Why Did the Democratic South Become Republican? – YouTube

A correspondent came up with the following statement.

Gosh, but Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat. How could that possibly be? According to that new ad campaign by Dennis Prager, a major conservative broadcaster and blogger, only the Republicans have ever sponsored or promoted Civil Rights legislation. He even paid an African American woman to say so in the commercials, so it must be true, right?

Seriously, there’s a really weird disinformation campaign going on right now. The basis for Prager’s comments is that in the 19th century, the Democrats were the bad guys in terms of civil rights for African Americans, so they must still be. Somehow, ignoring the entire 20th century in political analysis seems odd, but that’s what he’s doing. He skips over the whole period of time, including the part after July 2nd, 1964, when many Southern Democrats migrated to the Republican Party and to the new American Independent party, because they were the parties that now opposed civil rights legislation. He ignores the entire period of history in which the Democrats became the more liberal of the two parties around the time of the Depression, and remained that way after FDR solidified his position.

I will grant him that, back when the two parties actually talked to each other rather than simply ranting across the aisle, the Republicans of the 1940s did help nudge Truman into finishing the desegregation of the armed forces, by threatening to make it a political issue if he left it unfinished. Also, Eisenhower, in the 1950s, did a lot in support of the Supreme Court’s rulings on schools. But still…

Okay, so maybe Dennis Prager somehow slept through a lot of history classes, and this isn’t really being openly dishonest. That doesn’t explain the other folks jumping in with similar “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength…” ad campaigns. In the state of Georgia, African Americans were sent a phony endorsement pitch, supposedly from Barack Obama, endorsing the Republican candidates…

I don’t know about the ad campaigns elsewhere, but I’m not aware of Dennis Prager ever saying that only Republicans ever supported civil rights legislation. I’m also not aware of any “ad campaigns” featuring an African American woman paid to say so.

I suspect he may have heard this spot, which isn’t an ad campaign for anything, but is in fact the finished product. Nowhere does it say that only Republicans supported civil rights legislation.

Maybe he’s referring to something else, but since he didn’t offer source or link, I’m not sure what to make of any of his history.

Once upon a time, every student of history – and that meant pretty much everyone with a high school education – knew this: The Democratic Party was the party of slavery and Jim Crow, and the Republican Party was the party of emancipation and racial integration.

Democrats were the Confederacy and Republicans were the Union. Jim Crow Democrats were dominant in the South and socially tolerant Republicans were dominant in the North.

But then, in the 1960s and 70s, everything supposedly flipped: suddenly the Republicans became the racists and the Democrats became the champions of civil rights.

Fabricated by left-leaning academic elites and journalists, the story went like this: Republicans couldn’t win a national election by appealing to the better nature of the country; they could only win by appealing to the worst. Attributed to Richard Nixon, the media’s all-purpose bad guy, this came to be known as “The Southern Strategy.”

It was very simple. Win elections by winning the South. And to win the South, appeal to racists. So, the Republicans, the party of Lincoln, were to now be labeled the party of rednecks.

But this story of the two parties switching identities is a myth. In fact, it’s three myths wrapped into one false narrative.

Let’s take a brief look at each myth in turn.

Myth Number One: In order to be competitive in the South, Republicans started to pander to white racists in the 1960s.

Fact: Republicans actually became competitive in the South as early as 1928, when Republican Herbert Hoover won over 47 percent of the South’s popular vote against Democrat Al Smith. In 1952, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower won the southern states of Tennessee, Florida and Virginia. And in 1956, he picked up Louisiana, Kentucky and West Virginia, too. And that was after he supported the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education that desegregated public schools; and after he sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock Central High School to enforce integration.

Myth Number Two: Southern Democrats, angry with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, switched parties.

Fact: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the Civil Rights Act, just one became a Republican. The other 20 continued to be elected as Democrats, or were replaced by other Democrats. On average, those 20 seats didn’t go Republican for another two-and-a-half decades.

Myth Number Three: Since the implementation of the Southern Strategy, the Republicans have dominated the South.

Fact: Richard Nixon, the man who is often credited with creating the Southern Strategy, lost the Deep South in 1968. In contrast, Democrat Jimmy Carter nearly swept the region in 1976 – 12 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And in 1992, over 28 years later, Democrat Bill Clinton won Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and West Virginia. The truth is, Republicans didn’t hold a majority of southern congressional seats until 1994, 30 years after the Civil Rights Act.

