Posted on 08/03/2008 11:42:52 AM PDT by Quaker
True facts..Well spoken
Florida should elect her as governor!
She’d be better than RINO Crist, that’s for sure! I’d support her!
why no suspicion of democrats?
southern dems (kkk)
dems against civil rights legislation opposed by
al gore’s dad
this isn’t logical
They were bought off -- with government handouts.
You’re half right. By the mid 1930s, most Northern Blacks had become majority Democrat (although there was still a substantial enough presence of Black Republicanism, about 1/4th in some areas, that lasted for 3 more decades). This was not, however, true of Southern Blacks. That did not occur until the 1960s. Because most Southern Blacks were barred from voting until that latter point (since the late 1890s), there were virtually zero Black officeholders above town level, except in rare cases where some managed to make it to town or city councils. In my hometown of Nashville, one of the few pre-CRA officeholders of the 1960s on the City Council was Z. Alexander Looby, and Looby was a Republican (although because of the changing climate, he did endorse LBJ in ‘64). The radicalization of the mid to late ‘60s pushed both regions, with some occasional exceptions, into the 90% camp for the Dems.
The Southern Dems moved en masse to the Republican party. Remember, the terms conservative and republican have not always been interchangeable.
Presumably they would have registered as Republicans because the Democrats would have thrown up barriers to membership in their party. Had that happened, blacks would have run the GOP in the state (since almost no whites there were Republicans). But they would have made the GOP there into a liberal party that was to the left of the FDR/Henry Wallace Democrats. They certainly wouldn't have been “Robert Taft Republicans”.
In other words, even if they had been Republicans, they'd be of the Jim Jeffords/John Chafee variety, if not worse. Even if MLK Jr. was technically registered as a Republican, we know for a fact he wasn't a conservative. He supported every socialist wealth redistribution scheme ever proposed and one of his last acts before being killed was to offer sympathy to the Vietcong.
Once Mississippi blacks were able to register, starting in the mid-60s, they flooded to the polls to sign up as Democrats. By that time all the barriers the state Democratic Party might have in the past thrown up to stop them (white primaries, etc.) had been struck down. Once they could register as Dems, they did, even in a state where the Democrats had just recently tried to prevent them from attending the state university and where the Dem governor Ross Barnett had practically joined the KKK.
People here keep posting articles (literally, on almost a daily basis) about how anti-black the Dems once were. They're right, but they miss the point. They think blacks would rush to join the GOP if they only knew how racist those old-time Dems used to be. But they surely knew that circa 1968. Those old-time Dems were still around and had stood in the schoolhouse door right in front of them. YET THEY STILL REGISTERED AS DEMOCRATS, once the barriers the Dems had put up to keep them from registering were removed.
Why? Because they liked what the northern Democrats were pushing, which was socialism and the beginning hints of racial preferences. They knew that if they joined the Democratic Party in the South, they could take the party in their states away from the conservatives and create a national, truly leftist party. This was especially true when white conservatives began leaving the Democrats for the GOP in all the southern states.
So telling blacks that the Dems were once racist is pointless. They take it as a source of pride that they took the party away from those old-time Dixiecrats. Few blacks will even consider supporting a fellow black man like Michael Steele, if he's a Republican. Steele's an intelligent, articulate, conservative. No one could reasonably call him “anti-black”. Yet when he ran for governor of Maryland, he got massacred in Baltimore and Prince Georges County by a three-to-one margin. Blacks preferred the Dem candidate, socialist hack Ben Cardin.
There was essentially no Republican party in any Deep South state (with rare exceptional breakthoughs). Without the Jim Crow laws, there would've been no "Solid Dem South." The Republicans enjoyed multiracial coalitions, with occasional majority breakthroughs even in post-Reconstruction (such as in North Carolina in the 1890s). That likely would've continued for many years to come, and would've altered future national political contests.
"Presumably they would have registered as Republicans because the Democrats would have thrown up barriers to membership in their party. Had that happened, blacks would have run the GOP in the state (since almost no whites there were Republicans). But they would have made the GOP there into a liberal party that was to the left of the FDR/Henry Wallace Democrats. They certainly wouldn't have been “Robert Taft Republicans”."
Au contraire. The presumption today is that the vast majority of Black voters are far-left (or always have been), but that is a misconception. Indeed, in my state of TN, where Blacks did have limited political participation, Blacks were not for Eisenhower in 1952, but were for Taft. A sad and almost forgotten fact of history is that in desiring to be more competitive in the South with Whites, the Eisenhower campaign had operatives hijack multiracial (or majority Black) local Republican outfits that were almost to the last loyal to Taft. That was Ike's own version of a "Southern strategy." Also, remember, too, that the last Northern Republican elected to the House during the FDR era, Oscar DePriest, was a Conservative. He lost reelection in 1934 because he refused to support big government welfare schemes of FDR. Even those Democrats that succeeded him in his seat until the 1970s (Arthur Mitchell and Bill Dawson) had been Republicans that reluctantly switched parties in order to get crumbs from the majority party in DC. Many Blacks in the North had to become Democrats because that's where the power was in the political machines. Even NY's Adam Clayton Powell had to reluctantly run as a Democrat in 1944 when he'd have preferred the GOP and aligned with the national Dems simply because they were the majority party.
