The Republican Party - Why?

[quintessence]

The temptation to make snarky comments is strong...is this really just an invitation to do so?

C'mon. Australia certainly has a conservative party. I believe its called the "Liberal Party" there. Shouldn't the reasons why conservative voters in Australia would attracted to it be quite similar for those in the US to be attracted to the GOP?

True, you caught me. (Kinda :wink

I'm a staunch supporter of Obama/Biden. Even if I'm Australian.

But I really wanted an American perspective and to see if there really was something I was missing, that it wasn't just greedy, racist white folk who were having strings pulled by greedy, racist white corporate folk who in turn were in cahoots with greedy, racist white media moguls...

I know that it isn't that, dare I say, black or white but it's the feeling I get, and I knew this was a democrat slanted forum, so I can't say that the responses surprise me much.

Maybe I was a little disillusioned in thinking that the Republican Party represented christian values which, with such a large evangelical population in America, would appeal to many. And perhaps I wanted to ignore the idea that people still have mind-sets more in style with the 1930s or 1940s.

I guess I was wrong?

Q.

P.S.
Speedoguy, Australia too has a conservative party and it is the Liberals. And perhaps surprisingly, it is the political party myself and entire family support. But I feel that American conservatism and Australian conservatism are different and cannot really be compared. Most notably in my mind the separation of religion and government in Australian political parties is more distinct. Whether this means that religious views do not influence party policy is up for debate, but I feel it puts a dampener on it.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

I guess I was wrong?

Its easy and fun to assign every misanthropic trait to the opposition political party. God knows I have. Such tendencies in the US have been true for as long as I've been alive, although the rhetoric would seem to be a bit more virulent now than in recent decades.

Still, its just rhetoric. We aren't shooting at each other over political differences so the mudslinging we're embroiled in actually serves a useful purpose: venting pent up frustrations. Contrast the partisanship we endure now with what conditions must have been like in 1860 and I'm grateful I didn't live back then.

At the moment, I've run out of enthusiasm for mudslinging the other side of the aisle. Rather, I'd like to engage in more listening. See below:

But I feel that American conservatism and Australian conservatism are different and cannot really be compared.

Most notably in my mind the separation of religion and government in Australian political parties is more distinct.

Besides constrasting the degree of religious involvement, what other differences do you perceive between conservative politics in the US and in Aus?

 

[B_Nick4444]

:You_Rock_Emoticon::clap:

I can tell you what the deal is.

The South East was populated by the Scots-Irish primarily. The Scots Irish are an interesting lot and are present throughout the United States but are the predominant ethnic majority in the South East (there are tons of Scots Irish people in California but they are not the dominant ethnic majority by any means). The Scots Irish are suspicious of authority on one hand, but they desire a strong tribal leader on the other. They have a top down authority structure and usually defer discussion and contemplation in favor of the tribal position on any given subject. They are violent and militant. They are highly suspicious of outsiders and anyone that is not a member of their tribe. I don't want to go into the history of the Ulster plantation and the Protestant populating of Northern Ireland, but if you want to look into it, the information is out there.

Manufacturing was always heavy in the "union' states above the Mason Dixon line. The Southern economy of the U.S. was always more agri-based because of the mild winters they experience. With the invention of air conditioning in the early twentieth century and it's affordability that started in the 50's, manufacturing jobs started to slowly migrate South. The union battles that were hard fought in the North seemed to gain little traction in the South in the 20's and 30's. One of the KKK's primary objectives in the twentieth century was to intimidate the unions from establishing footholds in the South East through violence. It was largely succesful with some intense Union battles being fought in the mountains in West Virginia and some unions taking hold in Florida, but no real union presence was to come of all this struggle.

So, the South East states are all presently "right to work" states which mean that their is virtually no union presence and the workers have no real rights to organize.

Many corporate manufacturing firms decided to move their manufacturing base down South, offering many Northern families the option to relocate down South where the companies were to set up operations. The unions were not welcome to follow, but the workers were.

