Southern stalwarts of their party as Lott, Helms and Thurmond -- while the Dems stopped defending any remaining racists in their prty a long time ago. Byrd (whose racism in his early life was horrifying) is praised only AFTER he dumped it; even such abominations as George Wallace and Orval Faubus, in order to remain Democrats, finally ended up ditching their official racism instead. Nor has the GOP managed to steel itself yet to admit that St. Ronald sometimes made appeals to racism.

As for Jozef above: while I have no tolerance for the continuing willingness of Democratic candidates to kiss Al Sharpton's ample backside either, the only recent example I can think of of an election swayed by a "rigged recount" was that little business in 2000 Florida in which several thousand non-criminal black voters were disenfranchised by an erroneous database of state felons -- with the whole thing damn near happening again in 2004, had it not been for the Miami Herald's heroic efforts to expose it. (I AM happy to say that Republican Gov. Crist seems determined to clean up all of dear old Jeb's repulsive little tricks in that regard. There actually are some honest Republicans, conspicuously not including Bartlett or Jozef.)

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | December 24, 2007 6:27 PM

I'll add that it's doubly bizarre that Barlett is still solemnly denying that there is still a large pro-racist element in today's GOP -- unlike today's Democrats -- after Kristol, Krauthammer and George Will all forcefully pointed that fact out in the immediate wake of Trent Lott's immortal tribute to Thurmond. (See the Washington Post articles and columns of the time.)

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | December 24, 2007 6:31 PM

He knows the GOP fought the Martin Luther King holiday to pimp to these people....

A lot of people oppose the MLK holiday simply because they believe King was half-leader, half-scum. The most overrated man in US history.

King was a plagarist, siphoned funds from the SLCC for his personal drug, alcohol, and prostitution vices. He beat women, worked with more violent radical blacks to play "good negro, bad negro" on cities to get his wishes. He became an ardent defender of letting the Soviet gains in the Cold War stand forever, lest "Peace" be jeopardized by Communism's fall. Much of his material was ghostwritten by Stanley Levinson and other NYC communists, men who also served as Kings financiers and attorney advisors. J. Edgar Hoover called King a "1st Class sexual degenerate", one of the 5 worst he'd ever seen.

What the FBI has on King is so bad that the King Family, Black Caucus, and liberal Dems persuaded the FBI to put it all under lock and key away from historians and scholars for 55 years - an unprecidented action for a deceased historical American leader.

And no guarantee the FBI info will ever be released as King has now become Holy Saint Martin to his followers, dissing him is prohibited in schools in the manner dissing the Prophet is prohibited to Muslims, and a national Monument arises to honor the only American (or sacred cow) worthy of his own national holiday.

Posted by Chris Ford | December 24, 2007 6:42 PM

I'll add that it's doubly bizarre that Barlett is still solemnly denying that there is still a large pro-racist element in today's GOP -- unlike today's Democrats -- after Kristol, Krauthammer and George Will all forcefully pointed that fact out in the immediate wake of Trent Lott's immortal tribute to Thurmond...

Bruce, I would not agree that there is a "large pro-racist element" in the GOP. Where? What evidence is there of such an element?

OTOH, which party routinely marches with Hezbollah and Hamas supporters in the U.S., the most virulent and genocidal racists on the face of the Earth?

Posted by Doug | December 24, 2007 6:42 PM

I'll add that it's doubly bizarre that Barlett is still solemnly denying that there is still a large pro-racist element in today's GOP -- unlike today's Democrats

What an odd statement. The Democrats have had no problems running three out and out racists in their last two Presidential primaries. In 2004, they had Al Sharpton join the stage with Kerry and Clark and the rest. And this year, they have Biden and Dodd join Clinton and Obama and the others. And we all know that Sharpton, Biden and Dodd are just flat out racists. I mean, listen to Dodd's praise of Klansman Byrd. Or Biden's repeated racists statements. And nothing needs be said about Sharpton's racism. And yet all three are major players in the Democratic party.

As far as I can tell, the present Democrat party is far more racist than the present Republican party. The Republicans don't run racists in their primaries; Democrats do.

Unfortunately, anyone who associates with modern day Democrat party is just an apologist for racism.

