« Double Standards | Main | Tweeted »

If Only We Had a Time Machine

17 Jul 2008 11:35 am

Bruce Bartlett argues that black voters should give the GOP some consideration in November since, after all, "Historically speaking, the Republican Party has a far better record on race than the Democrats". There is, of course, a lot of truth to that. Certainly a black voter circa 1860 would have been slightly insane to vote against Abraham Lincoln. And if the Grant-Greeley matchup of 1872 were for some reason to be re-run in the modern day, you'd expect blacks to strongly back Grant.

But of course the fact that the Republican Party was, in the past, more in tune with the interest of black people is precisely why black people, in the past, tended to support Republican candidates. During the New Deal the picture became more complicated, and in the 1950s you had non-trivial levels of black support for both Democrats and Republicans. And starting in the 1960s, Democrats became the party that better-served black interests while the conservative movement incorporated white supremacists as a pillar element of their coalition. So since then, African-Americans have overwhelmingly backed Democrats.

In short, things are about as you'd expect -- the GOP used to be the better party on race, and they were rewarded for it. As the Democrats moved toward a pro-Civil Rights posture and the Republicans abandoned that posture, things changed. If John McCain were to go back in time and become Thaddeus Stevens while transforming Barack Obama into Theodore Bilbo, I'm sure black people would vote for him. But barring that, black voters are likely to do what white voters do and assess the parties based on their present-day positions rather than how things were back in the day.

Share This

Comments (36)

Yup.

Then again, the Democrats have recently been pretty thin on policy proposals targeted at helping help black people as a group. I mean, things like national health insurance would certainly help black people, and maybe disproportionately (because they're poorer on average), but not because they're black.

Historically speaking, Germany is a nation of genocidal fascists bent on world domination. So why in god's name is the U.S. allied with Germany here in 2008?

Question: Who with even the tiniest reasoning ability would miss the point that Bartlett's argument has the timeliness of a pterodactyl, and that it's is utter nonsense. The larger point, however, is that it provides an excellent example of why many people despise Republican opinion leaders, including the WSJ editorial page. In short: they think their followers/readers are idiots. And, sadly, they are at least in part correct.

I spent part of yesterday listening to repub co-workers -- Wall Street execs, educated guys -- parrot this nonsense, which I guess is what Bartlett was aiming for. (More accurately their spiel was "Blacks are stupid because they don't realize that it's really the Repubs who have their interests at heart.")

Taking Bartlett's argument to its logical conclusion, I have decided to vote Whig in this election. I find their thoughts on checking executive power, transportation infrastructure, and education quite appealing.

I miss this Whig Party!

Modern conservatism has two bedrock attitudes toward African-Americans.

1. Racism is no longer an active force of any signifigance in American life.

2. Nothing Republicans or conservatives did or said about racial matters between, say, 1958 and 1985 shall ever be spoken of again.

You can understand almost every single thing the right wing says or does in racial matters by their fanatical devotion to those two things.

Mike

@DTM: You beat me to it! Damn these crappy Atlantic.com servers.

I also thing it's relevant that: the Republican party does not want black people to vote. They focus specious "voter fraud" bills on making it hard for urban areas and poor people to vote. They station legal challengers at black precincts. They send out as many by-mail challenges to purge the rolls of black voters. And worst of all, they vote against giving DC congressional representation and state government.

Now the GOP play this as a game to increase the elections they win, but I can't imagine the black community sees it that way. If someone is trying to prevent me from voting because they assume I won't vote their way: then there is no way in hell they are getting my vote, or any of my friend's either.

Bartlett can't possibly be appealing to African Americans in his Op-Ed. It's not like it was published in a forum with a large AA audience. The Op-Ed is to make white Republicans feel better about themselves.

Southern whites will refuse to occupy the same party as African Americans. African Americans -- wisely -- will not ally themselves with a party whose leadership is dominated by southern whites.

Ugh, I always thought Bartlett was more serious than that. What a joke.

Beginning a half century ago, the Republican Party deliberately and consciously chose to adopt reactionary policies and rhetoric in order to appeal to white southerners, at the expense of blacks.

Understandably (to everyone but Bartlett, apparently) African-Americans pay more attention to the positions of the two parties as they actually stand today than the position of the parties a century or more ago. Bartlett ought to redirect his ire at the modern GOP, not at the people who were first abandoned and then demonized by the GOP.

Toady beat me to it, but I was just going to advocate that the US partner up with our historical ally, Cuba, to fight our historical enemy, Mexico.

Ken is correct, but stops a bit short: the real audience for Bartlett's stuff isn't black people. It's white people. The purpose isn't to convince blacks to vote Republican, which Bartlett is smart enough to know they'll never do. It's to convince white people that black people have no rational reason to vote Democratic and that Republicans are actually less racist than Democrats. This allows white people to vote for John McCain without worrying that they might be voting in a racist fashion.

The tactic is analogous to what Philip Roth, in a brilliant passage in "The Plot Against America," called "koshering Lindbergh for the goys" -- you get a rabbi to endorse him, even if it's a rabbi who's not actually popular among Jews.

This is especially stupid on Bartlett's part when one considers the praise heaped on the recently departed Jesse Helms by republicans everywhere.

