I am constantly preaching that students of the past must always be sensitive to “change over time.” Several months ago I was giving a public lecture at a major research library and a woman in the audience asked me what Thomas Jefferson, if he were alive today, would think about the United States having a black president. The question implied that since Jefferson believed that Africans were intellectually inferior to whites (see Notes on the State of Virginia) he would naturally be opposed to the Obama presidency on racial grounds.
The question failed to consider change over time. We can’t expect to apply Jefferson’s eighteenth-century views on race in a twenty-first century context. Too much has changed in American life. In fact, I would argue that any attempt at making people from another era speak to present-day realities will usually result in bad history. Yet people do it all the time.
Take, for example, Rand Paul’s recent speech at Howard University. In an attempt to win African Americans to the Republican Party, Paul argued that Republicans, since the time of Lincoln and Frederick Douglass, had a long history of championing African-American interests. He was also correct in affirming that segregation in the decades following the Civil War was promoted by Democrats. But Rand went off the historical rails when he concluded African Americans today would find more affinity with Republicans than Democrats.
Alex Seitz Wald picked up this misstep and wrote about it in his recent piece at Salon. Here is a taste:
[There was a] massive political realignment that occurred with the passage of the Civil Rights Act, in which pro-segregation Southern Democrats fled the party to join the GOP, which makes it meaningless to extrapolate about today’s Republican or Democratic Party based on what they did before the civil rights era. And they probably know that Democratic leaders of the ’60s realized they risked losing control of Washington for generations by pushing on civil rights, but that they did it anyway.
But Paul made no mention of this massive shift, presumably hoping he could convince the students that the Democratic Party of today is still as racist as its most racist elements once were 70 years ago.
Another reason why historical thinking is absolutely essential in our democratic discourse today.
pro-segregation Southern Democrats fled the party to join the GOP
Of the 18 Democratic senators [there was one Republican] who filibustered the Civil rights Act of 1964, only one, Strom Thumond, left for the GOP.
The rest, such as former Klansman Robert Byrd, Watergate hero Sam Ervin, Bill Clinton's mentor J. William Fulbright, and Al Gore Sr. all remained Democrats in good standing.
The massive realignment owed much more to acid, amnesty and abortion than racism changing parties. Time to take a second look at this, John.
The mythmakers typically draw on two types of evidence. First, they argue that the GOP deliberately crafted its core messages to accommodate Southern racists. Second, they find proof in the electoral pudding: the GOP captured the core of the Southern white backlash vote. But neither type of evidence is very persuasive. It is not at all clear that the GOP's policy positions are sugar-coated racist appeals. And election results show that the GOP became the South's dominant party in the least racist phase of the region's history, and got—and stays—that way as the party of the upwardly mobile, more socially conservative, openly patriotic middle-class, not of white solidarity.
…
The point of all this is not to deny that Richard Nixon may have invited some nasty fellows into his political bed. The point is that the GOP finally became the region's dominant party in the least racist phase of the South's entire history, and it got that way by attracting most of its votes from the region's growing and confident communities—not its declining and fearful ones. The myth's shrillest proponents are as reluctant to admit this as they are to concede that most Republicans genuinely believe that a color-blind society lies down the road of individual choice and dynamic change, not down the road of state regulation and unequal treatment before the law. The truly tenacious prejudices here are the mythmakers'.
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.928/article_detail.asp
Unfortunately Tom, the myth isn't really that much of a myth. All you have to do is look at the racists in today's Republican Party. They do not believe in a color blind society. They desire a return to good old Jim Crow at the very least. The white supremacists are conservatives.
You can argue against it all you want, but the facts are brutally simple. Rand Paul is just another white guy trying to rewrite history to suit his ideology. He follows in his dad's footsteps.
With that said, almost all politicians try to spin history to make themselves look better so I don't single the Pauls out for any special contempt I don't apply to the rest of the pols.
Back to Paul's speech, if I may. John, I don't read Paul saying African Americans today _should_ be conservatives or Republicans, merely that they _consider_ these things. If anything, it's refreshing in our polarized and divided society that he would make such a straight-forward appeal across the aisle, whether it comes to anything or not.
Wald reaches badly in his analysis. Paul isn't claiming that Democrats today are exactly like some notorious racist Democrats in the past (among them, Woodrow Wilson in the 1910s and Robert Byrd in the 1960s). Paul's merely noting that one party and ideology can't claim to corner the market on racial justice.
If someone's looking for prominent figures in recent years guilty of manipulating history and painting with a broad brush for political advantage, consider Senator John Lewis who during the 2008 campaign linked McCain to George Wallace in his sowing seeds of hate and division or NAACP Chairman Julian Bond who has charged that Republicans' “idea of equal rights is the American flag and the Confederate swastika flying side by side.” Certainly, Bond takes the prize for outrageous (and bizarre) historical references on the topic of race and politics.