"In other words, even if they had been Republicans, they'd be of the Jim Jeffords/John Chafee variety, if not worse. Even if MLK Jr. was technically registered as a Republican, we know for a fact he wasn't a conservative. He supported every socialist wealth redistribution scheme ever proposed and one of his last acts before being killed was to offer sympathy to the Vietcong."
Well, as I stated above, it wasn't entirely so. I never argued MLK, Jr. was a Conservative. Many Blacks came to the conclusion that the national government was their friend and state governments (in the South at least) were not. For awhile, that was the case. But in the 1960s, many Blacks became politically radicalized in short order, embracing positions unimaginable and overwhelmingly so a decade earlier. Despite the fact the GOP HAD been more pro-Civil Rights than the Democrats, the great lie was spread out that the GOP was "anti-." Anybody who tried to go against that mindset, especially if you were Black, would be publicly ostracized. I've often given the example of Sammy Davis, Jr., who well remembered that back in 1960, the Kennedys applied pressure on him to delay (or put off entirely) marrying his White fiancee lest JFK be tarred with such a horror of having a supporter of his in a mixed marriage ! Davis knew the Dems were nowhere near the pure party towards Blacks they claimed to be, and he endorsed Nixon in 1972. The reaction to Davis was visceral and appalling. How dare he endorse that Republican ! Sadly, Davis was later forced to do a backtracking of sorts and go before none other than his majesty, Je$$e Jack$on, in order to "reclaim" his standing.
"Once Mississippi blacks were able to register, starting in the mid-60s, they flooded to the polls to sign up as Democrats. By that time all the barriers the state Democratic Party might have in the past thrown up to stop them (white primaries, etc.) had been struck down. Once they could register as Dems, they did, even in a state where the Democrats had just recently tried to prevent them from attending the state university and where the Dem governor Ross Barnett had practically joined the KKK."
By which time the myth of the Democrat party as their liberators was taking hold. However, I'll add this, it was not as clear cut as them merely joining with the regular Democrats in MS. Indeed, into the 1980s, there were really 3 separate parties. The regular White Democrats, Independent Black Democrats and Republicans. Thanks to the split between the Dems, the GOP started winning federal offices with pluralities. One of the leaders of the Independent Black Dems was Charles Evers (Medgar's older brother), and Evers was no liberal. He eventually became, and still is today, a Republican. Many Southern Blacks that are Dems are not the stereotypical liberal moonbat. Here in my hometown of Nashville, a member of our Council ran for Vice-Mayor last year but was ignored by the media all because she was a solid Social Conservative (and predictably lost due to the media's "blackout" of her candidacy, helping a White liberal moonbat -- with a vote along racial lines, except for my household, who voted for the Black lady).
"People here keep posting articles (literally, on almost a daily basis) about how anti-black the Dems once were. They're right, but they miss the point. They think blacks would rush to join the GOP if they only knew how racist those old-time Dems used to be. But they surely knew that circa 1968. Those old-time Dems were still around and had stood in the schoolhouse door right in front of them. YET THEY STILL REGISTERED AS DEMOCRATS, once the barriers the Dems had put up to keep them from registering were removed."
"Why? Because they liked what the northern Democrats were pushing, which was socialism and the beginning hints of racial preferences. They knew that if they joined the Democratic Party in the South, they could take the party in their states away from the conservatives and create a national, truly leftist party. This was especially true when white conservatives began leaving the Democrats for the GOP in all the southern states."
It's not as clear-cut as that. Part of the reason had to do with joining the MAJORITY party. They had little to gain in the 1960s in the South joining a non-existent legislative party. However, they sometimes exacted leverage. In my state in 1969, it was a Black Democrat that gave the TN House a Republican Speaker for the first time in a century, and for the last time since. Had the Republicans a more sizeable presence both in Congress and in state legislatures in the '60s, or if they were the majority, I think it would've been a different outcome. However, once all the eggs were placed in one basket, it was hard to go back. Remember that it took nearly 70 years from the end of the Civil War for the Dems to start to peel away Blacks to get one elected to Congress, 100+ years to start to get them elected to Southern legislatures, and nearly 140 years before the first Black male Democrat was elected to the Senate (Obama himself).
"So telling blacks that the Dems were once racist is pointless. They take it as a source of pride that they took the party away from those old-time Dixiecrats. Few blacks will even consider supporting a fellow black man like Michael Steele, if he's a Republican. Steele's an intelligent, articulate, conservative. No one could reasonably call him “anti-black”. Yet when he ran for governor of Maryland, he got massacred in Baltimore and Prince Georges County by a three-to-one margin. Blacks preferred the Dem candidate, socialist hack Ben Cardin."
