My how things have changed.

Fascinating. One wonders how many other Presidents - especially those with Southern ancestry - had African blood a-coursing ever so surreptitiously through their veins.

Since when is it determined that someone is "black" with 1/2 or 1/4 of their lineage of african ancestry?

If Barrack claims as he does, that he is black, and is widely accepted as black because of his proclamation (unless there are racists about), then if Harding called himself white or caucasian as he obviously did, then he was a white dude. Don't ya think Davey boy?

Your argument holds no water.

As far as I'm concerned they can both call themselves whatever they want. However, the fact remains that in 1920 if it had been known that Harding was 1/8 black it would have doomed him as any kind of national political figure. That's not 'my argument', Pablo, that's just a fact. You're trying to apply a very liberal, contemporary view of race to a very different situation 80 years ago and that doesn't make any sense.

Dave

"..which had been reversed by racist Democrats"

Got names? Or do we accept your statement based on a track record of honesty and integrity?

Since when is it determined that someone is "black" with 1/2 or 1/4 of their lineage of african ancestry?

Obviously the wannabe chavo didn't read the link...

Bennett, read the first link in the article, good lord. I don't make this stuff up. The reversal of Republican reforms under every Democrat administration from Cleveland to Truman is a matter of historical record.'

My track record for presenting accurate facts is pretty well established, even if you don't like the conclusions drawn from those facts.

I suggest that you read Prof. Eric Foner's short history of race relations in the US and pay particular attention to the section on Woodrow Wilson. And if it makes you more confident, Foner is perhaps best known for his repeated attacks on George W. Bush in the media.

Dave

That explains the middle initial "G."

Oh, I don't doubt that it happened, Dave. Chancellor was a Democrat and a racist, a quality he shared with many a Republican of the day. It just goes to show that in eighty years some things change beyond recognition.

Do you make stuff up? Well, we know the answer to that, so it's a legitimate hobby to bust your ass now and again.

This statement for instance:

"If Obama does win the race, let's not forget that his success was largely built on the work of generations of Republicans..."

It's quite a reach to claim Senator Obama's success can be directly traced to reforms made long before the civil rights movement. Let alone that his success is "largely built" on the bravery and conscience of men who, were they alive today, would just as likely be Democrats or Independents.

No one political party holds a lock on bravery and conscience.

This is just too funny!

First McCain and "Bomb, Bomb Iran", then Hillary under imaginary sniper fire, and drinking like a sailor for the evening news, and now Harding as the inspiring bi-racial Godfather of Louis Armstrong, Jackie Robinson, Marian Anderson, MLK, Jr., and Barack Obama.

Please let it stop--my sides ache!

There's only one sentence in this article I have a problem with in this article and it's really only a question of wording which if Dave will rescind and clarify, I will have no problem with the article.

The key passage is this:

If Obama does win the race, let's not forget that his success was largely built on the work of generations of Republicans like Harding who took up the cause of Black Americans when it was controversial and no one else would stand up for them.

The key phrase is "largely built on the work of generations of Republicans like Harding."

I would have chosen the words "facilitated by" and drop the word "largely." The work of "Republicans like Harding" is only one of the many pieces which made Obama's success possible. Lets not forget the work of Black Americans themselves instead of focusing on the "Republicans like Harding" who granted the freedom. Far more important is the work of black and white activists like MLK and hundreds of others which history has neglected. The work of "Republicans like Harding" is really only a political response to changing social realities. A social reality which was changed by men and women, black and white, who suffered to change this nation and who may have been Republican, Democrat, or in all likelihood just not given a damn about political parties or politicians.

Not only does the sentence neglect the work of others besides "Republicans like Harding" it is phrased in such a way that Obama's personal success is attributable to others. The phrase "Obama's success was largely built on the hard work of Republicans like Harding" suggests that they provided for his success. However, it fails to distinguish between providing for his success and providing for the opportunity for his success.

Of course, these two points probably go against Dave's intended meaning and if so, I'm sure he would be willing to clarify.

I think I'm entitled to get in a little dig at the racial exploiters of the Democratic party along the way, PETI.

I agree that African Americans have done a lot for themselves and that some few Democrats have helped them relatively altruistically, but that's all far less interesting than the info about Harding.