Posted by Al | December 24, 2007 6:44 PM

When Matt, and the left in general, is willing to recognize that

-- they embrace known racists like Robert Byrd
-- they embrace (and fear offending) race baiting anti-semites like Al Sharpton
-- they embrace (and fear offending) race baiting anti-semites like Jesse Jackson

Then perhaps they can stand on principle and call out the Republicans for atrocities like Trent Lott (who was, at least, removed from the leadership). Until then, excuse me while I fail to take anything a Democrat says about racism seriously. Certainly the Republican party silently approved of the Dixiecrat migration to their side. That doesn't mean that Democrats have fixed their own house (see above). It simply means that Democrats have been able to pretend that they've fixed their own house, with the active help of the media.

Posted by James Robertson | December 24, 2007 6:48 PM

Lott (who was, at least, removed from the leadership)

Huh, I thought he was the Minority Whip before retiring.

Posted by Matt Weiner | December 24, 2007 6:52 PM

He was removed as leader, and then started climbing back up before retiring. I personally stopped donating money to the party when Lott wasn't forced out of office; it was my belief that he had no place in the party.

Posted by James Robertson | December 24, 2007 6:59 PM

"...SILENTLY approved of the Dixiecrat migration to their side"? Please.

"We ought to go hunting where the ducks are" -- Barry Goldwater, 1964.

The Southern Strategy (in which the GOP followed Barry's suggestion faithfully for decades -- and, as the frantic defenses of Lott show, still hasn't completely abandoned it).

Lee Atwater's testimony above.

As for Dodd and Biden being "racists": I eagerly await Al's evidence on that point (especially given that George Will, in his recent columns, has praised the two of them as being by far the best qualified and most intellectually honest Democratic Presidential candidates). And as for "routinely marching with Hezbollah and Hamas supporters": would Doug mind naming any significant Democratic political candidate for anything who has done that, or who has even uttered one word of praise of any Palestinian who favors the abolition of Israel? Especially given the party's enduring key reliance on Jews (85% of whom voted for Kerry)?

The GOP's defenders, I see from this thread, have definitely entered the Black Knight stage of their attempted defense of the party's current behavior.

Posted by BruceMoomaw | December 24, 2007 6:59 PM

James:
Opposition to civil rights law - at least as envisioned by progressives - is not the same thing as opposition to civil rights. Regardless of how much you want to believe otherwise, Matt, some of us are neither racists nor fans of activist government.

It doesn't make you a racist. It allies you with racists. It ties you to them, forces you and your party to make concessions to them in order to get votes, raise money, and pass legislation. It causes you either to craft the GOP-friendly civil rights bills that you assert your party is dying to pass differently or to scrap them altogether, to keep the racist money and votes coming. It's your party's deal with the devil. I am not surprised you avoid contemplating this.

Posted by Daddy Love | December 24, 2007 7:01 PM

Maybe a conservative Republican could explain this kind of thing, concerning the Civil Rights Commission?

Before the changes, the agency had planned to evaluate a White House budget request for civil rights enforcement, the adequacy of college financial aid for minorities, and whether the US Census Bureau undercounts minorities, keeping nonwhite areas from their fair share of political apportionment and spending. After the appointments, the commission canceled the projects.

Instead, the commission has put out a series of reports concluding that there is little educational benefit to integrating elementary and secondary schools, calling for closer scrutiny of programs that help minorities gain admission to top law schools, and urging the government to look for ways to replace policies that help minority-owned businesses win contracts with race-neutral alternatives.

Liberal media bias?

Posted by RSA | December 24, 2007 7:01 PM

This is an area where my ignorance is formidable, but isn't the Republican side of the equation quite a bit more complex? Grant and Theodore Roosevelt probably look better than any other presidents between 1865 and 1945, but Hayes and McKinley not so good? I seem to recall the TR met quite a lot of opposition from fellow Republicans who were afraid of alienating the Southern racist establishment.

And I have no idea how significantly racist democratic candidates like Winfield Scott Hancock or Al Smith actually were -- I accept that they shared general racist assumptions of their time, but were they Bilbo's or Klansmen?? Woody Wilson's pathetic record I know all about.

Excoriation not necessary, more facts would be welcome.

Posted by Gene O'Grady | December 24, 2007 7:27 PM

It doesn't make you a racist.