You mean Senator. Steele's presence on the ticket in '02 helped to get a larger-than-average % of the Black vote and earned the endorsement of a prominent Black Dem political leader in PG County. Some Blacks do realize that keeping all their eggs in one basket is ill-advised. Steele had the best showing for a GOP Senate candidate (44%) in 26 years (when the last Republican, the very liberal Charles Mathias, won his final term in 1980), but he was running in a heavily Democrat state in a terrible year for the GOP (in which the incumbent GOP Governor also was brought down). It's also worth pointing out that Steele performed nearly twice as well in both PG County (24%) and Balto City (23%) then the previous Senate candidate in '04 who was a State Senator (who received 13% and 12% (!) respectively). Bush got only 17% in both in '04.
But to get back to a basic criticism I've had is that the GOP has not been nearly aggressive or serious enough with pursuing the Black vote. We're in the same position the Dems were in over 7 decades ago, with having to make crucial breakthroughs, and we're not doing that. We're scarcely past tokenism, and that is unacceptable. Many Blacks do have the opinion that they are taken for granted by the Dems, but hold the opinion that the GOP just ignores them entirely, and that's not altogether a falsehood. If you don't even bother to go into the neighborhoods and ASK for their vote, why would they feel the need to change their voting patterns ?
Wikipedia says Arthur “Mitchell switched from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party after finding that his views on issues aligned himself closer to the Democrats.”
The Chicago GOP machine was crumbling at that point. The last Mayor we’ve elected there to date had already been tossed out on his corrupt butt. White Chicagoans had already moved over to the Democrats and the Blacks were the last to go. Mitchell sensed the opportunity and went for it. The IL-1st still remained quite competitive with the GOP getting well above 40% until the late ‘40s before it began a gradual decline — although we did get 41% in 1978 when the GOP recruited a Black ex-Dem to challenge the weak machine incumbent.
True, with some exceptions such as Tennessee. I just used Mississippi as an example since it's often cited as the most segregationist state.
Without the Jim Crow laws, there would've been no "Solid Dem South." The Republicans enjoyed multiracial coalitions, with occasional majority breakthroughs even in post-Reconstruction (such as in North Carolina in the 1890s). That likely would've continued for many years to come, and would've altered future national political contests.
No doubt that's true up until FDR. Blacks did support the GOP overwhelmingly until then. But what would have happened then? We know that FDR's New Deal won over most black voters in the North. Why wouldn't it have done so in the South? Things such as white primaries would have kept blacks from registering as Democrats in Dixie but they couldn't stop them from supporting FDR in the general election. And we're talking here in theory, about what would have happened if there had been no Jim Crow laws, which means there might not even have ever been a white primary, poll taxes, literacy tests. etc. So that would have enabled southern blacks to register as Democrats in 1933 if they had wanted to.
Au contraire. The presumption today is that the vast majority of Black voters are far-left (or always have been), but that is a misconception. Indeed, in my state of TN, where Blacks did have limited political participation, Blacks were not for Eisenhower in 1952, but were for Taft. A sad and almost forgotten fact of history is that in desiring to be more competitive in the South with Whites, the Eisenhower campaign had operatives hijack multiracial (or majority Black) local Republican outfits that were almost to the last loyal to Taft. That was Ike's own version of a "Southern strategy."
Well, all we can do is guess about this. Tennessee blacks had some limited political participation, so perhaps by 1952 those who were still Republican were indeed conservative and supported Taft. Those blacks who are Republicans today are often pretty conservative, too. Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele, Herman Cain, and others. But I hardly think that if blacks statewide had been able to politically participate fully that it would moved the agenda rightward. If blacks had controlled Memphis is 1952, do you think they would have made it into a Taft conservative stronghold?
Also, remember, too, that the last Northern Republican elected to the House during the FDR era, Oscar DePriest, was a Conservative. He lost reelection in 1934 because he refused to support big government welfare schemes of FDR.
Ecactly! But big government welfare schemes at the federal level were a new thing when FDR initiated them. Al Smith, the Democrat candidate in 1928, had no such agenda. Blacks voted nearly 100% Republican up to that point, and since neither party was pushng for massive federal social programs, they voted GOP because of slavery and reconstruction era issues from prior years. Once FDR launched the New Deal that changed the equation entirely. Blacks turned Democrat almost overnight, at least in those areas of the country where they could vote. Oscar de Priest was indeed a conservative, which is why he was voted out. He was the nation's first Michael Steele, Ken Blackwell, or Lynn Swann. A principled black conservative who couldn't win because most black voters swooned for the New Deal. As new black majority districts formed over the next couple of decades in New York, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and Detroit, they elected liberal black Dems, not conservative black Republicans.
Even those Democrats that succeeded him in his seat until the 1970s (Arthur Mitchell and Bill Dawson) had been Republicans that reluctantly switched parties in order to get crumbs from the majority party in DC.
