Quote: (10-03-2012 07:56 PM)Blackhawk Wrote:
Correction: the 1964 Civil Rights Act was proposed by a Democrat, voted for by a larger percentage of Republicans than Democrats, and signed into law by a post-assassination Democratic Vice President ...after the Republicans had already proposed and passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 and 1957. Republicans have a long history of passing multiple Civil Rights Acts dating back to 1866.
None of that is surprising when you consider the fact that the old Republican Party was once the "Party of Lincoln" that heavily supported blacks and that, as a result, saw the bulk of black support. Even through the late 50's/early 60's, the Republicans were still getting over a third of the black vote.
The new Republican Party (fuzzy dates for its beginning, but mid-60's onward is a decent marker) is a different animal, and cannot reasonably be compared to its pre-1960's counterpart (certainly cannot equate to its 1866 ancestor). That is the one folks are claiming is less friendly to black people and other minorities.
Quote:Quote:
If Black voters really were responding to Civil Rights Acts being passed, why did the earlier Civil Rights Acts of 1960 and 1957 by Republicans completely fail to move Black voters back to the Republican party?
Large, visible efforts had already been made by Roosevelt and Truman. Arguably a case of too little, too late. It is likely that, by that point, the Democrats had already gained momentum within the black community.
Further, there are two factors you're overlooking with regards to the 1964 CRA. First, it was far more substantial than its predecessors, with broader means for enforcement of anti-segregation and discrimination law than the acts that came before it. The '57 act was filled with loopholes, and the '60 act, though better, was still not at the level of its successor. Both of these early acts were concerned primarily with voting rights, and did not do the work their successor did to end segregation and discrimination on a broad level. Blacks may have responded to the '64 act in a more substantial manner in part because it worked more for them than prior acts and went much further than they did (though not quite as far as they wanted).
Secondly, you continue to note that it was voted on by a larger percentage of Republicans than Democrats. Your do not note that, as Lyndon Johnson supported the bill, his Republican opponent (Goldwater) opposed it. This effectively locked the black vote down for the Democrats who, prior to this time, had only been able to count on smaller majorities (60% or so) of blacks in recent elections. Johnson got 94%.
This was the actual turning point. This, of course, was followed by the defection of conservative democrats (ex: Strom Thurmond, who had been crucial in weakening the prior CRA's and led opposition to them) to the Republican side. No Republican has been competitive for the black vote since.
Quote:Quote:
Why did the largest changes in Black Democrat registration come at times that align with economic booms like the WWI and WWII relocation efforts to staff Victory Factories, not with times that align with passages of Civil Rights Acts?
You're putting too much weight on the CRAs and not enough on the Democratic efforts made before then. Also, see above-the largest swing occurred with the '64 CRA because of a) the election (Republican candidate's clear opposition on the most visible stage of American politics) and b) the fact that the '64 CRA was much more substantial than its predecessors.
Quote:Quote:
It appears more likely that existing Political Machines in the cities they were relocated to are what forced Blacks to change to Democrat, which is why they were already voting in the majority Democratic party starting in 1948 after the ramp up for WWII, long before 1964. Corrupt political machine hiring practices that still continue today.
Still don't buy it. Aside from the lack of academic support, this sounds too much like another variation of "the blacks are merely forced/hoodwinked into voting that way" theory I hear too often from conservatives trying to ignore any agency blacks have in this society.
Blacks voted the way they did mainly because of successful efforts made by Democrats during the pre and post WW2 years. They gained the momentum with early efforts to push Civil Rights, and they kept it even in the wake of Republican attempts to regain it. The subsequent defection of more "traditional" Democrats to the Republican party during the mid-60's ended Republican hopes of coming back, and solidified the Democratic hold on the African American community.
Quote:Quote:
And it was Eisenhower who both forced the Army to desegregate and sent the 101st Airborne to walk black children to newly desegregated schools.
Which came well after Truman and Roosevelt's actions (read: late). All this does is explain why blacks did not become a lock for the Democrats at this point. Eisenhower probably prevented this from happening.
Quote:Quote:
Nixon who worked to pass the 1957 Civil Rights Act.
1. Still late. 2. Very weak.
Quote:Quote:
Spiro Agnew who passed some of the first bans against segregation in public housing. Nixon who put racial quotas on the construction industry and forced the Building Trades to integrate. Nixon who forced southern schools to integrate, with the number of blacks attending segregated schools in the South declining from 70% to 18.4% in the first two years of his administration.
Helpful (Nixon was able to get more of the black vote in '72 than his last run), but still late. This wan't enough to overcome the developments I cited earlier during the 60's (stronger CRA, Goldwater opposition, mass defection of conservative, southern whites to Republican party).
Let's also not forget the Southern Strategy, which Nixon was among the first to successfully use in 1968. Blacks weren't dumb enough to completely overlook the
racial implications of that strategy and its hostility to them.
Quote:Quote:
The Republicans kept on pushing desegregation and Civil Rights agendas long after Black voters had abandoned them and moved to the Democratic party, and keep doing so today. It's really amazing how much they keep doing for so little love returned.
Sure they do.
From the manager of George HW Bush's campaign and the 1989-1991 chairman of the RNC:
Quote:Quote:
Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?
Lee Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."
The modern Republican Party, by and large, cares fuck-all about blacks and most hispanics (even less than the Democrats do), which is why they do not have their support.