Commerce started to move to the South East following the manufacturing jobs coming down South with the new Northern families that didn't mind the Southern ways of the Scots Irish (many of them were "Northern rednecks").

There was in turn a HUGE need for new housing and infastructure to support these transplanted Northen families. There was also more jobs for the local Southern people to have as well. All of this meant that the North was losing population and the South East was gaining it. When a state loses population and others gain it, the electoral maps start to change as a result of some states losing representatives and others gaining them.

After Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, most Southerners vowed to never vote for a Democrat again and the entire South went Republican. When the Northern Democratic states started to lose population in huge amounts as the South was gaining theirs... the House of Representatives started to turn Republican. By the 90's, the House was firmly in the hands of the Republican party.

The newspapers, radio and television stations were snatched up by large conglomerate corporations with the deregulation of the media industry at the end of the first Bush administration.

"Real news" was starting to be replaced by conservative propaganda disguised as news.

There was also a decades long campaign waged by the Republican party to paint liberals as "Volvo driving, abortion loving, homosexual, latte drinkers who hate God". The consolidation of the media, the advent of the FOX news channel (the information dissemination wing of the Republican party) in 1996 and the rise of the News Corporation by Rupert Murdoch (you should know all about him since you are Australian), greatly facilitated this characterization until it was ingrained in the psyche of nearly every American that watched TV, listened to the radio, or read newspapers.

So, to sum it up you had: 1). The South's vow to never vote for a Democrat again after Lyndon Johnson signed the civil rights bill. 2). The population migration to the South away from the North resulted in more power for the Republican party in the House and (to a lesser degree) the Senate. 3). The consolidation and corporatizing of the media. 4). The advent of the FOX news channel and the rise in power of the News Corporation. and 4). The objectification and vilification of the term "liberal"

I should also add the domination of the AM radio airwaves by conservative dee-jays like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage also greatly added to the succesful dissemination of the Republican platform, mindset and the demonization of the liberals and progressives.

You now have a LOT of angry white people that vote out of the hate and fear that was instilled in them either by their elders or from the media.

They make sure that they make it to the polls while the liberals sometimes just couldn't make it to the voting booth on election day because they were "too busy" or have some other excuse. Black folk's votes have been consistently violated throughout American history and they almost always vote for the Democratic party.

The Republican party's "caging lists" of today are the latest form of "Jim Crowe" to rear it's ugly head in this day and age. "Caging Lists" are when the Republicans develop lists of democratic voters in economically disadvantaged voting districts (black folk) and try to disenfranchise the voters from actually getting their votes to "count". All Republican votes are count, but not all of the Democratic votes are.

Conragts to those who read all of this! :smile:

 

[B_24065]

Actually the problem was with predatory lending and adjustable rate mortgages, the fact that people had little or bad credit was beside the point. The problem was the fact that these lenders were makin' MAD fuckin' money off of these hybrid ARMs by making them pay out the nose for a simple house. Those mortgages start out all fine and dandy but get uglier over time. You of all people should know that... you do, but that would mean that the poor black folk would be the victims and you could NEVER see that.

The other problem was the deliberate over-valuation of assets to produce equity. It was the same problem with the S&L's twenty years ago and it is happening all over again. That's what we mean when we say regulation Star, companies shouldn't be allowed to use flawed and skewed valuation models when defining their assets. It allows businesses the ability to lie and cheat their way to the next quarter or next year while they are going under. It buys them time as they scramble to fudge the books and squeeze every monetary drop out of their assets that they can before they are sold out from under them. How can people from the industry regulate themselves? They fucking can't, especially when it comes to the world of finance. You are kiddin' yourself Star.

Yeah, and you forgot the part about the democrats protecting fannie and freedie and blocking proposed legislation from republicans to regulate these companies.

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

I can tell you what the deal is.

Tripod, Nice summary!

If I may, I'd like to add my own .02¢ here.