I don't think that's true. Maybe big L libertarians could plausibly make an argument against activist government and few Paulite Republicans. I throw the bullshit flag on someone who still supports the Republicans after they tapped everyones phones, put on the most expensive war anyone has ever seen, started dragging people out of their beds and torturing them and then sits around and tells me they are opposed to civil rights legislation on principled, limited government grounds. Obviously, this a principle you can not only jetisson when needed but do a big happy dance on it's grave at times.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 24, 2007 7:29 PM

Bruce, I would not agree that there is a "large pro-racist element" in the GOP. Where? What evidence is there of such an element?

For an answer to your question, Doug, simply read the comment directly above yours by Chris Ford. That is your modern Southern white Republican, Mr. Bartlett. That is who the Republicans courted, and the Democrats "deserted" through the late 60's, 70's and 80's. You're welcome to him.

Posted by Pug | December 24, 2007 7:32 PM

@Ed Marshall - To see how attached Republicans are to the issue of limited government and "states rights", just look to the Bush EPA which limited California's attempt to legislate new CAFE standards which 16 states (and a sizable portion of the National population BTW) would have adopted.

Limited government and states rights means whatever the Republicans want it to mean and not one bit more.

Posted by calipygian | December 24, 2007 7:36 PM

@Pug -

You're right. They can have him. And they will have him as the Republican Party becomes a regional Southern party with little bearing on national policy for a generation after the 2008 election.

Bartlett's bleatings are the dying gasps of a racist conservative movement that has run out of steam. Read "American Theocracy" by one of the founders of that movement, Kevin Phillips. He had enough sense to bail before wasting time rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. So much for Karl Rove's "permanent majority".

Posted by calipygian | December 24, 2007 7:41 PM

Does anyone else find this talk of "embracing" a bit facile? Ditto the bizarre obsession with the distant past of the Democratic Party. Perhaps liberals ought to abandon the Democratic Party since it is forever tarnished and reconstitute the Whigs?

If I might be so bold as to summarize the debate, it seems that the claim people are interested in is,

(R) The current Republican party advances racist policies in order to maintain the support of a racist constituency.

And the argument that folks like Krugman offer for (R) has three premises:
1. The GOP actively courted racist southern voters beginning in the 1960s and proceeding at least through Reagan in the 1980s.
2. The GOP did this, in part, by opposing Civil Rights legislation during the same time period.
3. There is no reason to suppose that the practices of (1) and (2) stopped between Reagan and now, and indeed the popularity of Reagan and the recent behavior of some southern Republicans (e.g. Lott and Thurmond) are reasons (albeit defeasible ones) to think that it does continue.

So Krugman & co. are not casting aspersions just for the sake of tarring their enemies; they are making an argument that the Republican Party is racist right now, an argument that happens to be historical. The analogous claim (which is maybe what Bartlett is interested in?) that the Democratic Party is racist seems clearly false: even though the Democratic clearly supported racist policies in the past, there is a very good reason to believe that this practice has not continued... namely the behavior of the Democratic Party for the past 40 years! Thus while Krugman's historical musings have a point, Bartlett's amount to little more than the tedious fact that Barack Obama and Jefferson Davis are members of the same political party. Bartlett's mistake, it seems, is to think that Krugman's history has as niggling a purpose as his own.

Posted by KW | December 24, 2007 8:35 PM

Well put KW. It's the trivialization of history for partisan purposes to which Bruce Bartlett is well suited.

And only those who are trained to practice it, and to understand it, continue to use it as a technique in their argument.

Posted by Marshall Hunt | December 24, 2007 8:46 PM

Well put KW. It's the trivialization of history for partisan purposes to which Bruce Bartlett is well suited.

And only those who are trained to practice it, and to understand it, continue to use it as a technique in their argument.

Posted by Marshall Hunt | December 24, 2007 8:48 PM

Pardon me if I find the oppositional nature of the analysis a bit of an airbrushing too. Do you really think that if Democrats win the White House and build on majorities in both houses of Congress, we're going to see the kind of politics that will truly transform this country into a just, equal-opportunity society, both racially and economically?

I just don't see it. To do so would require a reversal of income stratification, a public education system that doesn't consistently fail in poor and minority neighborhoods, and a criminal justice system that doesn't target minorities, to name just a few. Edwards *might* get us there, but it would be a miracle if he did, considering who would be lined up on the other side of all of those issues.

That isn't to say that electing a Democrat president wouldn't be a vast improvement over what we've got now, and I pray to the Gods that it happens. But to say that the Democratic Party isn't actively racist shouldn't be the end of the question, if you're a true progressive. It's only the beginning.