Dave

I think I'm entitled to get in a little dig at the racial exploiters of the Democratic party along the way, PETI.

I agree that African Americans have done a lot for themselves and that some few Democrats have helped them relatively altruistically, but that's all far less interesting than the info about Harding.

Dave

Well absolutely you can take a few digs. And of course lets not forget that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. Or that if we dig deep enough or far enough back both parties have roots in racism (Douglass was a Republican too and even Lincoln's or Harding's purity of conscience on the matter is questionable).

And it is a fascinating history of Harding. But let's not forget that a few old white men probably did not change the social history of America alone or that Obama's success has been entirely personal although many others have provided the opportunity.

And if this is a contest of which party is more racist, which I don't think is what you meant, the nativist/racist sentiment in America now resides in the Republican Party.

I'd say the nativist/racists have invaded the Republican Party. I don't think they belong there.

There's a whole political philosophy which I think is incompatible with either the Dems or the Republicans which is coherent enough to merit its own party, and I think they should go off and start one.

BTW, I have no reason to believe Douglass was a racist. He may have opposed Lincoln and tried to make Lincoln out to be a radical abolitionist, but Douglass clearly personally believed in the eventual elmination of slavery. Remember, the reason he ended up losing the debates to Lincoln is that Lincoln forced him to admit that slavery was essentially a dead issue.

Dave

I'd say the nativist/racists have invaded the Republican Party. I don't think they belong there.

That's true, but the GOP certainly has done nothing to expel them either. Remember this was the brilliant intentional strategy of Karl Rove to begin with. How do you win both the Hispanic vote and the nativist vote in the same election?

I'd say nativists shouldn't belong anywhere, definitely agree with you there. They should go off and form some 3rd party so the two center parties can mock them instead of having to pander for their votes.

And Douglass may have not been a racist for his time, but by today's standards he would be. I don't think arguing that constitutionally territories should decide whether or not to have slavery would pass today's moral standards. It's a rather academic approach to human suffering. Perhaps its unfair to judge him by today's standards.

Nice piece Dave, nicely written and interesting to boot to this keen America-watcher.

dave, that was just an unsubtle dig at the dem's past, which is not the dem's present. it also makes civil rights out to be white man's achievement. ha! and, as you say, had republicans known harding was even a bit black, they would've laughed him out of washington.

republicans largely passed the civil rights act because it was politically advisable. and the southern dems were racist because they were southern, not dems. did the southern republicans vote in favor of civil rights?

and let's not forget that it's the dems who may nominate a black candidate for president, not the republicans. as usual, they run an old, white man. you know why? because it's politically advisable for them to do so. because republicans will never knowingly elect anything but.

Dave,

If only the people you define as "true Republicans" remained in the party, it would be a rather small minority.

It is simply that the Republican party actively lured social conservatives, neo-cons, racists, etc. to get GW in the White House.

The Dems have long been essentially a coalition of a broad spectrum of people having far different agendas, but who were willing to stand as one under the Democrat's banner. Strength in numbers, and all that. Having observed that, Republican high mucky-mucks read the handwriting on the wall and opened the doors wide - "Come one, come all." Now that effort has run its course, and you find that you don't care to share the same pew with the likes of christian fundamentalists and racists. Well, you got em, and you're welcome to them.

Of course you are right about what would have happened to Harding or anyone else in public life pretty much anytime prior to the late 1950s had their racial "impurity" been made known. But I truly doubt that Obama will be making speeches about the great service Harding provided for him and his race.

B-tone

Zing, I stayed away from the racial history of the current democratic party because it is in many ways worse than it was back during the days when the party was dominated by the south. At least back then they were honest about having no interestin in civil rights. Today the party just lies and panders to minorities, while pursuing policies which keep them dependent clients of the party/state. Exploiting race is a lot worse than just being racist. The partty is trying to turn the clock back to the days of slavery in all but law.

As for the Republicans nominating an old white guy, the only old black guy we keep getting as a candidate is a certifiable nut, so what do you expect. I'm sure that as a democrat you'd like us to run Alan Keyes, but I prefer to have at least some chance of winning. Thankfully the GOP has a lot of younger black leaders on the way up, so prospects will be better in a few years.

