Excellent

The Republican R****t Myth
By Mona Charen August 26, 2014 11:50 am
Print Tell a Friend


Mona CharenThe unsinkable Charles B. Rangel appeared on C-SPAN over the weekend. Why unsinkable? Well, the House of Representatives censured the New York Democrat in 2010 by a v**e of 333 to 79 (when the body was still majority Democrat) for violating 11 ethics rules and "bringing discredit to the House." The New York Times called it a "staggering fall" for the senior Democrat. But fall-schmall, he's since been reelected and will retire at his leisure.

While chatting with Brian Lamb, Rangel dropped a few falsehoods as casually as cigar ash. This isn't to pick on Rangel. He's just illustrative. His assertion -- that the Republican and Democratic Parties "changed sides" in the 1960s on civil rights, with white r****ts leaving the Democratic Party to join the Republicans -- has become conventional wisdom. It's utterly false and should be rebutted at every opportunity.

It's true that a Democratic president, Lyndon Johnson, shepherded the 1964 Civil Rights Act to passage. But who v**ed for it? Eighty percent of Republicans in the House v**ed aye as against 61 percent of Democrats. In the Senate, 82 percent of Republicans favored the law, but only 69 percent of Democrats. Among the Democrats v****g nay were Albert Gore Sr., Robert Byrd and J. William Fulbright.

The Republican p**********l candidate in 1964 also opposed the Civil Rights Act. Barry Goldwater had been an enthusiastic backer of the 1957 and 1960 civil rights acts (both overwhelmingly opposed by Democrats). He was a founding member of the Arizona chapter of the NAACP. He hired many b****s in his family business and pushed to desegregate the Arizona National Guard. He had a good-faith objection to some features of the 1964 act, which he regarded as unconstitutional.

Goldwater was no r****t. The same cannot be said of Fulbright, on whom Bill Clinton bestowed the Medal of Freedom. Fulbright was one of the 19 senators who signed the "Southern Manifesto" defending segregation.

OK, but didn't all the old segregationist senators leave the Democratic Party and become Republicans after 1964? No, just one did: Strom Thurmond. The rest remained in the Democratic Party -- including former Klansman Robert Byrd, who became president pro tempore of the Senate.

Former r****ts of both parties renounced their old views (as Kevin Williamson points out, Johnson himself v**ed against anti-lynching laws and poll-tax repeals), and neither party has a perfect record on racial matters by any stretch. But it is a libel to suggest that the Republican Party, the anti-s***ery party, the party of Lincoln, and the party that traditionally supported civil rights, anti-lynching laws and integration, became the r****t party after 1964.

The "solid south" Democratic v****g pattern began to break down not in the 1960s in response to civil rights, but in the 1950s in response to economic development and the Cold War. (Black v**ers in the north, who had been reliable Republicans, began to abandon the GOP in response to the New Deal, encouraged by activists like Robert Vann to "turn Lincoln's picture to the wall. That debt has been paid in full.") In the 1940s, the GOP garnered only about 25 percent of southern v**es.

The big break came with Dwight Eisenhower's victories. Significant percentages of white southerners v**ed for Ike, though the Democratic Party remained firmly segregationist and though Eisenhower backed two civil rights bills and enforced the Brown decision by federalizing the National Guard. They also began to send GOP representatives to the House.

These Republican gains came not from the most rural and "Deep South" regions, but rather from the newer cities and suburbs. If the new southern Republican v**ers were white r****ts, one would have expected that Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia would have been the first to turn. Instead, as Gerard Alexander notes in "The Myth of the R****t Republicans," the turn toward the GOP began in Virginia, North Carolina, Texas, Tennessee and Florida. Eisenhower did best in the peripheral states. Alexander concludes: "(T)he GOP's southern e*****rate was not rural, nativist, less educated, afraid of change, or concentrated in the ... Deep South. It was disproportionately suburban, middle-class, educated, young, non-native southern, and concentrated in the growth points that were the least 'Southern' parts of the south."

Rangel is peddling a libel, and Republicans should say so, loudly and often.