Of course those early black Dem congressmen were all former Republicans. Nearly all blacks had been Republicans until FDR, so it stands to reason that most of the early black Dem congressmen would be "former Republicans". Many of the Republicans who were elected to Congress in the South forty years or so ago were former Democrats. Jesse Helms was a former Democrat. As white voters in Dixie shifted to the GOP, so did many politicians. As black voters shifted to the Dems circa 1934, so did many black politicians.
Many Blacks in the North had to become Democrats because that's where the power was in the political machines. Even NY's Adam Clayton Powell had to reluctantly run as a Democrat in 1944 when he'd have preferred the GOP and aligned with the national Dems simply because they were the majority party.
Powell became a close political ally of radical leftist congressman Vito Marcantonio in Congress. Marcantonio was a member of the American Labor Party, a front for the Communist Party. Marcantonio is perhaps best known for switching from being a fist-pounding pacifist to a fist-pounding interventionist the day after Hitler and Stalin had their falling out. He was to the left even of the Democrats, but found a close ally when Powell came to Congress. If Powell had been a Republican in prior years, it certainly wasn't because he was a conservative, it was because nearly all blacks had been Republicans at one time.
Well, as I stated above, it wasn't entirely so. I never argued MLK, Jr. was a Conservative. Many Blacks came to the conclusion that the national government was their friend and state governments (in the South at least) were not. For awhile, that was the case. But in the 1960s, many Blacks became politically radicalized in short order, embracing positions unimaginable and overwhelmingly so a decade earlier. Despite the fact the GOP HAD been more pro-Civil Rights than the Democrats, the great lie was spread out that the GOP was "anti-." Anybody who tried to go against that mindset, especially if you were Black, would be publicly ostracized. I've often given the example of Sammy Davis, Jr., who well remembered that back in 1960, the Kennedys applied pressure on him to delay (or put off entirely) marrying his White fiancee lest JFK be tarred with such a horror of having a supporter of his in a mixed marriage ! Davis knew the Dems were nowhere near the pure party towards Blacks they claimed to be, and he endorsed Nixon in 1972. The reaction to Davis was visceral and appalling. How dare he endorse that Republican ! Sadly, Davis was later forced to do a backtracking of sorts and go before none other than his majesty, Je$$e Jack$on, in order to "reclaim" his standing.
Agreed!
it was not as clear cut as them merely joining with the regular Democrats in MS. Indeed, into the 1980s, there were really 3 separate parties. The regular White Democrats, Independent Black Democrats and Republicans. Thanks to the split between the Dems, the GOP started winning federal offices with pluralities. One of the leaders of the Independent Black Dems was Charles Evers (Medgar's older brother), and Evers was no liberal. He eventually became, and still is today, a Republican. Many Southern Blacks that are Dems are not the stereotypical liberal moonbat. Here in my hometown of Nashville, a member of our Council ran for Vice-Mayor last year but was ignored by the media all because she was a solid Social Conservative (and predictably lost due to the media's "blackout" of her candidacy, helping a White liberal moonbat -- with a vote along racial lines, except for my household, who voted for the Black lady).
Agreed! No one ever said all blacks vote leftist. James Meredith, after all, became an aid to Jesse Helms. But clearly most vote for leftist Dems. Even Hillary Clinton got called a racist when she ran aggressively against Obama.
It's not as clear-cut as that. Part of the reason had to do with joining the MAJORITY party. They had little to gain in the 1960s in the South joining a non-existent legislative party. However, they sometimes exacted leverage. In my state in 1969, it was a Black Democrat that gave the TN House a Republican Speaker for the first time in a century, and for the last time since. Had the Republicans a more sizeable presence both in Congress and in state legislatures in the '60s, or if they were the majority, I think it would've been a different outcome. However, once all the eggs were placed in one basket, it was hard to go back. Remember that it took nearly 70 years from the end of the Civil War for the Dems to start to peel away Blacks to get one elected to Congress, 100+ years to start to get them elected to Southern legislatures, and nearly 140 years before the first Black male Democrat was elected to the Senate (Obama himself).
The Dems didn't try to peel away blacks. They kept them from voting in the South, and in the North they were just written off as a lost cause. In addition, most congressional Democrats were from the South, so those Dems who did get elected in the North had to play ball with them because southerners dominated the caucus and the leadership. But the two sweeping Dem landslides of 1932 & 1934 sent enough Dems to Congress from outside the South to change that. These Dems saw how quickly the black vote had shifted to the Dems, and that's when Dem Senators such as Wagner (NY) and congressmen such as Gavagan (IL) began pushing for anti-poll tax bills, anti-lynch bills, etc.. FDR was probably surprised when his New Deal won blacks over so quickly. Since 1934, the few black Republicans elected to Congress have been from white majority precincts (Franks, Watts, and also liberal Senator Brooke from Massachusetts).
You mean Senator.
Yep! I meant Senator!