Dave

Alan Keyes? Oh, sorry, I thought you were talking about J.C. Watts.

Dave
Dave

You and others repeatedly make your specious accusations against the Dems in your vain effort to turn the tables and excuse the deeply entrenched racial hatred abundant in the Republican party. Such charges are the "say what?" kind of random blanket accusations having no basis whatsoever, but have the effect of making people wonder, "Hey, did I miss something?"

Many of the Rep racists are likely former Dems who came to realize that the Dems no longer supported their views nor spoke their language. Instead, they found new, comfy digs in the GOP.

B-tone

B-tone:

The fact remains that the GOP has never supported, endorsed or condoned racism in any form. It never supported segregation, Jim Crow laws, affirmative action or any other form of policy based on race. The Democratic party has supported all of those and STILL actively promotes policies based on race.

Yes, the GOP has acquired some questionable sorts with the 'big tent' policy - including a lot of ex-democrats like the Neocons. Yet none of them have tried to enshrine racism in any form in the party platform or policies. Affirmative action is enshrined in their platform, so they are still basing policy on race. They also want to give other groups priveleged status, including women and gays, both of which are promised benefits solely because of gender or sexual preference in the Dem platform. Discrimination is the heart of democratic politics today as always.

Dave

Baritone,

Could you perhaps make an even larger and more inaccurate generalization of approximately 50% of this country?

I'm not saying that old Reps like Strom were friendly to African Americans, because they weren't. It's a real shame because when you look at the underlying principles of the GOP, self sufficiency, less government in our lives, strong national defense, it's much more in line with the current African American culture. Before you laugh, ask yourself how many black people have faith in "the man." How many do you think would retreat from a fight? How many favor a socialist versus capitalistic approach. How many favor gay rights? How many are as religious or even more religious than those in the bible belt?

Sure, African Americans cling to some of the democratic ideals, but only because in the past it was harder for them to be part of the free, capitalist based America. And this is the real shame of slavery and segregation. Had they been given the same opportunities as whites in years past, they would fall into the same voting blocks as any other group of Americans.

I'd say Strom was MORE than friendly with African Americans.

Dave

dave: "The partty is trying to turn the clock back to the days of slavery in all but law."

ok. even you have to admit that's a bit of an overstatement at least. but really, it's just you yammering out of your ass. come on, dave.

"Affirmative action is enshrined in their platform, so they are still basing policy on race."

affirmative action has its problems. probably too many to let it continue in its current fashion. but it certainly in no way enslaves black people.

"They also want to give other groups priveleged status, including women and gays, both of which are promised benefits solely because of gender or sexual preference in the Dem platform."

equality is all i want. but if they are offering women and homosexuals privileged status, i guess they are offering such things privately (in which case how did you hear about it?), as i've heard nothing of the sort. i do know that republicans want to deny equal rights to homosexuals...

let's look at a little history while we're at it... why did strom thurmond switch parties? and why did republican senate majority leader trent lott say he regrets that thurmond didn't win the 1948 election, in which he ran as a third party candidate on a racist platform? the hell is up with that?

and, wow! let's look at this:

Vote totals (Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Totals are in "Yes-No" format:
By party and region

The original House version:
* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)

* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

The Senate version:
* Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%)

* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)

looks to me like a north/south divide, rather than a dem/republican thing. although, it ALSO looks like a greater percentage of republicans voted against it, especially the southern ones, who voted 100% against civil rights. even some of the northern ones, a good 15% of them, voted against it. unless i'm reading the numbers wrong.

how you gonna twist that?

nice editor. such service!

Glad to be of service, effendi.

"affirmative action has its problems. probably too many to let it continue in its current fashion. but it certainly in no way enslaves black people."

It continues an unequal playing ground. It continues a culture of disdain for blacks. Regardless of the well meaning intentions, it creates a situation where the benevolent white man has to help out the poor black man. If he were equal certainly he wouldn't need the help, right?

Think about just how many white Americans question how Obama, from south side of chicago, got into Harvard. You and I may not, but trust me, plenty do.