You're certainly right, John, that history is full of twists and turns and doesn't allow any one side or party to claim “victory.” If history ended with Frederick Douglass and Lincoln and Nathan Bedford Forrest, then Republicans could claim the exclusive high ground. But as you note, it didn't. The more common assumption today (thanks to baby boomer journalists and academics) is that history ended with Hubert Humphrey and LBJ and tricky Dick Nixon in the 1960s, which would give Democrats permanent moral superiority. But history didn't end here either. In recent decades, developments have led many observers (most of them non-political) to consider whether the civil rights model still has the same power to drive change in the lives of African Americans that it had in the 1950s and 1960s. This group includes academics like William Julius Wilson, public figures like Bill Cosby, and (yes) Dr. Benjamin Carson. Efforts to strengthen two-parent families and provide greater educational opportunity through things like school choice are among the pressing issues today. Although Republicans and conservatives don't own these issues, they have some things to say about them.
This, then, lends credence to what I read as Paul's main claim–that both Democrats and Republicans, both liberals and conservatives have things to contribute toward the goal of greater economic and educational progress for African Americans.
Jim: I listened to the entire speech and I don't disagree with you at all. I actually thought Rand made some good points and Wald's piece was unnecessarily snarky. But I do think Rand was not particularly careful with the historical record here. As you know better than me, there were reasons that AAs left the Republican Party. This is part of the historical record and Rand does not seem to explain it. My post was primarily about history, not politics.
By the time movement conservatism had become a viable politics in the late ’60s and onto the Reagan era, it had corrected its “states rights” argument in defense of racial discrimination. The exception being Goldwater ’64, a sin [and worse, a blunder] for which the GOP continues to pay.
On the other side, we recall the ritual of the scapegoat, where the town would assign all its sins to a goat, which they would chase out of town, bearing their sins away. So it was with Strom Thurmond, the only Dixiecrat senator among 21 who filibustered the Civil Rights Act to leave the party for the other, as though the Democratic Party’s century of racial sins went with him, all guilt absolved, the sins transferred to the other party.
And, judging by the prevailing narrative, it worked. So it was, and is.
Mr. LaGrand is quite right that it's now 50 years later. Rosa Parks once talked JC Watts out of leaving Congress, telling him it was best for Black America to have friends on both sides of the aisle. Rand Paul's was just a first step for the GOP's self-defense against the race-baiting slanders of people like Jimmy Dick and Howard Dean. I do believe that once Barack Obama leaves the scene, the black vote will be less monolithic and open to arguments like Rand Paul's.
Things are not going well in Black America, and have gotten worse under Barack Obama. It might be time to try something new.
Gosh, why in the world would anyone think today’s Republican Party is shot through with racism?
“Montana's top federal judge admits sending racist email about Obama”
http://missoulian.com/news/local/montana-s-top-federal-judge-admits-sending-racist-email-about/article_f6734844-6336-11e1-8547-0019bb2963f4.html
“Va. Beach GOP head resigns over racist email”
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/10/va_beach_gop_head_faces_pressu.html
“Don Young's racist slur not good for GOP's minority outreach”
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-don-young-racist-slur-20130329,0,6560588.story
Carl Paladino Leaked E-Mails Called “Racist and Sexist”
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002299-503544.html
“Hillsborough GOP official rebuked for racial e-mail joke”
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/local/hillsborough-gop-official-rebuked-for-racial-e-mail-joke/973513
“Yellowstone County Republican chairwoman criticized for racist Facebook post”
http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/yellowstone-county-republican-chairwoman-criticized-for-racist-facebook-post/article_5d376652-7ddd-11e2-b723-001a4bcf887a.html
“GOP Gals Make Hilarious Obama Welfare Coupons”
http://wonkette.com/403583/gop-gals-make-hilarious-obama-welfare-coupons#e3H27oRXSr2sxUiu.99
“Another GOP Official Caught Forwarding Racist Obama Email”
http://gawker.com/5792843/another-gop-official-caught-forwarding-racist-obama-email
“Mayor of Los Alamitos, CA Sends Dumbest Racist Email Forward Yet To Everyone He Knows”
http://gawker.com/5160465/mayor-of-los-alamitos-ca-sends-dumbest-racist-email-forward-yet-to-everyone-he-knows
http://wonkette.com/409193/latest-republican-racist-email-features-hilarious-summary-of-44-american-presidents
Apparently believing the lies of Rand Paul is what you think black audiences should do. Based on the reaction to Paul by the Howard student body I think they're smart enough to know a con job when they hear one which puts them way ahead of a lot of people who voted for Rand Paul.
You can call it what you want, but no matter how much lipstick you smear on a pig, it's still a pig. The GOP is no friend of any minority unless rich white people are a minority.
Gentlemen, I'm sorry your race-baiting slanders have a home here. Otherwise, they're beneath comment.
I hope John's readers are hearing all this. One day soon, your day will be done. Without race-baiting your party is finished.
Ignoring reality doesn't help your cause, Tom. That's a large part of the GOP's current problems.