Posted by clb72 | December 24, 2007 8:51 PM

I don't mind the attacks on Bartlett's thesis or its relevance to anything going on today. But I don't like the attacks on his integrity. Bruce Bartlett has deliberately gotten himself expelled from the Republican welfare system. That, folks, takes moral courage--a desire to do the right thing without regard to the consequences.

Now I suppose it's possible to have moral courage without much integrity otherwise. Not likely, but possible. But one thing I've learned as a lawyer--don't assume lack of integrity on the other side until proven. (But, of course, verify.) We might have hit the stage where we can assume no integrity on the part of the general run-of-the-mill Republican puppet.

But Bruce Bartlett is not a generic Republican puppet. He deserves the presumption of integrity. Attack his ideas, but lay off his integrity--at least until you have some evidence stronger than your disagreement with his thesis. It may be silly (I think it is), but it doesn't justify personal attacks.

Posted by Joe S. | December 24, 2007 9:01 PM

If Bartlett is so interested in examining history, how about something relevant to today and to the Republican party's agenda. Maybe he could write a book about how great the Lochner era was.

Posted by Steve V | December 24, 2007 9:01 PM

Mr. Ford...

I find your copycatting from the Stormfront sponsered site martinlutherking.org to be amusingly juvenile. I get a laugh out of how the site starts out on a hackneyed warning about Communists confiscate guns when they take over before they launch the warped screed about Dr. King.

Don't change the subject, Mr. Ford. The issue is the willingness of Republicans to embrace racist positions, including for example, Georgia's half-assed attempt at re-instituting a Poll Tax, and to pander to not-so-coded issues like Confederate Flags on official buildings.

The Democrats have walked away from this ugly history, and Republicans have rushed to carry this dirty bag of un-American hatred; simply for the votes.

Disgusting.

Posted by boilerman10 | December 24, 2007 9:18 PM

Can anyone tell me why anyone reads the National Review again?

It's a simple question for a simple mind.

And this simple mind can discern that without the racist, homophobic, xenophobic, theocratic base the Republicans would get about 30% of the vote. Which is still profoundly sad.

All this is assuming the electorate was informed. Which ain't gonna happen given our Corporate Media Gods.

Just deal with it: Another empire circling the drain in the water of its own hubris. And "we" deserve it.

It is painful to watch unfold.

Posted by John O | December 24, 2007 9:30 PM

"I throw the bullshit flag on someone who still supports the Republicans after they tapped everyones phones, put on the most expensive war anyone has ever seen, started dragging people out of their beds and torturing them and then sits around and tells me they are opposed to civil rights legislation on principled, limited government grounds"

Gee, then anyone after Wilson's administration, or FDR's, should have been embarrassed to be a Democrat. Amazingly, that wasn't the case, even given their multiple atrocities against civil rights - far worse than anything people talk about now.

As to the person that tried to smear by association - the Democrats have plenty of ugly fellow travelers as well - many of the anti-Israel folks are complete anti-semites (and nearly all are on the left), the "free Mumia" crowd is all on the left... etc.

If we want to go toe to toe with ugly allies, I think the lists are about equally ugly.

Posted by James Robertson | December 24, 2007 9:33 PM

Joe S.,

I don't care if BB disagress about any particular GOP talking point. C'mon. Anyone who could write what is referenced here is a Major League hack.

Matt is right: Bartlett is hiding behind some serious intellectual wankitude.

Posted by John O | December 24, 2007 9:35 PM

Mr. Joe S.

Mr. Bartlett's integrity flew the coop long ago. particularly when he began boostering Mr. Bush's fiasco in Iraq.

I believe Mr. Bartlett could, by legal precedent, be investigated for complicity in war crimes for his actions in the Bush White House, and is possibly guilty on prima facie grounds alone.

However, the integrity angle is a mirror trick. Mr. Bartlett wishes to redirect criticism of GOP pandering to racism back onto the Democrats. That sounds like partisan sniping to me, but that isn't important. What is important is that Mr. Bartlett got called on his deceptions.

Posted by boilerman10 | December 24, 2007 9:35 PM

"... Democratic racism somehow got airbrushed from the national consciousness and magically attached to the Republicans ..."