As Kevin Williamson of the National Review writes: “If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so. They say things move slower in the south — but not that slow.”

So, what really happened? Why does the South now vote overwhelmingly Republican? Because the South itself has changed. Its values have changed. The racism that once defined it, doesn’t anymore. Its values today are conservative ones: pro-life, pro-gun, and pro-small government.

And here’s the proof: Southern whites are far more likely to vote for a black conservative, like Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, than a white liberal.

In short, history has moved on. Like other regions of the country, the South votes values, not skin color. The myth of the Southern Strategy is just the Democrats’ excuse for losing the South, and yet another way to smear Republicans with the label “racist.”

Don’t buy it.

I’m Carol Swain, professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University, for Prager University.

Police Violence against Black Men Is Rare: Here’s What the Data Actually Say | National Review

Source: Police Violence against Black Men Is Rare: Here’s What the Data Actually Say | National Review

One might retort that, while it may be rare for a black man to be killed by the police, black men are still constantly stopped and routinely brutalized by the police, even if they don’t die from it. However, even this weaker claim is false. It just isn’t true that black men are kicked, punched, etc., on a regular basis by the police.

In order to show that, I’m going to use data from the Police-Public Contact Survey (PPCS), which, as its name suggests, provides detailed information about contacts between the police and the public. It’s conducted on a regular basis by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and is based on a nationally representative sample of more than 70,000 U.S. residents age 16 or older. Respondents are asked whether they had a contact with the police during the past 12 months; if they say they did, they answer a battery of questions about the nature of their last contact, including any use of force. Since the respondents also provide their age, race, gender, etc., we can use this survey to calculate the prevalence of police violence for various demographic groups. The numbers in this piece are from my own analysis of the data, the details and code for which I provide here, but they are consistent with a 2015 report compiled by the BJS itself to the extent the two overlap.

 

Paying the price for breakdown of the country’s bourgeois culture

It’s long been observed that people who do three things: graduate from high school, stay off of recreational drugs, and get married before having kids, are 96% likely to never be in poverty. There are a few other items of what may be called “bourgeois culture”, including hard work and being civil, including “keeping a civil tongue in your head”.

A lot of the pressure to violate these norms seems to come from people who think cultural norms that violate bourgeois values are somehow more “authentic” expressions of certain cultures. Indeed, there’s a poisonously racist belief that dysfunctional culture is hard-wired in to certain races, and forcing them to adopt some other culture is racist.

 

Source: Paying the price for breakdown of the country’s bourgeois culture

Many college students lack basic skills, and high school students rank below those from two dozen other countries.

The causes of these phenomena are multiple and complex, but implicated in these and other maladies is the breakdown of the country’s bourgeois culture.

That culture laid out the script we all were supposed to follow: Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime.

Heather MacDonald at National Review writes:

Were you planning to instruct your child about the value of hard work and civility? Not so fast! According to a current uproar at the University of Pennsylvania, advocacy of such bourgeois virtues is “hate speech.” The controversy, sparked by an op-ed written by two law professors, illustrates the rapidly shrinking boundaries of acceptable thought on college campuses and the use of racial victimology to police those boundaries.
….

The fuse was lit. The rules of the game were the following: Ignore what Wax and Alexander had actually said; avoid providing any counterevidence; and play the race card to the hilt as a substitute for engaging with their arguments.

….

Wax will not be silenced by this fierce deployment of the racism card. But most academics are not so brave. The op-ed’s primary sin was to talk about behavior. The founding idea of contemporary progressivism is that structural and individual racism lies behind socioeconomic inequalities. Discussing bad behavioral choices and maladaptive culture is out of bounds and will be punished mercilessly by slinging at the offender the usual fusillade of “isms” (to be supplemented, post-Charlottesville, with frequent mentions of “white supremacy”). The fact that underclass behaviors are increasingly common among lower-class whites, and not at all limited to poor blacks and Hispanics, might have made it possible to address personal responsibility. That does not appear to be the case. What if the progressive analysis of inequality is wrong, however, and a cultural analysis is closest to the truth? If confronting the need to change behavior is punishable “hate speech,” then it is hard to see how the country can resolve its social problems.

Eugene Volokh comments.

My thinking: My parents brought me from a place — Soviet Russia — that had not just an oppressive political system and a failed economic system, but also (largely as a result but perhaps partly a cause of) a destructive culture, a culture characterized (much more than American culture) by cheating, shirking and distrust. They brought me to a country that thrived because of its superior cultural assets (which is not to deny that it had cultural weaknesses as well).