Affirmative action may have made sense when people were coming cold turkey off of segregation, but in this day and age, it has absolutely no place.

Was someone effended?


sorry!

Dave & Ob,

Your entire assertion is bullpucky. It's just as I stated above. You turn the tables and magically - voila! Affirmative Action is anti-black - because you say so. That's crap. Affirmative Action came to be out of necessity. As long as the likes of conservative Republicans and old line southern Dems who conspired - yes, there's that word - conspired to keep blacks and other minorities "in their place." Some of the particulars of Affirmative Action have run their respective courses, others have been mis-directed. But there are still places where de facto racism and segregation still hold sway. The need remains.

Women and gays are NOT seeking special privileges. They are seeking equality, a level playing field, which is still denied them. Women seek, among other things, equal pay for equal work. They ask for protection from neanderthalic assholes from slipping hands between their legs, smirking with impunity. Gays ask for legal protections because people single them out for persecution. They ask for the same right to a legally recognized union with the same privileges and responsibilities as heterosexual unions.

Your efforts to turn that around to fit your version of things and to demonize Democratic efforts to better provide that equality and that level playing field, are disingenuine and self serving at best.

Dave, it sounds like typical right wing stump speech doo doo.

B-tone

B-Tone, I didn't say AA was anti-black. I said it was racist. I'm not sure yet whether it's really bad for the recipients, though the arguments seem pretty strong. What can't be denied is that it is a system which is racially preferential and inherently unfair. The courts have ruled that way and the SC has confirmed it.

Dave

I guess this book might be interesting, but I'll be REALLY impressed if someone comes out with a book illustrating how we have also previously unknowingly elected a woman as President. Or a 1/4 woman or 1/8 woman or whatever. Imagine how that would make people feel.

Dave,

Anti-black - racist. Splitting hairs. SC -? Earlier courts upheld AA. Which decisions are correct? Any of them? Unfair to whom? Shit happens. Life is rarely fair. Minorities have long been shat upon. With AA some of the tables have been turned. Is it fair? Probably not, but it depends on whether you are the shitter or the shitee. Call it karma. Call it getting even. Call it providing opportunity where before there was none.

All the above still does not address considerations of gay and/or women's rights.

I don't mean to knit-pick, but the color of skin between white and black principly is the defining factor between the races, when looking from a good distance. In a closer comparison of the human races, the whites of the eyes and of the teeth are the only uniformly consistent traits. By the way, as long as outrageous news is ok, how about broadcasting that Condoleeza Rice is Chinese?

dave--you gonna respond to those voting numbers i posted (which suggest that the civil rights act was passed not by republicans, but by northerners)?

or are you going to conveniently ignore numbers that prove you wrong/.

Dave says, "The fact remains that the GOP has never supported, endorsed or condoned racism in any form."

Fact: Southern Democrats had a long and sorry history in the 20th century of disenfranchising and segregating black people, and ignoring(or, in some cases, supporting) violence against them. Southern Republicans weren't a bit better; there just weren't nearly as many of them. We can't hide nor deny the racism that the history of our nation records.

Another political fact: Many of those former "Dixiecrats" went over to the GOP in the 1960s, were welcomed then, and the GOP needs them now to be competitve in national elections. Do they put it in the platform? Of course not, but they are listened too, have leadership roles, campaign, raise money, and influence candidates and policies of the Republican party.

Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips said in 1970:
"The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are."

Republicans have many times used words as code to southern whites: "states' rights", "law & order", "forced busing", etc. More subtle than epithets, but very effective as a race card.

Rove used tactics with racial intent on Bush's behalf in the South Carolina primary in 2000. The GOP targeted African-American Democrat Harold Ford in Tennessee with ads suggesting he was a threat to white women.

George Allen let his Macaca word slip out in the Virginia senatorial race(directed at a dark-skinned American citizen in the crowd.) Bush, Sr. called Mexicans "little brown ones." I can't say these are remarks with any racist intent (although I believe Allen's was a "code" to his white audience)but they do show insensitivity to a sensitive issue, and at least a little condoning of stereotypes.

Bush's immigration reforms were opposed by many Republicans in Congress, and talk radio on the right. It was suggested by O'Reilly, I believe, that such reforms would "change the complexion of America". I get the message.