Steele's presence on the ticket in '02 helped to get a larger-than-average % of the Black vote and earned the endorsement of a prominent Black Dem political leader in PG County. Some Blacks do realize that keeping all their eggs in one basket is ill-advised. Steele had the best showing for a GOP Senate candidate (44%) in 26 years (when the last Republican, the very liberal Charles Mathias, won his final term in 1980), but he was running in a heavily Democrat state in a terrible year for the GOP (in which the incumbent GOP Governor also was brought down). It's also worth pointing out that Steele performed nearly twice as well in both PG County (24%) and Balto City (23%) then the previous Senate candidate in '04 who was a State Senator (who received 13% and 12% (!) respectively). Bush got only 17% in both in '04.
Steele's a good man and I hope he runs for office again. I wouldn't mind seeing him on the ticket. He lacks national experience, I suppose, but so does Obama!
But to get back to a basic criticism I've had is that the GOP has not been nearly aggressive or serious enough with pursuing the Black vote. We're in the same position the Dems were in over 7 decades ago, with having to make crucial breakthroughs, and we're not doing that. We're scarcely past tokenism, and that is unacceptable. Many Blacks do have the opinion that they are taken for granted by the Dems, but hold the opinion that the GOP just ignores them entirely, and that's not altogether a falsehood. If you don't even bother to go into the neighborhoods and ASK for their vote, why would they feel the need to change their voting patterns ?
Agreed. But the problem is that Republicans tend to want to copy the pandering tactics of the Democrats. That'll never work, because the Dems will simply outpander them. That's what's happening right now with the Latino vote, where McCain's pandering hasn't done a bit of good. All it's done is anger the conservative base. Reminding blacks that Dems were segregationists sixty years ago won't do any good, either. Just go into black neighborhoods with a pledge of fiscal conservatism, fairness to all (no affirmative action), pro-life, pro-family policies, and try to win those blacks with conservative values. We can't compete with the Dems for the votes of blacks who support quotas, support socialism, or who think O.J. was innocent. We probably can't win the majority of the black vote. But we can do better and win those blacks who are conservative. If we try to get the leftist blacks by supporting affirmative action and other racial goodies, we'll fail, because the Dems will offer them more, and white voters will be disenchanted and stay home.
Your post was excellent, BTW!
Actually, the intriguing part here is that had Blacks been able to turn out in the kinds of numbers they did during the early part of Reconstruction in Southern states (absent Jim Crow), it would've had an impact nationally to the point that some Presidents may not ever have been elected in the first place, likely including Cleveland and Wilson (and perhaps FDR), so ascertaining how they would've voted by 1932 taking that into consideration means that all proverbial bets are off.
"Well, all we can do is guess about this. Tennessee blacks had some limited political participation, so perhaps by 1952 those who were still Republican were indeed conservative and supported Taft. Those blacks who are Republicans today are often pretty conservative, too. Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele, Herman Cain, and others. But I hardly think that if blacks statewide had been able to politically participate fully that it would moved the agenda rightward. If blacks had controlled Memphis is 1952, do you think they would have made it into a Taft conservative stronghold?"
Well, in 1952, Blacks weren't yet a majority in Memphis. Ike came up short in carrying Shelby County that year, but he edged past Stevenson in 1956.
"Ecactly! But big government welfare schemes at the federal level were a new thing when FDR initiated them. Al Smith, the Democrat candidate in 1928, had no such agenda. Blacks voted nearly 100% Republican up to that point, and since neither party was pushng for massive federal social programs, they voted GOP because of slavery and reconstruction era issues from prior years. Once FDR launched the New Deal that changed the equation entirely. Blacks turned Democrat almost overnight, at least in those areas of the country where they could vote. Oscar de Priest was indeed a conservative, which is why he was voted out. He was the nation's first Michael Steele, Ken Blackwell, or Lynn Swann. A principled black conservative who couldn't win because most black voters swooned for the New Deal. As new black majority districts formed over the next couple of decades in New York, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and Detroit, they elected liberal black Dems, not conservative black Republicans."
It wasn't 100% Republican. I think in 1928 it was about 75%, as there actually were a rare few number of Democrats here and there (I found one Black Democrat appointed by Cleveland to a patronage job in DC as Recorder of Deeds, James Trotter, a job that MS Senator Blanche Bruce held after he left office and was unable to return to his state). Another reason why Blacks (and Whites, for that matter) voted a certain way in Northern cities was because one party would often control them, and they were told how to vote. NYC was almost always Democrat, and Blacks often had to vote that way, even pre-FDR. Conversely, Philadelphia was Republican until the 1950s, and they voted mostly that way until the machine was destroyed.