There is no question that the current ascension of Republicanism stems from many of the social groups you mentioned. No doubt the Ulster Scots are a part of it. Fractious as we are, Scots still cannot agree to be entirely part of England, four hundred years after "joining" them. Many Ulster Scots also settled, or were transplanted in the North (i.e. the Buckleys). Northern Ulster Scots can be as rigid on the Left as Southerners can be on the right. The current class-race struggle that is American national politics can also be seen as the Civil War redux, as key issues from that war have never been resolved for many Southerners.

It's the old State's Rights argument: the Federal government cannot tell my State, City, Town, or me what to do outside of paying taxes, and military service. It's a dangerously fractious, and out of step philosophy of government in an increasingly interconnected global economy.

Reagan's candidacy brought together a confluence of previously disconnected groups: Economic Conservatives, White Southerners, (post CRA converted Republicans), the Evangelicals (i.e. Robertson et al, moralists cum social engineers who perversely want to control you in your bedroom), Hawk Democrats (who broke with Carter after Iran), Iconoclastic Westerners (who never really trusted Washington), Unemployed (then in droves) Blue Collar Workers, and of course the Old Guard Rich who have always been Republican, and never forgave FDR (one of their own) for the New Deal. This coalition has largely remained intact till today.

The only reason Clinton won in '92 & '96, other than being probably the most brilliant, and intuitive politician I have ever seen, is that he is also a Southerner. Bush is a Southerner, or at least he learned to talk like a mendacious one. Gore, although Southern, weren't no bubba.

One thing that rarely gets mentioned is how radicalized the Right became after the '60's. The shock value of how disruptive the Left was to the Right cannot be understated. That is why the taunts of Obama's connections to William Ayers (Weather Underground radical) still has resonance within the Republicans. Many of the current Republican politico base (i.e Rove/Cheney/Wolfowitz, etc.) were "formed" during that period in response to the Left, esp. the student movements. In their own way, these Neocons have sought to overthrow government from within.

The other great coalescing force for the Republicans is a common enemy. The Russians provided the best enemy ever. A true threat under Stalin, the USSR was in decline militarily, and socially by the time Reagan came to power. The US was ahead of the USSR in every way militarily, especially nuclear arms with our MIRVed warheads. Reagan, and all the neocons, did not trust the godless atheism of Russia, hence the "evil Empire" speech. Reagan gets credit for "winning" the Cold War, but the truth is the collapse in the price of oil from $70 to $10 a barrel had more to do with bankrupting the Soviet economy than he did. Atheism is apparently more offensive to some on the Right than Socialism, since almost every Supply Sider (Repub) is a Keynesian (FDR's preferred and more 'socialist' economist) on the way down the economic slope, such as where we are now. Once the USSR fell, bin Laden perfectly filled the role of enemy of state, and rallied the fearful for Bush.

One could always understand the economic conservatives, it was simple: you can't spend what you don't have. What's so bizarre about this current Republican coalition is that they have outspent the purportedly "tax and spend" liberals by a country mile, doubling the national debt. They have replaced "tax and spend" with "tax cut and borrow," which is a truly reckless fiscal standard. It's very ironic that the previous strength of the conservative movement was it's willingness to sacrifice, to do without in order to save money, keep taxes low, and government smaller. Now, after 8 years of profligate spending, just as Bush did in Texas, the Right flounders when it comes to economics. There is no pork they do not eat, it's all kosher - Bridges to Nowhere, $100M in depreciation for NASCAR tracks tossed into the bailout package, the Graham-Leechy deregulation of banks, the list goes on and on. Deregulation is now synonymous with "No Adult Supervision." It sounded very much different in 1981 when Reagan promised to deregulate the airline industry.

Tripod, you really nailed some of the ugly racist aspects of the current Republicans. The ridicule heaped on Obama during the GOP Convention for being a "community organizer," was really code for black, urban, and poor. Unlike the white, suburban, old and well heeled GOP conventioneers. These "caging lists" are really heinous resurrections of Jim Crowe. This election cycle, the Repubs are already challenging many of the newly registered Democrats all across the country. The challenge to a voter can be based solely upon unsubstantiated claims, but in order to be cleared, the voter in question has to produce someone who can vouch for them in person.

