Dems, Republicans, and the ‘party of civil rights’

In light of John McCain’s appearance before the NAACP’s national convention yesterday, Bruce Bartlett makes the case in a WSJ op-ed that McCain should argue that the Republican Party, all appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, is the party of civil rights. (If this sounds familiar, Bartlett wrote a book on this subject, called “Wrong on Race.”)

Everyone knows this, but it’s worth repeating: the Republican Party is the party of Abraham Lincoln and was established in 1854 to block the expansion of slavery. The Democratic Party was the party of slavery. […]

After the war, it was the Republican Party that rammed through the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution over Democratic opposition…. Historically speaking, the Republican Party has a far better record on race than the Democrats. Sen. McCain should not be shy about saying so.

This comes less than two weeks after the National Black Republican Association put up billboards in Florida and South Carolina saying the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican (a claim which is demonstrably ridiculous).

Now, we’ve been down this road before, but if the right sincerely intends to push this argument again this election year, we might as well go to the trouble of pointing out how foolish — and frankly, intellectually lazy — this entire tack really is.

The inescapable fact is, the Republican Party of the 19th century bears no resemblance to, and has no bearing on, the modern-day Republican Party. The problem isn’t that Bartlett’s history is wrong; it’s that his history is irrelevant and badly misses the point.

One need not have a doctorate in American history to know that the nation’s two major political parties have shifted significantly for the better part of nearly two centuries. The Democratic Party, in the first half of the 20th century, was home to competing constituencies — southern whites with abhorrent views on race, and African Americans in the north, who sought to advance the cause of civil rights. The party struggled, ultimately siding with a progressive, inclusive agenda.

On race, Democrats changed and became the party of civil rights. Republicans, meanwhile, changed and became the home of racists who no longer felt comfortable in the Democratic Party.

As Matt Yglesias recently argued:

Decades ago, the Democratic Party was, among other things, the political home of white supremacy in the United States. In the 1960s, the party’s leadership decisively broke with that record. At around the same time, part of the rise of the conservative movement inside the Republican Party was the growing prominence of folks like Barry Goldwater who opposed the Civil Rights Act and who found in his 1964 campaign that the main electoral constituency for his brand of conservatism was … white supremacists. Other white supremacist politicians (some of whom, unlike Goldwater, would forever remain unrepentant) like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms moved into the GOP column. And of course while explicit advocacy of segregation has long since vanished from the top ranks of the Republican Party, major conservative leaders have been heard in recent years issuing paens to the work of Thurmond and Helms, with key legislative leaders specifically regretting that Thurmond’s 1948 white supremacist presidential campaign failed, and pointing to Helms as exemplifying what conservatism is all about.

Bartlett’s central point seems to be that voters should be aware of the parties’ pasts, because the Dems’ generations-old record has to matter. I’m very much inclined to agree — because that party broke from that past to become champions of civil rights. Equally important, then, is the Republicans’ present — the party not only welcomed the racists who left the Democrats, they became the party of the “Southern Strategy,” opposition to affirmative action, campaigns based on race-baiting, vote-caging, discriminatory voter-ID laws, Katrina, boycotting minority debates, and opposing legislative remedies to problems that affect the African-American community most.

Ultimately, this isn’t much of a campaign pitch: “Vote Republican: The Party Was Right Before It Was Wrong.”

For some reason, I just can’t see Abe Lincoln looking at the current GOP and saying “yeah, I just GOTS to be a part of THAT!”

  • What I don’t get is who the Republicans think they can fool with this? Most of their lies have a superficial plausibility that makes them attractive to certain types of low-information voters, but who is possibly dumb enough to either believe this or let it affect them positively. Blacks — who already rejected Hillary Clinton — despite Bill’s admirable record, comparatively, on race? Low-information Republican whites — many of whom are racists and this is the last thing they want to hear? RRers who are not known for a committment to equality ‘in this world’ however much they — theoretically — preach it in the next.

    Who, exactly, is “Martin Luther King was a Republican” aimed at?

    The Republicans are getting so desperate that they are twisting themselves into a Klein bottle.

  • The one thing the GOP has going for it is that many of the old time segregationists are passing away and fading from public consciousness.

    Expect more of this line of rhetoric in the future from people less idiotic than Bartlett.