Ballot box spoilage--votes not counted--is not monopolized by big-city Democratic machines. In Jeb Bush's state of Florida the U.S. Civil Rights Commission found that in 2000 a black voter's ballot was 10 times more likely to be spoiled than a white voters( and that Jeb Bush knew about some potential problems in advance of the election.)

To suggest that the GOP has no selfish agenda where race is concerned, would never use it in a negative way, and that the party is in principle and in fact colorblind ignores the facts and draws unsubstantiated--not to say fantastic--conclusions.

dave--you gonna respond to those voting numbers i posted (which suggest that the civil rights act was passed not by republicans, but by northerners)?

At the time of that particular act most Republicans WERE northerners, Zing. If you look at your numbers you'll notice that southern Republicans aren't represented at all because they mostly didn't exist.

If you take the numbers by party the GOP passed that and every previous civil rights act with a significantly larger percentage than the democrats and if you keep going back in less than a decade you get a majority of democrats voting against the acts and only Republicans passing them.

Baritone says:

Anti-black - racist.

True, but it is not the ONLY form of racism. I consider any preferential treatment based on race to be inherently racist regardless of the justifications for it.

As to Lee Richard's points about Dixiecrats becoming Republicans - sure, that happened. An awful lot of Republicans also moved into the south as the economies in the sun belt began to grow while the economies of northern states declined. Northern Republicans came south to run those businesses in pretty significant numbers.

I've read every Republican platform since 1854. In none of them has any form of racially prejudicial policy been endorsed, before or after southern democrats began to change parties and anecdotal comments from Nixon stooges aside.

Dave

"At the time of that particular act most Republicans WERE northerners, Zing. If you look at your numbers you'll notice that southern Republicans aren't represented at all because they mostly didn't exist."

um, but they are represented, and they did exist, and they voted 100% against the act. what are you trying to say?

a majority of dems were northern as well, and they (northern dems) voted in higher percentages than republicans did in favor of the civil rights act of 1964.

admit it, dave. passing the civil rights act destroyed the dems in the south, and it helped out the republicans. but the clear voting lines are drawn on a n/s divide, not by party. and if they were drawn by party, i think you'd notice that the republicans are just as bad or worse than the dems.

funny how once the act was passed, more southern representatives became republicans (and funny how the racist dems became republicans) and they used racial politics to gain votes, i.e.--the southern strategy.

Zing. Look at your own numbers, not the percentages, the numbers. 11 Southern Republican Representatives and a big 1 Northern Republican Senator. That's virtually no Southern Republicans at all.

And yes, when southern democrats became alienated from a democratic party which had become increasingly socialist and anti-business they moved to the Republican party. They clearly didn't come tot he GOP for the racism, because the GOP was notable primarily for its lack of racism prior to their arrival.

Dave

no, dave, look at the percentages. 100%. what does that say to you? the fact remains that there WERE southern republicans at the time, and they voted in line with the rest of the southern representatives. southerners were racist, or at least represented racist interests. northern dems were even more anti-racist than the northern republicans, 1 in 6 of which voted against civil rights.

what is it about this you aren't getting? yes, there were fewer southern republicans in 1964. it's true. but those that were there were racist. you can't deny it. just because there are fewer of them doesn't make those that were there any less racist. southern dems were racist too. because they were southern.

and funny how it was the racist element of the democratic party that moved over and became republicans, and then used the "southern strategy" to gain power in the south. that's racist politics if there ever was racist politics. and those southern dems that did move over did so, at least in part, because their ideas on race were more accepted and useful within the republican party.

Zing, you do understand that this 1964 act was a relatively late entry in a series of civil rights acts and it was the first in which a majority of democrats voted for civil rights.

And I can argue that those who voted against the act may not have been racist. The 1964 act was largely redundant and some did expressly vote against it because they felt that the issues had already been addressed.

As for your argument that the racist dems moved to the GOP I'd say it's entirely speculative. Clearly based on current policies in the Democratic party racism certainly didn't leave the party when a few southerners did. The fact that northern racist dems decided to exploit blacks instead of exclude them doesn't exactly signal an improvement in race relations.

Dave