It will be ironic if Obama, a black man of mixed heritage, can win the Presidency, and overturn many of these defunct suppositions and negative stereotypes we, as a Nation, continue to grapple with. It will be even more ironic if Obama can return the US to fiscal prudence, and claim, as a Democrat, the best central tenant of the Republican party for the last 50 years. If he can do this, and align our foreign policy with the beliefs and rights set forth in the Declaration of Independence, that would bring this country closer to the promise we have held not only to ourselves, but to all peoples.

Congrats if you made it through to this point!

 

[quintessence]

Besides constrasting the degree of religious involvement, what other differences do you perceive between conservative politics in the US and in Aus?

Speedoguy, Australia has a watered-down conservative government and political parties.

For example, niether major political party would stop or try to stop defacto relationships a.k.a. gay marriage, however niether major political party is ready or willing to change the law to legally allow gay marriage. A reflection of the inherent conservatism of Australia as a whole.

What this means is that there is a fundamental difference in the definition of what it is to be conservative at least between Australia and America. Republicans in my mind would never be open to the idea of gay marriage whereas both parties in Australia are at least open to the idea and I feel will eventually pass legislation allowing it. Which political party suggests it first however is anyone's guess, it wont be so clear cut.

Q.

 

[D_Chocho_Lippz]

You now have a LOT of angry white people that vote out of the hate and fear that was instilled in them either by their elders or from the media.

Interesting. Never thought of myself as an angry white person...

One could always understand the economic conservatives, it was simple: you can't spend what you don't have. What's so bizarre about this current Republican coalition is that they have outspent the purportedly "tax and spend" liberals by a country mile, doubling the national debt. They have replaced "tax and spend" with "tax cut and borrow," which is a truly reckless fiscal standard. It's very ironic that the previous strength of the conservative movement was it's willingness to sacrifice, to do without in order to save money, keep taxes low, and government smaller. Now, after 8 years of profligate spending, just as Bush did in Texas, the Right flounders when it comes to economics. There is no pork they do not eat, it's all kosher - Bridges to Nowhere, $100M in depreciation for NASCAR tracks tossed into the bailout package, the Graham-Leechy deregulation of banks, the list goes on and on. Deregulation is now synonymous with "No Adult Supervision." It sounded very much different in 1981 when Reagan promised to deregulate the airline industry.

You are talking about neo-conservatives here, not conservatives.

 

[tripod]

Yeah, and you forgot the part about the democrats protecting fannie and freedie and blocking proposed legislation from republicans to regulate these companies.

Ahhhmmmm... Fannie and Freddie were VICTIMS of the sub prime crisis, they would be doing just fine right now if the primary lenders didn't try and bleed their mortgage recipients dry like vampires. When a person can't pay their mortgage because of a predatory lending loan, they go under, taking Fannie and Freddie down a notch with them. They are victims.

If I may, I'd like to add my own .02¢ here.

There is no question that the current ascension of Republicanism stems from many of the social groups you mentioned. No doubt the Ulster Scots are a part of it. Fractious as we are, Scots still cannot agree to be entirely part of England, four hundred years after "joining" them. Many Ulster Scots also settled, or were transplanted in the North (i.e. the Buckleys). Northern Ulster Scots can be as rigid on the Left as Southerners can be on the right. The current class-race struggle that is American national politics can also be seen as the Civil War redux, as key issues from that war have never been resolved for many Southerners.

It's the old State's Rights argument: the Federal government cannot tell my State, City, Town, or me what to do outside of paying taxes, and military service. It's a dangerously fractious, and out of step philosophy of government in an increasingly interconnected global economy.