There is nothing magical about it. The Democratic Party changed, and began supporting civil rights legislation. The Republicans chose to appeal to the displaced racists and began opposing civil rights legislation. Matt's post is right on the money.

Posted by synykyl | December 24, 2007 9:38 PM

I am so tired of this. Why are there so many sadistic assholes posting here? Go down to the stockyards. Omaha! Ring bells, sing songs, blow horns, beat gongs! Slit throats and suck blood! You'll get 72-odd virgins. Okay, they may be calves, but . . . .

Posted by Henderstock | December 24, 2007 9:39 PM

yeah that "Free Mumia" crowd really has a lot of pull in our libtard camp. And, tell me again, who are these anti-Semites you speak of? Or are you just throwing stuff out there hoping it will stick?

Posted by handy | December 24, 2007 9:40 PM

Gee, then anyone after Wilson's administration, or FDR's, should have been embarrassed to be a Democrat. Amazingly, that wasn't the case, even given their multiple atrocities against civil rights - far worse than anything people talk about now.

I'm going to use really small words here, I was talking about the Bush administration and small governance.

Everyone who voted for Wilson is dead. There might be five people kicking around that voted for FDR still around. Do you understand the difference?

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 24, 2007 9:51 PM

How many current Republican members of Congress are African American? The answer is ZERO. Does that fact make the Republican Party racist? No, but it sure provides fodder for why there is a strong belief among many people that, at a minimum, Republicans pander to racist views.

Posted by Mark F. | December 24, 2007 9:53 PM

When conservative whites who made the switch from D to R sometime in the late sixties say stuff like "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me" exactly what the fuck do you think they're talking about?

Posted by Rjl | December 24, 2007 10:42 PM

I feel no need to defend the racist Democrats of the past. It wasn't the liberals that were racist. by the same token, Republicans don't really get to brag about Lincoln. Lincoln was the most liberal president we've ever had. If the Republicans want to reform themselves as the party of liberalism, they can tout Lincoln again. Hell, if they're serious about liberalism, I'll join up and gladly bring a shovel to the party to bury the centrist Democrats.

Conservative in America means "white guys on top." Whether you're a conservative Republican or a conservative Democrat, being conservative means maintaining that power structure.

Posted by MikeJ | December 24, 2007 10:42 PM

When conservative whites who made the switch from D to R sometime in the late sixties say stuff like "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me" exactly what the fuck do you think they're talking about?

Posted by Rjl | December 24, 2007 10:42 PM

Mr. Bartlett:
Please, please name one person who is implicitly making the argument that "all Southerners are racists and all Southerners are Republicans, therefore all Republicans are racists." That's a laughable strawman that any honorable writer would be loathe to put forth.

Posted by doggril | December 24, 2007 11:09 PM

Al Sharpton couldn't even get the majority of votes of African-American primary voters in 2004. Jesse Jackson hasn't been viable as a major political force for decades. If the Democratic Party was really so racist, why would the majority of black, Latino, Asian and Jewish voters vote Democratic? Are they too stupid to recognize racism? Are you telling me the party of torturing innocent Arabs and Muslims and kicking out the Mexicans isn't racist? That the party that actually had a number of their members vote against renewing the Voting Rights Act isn't the more racist party? Look at FoxNews and how they assume that all Arabs and Muslims are evil.

"OTOH, which party routinely marches with Hezbollah and Hamas supporters in the U.S., the most virulent and genocidal racists on the face of the Earth?

Posted by Doug | December 24, 2007 6:42 PM"

Name me one major Democrat who has marched with either organization. Also, the most genocidal racists on the face of the Earth are probably the governments of Sudan and Burma, who are actually committing genocide. The Burmese government in the late 1990's hired a PR and marketing firm based in DC to help clean up their image in the world. That firm is owned and run by one of Bush's friends.

Posted by Reality Man | December 24, 2007 11:10 PM

Bruce Bartlett says "...all Southerners are racists and all Southerners are Republicans, therefore all Republicans are racists."

Ridiculous - no one is saying this - what they are saying is that the Republican party is now the one that looks after the interests of racists, and the racist vote is largely what has provided them with the margin of victory in some recent elections.

Posted by skeptonomist | December 24, 2007 11:28 PM

Some of Bruce Bartlett's best friends have black friends.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 24, 2007 11:50 PM

Any time I see someone trying to claim the Democrats are the haven of racists, I know I'm seeing someone who is so sheltered as to be almost certainly a college student.