  • If we are digging into history, let’s not go back as far as the 19th century, which is irrelevent. Let’s go to the early 20th century to a time called “The Roaring Twenties.”
    Republican controlled Congress
    Republicans won the presidency
    Business boomed
    When it was exposed that the huge expansion was without a firm foundation, the Republicans (and the free market) gave us…

    The Great Depression.

    Thanks, Republicans.

    Too bad Americans suck at learning the lessons of history.

  • Yes. The Republican party was founded in 1854 by people who believe that slavery was wrong and black people were inferior. The GOP has done an admirable job of adhering to both those convictions for the last 154 years.

    Well done!

  • It kinda fits. Looking back 150 years helps to distort the reality of what now defines this party; a lot of really sick, greedy, compulsive liars who’d sell their kids, wife, city, state, country, and planet for their own personal advantage.

  • When Republicans call themselves the “Party of Lincoln,” let’s remind them that in their present incarnation they are very close to what we remember best about the Party of Grant.

    That’s Ulysses S. Grant, the second Republican president. A great general, but he headed one of the most corrupt administrations in U.S. history.

    Remember Grant when we discuss a presidential candidate’s military experience.

  • Okay, let’s have a debate about who will be better on civil rights, Obama or McCain.

    Are the Republicans *trying* to lose this time?

  • I don’t think they’re saying it in the hopes of changing any minds–they’re saying it in the hopes that Democrats will take the bait and waste time defending ourselves against a transparently stupid charge. Would they prefer to talk about Iraq, or the economy?

  • To say the Republican party of Lincoln’s day is the same as it is today is to admit that the Republican party is unable to change with the times. That much is true.

  • Remind me again of why some Dems continue to defend Bartlett as less of a shameless, integrity-free spinner than the rest of the Bush administration?

  • There is already something fundamentally wrong with people supporting republicans after the past 30 yrs and our current disaster. 27% are poised to stand up and scream hell yah at anything a republican says…multiple Ann Coulters and Hannities waving confederate flags and wearing the grey caps. The dregs that progressive society has left in the gutter of the past.. It’s fitting that an old handicapped war relic stands to lead the way forward for them. You can’t have discussions with a lynch mob or these pathetic truth deniers…their brains don’t function normally.

  • This is a brilliant strategy for the Republicans — trying to win over black voters by telling them they’re ignorant of history and shouldn’t trust what they see with their own eyes.

    Yeah. Good luck with that.

  • What TR said. (as usual)

    Yeah, the Republicans are going to fool the people who watched New Orleans drown in abject horror… as Bush and McCain ate birthday cake.

  • I remember what LBJ said at the time he pushed through the Civil Rights Bills in the mid-60’s.

    “The Democrats have lost the South now for a few generations”. He was talking, of course, of the “white” South. And, he was very correct.

    I wonder if the Dems this year can make a coallition of black voters and southern “moderates” and retake any of the Southern states? It would be a nice thing for us all if they can do it.

  • I get so tired of hearing this argument. Yes, Lincoln freed the slaves and he was a Republican. But today’s Republican party is not the same Republican party that existed when Lincoln was president. Today it is populated with the political descendants of those that opposed Lincoln and the entire Civil Rights movement (Byrd excepted). The fact that they continually make this argument just goes to illustrate to everyone how dishonest they are with themselves and everyone else.

  • In the past, when Republicans have tried to “appeal” to African Americans, the real purpose is to make their party seem more acceptable to white voters who are uncomfortable with racism (without kicking out the ones who are, of course.) Since actually attempting to convince black voters with this BS is ludicrous, I suspect that is the case this time, too.

  • Bartlett’s main problem is that his historical analysis comes to a shuddering halt forty years before the present. When the Democrats set about dismantling segregation in the 60’s, Democrats who didn’t like the notion of sharing restaurants with non-whites (and there were plenty of them) went over to…what do you call those people again…oh yeah…the Republican party.

    Since then, as Steve points out, their entire election strategy has been built on identifying the Democrats as the party for black people. And conversely, themselves as those who best represent the concerns and interests of white people.

    Perhaps the reason that Republicans don’t make more of their record on ‘civil rights’ is that ever since the modern civil rights movement started, they have tried to distance themselves from it as far as possible. Is Bruce Bartlett actualy as dumb as he appears to be?