Reagan's candidacy brought together a confluence of previously disconnected groups: Economic Conservatives, White Southerners, (post CRA converted Republicans), the Evangelicals (i.e. Robertson et al, moralists cum social engineers who perversely want to control you in your bedroom), Hawk Democrats (who broke with Carter after Iran), Iconoclastic Westerners (who never really trusted Washington), Unemployed (then in droves) Blue Collar Workers, and of course the Old Guard Rich who have always been Republican, and never forgave FDR (one of their own) for the New Deal. This coalition has largely remained intact till today.

The only reason Clinton won in '92 & '96, other than being probably the most brilliant, and intuitive politician I have ever seen, is that he is also a Southerner. Bush is a Southerner, or at least he learned to talk like a mendacious one. Gore, although Southern, weren't no bubba.

One thing that rarely gets mentioned is how radicalized the Right became after the '60's. The shock value of how disruptive the Left was to the Right cannot be understated. That is why the taunts of Obama's connections to William Ayers (Weather Underground radical) still has resonance within the Republicans. Many of the current Republican politico base (i.e Rove/Cheney/Wolfowitz, etc.) were "formed" during that period in response to the Left, esp. the student movements. In their own way, these Neocons have sought to overthrow government from within.

The other great coalescing force for the Republicans is a common enemy. The Russians provided the best enemy ever. A true threat under Stalin, the USSR was in decline militarily, and socially by the time Reagan came to power. The US was ahead of the USSR in every way militarily, especially nuclear arms with our MIRVed warheads. Reagan, and all the neocons, did not trust the godless atheism of Russia, hence the "evil Empire" speech. Reagan gets credit for "winning" the Cold War, but the truth is the collapse in the price of oil from $70 to $10 a barrel had more to do with bankrupting the Soviet economy than he did. Atheism is apparently more offensive to some on the Right than Socialism, since almost every Supply Sider (Repub) is a Keynesian (FDR's preferred and more 'socialist' economist) on the way down the economic slope, such as where we are now. Once the USSR fell, bin Laden perfectly filled the role of enemy of state, and rallied the fearful for Bush.

One could always understand the economic conservatives, it was simple: you can't spend what you don't have. What's so bizarre about this current Republican coalition is that they have outspent the purportedly "tax and spend" liberals by a country mile, doubling the national debt. They have replaced "tax and spend" with "tax cut and borrow," which is a truly reckless fiscal standard. It's very ironic that the previous strength of the conservative movement was it's willingness to sacrifice, to do without in order to save money, keep taxes low, and government smaller. Now, after 8 years of profligate spending, just as Bush did in Texas, the Right flounders when it comes to economics. There is no pork they do not eat, it's all kosher - Bridges to Nowhere, $100M in depreciation for NASCAR tracks tossed into the bailout package, the Graham-Leechy deregulation of banks, the list goes on and on. Deregulation is now synonymous with "No Adult Supervision." It sounded very much different in 1981 when Reagan promised to deregulate the airline industry.

Tripod, you really nailed some of the ugly racist aspects of the current Republicans. The ridicule heaped on Obama during the GOP Convention for being a "community organizer," was really code for black, urban, and poor. Unlike the white, suburban, old and well heeled GOP conventioneers. These "caging lists" are really heinous resurrections of Jim Crowe. This election cycle, the Repubs are already challenging many of the newly registered Democrats all across the country. The challenge to a voter can be based solely upon unsubstantiated claims, but in order to be cleared, the voter in question has to produce someone who can vouch for them in person.

It will be ironic if Obama, a black man of mixed heritage, can win the Presidency, and overturn many of these defunct suppositions and negative stereotypes we, as a Nation, continue to grapple with. It will be even more ironic if Obama can return the US to fiscal prudence, and claim, as a Democrat, the best central tenant of the Republican party for the last 50 years. If he can do this, and align our foreign policy with the beliefs and rights set forth in the Declaration of Independence, that would bring this country closer to the promise we have held not only to ourselves, but to all peoples.

Congrats if you made it through to this point!

Fucking FANTASTIC and should enlighten anyone who reads it, it is well written and reads quite fast for so much information!!! :biggrin1:

Interesting. Never thought of myself as an angry white person...