The immigration issue alone, never mind the persistent lies about voter fraud, makes it more than clear that the current GOP embraces racist beliefs and ideology. There is simply nothing equivalent on the Democratic side. Nothing.

And the more you ramble on about Al Sharpton and anti-semites, the more obvious it becomes where the racists lie and how much they have invested in this foolish, hateful, un-American strategy. They know they are stuck with it, so they are distracting from it any way they can.

This will really be writ large in the movement of Hispanics away from their social conservative drift towards the GOP. You can't wave away with these statistics without calling them stupid, which really doesn't do much for the argument.

Posted by Dog Whistler | December 25, 2007 12:14 AM

Myself and my other 1 billion black friends of Bruce Bartlett know that Nelson Mandela did everything he could to stop Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and P.W. Botha from helping teh black people !!!!!111!

Posted by Douglas Watts | December 25, 2007 12:45 AM

Is Bartlett serious in his posted response here? Only HE believes that "...Democratic racism somehow got airbrushed from the national consciousness and magically attached to the Republicans." There was nothing magical about it. The modern Republican Party--as Krugman et al. have documented and as Reagan's Philadelphia campaign kick-off exemplified--has worked hard to achieve its solid hold on the bigot vote. Lee Atwater anyone? Atwater admitted and apologized for the GOP's grand racism strategy.

Evidence of the ever expanding racial politics of the GOP is clearly before Bartlett in the immigrant-bashing by GOP Congresspeople and candidates, not to mention the anti-Islamic rhetoric of same, but perhaps anything beyond black-white racism is simply beyond his ability to see, much less acknowledge. Giuiliani owes his career to stirring up racial hatred. But Bartlett says it's all a Dem problem. Bizarre reasoning.

Posted by W Action | December 25, 2007 1:05 AM

Perhaps Mr. Bartlett could read some of those old issues of National Review from the 50's concerning segregation and then talk to us about the Democrats support of racism. Or is he proposing that the National Review was a leftist magazine back then?

Posted by Col Bat Guano | December 25, 2007 1:41 AM

The boggling thing is that Bartlett is not a kneejerk internet troll like Al, but someone who was once a significant spokesman and even policymaker for the Republican Party. And not only that, he recently showed himself to be remarkably less dishonest and stupid than the average Republican spokesperson.

30% of Americans (the Movement Republicans) are members of an insane, ignorant cult. That passionately intense 30% of the country controls the US government. Bartlett is one of the most rational members of that 30%, and that's the problem we're facing. We're in very serious trouble --and by "we" I mean "everyone on the face of the earth today".

Bartlett's argument doesn't have any plausibility at all. It fails the simplest historical tests -- e.g., the question "So what did Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms do, Uncle Bruce?" His book is nothing but inane, implausible, dishonest, stupid, demagogic nonsense. His silly responses are worse than the book.

But he's the best the Republicans have to offer. The very best, and I'm not kidding about that.

Posted by John Emerson | December 25, 2007 2:10 AM

"I think the difference can be expressed thusly: Every single Republican wants to claim that he is the heir to Ronald Reagan, while not a single Democrat wants anything to do with Orval Faubus.

Posted by Boots Day"

Boots ol' boy. YOU MISSED THE POINT.

Posted by cal1942 | December 25, 2007 3:30 AM

Oh really, Cal1942. And what is the point?

Posted by John Emerson | December 25, 2007 3:35 AM

"Matt is right, of course, and Bartlett is willfully misreading his argument, or else he's thick as mud.

Posted by BryklynLibrul"

Both. Thick as mud and just plain dishonest as is anyone else who pulls that stunt.

Johnson and national Democrats knew exactly what would happen following passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Following the vote Johnson said to an aide something like 'well we've lost the south for a generation' - Off the mark of course, it's been two generations and counting and there's really no end in sight.

Knowingly giving up a significant number of future electoral votes, future Senators and future Reps to do the right thing was an act of courage that's almost never recognized.

Posted by cal1942 | December 25, 2007 3:49 AM

"magically attached to the Republicans....

Bruce Bartlett"

"magically" Mr. Bartlett? Hardly. The 'Southern Strategy' betrays everything you say.

You are a virtual symbol of the cynical dishonesty that characterizes today's Republican party.