In a weird situation, in nearby Chester, which still operates under a dinosaur GOP machine regime that is an offshoot of Philadelphia's now dead machine, Blacks STILL vote Republican there for local office (the Mayor is a Black Republican). I was looking at Chicago, and the reason for the slow and steady decline in support for the GOP after the late 1940s was because of the Chester example, a lot of it having to do with patronage and ward politics. Practically everybody would know how YOU voted, and most folks were simply told how to vote. They delivered votes to a particular candidate, and that was that. You also had some weird peculiarities in places, again, Chicago, where the voters were told (as recently as 1972) that they were to support Republicans for two particular offices (in this instance, for Sen. Chuck Percy and for IL States' Attorney), led by none other than Jesse Jackson (which had to do more with local politics than anything else, since the Dem nominee for Senator was Congressman and Daleyite Roman Pucinski), even with the ticket splitting in IL-1, they still voted 90% for McGovern. If Republicans still controlled those big city machines, you'd be seeing Blacks voting just as heavily for them (as I cited with Chester,PA).
Until recently, Chicago had its own version of Chester, that being Cicero, which had a Republican machine going back to the days of Big Bill Thompson and Al Capone (Capone having resided in Cicero). Even as the demographics shifted from White to heavily Hispanic, it remained Republican (elected a Machine Republican Hispanic to the legislature in the early part of this decade), until it finally collapsed under the weight of its corruption, and the Hispanic Republican was replaced by a Democrat and the city elections were changed to "non-partisan." Regardless of what party runs a given urban machine, they tend to be corrupt, which is regarded as intolerable by Republicans, but business as usual by Democrats.
"Powell became a close political ally of radical leftist congressman Vito Marcantonio in Congress. Marcantonio was a member of the American Labor Party, a front for the Communist Party. Marcantonio is perhaps best known for switching from being a fist-pounding pacifist to a fist-pounding interventionist the day after Hitler and Stalin had their falling out. He was to the left even of the Democrats, but found a close ally when Powell came to Congress. If Powell had been a Republican in prior years, it certainly wasn't because he was a conservative, it was because nearly all blacks had been Republicans at one time."
Marcantonio also has the distinction of being the only person ever elected to Congress who ran on the Communist party line in NY (he was first elected as a Republican himself, believe it or not). I don't think Powell was as nutty as Marcantonio, however. They served in adjacent Congressional districts. Both the parties in NY had large groups covering the entire political spectrum (one Democrat from Queens who served with both Powell and Marcantonio was about the most Conservative member of the entire state delegation, Jim Delaney). I forgot whether it was Frances Rice who cited another "Black NY Republican", which happened to be Asa Philip Randolph, except I never knew Randolph was a Republican (meaning that I never heard he ever became one, since I knew his far-left leanings). Both he and his wife Lucille had run in adjacent Congressional districts in the 1920s -- as Socialists !
"Agreed! No one ever said all blacks vote leftist. James Meredith, after all, became an aid to Jesse Helms. But clearly most vote for leftist Dems."
I think Meredith was fired from Helms's staff because Meredith though Helms too liberal (!) Regarding ideology, for part of the early 20th century, there were two schools of intellectual thought in the Black community, those embracing Booker T. Washington's reasoning (of a more Conservative bent, which I'm presuming was more that of DePriest's belief system) vs. the radical W.E.B. DuBois and Marcus Garveyites (that tend to influence NYC Blacks in a more leftist direction). I think the ultimate embrace of the latter models led to the disasters in the long run that beset the Black community. Those that embraced the former model of which today they are nowhere near enough in numbers in prominent roles (and don't get the kind of exposure by the media, which prefers to keep Blacks folks on the far-left plantation), I consider quite important in trying to lead the community away from that other mindset. They're badly needed in order to call shenanigans on the other group (think of Walter Williams & Thomas Sowell vs. Jesse Jackson & Cornel West -- if you can call the latter two "intellectual leaders", I think they're little better than con men).
"Even Hillary Clinton got called a racist when she ran aggressively against Obama."
Indeed, it was funny seeing Hillary get "Republican'd" on the campaign trail. I think this put Jackson in a quandary. If he kept the Clintons in power, he could continue to shake them down. With Obama, it's more difficult for him, because Obama's ascendance moots the myth that Blacks "could never" make it to the highest office in the land. Essentially, it practically invalidates Jackson's STILL being anywhere on the political scene (no wonder Jackson hates Obama). If Obama becomes President and Jackson skulks around, Obama could tell him to get lost, and what's Jackson gonna do about it ? Go around and declare that Obama is just another "White" President with a nice tan ? Of course, this all presumes we're taking them at face value. For all we know, they could be coordinating this stuff in private (LBJ's favorite private line to his fellow Democrats in the 1960s in order to maintain their Congressional supermajorities -- they could be for him or against him in order to get elected, whichever worked better for them).
"The Dems didn't try to peel away blacks. They kept them from voting in the South, and in the North they were just written off as a lost cause."
Although as I cited above, Blacks were used by Northern urban machines, often quite liberally (as well as Memphis, where Boss Crump used them as long as they voted "his way").
"In addition, most congressional Democrats were from the South, so those Dems who did get elected in the North had to play ball with them because southerners dominated the caucus and the leadership."