Things change quickly in electoral politics. Once Barack Obama is termed out, people will sober up. What a wonderful dream it was, for America to elect its first black president, as though it would atone for our crimes against the black man.
But things have gotten worse—even race relations—dreams and symbols are valuable, but not in the hands of the wrong man. Barack Obama is not a healer.
Rand Paul and Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal and a dozen others are the future, Barack Obama and the politics of racial division are already lame ducks. Shout me down, play the politics of hate and the race card–like an annoying barking dog, we're all so used to this crap we don't even hear it anymore.
Mebbe soon the decent liberals like John Fea will tell you to can it, if only because you're such an embarrassment to them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tom,
So I'm going to go out on a limb and say you didn't explore one of those links above. Try it; I dare you. Read all of them carefully and then explain why any African-American would vote Republican.
Troll the worst of the other side and you'll likely find what you want. For instance, it's quite easy to find black racists on the Dem side, so you could just as well ask why any white person would vote Dem.
Or any Jewish person.
http://bostonreview.net/BR34.3/malhotra_margalit.php
Interestingly, Democrats were especially prone to blaming Jews: while 32 percent of Democrats accorded at least moderate blame, only 18.4 percent of Republicans did so (a statistically significant difference). This difference is somewhat surprising given the presumed higher degree of racial tolerance among liberals and the fact that Jews are a central part of the Democratic Party’s electoral coalition.
So like, whatever. Bottom feeding for thoughtcrimes is killing this country–and my original argument about Strom Thurmond stands. Talk about dog whistles–the name of Strom Thurmond is the dog whistle for race-baiting, even though the other 20 senators who filibustered the Civil Rights Act remained Democrats. The GOP had no racist programs for southerners to rally behind [as you remember, George Wallace ran as an independent in 1968 and won 5 states!].
With the back of segregation broken, southerners went GOP because of economic policy and a reaction to McGovernite policies on acid, amnesty and abortion beginning in 1972. Although Jimmy Carter swept the “Solid South” in 1976, another thorn in the GOP-as-racism bleat.
Frankly, I'm sick of it, and its time for conscientious historians to stop accepting that partisan narrative at face value. It's a slander. It's bad enough that clown Chris Matthews gets away with it.
Actually, opposition to the Civil Rights Bill was neither a Democratic or a Republican undertaking. It was a Southern crusade:
The Wikipedia article on the '64 Civil Rights Bill breaks it down nicely:
“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%)”
These numbers are far more conclusive than the fact that 18 Democratic Senators filibustered the bill. Southerners of both parties opposed the Civil Rights Bill. It was a bi-partisan, sectional vote.
The question becomes: how and why did the Republican Party over the next 20-30 years flip the South?
States' rights, contrary to what you assert, obviously was an issue after the late 1960s. In 1980, when Ronald Reagan kicked off his campaign in Neshoba County, Mississippi, he declared himself in favor of states' rights. (This was 16 years after the murders of the 3 civil rights workers. It would be as if a presidential candidate in 2012 had gone to Oklahoma City, denounced the federal government, and suggested that the tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of patriots.)
Living in Alabama myself for much of the past 30 years, I can tell you that “acid and amnesty” are non-issues (unless by “amnesty” you mean resentment toward Latinos; then it's one hell of an issue). Abortion, on the other hand, does matter to southern evangelicals.
But if you get the vapors when someone suggests that race is a core component of Republican success in the South, if you think we live in some post-racial wonderland, sullied only by an imaginary Obama-fueled racial resentment . . . then come on down to Dixie. It'll make things much clearer.
The Alabama statehouse stayed in Democrat hands until 2010! But of course it magically transformed from racist Democrat to non-racist Democrat one day in the 1960s and everything was ducky in Alabama until 2 years ago.
Like the man said, how convenient.
The facts just aren't there, just bottom-feeding anecdote. Look at the worst of any group and you can paint the whole group with that brush. They call it stereotyping. And worse. This crap needs to end.
_______
*For the first time in 136 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_elections,_2010
Do I really need to explain the difference between national parties and state parties?
But the bigger problem is that you have constructed a bubble impervious to reality; any contrary evidence is a “bottom-feeding” example.(It would be very easy to add to the list: Jesse Helms, David Duke, etc. All I can say is that there's a lot of bottom-feeding going on in the GOP.)
Here's the reality: The Republican Party has taken advantage of white racial resentment, primarily in the South. (Note this is NOT the same as tarring all Republicans as racist.) And black Americans, not being stupid, know damn well what's going on. And that is why they overwhelmingly vote Democratic.
David Duke. Spaghetti at the wall, now. The GOP explicitly disowned him when he slipped in and won a nomination when nobody was looking.
You have no facts, just anecdotes. Thank you for the opportunity to answer these slanders. I hope responsible historian types will give this myth a fresh look. That there are white racists who vote GOP is unremarkable–black racists vote Democrat. Anti-Semitism is also far more a creature of the Dems than the Reps.
This bottom-feeding tells us nothing about where this country needs to go–it's time for us to grow up and stop flinging poo-poo.