Posted by cal1942 | December 25, 2007 4:05 AM

"Oh really, Cal1942. And what is the point?

Posted by John Emerson"

The 'point' is that Democrats admit to Orval Faubus but, by their acts, have repudiated him.

It would serve the nation if Republicans repudiated Ronald Reagan.

Posted by cal1942 | December 25, 2007 4:16 AM

"And Democrats embraced Robert Byrd. I guess that means that the 2007 Democrat Party is filled with racists.

Posted by Al"

OK Al here it is. Robert Byrd present has repudiated the Robert Byrd of the past. Robert Byrd present gets highest marks from the NAACP.

Try to keep up Al.

You might also want to try a little bit of civility. It's Democratic party.

Posted by cal1942 | December 25, 2007 4:23 AM

What I see that Bartlett has written is the standard wingnut response when they lose an argument (it's usually Clinton did it too...) What I see is that Bartlett has conceded the point about Republican appeals to racism and is trying to show that Democrats did it too (Brooks and others were just denying it before). Yes, he is right that there are some Democrats that make me cringe, but the Civil Rights Act is the dividing line of history here. What are the actions of each party in regards to that legislation and since then?

Also, I agree it is intellectually dishonest to take the example of what one person does and apply it to a whole group of people. The problem, as many pointed out above, is that Republicans still call themselves "the party of Reagan."

Posted by Unstable Isotope | December 25, 2007 6:57 AM

What I see that Bartlett has written is the standard wingnut response when they lose an argument (it's usually Clinton did it too...) What I see is that Bartlett has conceded the point about Republican appeals to racism and is trying to show that Democrats did it too (Brooks and others were just denying it before). Yes, he is right that there are some Democrats that make me cringe, but the Civil Rights Act is the dividing line of history here. What are the actions of each party in regards to that legislation and since then?

Also, I agree it is intellectually dishonest to take the example of what one person does and apply it to a whole group of people. The problem, as many pointed out above, is that Republicans still call themselves "the party of Reagan."

Posted by Unstable Isotope | December 25, 2007 7:01 AM

@Unstable Isotope: substitute the phrase "welfare queen driving her Cadillac to the welfare office to pick up her check and strapping young buck buying his T-Bones with food stamps" for "Reagan" and you got it right.

Posted by calipygian | December 25, 2007 7:11 AM

Republicans don't pander to racists. They pander to stupid people, because only stupid people will support policies that hurt their own interests, such as tax cuts for the rich, wars of conquest, war-profiteering and de-regulation of business. Racists are a subset of stupid people, thus the GOP must pander to them. It's nothing personal, nothing to do with ideology -- it's just business, all about the benjamins.

Posted by hellslittlestangel | December 25, 2007 7:13 AM

Since Mr. Bartlett is so fond of historical political roots, let him (and Mitt's devoted followers) remember that one of the founding platforms of the Republican Party in 1856 was to destroy Brigham Young and Mormonism root and branch. So much pressure was applied that the Democratic Buchanon Admin (in one of its only decisive moves) sent a military expedition to Utah, whereupon the whole Salt Lake gang swore allegiance to the US and agreed to stand down on enforcement of Mormon orthodoxy.

If one wants to play the guilt by history card forcefully, one could easily find their party losing its most solid support in Utah, Idaho, etc.

Just sayin'.

Posted by twit | December 25, 2007 8:27 AM

@twit - Just so that even the thick headed Mr. Bartlett can understand what you are saying, you are saying that the Republican Party was founded on a platform of genocide against what is today among their most stalwart supporters?

It can't be!

Posted by calipygian | December 25, 2007 9:08 AM

I have lived all of my life in the South (less 2 years in Italy) and I grew up a Republican. All of the racists I knew were Democrats, and I never wanted any part of that. It took my daughter turning 18 to make me re-examine my position and realize that I had been voting for the wrong people, nationally, for too long. So now I am a Democrat, somewhat ashamed of how unaware I was of the changes that had begun in the 60s and were a done deal by 1980.

Posted by Richard H. Davis | December 25, 2007 9:26 AM

What every conservative in this thread seems to want to ignore is that a vast majority of black americans think the republican is explicitly racist.