Basically, the Dem party was from the South and urban (European) ethnic areas elsewhere. It was actually one of the Republican party's gravest mistakes beginning in the late 19th century that they allowed the Democrats to start capturing the vote of non-WASPs (at least in those urban areas). In places like Massachusetts, the Republican Brahmins had complete control of the entire federal delegation into the 1870/80s (as the Dems do today), but once Catholics started asserting control in Boston, they started making permanent breakthoughs (basically, the MA-8th district today, albeit with some changes, has been a Democrat district since the 1880s). Republicans had previously been (however briefly) Know-Nothing anti-Catholics in the 1850s, and that fact STILL gets exploited by Democrats in Massachusetts (interesting how they can use that from 150 years ago to discredit Republicans, but we can't use the Dem history on slavery !). Allowing the Dems to get the upper hand eventually laid the groundwork for the Dem capture of so many of the cities within a half-century (indeed, most that established control by FDR have made it so that we've been effectively shut out of running cities now for anywhere from 50-70 years, and in Chicago, not since 1929 has a Republican Mayor been elected).
Another interesting fact as to why many Southern Dems were able to hold onto power in the House and Senate via chairmanships is because often they tended to serve longer amounts of time as opposed to their Northern counterparts. For example, the average TX Congressman would usually begin his career being elected to a local judgeship in their 20s and moving on to Congress in their 30s, and staying often into their 70s (hence, upwards of 40 years). In NY, or at least NYC, it was the opposite case. Some would serve only about a decade or less in Congress and resign or retire to a judgeship until they reached the mandatory retirement age. Only in rare instances did you have Jim Delaney types (who served 3 decades) or the ultimate NY example of longevity, that being Manny Celler, who served an astonishing 50 years from 1923 to 1973 (and had he not been beaten by a young Liz Holtzman in 1972, probably would've stayed until his death in 1981, short of his 93rd birthday). Even in Chicago, there's only been 2 "ultra-long'ers" (40 year+), Adolph Sabath (1907-52), who established the first permanent ethnic Democrat district (wresting it from a fellow ethnic Republican in 1906) and Sid Yates (1949-63; 1965-99) who served with Sabath and would've broken his record had it not been for an ill-advised move to try to run for the Senate in 1962.
"But the two sweeping Dem landslides of 1932 & 1934 sent enough Dems to Congress from outside the South to change that. These Dems saw how quickly the black vote had shifted to the Dems, and that's when Dem Senators such as Wagner (NY) and congressmen such as Gavagan (IL) began pushing for anti-poll tax bills, anti-lynch bills, etc.. FDR was probably surprised when his New Deal won blacks over so quickly. Since 1934, the few black Republicans elected to Congress have been from white majority precincts (Franks, Watts, and also liberal Senator Brooke from Massachusetts)."
Not including Melvin Evans of the Virgin Islands, who was elected both Governor and Delegate to Congress, and the VI is majority Black. Alas, there's no real GOP there anymore. The opposition party is called "Independent Citizens Movement" and has a few ex-Republicans as members.
"Steele's a good man and I hope he runs for office again. I wouldn't mind seeing him on the ticket. He lacks national experience, I suppose, but so does Obama!"
I think Steele may run for Governor of MD in 2010, although it is Ehrlich's honor to seek a rematch. O'Malley has been as awful a Governor there as he was a Bawlamer Mayor.
"Agreed. But the problem is that Republicans tend to want to copy the pandering tactics of the Democrats. That'll never work, because the Dems will simply outpander them. That's what's happening right now with the Latino vote, where McCain's pandering hasn't done a bit of good. All it's done is anger the conservative base. Reminding blacks that Dems were segregationists sixty years ago won't do any good, either. Just go into black neighborhoods with a pledge of fiscal conservatism, fairness to all (no affirmative action), pro-life, pro-family policies, and try to win those blacks with conservative values. We can't compete with the Dems for the votes of blacks who support quotas, support socialism, or who think O.J. was innocent. We probably can't win the majority of the black vote. But we can do better and win those blacks who are conservative. If we try to get the leftist blacks by supporting affirmative action and other racial goodies, we'll fail, because the Dems will offer them more, and white voters will be disenchanted and stay home."
I have to wonder why the GOP has, and almost willfully so, allowed the Democrats to co-opt 90% of their vote since the 1960s. We've not planted seeds, seized opportunities and the like (I cited the example a few times of former NY Congressman Floyd Flake, a Black Dem from Queens, who practically bent over backwards reaching out to US to try to make a breakthrough to the GOP in the '90s, literally crying out, "I'd like to switch parties, show me you're serious about getting our vote, and watch what happens !" There was another example I was told privately about in FL once the GOP got majority control that one urban Black Dem machine was all prepared to turn over their vote to us under one of our candidates, and we never followed through (!?!?)). We talk about candidates we have from time to time, but almost NEVER give them the GOTV and $$ for support. If Black Republicans get elected, they do it without much real support beyond the lip service. If we get that critical mass of candidates elected, it insulates us from charges of racism, and you have an aggressive play for their votes from many candidates rather then just a handful of tokens. In Southern states, we're asking for serious trouble in not bringing over at least, say, 25% of the Black vote. Right now, all the Dems in the South need to do is hold that 90% solid Black support and peel off unhappy Whites, and voila, they start to reclaim Governorships, statewide offices, Senate seats, House seats... If we get to 25-30% of the Black vote, we could afford to lose some of the White vote and still ensure that the Dems never reclaim many of these states for the forseeable future, but we're just not doing it. Is the GOP racist ? Well, with those chronic failures to do something substantive to get more of their vote and elect Black faces under our label, it puts out the appearance we may very well be. That will have to change, and fast, or we shall find ourselves in a permanent minority. Hopefully after 2006, it's not too late.