It seems to me indubitably clear that certain cultural traits, including the ones that Wax and Alexander note, are more conducive to societal success and long-term individual happiness and others are not. (The norm of raising children in stable, married two-parent families is one well-documented example.) Indeed, my sense is that most on the left actually believe that some cultural traits and some cultures are superior, just as most on the right do: It’s just that they often praise different kinds of cultural traits, and different kinds of cultures and subcultures. Indeed, openness to other cultures is itself a cultural trait, one that different cultures possess to different extents and in different ways; so are, for instance, aversion to race discrimination, support for sexual equality and embrace of sexual freedom.

And of course there is nothing racially exclusive about positive cultural traits. All racial groups can benefit from adopting them (or from the good fortune of having been born into them), just as they can benefit from adopting successful political and economic systems (most reliably, by moving to places that have such beneficial political and economic systems and cultures, and raising their children to adopt those cultures). Indeed, many people of all racial groups, in the United States and elsewhere, eagerly seek to acculturate their children to the bourgeois traits that Wax and Alexander pointed to.

 

Moving the Goal Post on Racism – Larry Elder

Source: Moving the Goal Post on Racism – Larry Elder

In 1964, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. appeared on a BBC news show. The host asked King about Attorney General Robert Kennedy’s prediction, an audacious one at the time, that a black man could be elected president in 40 years.

King thought it would not take that long: “There are certain problems and prejudices and mores in our society which make it difficult now. However, I am very optimistic about the future. Frankly, I have seen certain changes in the United States over the last two years that surprise me. … On the basis of this, I think we may be able to get a Negro president in less than 40 years. I would think that this could come in 25 years or less.”

It took 44 years.

….

First, the election of a black person did not bring about the expected “hope and change.” In fact, the percentage of blacks living in poverty increased under Obama. Shortly before Obama’s election, a supporter at a campaign rally named Peggy Joseph famously gushed about what an Obama victory would mean: “I wouldn’t have to worry about putting gas in my car. I wouldn’t have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know — if I help him, he’ll help me.” Well, guess what. Barbara Bush was right when she said, “Your success as a family, our success as a society, depends not on what happens at the White House but on what happens inside your house.”

In 1992, the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics examined the 75 most populous counties. Turns out the jury isless likely to convict a black defendant of a felony than a white defendant. The study found that “in 12 of the 14 types of crimes (felonies including murder, rape and other serious crimes) for which data was collected, the conviction rate for blacks is lower than that of whites.” Similarly, in 2013, the National Institute of Justice, the research and evaluation agency of the DOJ, published their study of whether the police, as a result of racial bias, stop blacks more than other drivers. The conclusion? Any racial disparity in traffic stops is due to “differences in offending” in addition to “differences in exposure to the police” and “differences in driving patterns.”

My uncle Eddie, a barber in Chattanooga, Tennessee, immersed himself in local Republican politics. He died 20 years before Obama got elected. He would’ve been stunned that the country of segregation in which he was born could evolve so that his nephew would see the election of a black president. But he would likely have been even more astonished at how quickly Martin Luther King’s dream of a colorblind society has turned into a quest to purge the town square of Confederate statues. He would have been shocked that a group called Black Lives Matter, given credibility by the Obama administration, issued a “list of demands” of white people.

In eight years, we’ve gone from the election of the first black president to a call for campus “safe spaces” to combat alleged racist “microaggressions.” Uncle Eddie would have called this moving the goal post.

African-Americans need a Great Awakening to repair their broken culture

Source: African-Americans need a Great Awakening to repair their broken culture

Based upon the above premises, I’ve concluded to my own satisfaction that whites cannot save blacks; that pulling down offensive statutes cannot save blacks; that castigating everyone in the world as the “root cause” of black suffering (even if we accept this as true for argument’s sake) cannot save blacks; that politicians cannot save blacks; and that Democrats cannot save blacks (and, indeed, will continue to inflict practical and spiritual damage on them). Only blacks can save blacks.

To have this cultural salvation, however, one that can relieve them of their self-inflicted woes, blacks must first have a Great Awakening that makes spiritual and moral demands upon them. This Great Awakening, I hasten to add, cannot be a black Muslim kind of awakening, one that sees blacks simply add the word “Allah” to their outer-directed anger and demands. Instead, they need to have a deep, inner, spiritual change that gives them a hand up in freeing themselves from the moral abyss in which too many of them are trapped.

