� Shutout | Main | Danny Bakewell �

August 05, 2005

The Checkered Past

Beginning today, I don't want to hear another word about the 'checkered past' of the Republican Party. I'm so sick to death of the excuse-making and whinging and fear and distrust. I'm fed up with the conspiracy theories and demonization. I've had it up to here with the empty threats and loudmouth posturing.

Any African American who lives in fear of the Republican Party needs to seriously check themselves and determine if they are living under the proper rule of law, because the door of exodus is open. Put Marley on the box and roll to Expedia.com. See, now I'm breathing quickly. I'm not trying to stifle debate or expression, I've just run out of patience with the defensiveness and the excruciating lengths to which people will go to 'prove' that Republican interests are inimical to black progress.

The Republican Party's checkered past is *spit* compared to the checkered past of Mississippi and Alabama. I don't want to hear another word about the Republican's chekered past until you can convince every black person in Mississippi and Alabama to leave. Republicans aren't the problem. The problem is Alabama.

Am I picking on Alabama? No because I think that folks in Alabama are quite happy to be in Alabama, and those that aren't hop on the bus and leave. As of the 2000 Census there were still 1,158,925 souls of African American (self-reported) decent there. It seems to me that should be an adequate number of people to save from the soul-crushing racial hostility of Alabama. Please direct further insults to the GOP to those remaining in Alabaman captivity. By any objective measure, they need your help more than the rest of us.

But then, that would be reality-based action wouldn't it?

Posted by mbowen at August 5, 2005 11:18 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Isn’t it just a question of focus? Economics-wise, Repubs are (stereotypically) about laissez faire capitalism. Exploitation, though it may be bad for business in the long run, is not inherently a dirty word. Or so goes the meme. Socially, the mainstream Republican is about protecting (White?) social traditions. The wingnut end of the Republican spectrum would have no real issue with passing legislation that increases advantages to the Haves and stymies the Have-Nots. They’re not much interested in repairing a social or economic divide.

On the other side, you have Liberals whose extremes are Communism and over-coddling of the downtrodden. It’s not too hard to find faults and quibbles with both sides. There are things a moderate of any colour might want to change. But I really don’t see why it’s so hard to understand that, instinctively, it’s “smarter” for a Black person (still, to this day, the avatar for the Have-Not camp) to try and work with the obviously less threatening side. There are aspects one can admire about either party, I suppose. But I’ll never understand a NEED for a Black person – at this stage of American social evolution anyway -- to trust the bulk of the Republican base.

Posted by: memer [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 5, 2005 01:48 PM

Part of my issue is to breakout the ambiguity about black political interests. I am saying that there are some explicitly useful legacies from the Black Consciousness and Black Nationalist movements that are well-integratable within the broad actions of the Republican Party. And I am also saying that the left wing of the Democratic Party, that which claims the soul of African America, is antithetical to the best of Old School.

We're certainly off ro a bad start with Ward Connorly, but I wonder if - rhetorically at least- in order to distance ourselves from the lefties, black republicans have to entirely disclaim 'civil rights'.

I am explicitly Civil Libertarian, and I share very little if any of the repressive moralistic agenda of social conservatives. How plainly can I put it? Civil libertarians are pro-civil rights, but the 'Civil Rights Establishment' have reverse-engineered a revisionist history of the Republican agenda that doesn't square the the reality of Dirksen or Democrat racism. Based on this narrow and false interpretation, they forswear the future of the GOP and they get away with it.

At the very least, people need to try to reconcile what actually goes on at Party functions vs their interpretation of their neighbors untuousness or bigotry. The Republicans don't go door to door telling people to beat down the Negro. That's a bottoms-up sentiment.

Posted by: Cobb [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 5, 2005 02:15 PM

I've said it before, I'll say it again.

I only bring up Republican past when Republicans, especially Black Republicans, label non-Republican Blacks as stupid for not voting Republican.