"Your post was excellent, BTW!"
Thank you.
I think the loss also had to do with the fact that Betty Loren-Maltese had lost sway by then. Her successor as Town President, Ramiro Gonzalez, could do little to keep the Republicans entrenched, and the critical mass to go to non-partisan races finally became the reality in 2005. I know nothing about the current “N-P” leader of Cicero, Larry Dominick (in my research of even ostensibly non-partisan Mayors, many do tend to have an affiliation even if not allowed to “declare” it). I’m forgetting at the moment if Chicago’s is technically non-partisan (however a joke that would be). Nashville’s is “non-partisan”, but no Republican has occupied the office since Grover Cleveland was President in 1888.
Dominick was Police Chief of Cicero including under Loren-Maltese.
He was endorsed by Republican County Board member Tony Peraica (no RINO) and Dan Proft a conservative who has written for Human Events was involved in his campaign.
So I’d guess he’s a Republican.
I’d venture nearly every NP Mayor has a party, they must have political opinions after all. I guess some could be fruitcakes like Jesse Ventura.
In my grandma’s town, Hazel Crest also with NP elections, the local politicos (all black dems) are divided into 2 local slates that run against each other with dumb names like “New Vision” (first time I saw a sign I thought it was for eye care). Grandma claims she and her church friends were the deciding votes in the last (or next to last) election as they wanted to oust the incumbent Village Board President. The slates may be Jesse Jackson organization versus Bill Shaw (nemesis of Jesse, former State Senator lost to “independent” James Meeks) and twin brother Bob’s organization. I believe that dynamic is present in several of the south suburbs. Grannie hates the Shaw brothers worse than Jackson. Lovely local politics huh.
Sounds as much, although it doesn't seem like he's done anything for the local GOP, unless I'm mistaken. I thought somebody told me Peraica was a RINO when he was running against the Stoger corpse.
"I’d venture nearly every NP Mayor has a party, they must have political opinions after all. I guess some could be fruitcakes like Jesse Ventura."
Yes, although I've had quite a time nailing down an actual affiliation (it's hard to do until they run for another higher office). There are, however, some that actually do try to operate in a non-partisan way, such as a former Mayor of Grand Forks, ND, who publicly trumpeted she was a member of neither, and others that say "how do you pick up the trash or fill potholes in a partisan way ?" I think I could answer that question in a creative way. ;-)
"In my grandma’s town, Hazel Crest also with NP elections, the local politicos (all black dems) are divided into 2 local slates that run against each other with dumb names like “New Vision” (first time I saw a sign I thought it was for eye care). Grandma claims she and her church friends were the deciding votes in the last (or next to last) election as they wanted to oust the incumbent Village Board President. The slates may be Jesse Jackson organization versus Bill Shaw (nemesis of Jesse, former State Senator lost to “independent” James Meeks) and twin brother Bob’s organization. I believe that dynamic is present in several of the south suburbs. Grannie hates the Shaw brothers worse than Jackson. Lovely local politics huh."
Sounds like it's time for Grandma to move. ;-)
Dear g-d I just learned Peraica’s wife is a muslim. I guess he stole my idea to marry muslim girls and raise Republican children. He should have got her to ditch Mohammed though.
He was a Lipinski democrat back in the day. “Everyone in was a Democrat,” he says. “If you wanted to get ahead you were a Democrat, and I wanted to get ahead.”
He’s a self-described social and fiscal conservative and hawk.
Peraica is at least not a RINO by Illinois standards. He’s regarded as a “maverick”. Of course he’s “far-right” to the democrats. They tried to use abortion against him.
Although he did want to run against a Republican Senator named Raica (notice the name) in the primary while still a democrat and taking orders from Lipinski.
http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/theworks/060804/
“how do you pick up the trash or fill potholes in a partisan way ?”
Well the democrat way is to hire the mob or your cousin to do it.
Makes his wife an “infidel.” She should convert, you’re correct. My former fiancee’s best friend (a Chicago native) converted to Catholicism (after she fled her parents home, her father being the all-too-predictable Stone Age troglodyte we’ve come to know and love from that death cult).
Bill Lipinski wasn’t a moonbat, though he was just another cog in the Daley machine.
An interesting (if a smidge biased, “far right wing”) article.
Yup, the rodents would hire the mob or get a family member to do it. The Republicans would privatize the service. ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.