---

Mona Charen is a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

The international spotlight has recently been shining on Ferguson, Mo., after an 18-year-old black man was fatally shot by a white police officer. There was massive national and international media coverage, much of it eng****red by the tantalizing thought that here was a clear-cut case of r****m leading to police brutality and indicative of the evil inherent in American society. Violent demonstrations and r**ts ensued, with massive property damage and many outside agitators descending on the town, supposedly to guarantee justice as defined by mob mentality.

Perhaps it would be useful to examine the tragedy with the facts on the table rather than through the lenses of hypersensitized emotions stimulated by those attempting to exploit the situation.

Michael Brown was 6-foot-4 and 290 pounds. He had marijuana in his system and was purportedly involved in a strong-arm robbery prior to the shooting. He and a companion were walking in the middle of the street and obstructing traffic and therefore were admonished by a police officer to move to the sidewalk. Brown, who may have been pharmacologically impaired, became belligerent, and the ensuing struggle produced facial trauma and an orbital fracture of the police officer's face. The officer, who may have been dazed by a blow to the cranium severe enough to produce a fracture, attempted to apprehend the assailant, and shots were fired, six of which struck the suspect, resulting in a fatality.

Regardless of one's position on the political spectrum, we can all agree that this was a horrible tragedy and needless discarding of a precious life. How could this have been avoided? Two obvious answers: The officer could have ignored his duty and backed off when it became apparent that his instructions would not be followed, thereby avoiding a confrontation, or Brown could have complied with the officer's instructions, according to his civic duties.

If police officers generally adopted the first solution, chaos would reign supreme in all of our streets. If the populace generally adopted the second solution, there would be even fewer incidents of police violence. Last year, 100 black males were k**led by police in the United States. In the same year, 5,000 b****s were k**led by other b****s, the vast majority being males. Could it be that we are erroneously being manipulated into making this incident a racial issue, when, in fact, it is a component of a much larger social issue?

Why are there so many young black men in the streets of America with defiant attitudes that frequently lead to incarceration or death? Could it be that a large number of them grow up without a father figure to teach them how to relate to authority and the meaning of personal responsibility? This is not to say that mothers cannot convey these important social lessons, as mine did. But in too many cases, these young unwed mothers have never themselves been exposed to personal responsibility and self-esteem, and the vicious cycle continues. As a society, we must concentrate on ways to break this tragic cycle that has produced a higher poverty rate in black communities across America with the increasing frustrations that underscore potentially explosive, tinderbox situations, as we have seen in Ferguson.

Once we get the most powerful economic engine the world has ever seen back on track with sensible economic policies, we should dev**e some of the tax revenues generated to child-care facilities that would allow many of those unwed mothers to get their General Education Development or higher degree and become self-supporting. There are also a number of programs across the nation that offer free classes that teach social and job sk**ls, which would give many of the young men some different options.

We must concentrate on these kinds of programs because we cannot afford to lose large segments of our society to despair and underachievement in an increasingly competitive world. We have a social crisis brewing if we continue down the path we are on now, but we have the power to change our downward course with true compassion that allows people to rise and escape dependency.

Though racial discrimination exists, it is nowhere near the barrier it once was. The relevant question is: How much of what we see today can be explained by racial discrimination? This is an important question because if we conclude that racial discrimination is the major cause of black problems when it isn't, then effective solutions will be elusive forever. To begin to get a handle on the answer, let's pull up a few historical facts about b***k A******ns.

In 1950, female-headed households were 18 percent of the black population. Today it's close to 70 percent. One study of 19th-century s***e families found that in up to three-fourths of the families, all the children lived with the biological mother and father. In 1925 New York City, 85 percent of black households were two-parent households. Herbert Gutman, author of "The Black Family in S***ery and Freedom, 1750-1925," reports, "Five in six children under the age of six lived with both parents." Also, both during s***ery and as late as 1920, a teenage girl raising a child without a man present was rare among b****s.