Incidentally, I write all of the above as a person who, while suspecting there might be a God, but isn’t sure; as a pragmatist who doesn’t have a spiritual bone in her body; and as a Jew who has a deep respect for the humanist strain of Christianity that’s been a part of America since the First Great Awakening in the middle of the 18th Century.

How many psychologists does it take to change a light bulb?

Only one. But first it has to want to change.

White-on-Black Homicides Are More Likely to Be Ruled Justifiable. Here’s Why. | National Review

Source: White-on-Black Homicides Are More Likely to Be Ruled Justifiable. Here’s Why. | National Review

The New York Times and the Marshall Project report that homicides are much more likely to be ruled justifiable when a black man is killed by a white person. Racial disparities in self-defense is a topic I’ve spent a fair amount of time thinking about, because in 2013 I had a challenging and rewarding back-and-forth about it with John K. Roman and Shebani Rao of the Urban Institute. (Roman’s study, my response, their reply, my final comment.) There may be some bias in these decisions, but I don’t think this kind of statistic is very helpful when it comes to studying it.

Basically, when a member of one group attacks a member of another group, two things can happen that will affect homicide statistics: The aggressor can kill the victim, or the victim can kill the aggressor. The former act should be charged as a crime, the latter ruled justifiable (assuming the victim reasonably feared for life or limb). Therefore, more acts of aggression by members of a group translate to more unjustifiable homicides for that group and more justifiable homicides for the other group. As a result, if one group commits more violent crime, we’d expect that group’s homicides to be justified a lower percentage of the time.

You can follow the links above for more details on the math, but using a victimization survey by the Justice Department (which avoids the issue of racial bias in arrest statistics), a rough estimate is that there are 767,000 acts of black-on-white violence and 128,000 violent acts where the races were flipped in the U.S. annually. As I explained, if 2 percent of all victims of violence defend themselves,

128,000 acts of white-on-black violence inspire 2,500 acts of justified violence by blacks. And 767,000 acts of black-on-white violence inspire 15,000 acts of justifiable violence by whites. . . . As a result, 10 percent of white-on-black violence is justified, and only 0.3 percent of black-on-white violence is. This corresponds closely to the actual disparity from the FBI figures [regarding homicides ruled justifiable]: 11.41 percent to 1.2 percent.

I also pointed out that most justifiable homicides involve guns, and that whites report owning guns at about twice the rate of blacks.

The NYT/Marshall analysis does adjust the data to account for numerous factors, such as the relationship between the parties, the killer’s sex, the broad type of confrontation, and the weapon used, and finds that the disparity falls from to eight times to 4.7 times. But they don’t have a way of figuring out which party was actually the aggressor, and therefore they can’t tell whether prosecutors make the wrong decisions, letting off whites and/or prosecuting blacks in cases where they’d have done differently if the races were reversed. (I also find it frustrating that in most of their statistics they compare overall rates with rates for black men, combining sex and race so it’s hard to tell the role of each factor. Anyone want to guess whether man-on-woman or woman-on-man homicides are more likely to be self-defense?)

Again, I’m not claiming there’s zero bias at play here; the data are murky enough that we can’t know for sure. But the disparity documented in the report isn’t evidence of bias. It’s exactly what we’d expect to see when one group offends at a higher rate than another.

Belgian Study: Victimhood Sets Groups Against Each Other

Source: Belgian Study: Victimhood Sets Groups Against Each Other

Racial minorities engage in “competitive victimhood” in a quest for recognition of past sufferings such as slavery and colonialism, according to a new research study published by Belgian professors.

….

Recognition of victimhood status is especially important because it can be weaponized for the benefit of the minority group in question, Guissmé and Licata write:

The victim status is highly coveted because it tends to empower victimized groups, which are perceived as morally superior, entitled to sympathy, consideration, and protection against criticism.

Conversely, the lack of victimhood status poses a problem to minorities, since it reduces their ability to garner attention, protection, and even financial rewards (reparations, for example). This explains why the denial of victimhood status can be so troubling: denial of victimhood recognition can lend credence to a denial of help and assistance.

Back in the last millennium, I wrote a piece titled “That Treasured Victim Status”. It’s nice to see academia catching up.

