Red:
I don't know that I'd call it hypocritical, but "inaccurate" is what I'd call it. One can easily show that the KKK and it's members' values were what were considered "conservative values" from the day the Klan was created right up to today. To say they were and remain the values of a given party is simply not so. The sociopolitical stance of the two major parties has shifted and with that shift, racists' party affiliation has shifted.
Oh, so if we put the actual people aside and what parties they were in and ignore which parties policies were targeted to keeping blacks segregated and impoverished for generations and instead use this nifty neato-keeno 2 dimensional horsehit political spectrum to illustrate everything, then we can see, if we squint our eyes really tight and lean way to the left that, yes, the Republicans are now the party of the KKK.....roflmao what a bunch of ignorant ass propaganda.
My God, you have no shame 320, none whatso ever.
The KKK was DEMOCRAT!
Own it, the historical record doesnt change, bubba.
"The Trees":
The rebuttals I've presented highlight the distinction between the following --
-- and call observers to refrain from (1) oversimplifying the matter and/or (2) exaggerating the matter.
- creating a thing vs. enabling a thing's development,
- encouraging a thing's creation/development vs. acquiescing to a thing's existence/development
As goes the discussion at hand, there are several "things" in play:
Looking back at how and over what point I involved myself in this thread (post #100), you'll note that I focused on one assertion the OP provides as a premise for the remainder of the post. That assertion is that "the Democrat party invented ... the Klan." That assertion is false. The Democratic Party, quite simply, did not invent the Klan. The content found at the first link I included in post #100 makes that clear.
- the KKK organization itself,
- the attitudes the KKK's members espoused,
- the activities in which the KKK's members engaged, and
- the party to which the KKK's members belong(ed).
Now you can accuse me of presenting a revisionist version of history as goes the one point I made; indeed you have done exactly that in this thread. Be that as it may, your accusation holds no water because you have yet to provide any evidence that the Democratic Party of the 1860s invented/created the KKK. You have not because none exists that it did and there is solid evidence that a band of Tennessee college students did create the KKK.
We can play philosophical games with which fallacy or blend thereof be the one(s) in play, but doing so is of little value because no matter which one it is, the undeniable fact is that the Party was not the creator of the KKK. That makes the argument invalid, regardless of the applicable fallacy(s), because it rests on a factually false premise.
"The Forest":
As for the big picture, the OP relies on a "guilt by association" line of ad hominem argumentation. Though often ad hominem lines of argument are fallacious, that one is not insofar as one is describing the Democrats and the Democratic Party extant in the days of Justice Black and Presidents Wilson, Harding and McKinley. That the OP's position is illustrative of one of the exceptions to the "guilt by association" fallacy is why I did not take exception with it.
The problem with the rest of the OP is that it attempts to equate the Democratic Party of Black, Wilson, et al with 2016's Democratic Party. Well, that too I've shown to be a factually inaccurate representation of 2016's Democratic Party. That was the point of the second link in post #100.
I have not denied that the pre-1990s Democratic Party was the party of racists and bigots. Why haven't I? Because the "Dixiecrats" didn't make a singular mass migration to the GOP immediately upon the ratification of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965. When did Southern Democrats flock to the GOP? Mostly during the Reagan and Goldwater years. That's something of an oversimplification, but if one is to hone in on key single moments in time, they are the most significant ones in modern times.
- Construction of the Racist Republican
- Half a century ago, though he was not a racist, Barry Goldwater’s “Southern strategy” certainly contributed to the rift that still exists between the GOP and black voters because it aligned his campaign with segregationists. Even after the South’s racial attitudes were more comfortably integrated with the rest of the United States, sincere clashes in ideologies—and some inept positioning on the part of Ronald Reagan—did not heal that rift.
- Harkening back to the ideological foundations of Barry Goldwater, which promoted federalism, and expressing the belief that the country’s culture on race had changed since 1964, Reagan pushed to lessen the federal government’s role in all American life including aspects concerned with civil rights. In fact, from his first inaugural address in which he laid out his philosophical vision, he attempted to shift the national conversation to a more universalist approach to governing with less emphasis on special interests.
He contended “this administration’s objective will be a healthy, vigorous, growing economy that provides equal opportunities for all Americans, with no barriers born of bigotry or discrimination.” This coincided with a conservative interpretation of fairness, which demands a society in which there is as even a playing field as possible but no expectations about results. As a consequence, Reagan’s policies often ran counter to perceived minority interests.