A study of 1880 family structure in Philadelphia found that three-quarters of black families were nuclear families (composed of two parents and children). What is significant, given today's arguments that s***ery and discrimination decimated the black family structure, is the fact that years ago, there were only slight differences in family structure among racial groups.

Coupled with the dramatic breakdown in the black family structure has been an astonishing growth in the rate of illegitimacy. The black illegitimacy rate in 1940 was about 14 percent; black illegitimacy today is over 70 percent, and in some cities, it is over 80 percent.

The point of bringing up these historical facts is to ask this question, with a bit of sarcasm: Is the reason the black family was far healthier in the late 1800s and 1900s that back then there was far less racial discrimination and there were greater opportunities? Or did what experts call the "legacy of s***ery" wait several generations to victimize today's b****s?

The Census Bureau pegs the poverty rate among b****s at 28.1 percent. A statistic that one never hears about is that the poverty rate among intact married black families has been in the single digits for more than two decades, currently at 8.4 percent. Weak family structures not only spell poverty and dependency but also contribute to the social pathology seen in many black communities -- for example, violence and predatory sex. Each year, roughly 7,000 b****s are murdered. Ninety-four percent of the time, the murderer is another black person. Though b****s are 13 percent of the nation's population, they account for more than 50 percent of homicide victims. Nationally, the black homicide victimization rate is six times that of w****s, and in some cities, it's 22 times that of w****s. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1976 and 2011, there were 279,384 black murder victims. Coupled with being most of the nation's homicide victims, b****s are also major victims of violent personal crimes, such as assault, rape and robbery.

To put this violence in perspective, black fatalities during the Korean War (3,075), Vietnam War (7,243) and all wars since 1980 (about 8,200) come to about 18,500, a number that pales in comparison with black loss of life at home. Young black males had a greater chance of reaching maturity on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan than on the streets of Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, Oakland, Newark and other cities.

The black academic achievement gap is a disaster. Often, black 12th-graders can read, write and deal with scientific and math problems at only the level of white sixth-graders. This doesn't bode well for success in college or passing civil service exams.

If it is assumed that problems that have a devastating impact on black well-being are a result of racial discrimination and a "legacy of s***ery" when they are not, resources spent pursuing a civil rights strategy will yield disappointing results.

This lady pulls no punches on her feelings for the lynch mob ruling the city.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10204411428915207&set=vb.1515461779&type=3

40+ years ago I was a cop in Alaska, times were different. Most of the cops I know today are thinking of h*****g up the badge because of the issues by the courts. I would never want to protect and serve in today's world.

We had the Chief of Police k**led by a bad guy this weekend, "routine traffic stop" goes to show you, nothing is routine any more. He was a great guy, always a smile and a joke for the folks around town.

Sharpton is a whore and race pimp and should be in jail some where.

Im sorry but this entire post is pure s**t.



:thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:

I too used to live in "taxifornia" and I can attest that there were plenty of people packing in CA. 90% of them are bad guys and they keep them concealed because they don't want to get busted but when you need a cop, help is only 20 min. away.

I have lots of friend who have CHL in CA and they keep them hid, as I do in TX.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Not a word about the white kid k**led by the black cop, and he was truly not guilty of any thing but having his earphones on and did not hear the cop tell him to put his hands up, he made the mistake of reaching into his pocket to turn off his ipad.

Don't you just love the r****t people in America, they all seem to be black.

If you want to go where they ban guns, you can be sure of one thing, only the bad guys will be packing.

If the v***r f***d had been thrown out he would have lost by a large margin.
How can you have 200% of the registered v**ers cast v**es in and e******n.

If the dumacrats do not c***t, they lose. When they c***t, America loses.

I think my black wife of 47 years would say you were wrong.

Here is a little spot I will go to for breakfast, anybody want to join me?

http://totalconservative.com/colorado-restaurant-encourages-employees-and-patrons-to-bring-guns-inside/

That is spot on, Cunningham who was a real hero in VN got the big house and deserved it. Frank and the other criminals in the house get a raise.

you got that right.

Then you are not a TRUE liberal.