“The Super-Secret Handshake of the Black Community” – Allen West

Source: “The Super-Secret Handshake of the Black Community” – Allen West

Something is happening in this presidential election cycle that has some folks totally up in arms. A white GOP presidential candidate is addressing the issues in the black community. And, of course, Donald J. Trump has kicked the hornet’s nest and is consistently castigated with the ultimate denigrating moniker of “racist.” Trump is finding out that there is a super-secret club handshake in the black community. And the only white people who have been provided that code are white liberal progressive socialists.

What amazes me is that here we have someone challenging the failed progressive policies of the inner city and his sincerity is questioned? Why has no one EVER questioned the sincerity of the Democrats who have run the inner cities of America for decades? Easy answer, they have the secret sauce and Hillary Clinton even admitted she carries it in her purse. When the left, (or the appointed black gatekeepers) are challenged on their policy shortcomings in the black community, the retort is racism. That is the means by which suppression of the discussion is sought. If you are a black conservative, then you are told you are not really black, only a token, Oreo, sellout, Uncle Tom and several other denigrating titles that are too vile to repeat here.

Even those of us who have been born and raised in inner city neighborhoods are told we have no clue about the “black experience.” I was raised in Atlanta’s historic Old Fourth Ward, which produced Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Funny, I suppose a biracial fella who was raised early on in Indonesia and ended up being raised by a white grandparents in Hawaii has a clearer perspective. Then again, Barack Obama was given the code, the super-secret handshake because he is a progressive socialist.

So, it becomes very apparent that one does not talk about the decimation of the black family. No one needs to know that, prior to the policies of Lyndon Johnson, the two parent black household was at 75%-77%. Even a white, liberal Democrat senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Monyihan, admonished Johnson against instituting the policy of government checks for out of wedlock children, caveated by the condition that no man could be in the home. Monyihan obviously did not know the super-secret handshake because he was attacked and demonized for speaking out. I am reminded of his famed quote, “You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.” The fact is that many of the issues in the inner city, the black community, stem from the destruction of the black family. But, if you are not part of the secret club, you best not speak of that, lest you are attacked.

If you are a member of Black Lives Matter, you have a double super-secret handshake and membership. And your membership card is printed by a white liberal progressive socialist named George Soros. How odd is that? Trump gets the ultimate beat down for addressing issues in the black community. He is criticized for speaking before white audiences. Ask yourself, when was the last time Soros went before a black audience? Does not matter, he has the super-secret handshake, probably given by Al Sharpton himself.

But, why is it that BLM has little to say about the rise of black gangs? They say nothing about better education opportunities and choice in the black community? Consider that the only choice offered to blacks by white liberal progressive socialists is to kill their unborn children…to the tune of 13-15 million since the 1973 Roe v Wade decision. I guess those lives don’t matter, after all, they did not get the super-secret handshake. Donald Trump gets pilloried for speaking of school choice, vouchers, charter schools, homeschooling…anything that is better than the failing public schools that plague the black community. Ask yourself, when was the last time you heard any member of the Congressional Black Caucus champion the issue of school choice? You will not because they fear losing the code provided by the white liberal progressives of the teachers unions. So, generation upon generation in the black community falls behind and ends up as the two young Chicago black men, the Sorrell brothers, ages 26 and 22, who shot the cousin of NBA superstar Dwayne Wade as she walked her infant child in a stroller. These two young men were on parole for a gun conviction. They were also gang members.

Unless you have the super-secret handshake code, you cannot talk about black on black shootings and murders. Matter of fact, it is about the gun, not the socio-economic factors creating the violence. And, you had best tow the talking points line, or else have your membership card revoked — which is what we see from the liberal progressive media. Their propaganda is not focused on the real issue. How many shootings and deaths occurred in Chicago this past weekend? The message from the leftist media is all about maintaining the status quo, the 21st century economic plantation. It is about the perpetuation of the dependency society, the welfare nanny-state. They will never challenge the notion of economic enslavement to the government masters.

There is a quote attributed to George Orwell, “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” Indeed, in the black community, truth is condemned as hate speech simply because it exposes those who have done genocidal and horrific actions. We must continue to challenge them at every turn. Sadly, it has taken all this time for any GOP presidential candidate to elaborate on this. It cannot be about just an election cycle; this is an issue that has to be constantly engaged. No one group should ever invest all of their political capital into one ideological party agenda. And, when assessing the return on investment for the black community for their consistent electoral patronage of the Democrat party, well, it speaks for itself.

My evidencing such will draw demeaning comment, but see, I know the super-secret handshake, the code. I just refuse to be a dependent subject, and that is threatening.