One problem was Reagan’s style over his substance: a general lack of understanding on the Great Communicator’s part when it came to getting his message across to people of color. After all, George Wallace who had clearly been a segregationist for much of his career—who had quite literally stood in the schoolhouse door to stop black advancement—was able to win over an amazing number of black voters in his twilight years in politics.- Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy
- It has become, for liberals and leftists enraged by the way Republicans never suffer the consequences for turning electoral politics into a cesspool, a kind of smoking gun. The late, legendarily brutal campaign consultant Lee Atwater explains how Republicans can win the vote of racists without sounding racist themselves:
You start out in 1954 by saying, “******, ******, ******.” By 1968 you can’t say “******”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “******, ******.”So while, yes, it's accurate to depict the "legacy" Democratic Party as the home of racist policy and ideology, it's downright disingenuous to cast 2016's Democratic party that way. It is that disingenuousness that I have taken exception with in as I've sought to discredit the merit of the OP's thesis and your claims about today's Democratic Party.
- DOG WHISTLE POLITICS HOW CODED RACIAL APPEALS HAVE REINVENTED RACISM AND WRECKED THE MIDDLE CLASS
- Campaigning for president, Ronald Reagan liked to tell stories of Cadillac-driving “welfare queens” and “strapping young bucks” buying T-bone steaks with food stamps. In flogging these tales about the perils of welfare run amok, Reagan always denied any racism and emphasized he never mentioned race. He didn’t need to because he was blowing a dog whistle.
- Reagan’s presidency also corresponded with the conservative popularization of colorblindness, which urges everyone to avoid race as the surest way to get past racial problems. This racial etiquette is widely embraced, including among liberals, yet colorblindness bolsters dog whistle politics in numerous ways.
Do I take shame in my remarks that "fairly present in all material respects?" Not one bit! The folks who should be ashamed of themselves are they who aim to misrepresent the present by associating it with the past. Times and people change. Racists haven't changed their views, but they have in the main changed their party preference from the Democratic Party to the GOP. And like the Democratic Party of the pre-1990s, neither the GOP nor its current Presidential candidate has told racists to "get out of the GOP and go form their own party for they are not welcome in the GOP."
Sidebar:
In the preface to Lopez's book, one finds the following historically accurate anecdote:End of sidebar.
As a contemporary of Obama’s at Harvard Law, let me add my voice to the chorus of those saying that Obama was no militant minority. Obama did not study with [Derrick] Bell, nor take any course that focused on race and American law. On a campus highly polarized around racial issues, as it was in those years, this may have been an early harbinger of Obama’s tendency to hold himself aloof from racial contentions. Th en there was Obama’s election to the prestigious presidency of the Harvard Law Review . It’s widely known that Obama won as the consensus candidate after conservative and liberal factions fought themselves to exhaustion.
Less well known is that these camps were racially identifi ed, with almost all of the African American review members and their allies on one side. When conservatives threw their support to Obama, they ended a racial as well as political standoff. As others have observed, Obama’s conciliatory above- the fray political style from those years has carried over to his presidency. I would say the same regarding the approach to race Obama seemed to cultivate as a student—that one can heal racial divisions by standing apart from racial conflict, simply letting race play itself out. Th is is far from what Derrick Bell taught.
Lol, Dog Whistle bullshit again? When you Democrats were lynching blacks from the nearest tree on a semi weekly basis, it wasnt a dog whistle bubba. roflmao.
When you Democrats were arguing daily for the dehumanization of the entire black race, that was no dog whistle either, just flat out lies and horse shit like your post above where you try to push your racist bullshit off on the GOP WHO FOUGHT TO END BLACK CHATTEL SLAVERY, Nimrod.
The only people you can convince of this utter bullshit are the most stupid in the population and that doesnt help you because they are already 97% Democrats anyway.
Red:
Look, if you think Lopez's book is BS, why do you offer a sound counterargument to its premises, inferences and conclusions rather than just declaring it to be BS?
Comparing alleged "Dog Whistle" tactics to flat out lynching, segregation and demographic annihilation that Democrats have advocated for the last 200 years against blacks is just stupidly hilarious.
But hey, keep at it all you want. I think you already have the moron vote all sewn up.
Democrats haven't even EXISTED for 200 years.
You just make it up as you go, doncha.