You just might not be one.

You are talking about neo-conservatives here, not conservatives.

Is there a difference anymore? Obama is a real conservative and McCain is a neo-con, if you are a real conservative, you will have no problem voting for Obama.

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

Is there a difference anymore? Obama is a real conservative and McCain is a neo-con, if you are a real conservative, you will have no problem voting for Obama.[/QUOTE]

I could not have hoped to say this any better!

 

[D_Chocho_Lippz]

Is there a difference anymore? Obama is a real conservative and McCain is a neo-con, if you are a real conservative, you will have no problem voting for Obama.

I could not have hoped to say this any better!

Whoa, Obama is a real conservative now? How? And when did this happen?

I don't see how Obama could be defined as either a neo-conservative or a paleo-conservative.

I am really interested to see how you all prove this.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

The taxes Obama proposes on incomes of over 250K will hit small businesses.

I can't fully agree with you.
My life partner and I own small businesses, live in New York (the most expensive city in the USA) and we both make considerably less than $250K. Many freelancers also make less than the magic number, but do make enough to survive from day to day. I agree that some small businesses may get hit, but the majority will not.

If you're making more than $250K/year, then you can live quite comfortably in the most expensive cities in America. That's $200,000 more than the average yearly salary of the American Family. So where is the real problem?

 

[Pirate Wench]

Did you know Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican ?
National Black Republican Association - DYK-Why MLK was a Republican

I'll bet there are a lot of things about each party mentioned in that article that do not fit the assumed tacky stereotypes about each party.



Related:
The difference between a Democracy and a Republic.

Bull! Not Bull - Favorite Videos: What is the Difference Between a Democracy and a Republic?

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Did you know Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican ?
National Black Republican Association - DYK-Why MLK was a Republican

I'll bet there are a lot of things about each party mentioned in that article that do not fit the assumed tacky stereotypes about each party.

Even if he was, the Republican of the past is certainly not the Republican of today.

 

[D_Chocho_Lippz]

Even if he was, the Republican of the past is certainly not the Republican of today.

I don't doubt this because the party today is all about maintaining power (keeping seats), not the issues. But guess what, the Democratic party is the same way!

MLK was an individualist. He believed each person should be judged on their own weight, not any superficial trait such as race, sex, or upbringing. He worked against discrimination, yes, but he worked for equality of all.

I know this is going to open a can of worms here, but I really don't care. It's not like I was ever in the political majority here on LPSG anyways. I personally think MLk would be disgusted at Obama. I think he would be sad to hear that Obama attended a church where they teach Black Liberation Theology, a place where black supremacy is taught. I think MLK would be disgusted at Michelle Obama and her "I've never been proud of America" (I know she says she meant "proud of politics"). MLK worked his whole life to make whites get along and treat colored people as equals. I think MLK would have been offended at her comment. A total smack in the face for all his efforts. I think MLK would be also disgusted at the African-American community and their desire to vote for Obama just because he is black (if they have other reasons, great, as I am just talking about the people who know nothing on issues, they just want a black man for President).

But as I said, I am just a privledged white boy who knows nothing of racial strife.

 

[mindseye]

I think MLK would be disgusted at Michelle Obama and her "I've never been proud of America" (I know she says she meant "proud of politics").

That's not what she said.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I don't doubt this because the party today is all about maintaining power (keeping seats), not the issues. But guess what, the Democratic party is the same way!

Republicans have had "the power" for many more years than the Democrats. The last time they could override a veto in Congress was almost 30 years ago. For me, watching which party gets more seats in congress isn't the issue. The issue is, who fills them? Even though I'm usually liberal, I'm not completely against any Republican getting a seat if they actually have views that align with mine on the issues. It's easy for most people to look at my rants and think I'm some blinded Democrat. That's because some of today's problems could have been fixed by congress, and until recently it's been mainly Republican. And with that, I mean today's interpretation of the Republican. Not many of them would even think on the same lines of MLK and Lincoln, but they LOVE to reference the fact that they were all on the same party.