Like MikeJ, I don't feel the need to defend the behavior of democrats from before my father was born in the mid 1940s. I don't feel the need to apoligize for things robert byrd has already apoligized for in the most profuse and recurring manner possible. Unlike republicans, I can see the difference between Byrd and his apology and Trent Lott praising Thurmond for his racist behavior, attitudes and presidental run.

There are reasons why such an overwhelming percentage of black americans vote for Democrats. One reason is that they believe that the republican party is racist. All the columns and pseudo-history by conservatives won't change the daily experience of black americans - which is that many of the southern white men who control the republican party consider non-white people to be lesser humans.

I have black friends who wont go to entire states again because of racist incidents that have happened to them. If Bruce wants to ignore this, he can.

Posted by mickslam | December 25, 2007 10:31 AM

A lot of people oppose the MLK holiday simply because they believe King was half-leader, half-scum. The most overrated man in US history.

Damn, Saint Reagan and his boys said exactly the same things about Nelson Mandela to justify the administration position on 'Constructive Engagement' with apartheid, including calling Mandela a communist. Talk about coincidence!

Posted by BDH | December 25, 2007 10:44 AM

I am a non-white American, and every racist incident I've experienced has come from a conservative. I know this is just one person's experience, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

Posted by dai | December 25, 2007 10:45 AM

Twit has a point about the Mormons and Republicans in 1856, but on the other hand when Lincoln was asked by some pushy type what he "proposed" to do about the Mormons he replied "I propose to leave them alone."

Well put, exemplary in fact.

Posted by Gene O'Grady | December 25, 2007 11:41 AM

Mr Bartlett:

Trying to tell me that enthusiastic Republicans don't have a pretty strong tendency to despise minorities of all sorts is like trying to tell me that water doesn't fall out of the sky sometimes.

It's not something I learned from some website, or TV, or the radio. We all see this first-hand on a regular basis with the conservatives that we interact with. Most of them genuinely delight in telling you how much they hate other races.

In regards to this matter, absolutely nothing you could ever say in an article or on TV or on the radio or on the Internet will have the slightest impact on me until you change that fact.

Posted by Chris | December 25, 2007 12:04 PM

The amazing thing is that the Republican party and Dixiecrat/segregationists did not get together sooner. If anything, it shows us that an uninformed electorate has been around for years. If you think of it, the racists Southern whites were voting for Dems in the 1950/1960 period, right before 1964. And do you want to know why….Lincoln. Seriously, these people held a grudge for close to 100 years against the Republicans, and are doing the same thing to Dems all because “gasp” laws were put into place to actually try to make society more equitable for minorities.

As for Bruce, deep down he knows all of this is true. And for people like Bruce, and other more moderate Republicans, they are ashamed that they have to get into bed and service this block of voters in order to push through their policies. So each morning, when he gets out of bed, and pays the money at the end of the table, he walks outside and tries, deep down, to convince himself that what just happened never occurred. Sure – he was in the same room, but, hey, that is just a coincidence. And what about the fact that Dems used to visit that room? Sure, they are outside protesting the fact that the room even exists now, but what about 100 years ago?

Bruce is trying to cleanse his own internal struggles with this issue through the use of “moral relativism”. Of course, the irony is that Republicans rail against “moral relativism” every campaign cycle as one of the causes of our cultural collapse. But remember, “moral relativism” is only applies when it comes to gay marriage, recreational drug use, and freedom of religion.

Posted by Brad | December 25, 2007 12:08 PM

So the implication here is that in the 20th century the party that embraces the racists wins control of the federal government. The Dems made the pact with the Devil until the 1960s when things started to shift, then the Republicans made the same pact and took control of most everything for 30 years.

Huh.

Posted by Nathan | December 25, 2007 12:29 PM

Nathan:

Actually - it makes perfect sense when you have an electoral system that:

(a) Allocates political power to smaller states disproportionately compared to the actual population.

(b) Have a winner take all system, negating the ability of political coalitions to develop.

You then get a situation where a sizeable, single-issue/cause group can weigh heavy on elections. As such, this means that the entire South is currently Republican. As such, the Democrats are (and Republicans were before 1964) always starting behind the 8-ball. Additionally, it means that Republicans, as long as they keep this block moderately convinced there is no other viable alternative, only need to focus on a few other states and can ignore others altogether. Dems on the other hand, must always win California and New York. They cannot lose either one. As such, it always puts the Dems on the defensive.

Posted by Brad | December 25, 2007 1:05 PM