I ain't afraid of Republicans. But I'm not going to let Republicans get away with white washing stuff when I don't allow Democrats to get away with white washing stuff.

Posted by: DarkStar [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 5, 2005 02:29 PM

Well, ok, sure, there’s prolly a good deal of finagling with the “absolute truth” re the Republican agenda(s), when whispered over Liberal backyard fences. Prolly. Though I’ll wager not much more’n the twisted memes wot get served at Republican cookouts. But anyway, that (the finagling) in and of itself isn’t enough to throw away that instinct born in the (Black) collective unconscious that screams the warning: Give (modern-day) Republicans wide berth. I mean, is your heebie-jeebie detector broken, Cobb?

I got into this subject pretty early on when I started blogging and Ambra and some other folks tried to splain it to me simple-like, but I still don’t get it: Why (oh, WHY) is it better for a Black person to be a Lefty-leanin Conservative than a Righty-leanin Liberal?

Posted by: Anonymous at August 5, 2005 02:39 PM

I believe, perhaps naively, that a black bipartisan agenda is more realistic than a lumpen proletariat one. Wouldn't it be funny if the 25% black Republicans garner more power in a Repubplican majority Congress than 75% black Democrats?

Posted by: Cobb [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 5, 2005 04:41 PM

It wouldn't surprise me if it happened. After all, if it's Republican controlled, Republicans would make sure the Democrats fell on their face.

And let's be real, the Black Democrats have close to 0 power. They have enough to get some pork, but that's required to be supported of most congressmen, so that's no big deal.

Posted by: DarkStar [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 5, 2005 07:47 PM

0 power? I think Black Democrats are in the negative power now. And just getting some pork is useless these days. Ahh to heck with black politics in the big political game. Let's just start a mafia and just play "buy a politician".

Posted by: T-Steel at August 5, 2005 08:01 PM

The elephant in the room is that there are white racists and they do prefer one political party over the other.

Maybe white racists are wrong. Maybe the republican party is just as anti-racist as the democratic party.

But maybe white racists are right. Maybe the republican is party more hostile to the interests of Black people than the democratic party.

Forget history. The people who post on alt.flame.niggers vote. And they vote Republican. And in between nigger jokes, they denigrate Kerry and laud Bush. Today.

And the small minority of Black people who vote with them may be the ones who are wrong about the republican party.

Posted by: ParkerStevens [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 11, 2005 09:14 PM

Parker, these were the first issues I addressed. See The Worst Case Republican Scenario.

Posted by: Cobb [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 11, 2005 11:15 PM

The link doesn't address the point I was making.

The white racists who vote republican aren't doing it out of habit. They are doing it because they believe the republican party is the most hostile party to Black interests.

You must say the white racists are wrong, or else black people have a very valid reason to try as hard as they can to ensure the republican party has as little power as possible. There may not be much approx. 10% of the population can do, but what little we can do should be aimed at keeping the most hostile party to us out of power.

But maybe the white racists are right.

Anyway, to talk about the checkered past of the Republicans is to make an allusion to the hostility that most white racists and most black people believe the republican party has towards black interests.

But the checkered past is only one indication, and not even the strongest one.

To argue that black people should vote republican is to argue that the republican party is not more hostile to black interests than the democratic party - which is to argue that the white racists are mistaken and should be supporting democrats equally.

That's a hard argument to make. Being sick and tired about hearing about the checkered history of the republican party is not helping you make the argument you have to make.

Posted by: ParkerStevens [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 12, 2005 01:48 AM

Well, the interests of blackfolks aren't monolithic, except perhaps when it comes to racism. But the fact of the matter is that the extent to which either party enables racism pales in comparison to the other things they do. It is clear to me that for a goodly percent of African Americans, especially those in the middle and upper middle class, the Republican party is more aligned with their interests.

I'll expand on this later.

Posted by: Cobb [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 12, 2005 05:49 AM