MLK was an individualist. He believed each person should be judged on their own weight, not any superficial trait such as race, sex, or upbringing. He worked against discrimination, yes, but he worked for equality of all.

Nothing to disagree with here.

I know this is going to open a can of worms here, but I really don't care. It's not like I was ever in the political majority here on LPSG anyways. I personally think MLk would be disgusted at Obama.

You are opening a can of worms here. But go on, explain.

I think he would be sad to hear that Obama attended a church where they teach Black Liberation Theology, a place where black supremacy is taught. I think MLK would be disgusted at Michelle Obama and her "I've never been proud of America" (I know she says she meant "proud of politics").

That's really stretching it, dude.
I have to disagree with you on some of this. For starters, we're assuming that if MLK was still alive that he would have the same exact views on race in America after living through 4 extra decades of social and economic change. The same blatant discriminations that existed before the Equal Rights Movements do not exist. We as a nation have not been able to completely eliminate these prejudices, however, some have been really good at hiding & using them in more discreet fashions. One thing we DO know is that people who were old enough to know what was going on in the 60s all say that times are different and much better. It's not as if black people today are forced to sit on the back of the bus, or have their own bathrooms separated from whites. To assume that MLK would have seen the types of progress that have been made and remain unchanged in his views would be pretty ridiculous. After all, he's human. And any intellectual thinking human knows how to adapt to change and refocus his strategies even if they all aim for the same goal.

With that said, I don't think MLK would be upset if a church taught their followers to take pride in the fact that they're black. There are very few places in America where someone can be taught about their heritage, where their ancestors came from and those who were major contributors to this country and the world. Most schools, even in the inner cities, do not teach much about Black History as a whole. For most, people are only taught that there's the Motherland (Africa), and then there's slavery. In the case of Obama's church, I'm pretty sure that the reverend was not telling people to look down or oppress others if they don't share their same skin color. For if he was, he wouldn't be a reverend for long.

As for Michelle Obama? Everyone knows, including yourself to some degree, that her statements were being distorted. You even referenced her comment about "not being proud of America" as something related to politics. I think everyone in the United States comes to grips that there are things that go on here that we're not too proud of. You think these thoughts never passed through MLK's mind when he was being harassed, arrested and assaulted by people in the 60s? Again, being the intellectual that MLK was, he wouldn't have gaffed just at the mere statement. He would have looked for what she truly meant. At the very worse, maybe Michelle should have worded it better to begin with? That fine. Nobody would disagree with that.

I think MLK would be also disgusted at the African-American community and their desire to vote for Obama just because he is black (if they have other reasons, great, as I am just talking about the people who know nothing on issues, they just want a black man for President).

Honestly, I don't think that any black person would have thought they would initially see someone of their own kind be these close to the presidency. And yes, some black people are going to vote for Obama just because of his color, the same way some white people are going to vote against him because of it. Why obsess over this small majority of people who are going to vote strictly on race? We can't let the actions of some define an entire group of people. I'm a black man, and I initially picked Hillary during the Primary. And I'm not alone; many people that I know wished Hillary was on this ticket somehow with Obama as the VP. But it is what it is, and Obama is now the nominee. And the main reason why I'm supporting him is because his views on issues are more aligned with my first choice than McCain's. It has nothing to do with any of the other political garbage that is being thrown by either side.

With every passing generation, the issue of race becomes less of an issue. I honestly don't think the majority of people are voting based on their race. However, if we go by what's on TV they'll definitely paint a picture of that very thing.

But as I said, I am just a privledged white boy who knows nothing of racial strife.