  • As Redshift stated, the purpose of such utter idiocy as Bartlett’s is not to persuade African Americans to be Republicans, but to make the GOP acceptable to whites who would rather not be in a party that is explicitly racist. So there are three inter-related arguments that get made:
    1. The GOP has been better than Dems on civil rights.
    2. Blacks don’t vote GOP because they are captive to “old-line civil rights leaders” like Jesse Jackson, Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton.
    3. Well meaning white people know better than black people how to recognize and analyze racism politically. I mean Bruce Bartlett is smarter than 90% of African Americans on which party is better for their interests.

  • Redshift nailed it. It’s about more than white voters, though. The GOP is in real danger with evangelicals that care about issues other than abortion and gays, such as civil rights and the environment. They have to appear more caring about social issues without actually backing progressive policies. Hence, “MLK was a Republican” and McCain’s generalities about global warming (while backtracking from cap and trade). They’re full of hot air, but want to appear more inclusive and proactive.

  • Oh yeah the party for the black people… lets give them welfare, food stamps, lower the standards for schools, testing and gov’t jobs.. of course they will vote for the Demoracists. Havent you read my post before about the underlying racism that prevails in the leftist elitists. If you coolaide drinkers would see through the hate you would realize that the right wants to educate and elevate the minorities …not keep them trodden down like in the days of slavery , depending on massah for there daily needs.. what a bunch of hipocrtical BS you people buy into. Wake up and realize that if you quit pandering the black person with your gov’t dole, this country would be a better place…The ghettos would be no more, and a minority could hold his head high ,, not groveling for a hand out to buy his vote…. Bubba said that…..

  • What Bartlett has to remember is that all the racist Dems changed to racist Republicans starting in 1948, with that good ol’ boy Strom Thurman. Dems controlled the southern politics until the civil rights act of 1964(?). Starting with Nixon and continuing thru Ronnie boy and both Bushes, the racists found Nirvana with the Repug code words of the Dems losing respect for southern “tradition’ and morals!

    Bartlett is right as long as he understands and states that the Democratic racists of old are the Repug racists of today.

  • The sheer ignorance of republicans is amazing.

    Of course, blacks supported the GOP in the old days. The most racist folks in this country were southern democrats. Republicans were considered progressive northerners, while the South was solidly conservative democrat.

    Then things changed dramatically in the 50s and 60s.
    LBJ pushed for civil rights legislation, angering southern conservatives along the way (dems and dixiecrats).
    The result? Them racist southerners flocked to the desperate Republican Party, which was in disarray after LBJ won the 1964 election in a landslide over the segregationist Republican Barry Goldwater.
    Is it a coincidence that Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina and other southern states SUDDENLY became Republican for the first time ever in the 1960s and have remained so?

    Where are those prominent elected black republicans over the last 40 years? Rice and Powell were appointed TOKENS to give an impression of diversity (Powell) or simply because of closeness to the Bush family (Rice)… At least Colin Powell had just enough decency to leave that sorry administration early.

    The GOP seized to be the party of Lincoln in the 1960s and became a Goldwater/Thurmond/Helms/ Falwell/Duke/Limbaugh/Reagan/Bush diaspora. Why would blacks associate themselves with these kinds of people?
    Do they honestly believe that a man like Rockefeller would still feel at home in the current GOP?

  • Or perhaps just to bring us up to the present:
    Ultimately, this isn’t much of a campaign pitch: “Vote Republican: The Party Was Right Before It Was Wrong.”
    How about: ““Vote Republican: The Party Was Right Before It Was Wrong to be right”?
    David

  • McCain should lecture Obama on what it’s like to be Black in America.

    I’m sure we could all use a good laugh right about now.

    What with the Repub “war n economy train wreck fiscal disaster” sucking all the air out of the room, a little light comedy would be good.

  • #26 Chris: “Where are those prominent elected black republicans over the last 40 years?”

    I watch MSNBC and CNN consistently. What amazes me is the number of McSame’s spokesmen who are African American. On the 2 channels I mentioned, I would guess the percentage to be at least 40% of the McSame shills.

    Anyone else notice the same thing?

  • I suspect that the reason the McFlip-Flop campaign won’t touch this is that it lends itself to “old” jokes as in how he voted for the 13th Amendment. “Some jokes just write themselves.”

  • Comments are closed.