I recommend John M. Barry's 'Rising Tide: The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 and How It Changed America' to anybody interested in how the GOP lost black voters. In '27, then Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover gained national attention for his role in the 'humanitarian' relief that he brought to the flood ravaged Mississippi Delta. Less well reported at the time was that black laborers (free men for more than a half century) were forced for months into labor camps to work for free under the force of arms by various law local and state enforcement agencies as well as the National Guard - all under the approving eye of Republican Herbert Hoover.

After that, blacks lost their taste for their liberators in the Republican Party.

“he makes people completely comfortable with their deepest prejudices.” - Rosalind Carter describing Ronald Reagan.

I'm guessing Bartlett is married. His wife was once a little girl, therefore Bartlett is now a child molester.

Bruce Bartlett doesn't care about black people.

Can you do a meta post about how you classify mentally your different types of posts?

I think between 20-30% of your posts are explaining the obvious with a thinking conservative target audience. They are some of your best posts.

Why should I listen to someone who, historically speaking, has a record of pooping in his drawers without a second thought?

That has to be a joke.

One thing all the commentary on this idiotic Bartlett op-ed piece seems to be missing is that he isn't really trying to make an argument to appeal to black voters; he's trying to make an argument to appeal to center-to-conservative white voters who feel shame about the history of race in this country and want assurances that they're not racists if they vote Republican. Overt racism is no longer tolerable except among fringe elements of our society, so the Republican party has to do all it can to downplay its recent and current history of race baiting and appeals to racism in order to get its share of the non-fringy votes.

It's no longer primarily liberals who feel race guilt in this country; it's conservatives, and this kind of nonsense is the best Republicans can do to alleviate that guilt without losing conservative votes.

"And if the Grant-Greeley matchup of 1872 were for some reason to be re-run in the modern day, you'd expect blacks to strongly back Grant."


Wasn't Greeley a Republican too? His Liberal Republican ticket was much mushier on Reconstruction than the regular GOP, so much so that the Democrats choose to support Greeley instead running their own candidate, so no doubt blacks did strongly back Grant.

I for one am voting for the Democrats this fall, solely because of William Jennings Bryan's brave opposition to the gold standard.

You will not crucify Barack Obama on a Cross of Gold!

Since Bartlett thinks the Repubs should get "credit" for actions taken over 100 years ago, does he also believe that that blacks should get reparations for the labor that was stolen from them in that same era?

C'mon. The guy writes for Clown Hall. What else do you need to know about him?

I actually read Bartlett's piece after I was done racking my brains about the 1872 election.

I love the bottom where claims that Nixon did more the desegerate schools than any other president. I hope Rick Perlstein is working on a letter to the editor right now.

Nixon's position was that desegegation was the law, but that the federal govt. couldn't do anything about it. A position he developed thanks to the backing of one the leading southern democrats he blames for holding up Harry Truman's effrots at civil rights: Strom Thurmond.

You (Yglesias) and Bartlett wholly elide the mid-century schism where the ENTIRE segregationist wing of the Democratic party left EN MASSE to form the States Rights Party (Dixie + Democrat = "Dixiecrat").

Why is this important... because when they failed (utterly) they were wholly and warmly welcomed back into the mainstream of American Politics by the GOP!!

Wow!

No wonder the Democrats are better on race and civil rights! They shed the uglies.

No wonder the Republicans are worse on race and civil rights! They ARE the uglies.

Choosing your end points in a time series to prove your point: what fun!

Someone must have forgotten about Lilly White Republicans and Black and Tan Republicans. Republicans abandoned Black Americans once Reconstruction ended.

The hyphen in "better-served" in the second paragraph of your post is unnecessary, as you don't mean "better-served" as an adjectival phrase.

The hyphen in "better-served" in the second paragraph of your post is unnecessary, as you don't mean "better-served" as an adjectival phrase.

"Why should I listen to someone who, historically speaking, has a record of pooping in his drawers without a second thought?"

Was he a Free-Soiler?

Raising this issue without even mentioning Garfield and his strong position in support of the Republican freedmen of the South is an outrage.

Just because a loony office-seeker offed him is no reason to ignore his position on this issue! Nor just because it in 1880 to early in 1881 that he was speaking out so forcefully on the subject.

Historically, I believe that the party that has done the most for this country is the Federalist party. And so, until there's a Federalist on the ballot, I'm not going to vote.

The near future may hold some surprises.

HILLARY MAY BE ANTICIPATING A DIFFERENT OUTCOME AT THE CONVENTION

The Democratic convention is not over and done with.

http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/07/is-clintons-presidential-campaign.html


The near future may hold some surprises.

HILLARY MAY BE ANTICIPATING A DIFFERENT OUTCOME AT THE CONVENTION

The Democratic convention is not over and done with.

http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/07/is-clintons-presidential-campaign.html


"Koshering Lindbergh for the Goys."

Also known as "the bank-shot pander."

Why do you think the GOPers dig up all of those black, Repbublican County Commissioners and Sewer District Board members to sit on the stage at the convention every four years?

Not to appeal to black people, that's for sure.

u are all idiots bloody ding dongs no1 can build such an idiotic thing bloody fools trying to be god

nihaal ho gayi
tere ek nazaar se zindagi nihaal ho gayi

u are all idiots bloody ding dongs no1 can build such an idiotic thing bloody fools trying to be god

nihaal ho gayi
tere ek nazaar se zindagi nihaal ho gayi

kuthaa kaminaa salaa benchaud!!!! mi nihaal ho gayi


Comments closed July 31, 2008.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.