And I'll be knocking at your door to get my 40 acres and a mule later today. :wink: :biggrin1:

 

[D_Chocho_Lippz]

Republicans have had "the power" for many more years than the Democrats. The last time they could override a veto in Congress was almost 30 years ago. For me, watching which party gets more seats in congress isn't the issue. The issue is, who fills them? Even though I'm usually liberal, I'm not completely against any Republican getting a seat if they actually have views that align with mine on the issues. It's easy for most people to look at my rants and think I'm some blinded Democrat. That's because some of today's problems could have been fixed by congress, and until recently it's been mainly Republican. And with that, I mean today's interpretation of the Republican. Not many of them would even think on the same lines of MLK and Lincoln, but they LOVE to reference the fact that they were all on the same party.

Well that is my point. Like I said, I am an individualist and do not vote among party lines.

With that said, I don't think MLK would be upset if a church taught their followers to take pride in the fact that they're black. There are very few places in America where someone can be taught about their heritage, where their ancestors came from and those who were major contributors to this country and the world. Most schools, even in the inner cities, do not teach much about Black History as a whole. For most, people are only taught that there's the Motherland (Africa), and then there's slavery. In the case of Obama's church, I'm pretty sure that the reverend was not telling people to look down or oppress others if they don't share their same skin color. For if he was, he wouldn't be a reverend for long.

BLT is not all about teaching blacks to take pride in their history. It does have a negative undertone, IMHO. I gather my beliefs from the BLT pioneer, Crone.

"If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill gods who do not belong to the black community."
​

Interesting. And...

"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill gods who do not belong to the black community... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love."​

Maybe I am completely mixed up, but this sounds like it is racist towards white people. Again, not that BLT is all bad, I just believe that it has undertones that MLK, as an individualist, would have not agreed with.

As for Michelle Obama? Everyone knows, including yourself to some degree, that her statements were being distorted. You even referenced her comment about "not being proud of America" as something related to politics. I think everyone in the United States comes to grips that there are things that go on here that we're not too proud of. You think these thoughts never passed through MLK's mind when he was being harassed, arrested and assaulted by people in the 60s? Again, being the intellectual that MLK was, he wouldn't have gaffed just at the mere statement. He would have looked for what she truly meant. At the very worse, maybe Michelle should have worded it better to begin with? That fine. Nobody would disagree with that.

To some degree? I did acknowledge it. My point was that you do not stand up in the spotlight and make broad statements like that. You do not say "For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country, because it feels like hope is making a comeback." (Thanks mindseye, what would I do without your various contributions to all my posts here lately?) That is a very broad and general statement to make and, honestly, I think she meant it, at least partially, to mean that she generally is dissatisfied. Even if she wasn't proud of her country until her husband got the nod, I still think it is very distasteful. Wasn't it politics (even through all its corruption) that eventually shot down the Jiw Crowe laws and made EEO, etc? But she's not proud of those politics?

Honestly, I don't think that any black person would have thought they would initially see someone of their own kind be these close to the presidency. And yes, some black people are going to vote for Obama just because of his color, the same way some white people are going to vote against him because of it.

Just because I did not mention that there are people voting against Obama because he is black means my whole point is lost? Yes, there are people who are voting for McCain because he was a vet. There are people voting for Palin because she is a woman. Yes, there are people voting against Obama because he "might be a Muslim." So yes, people are voting for (and against) people for all sorts of stupid reasons. Thank you for rounding my thoughts out. Now, back to what I was trying to say...

Why obsess over this small majority of people who are going to vote strictly on race? We can't let the actions of some define an entire group of people. I'm a black man, and I initially picked Hillary during the Primary. And I'm not alone; many people that I know wished Hillary was on this ticket somehow with Obama as the VP. But it is what it is, and Obama is now the nominee. And the main reason why I'm supporting him is because his views on issues are more aligned with my first choice than McCain's. It has nothing to do with any of the other political garbage that is being thrown by either side.

My whole point is that MLK always judged his fellow Americans (people) by their character, morals, and actions... not by their color. Like I said in my post above, MLK was a man for equality of everyone. Everyone is an equal.

 

[transformer_99]

Every super hero needs a villain, a nemesis and arch rival. For there to be good, there must be evil. And this is why the Republican party exists ?