A somewhat inflammatory and controversial comparison made by Andrew Sullivan, based on the electoral map above (swing states with yellow letters), and the 1861 map below -
- colored for their position on slavery. Details at The Dish, where this comment is appended:
I think America is currently in a Cold Civil War. The parties, of course, have switched sides since the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The party of the Union and Lincoln is now the Democratic party. The party of the Confederacy is now the GOP. And racial polarization is at record levels, with whites entirely responsible for reversing Obama's 2008 inroads into the old Confederacy in three Southern states...
I find it troubling - and interesting.
Is this news to anyone? This is the Southen Strategy, sow division based on skin color to obfuscate the widening division by wealth.ReplyDelete
Bipartisan hackery. A not-so-subtle implication that republicans are racists. Nice. Maybe the yellow swing states should be colored yellow. Though that wouldn't help Mr. Sullivan get his point across as well. Someone should make a map of Europe comparing the influence of Germany in the 1940's VS their current influence today.ReplyDelete
You mean the 3 states that were actually states back then? Not a fan of Sullivan, but the point stands.Delete
Are you even paying attention? I am talking about the first map. All nine "swing states" are not left out, they are just ignored. The entire notion that republicans are inherently racist is laughable and speaks more to the character of the accuser. Especially considering the fact that Abraham Lincoln himself was a republican and it was rich southern democrats who wanted to keep black people down. Sullivan probably just missed this in his history class.Delete
Sullivan probably just missed this in his history classDelete
lol. Perhaps while you're on wikipedia you should read up on "southern strategy" and the civil rights movement. When it came to civil rights these parties switched places decades and decades ago. The party is most definitely the party where white racists (conservatives) feel most comfortable. Republicans aren't inherently racist, but the Republican party is the party that's most racist, if you can't see that, you should maybe ask yourselves why minorities don't join The GOP in droves, unless of course you think they're just too ignorant to see what's obvious to everybody except blinkered conservatives.
and it was rich southern democrats who wanted to keep black people down
Yep, and all those racist Southern Democrats switched parties when Northern Democrats started championing civil rights. Democrats then, and Republicans now, but always *conservatives*.
Minorities aren't dumb. They want to keep their big government entitlement checks coming. That's why they vote for democrats. Conservatives generally want a smaller government. Quite ironicaly, the real racism is found in the Liberal's genecide of the unborn minorities in the inner cities. Instead of switching parties, racists just got more practical and clever. The white founder of planned parenthood, Margaret Sanger, described her goal as "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit." So one one hand Democrats seek to keep minorities dependendent on the hand of the almighty big government, all the while cohersing them into killing their unborn. So which party is more racist? It's really not that hard to figure out.Delete
They want to keep their big government entitlement checks coming. That's why they vote for democrats.Delete
A couple things: Rural whites receive more entitlement money. Thanks for proving my point about conservatives and racism.....
The last president to cut entitlements was Clinton with his welfare reform.
Conservatives generally want a smaller government
Which must be why they started two wars costing us over a trillion, created the bloated DHS, and pass laws like Medicare Pt. D.
Ah, never mind. I see I'm dealing with blind fanaticism now. Won't waste my time.
Where would the actual extreme right be? Since paleoconservative expunging from the Republican party in the 1990's? Also, are negroes not a factor in much of the South in correlation with your presented poltical presentation?ReplyDelete
Annnd...why leave out the entire mid-West from the comparison? Because they weren't around during the Civil War?ReplyDelete
A more accurate representation would demonstrate that the divide is between rural and city, I think. We wouldn't have to imply that people are racist that way.
"the entire mid-West" is not left out. Nine of the twelve states are there. Only the Dakotas and Nebraska are excluded - because as the link explains they weren't states during the Civil War.Delete
I apologize, my comment was not clear. I meant to ask why the mid-West wasn't colored red in the first map. Unless something strange happens, I think most of "the middle" is red.
My objection lies in the fact that this seems to be a fearful misunderstanding of southern politics. It seems to me that the entire issue in the South, and among many conservatives, boils down to abortion. That is, if one believes that personhood begins at conception, the odds of that individual voting Democratic right now plummets. That IS a civil rights issue, and Republicans think it is the Democrats who are on the wrong side of history on that one. If the Republican party became pro-choice and the Democratic party became pro-life, Southern votes would switch tremendously. Of course, so would the North, I suppose.
Same sex marriage issues and entitlements are big talking points, but I would wager that many, many people in the South are one issue voters regarding abortion.
You may be correct on that last point. I hadn't thought of it that way.Delete
Basically, the "Solid South", then Democratic, became Republican in response to the Democrats, led by Texan Lyndon Johnson, enacting the Civil Rights Act. That had to do with race, not abortion, not religion, but race. It's so sad for me to see the party of Lincoln become anti-civil rights. I used to be a Republican, but the Republican party left me when it adopted such extreme views. I've been a Democrat since 1988.Delete
Wow, I usually like your blog, but I am amazed at the sweeping generalizations you're willing to make about a huge portion of the country. This false comparison is really offensive. People (like me) who disagree with Democrats or progressives are not automatically racist. Everyone laments the lack of civility and bipartisanship in politics today, but I keep seeing things like this being applauded and it makes me see red. (Yeah, pun intended.)ReplyDelete
?? What "sweeping generalizations" did I make?? Here are my statements:Delete
"A somewhat inflammatory and controversial comparison made by Andrew Sullivan, based on the electoral map above (swing states with yellow letters), and the 1861 map below - colored for their position on slavery. Details at The Dish, where this comment is appended."
Then there is Sullivan's quote, which says:
a) the country is now in a "civil war"
b) the parties have "switched sides" (Lincoln formerly the Republican)...
c) the states of the (southern) Confederacy re now Republican
d) racial polarization is at high levels
e) Obama's loss of support in southern states is attributed to white voters now preferring Romney.
f) he finds it troubling and interesting
What did I say (or post) that offended you?
Or which of the above do you feel is not true?
"which of the above do you feel is not true?"Delete
I don't really try to "feel" what is the truth. I usually try to figure out what's true using logic.
b) False. Quite ironicaly, the real racism is found in the Liberal's genecide of the unborn minorities in the inner cities. Instead of switching parties, racists just got more practical and clever.
d) Prove it. Or does does disapproving of the president's policies = racism?
e) False premise.
f) This would make sense based on his delusional view of his world.
I see what you're referring to. I won't try to argue with you.Delete
Data points: California has around 24 Million registered voters. (California Secretary of State, September 2012 statistics). 40% are current polled to vote Republical (Realclearpolitics.com, average of recent polls, 29 Oct 2012). So around 9.6 M Republican votes.
In comparison lets look at TOTAL registered voters for the states in the "new confederacy"..
Alabama 2.2 M total registered voters (US Census Bureau, 2010 election)
Georgia 4.1 M total registered voters (same source)
Mississippi 1.5 M total registered voters (same source).
Louisana 2.4 M total registered voters (same source)
Now that's total registered voters -- around 55% on average will vote republican. The total number of Republicans in California are greater than most of the states combined into the "new confederacy"...
THe fallacy in this, is to put each state in an "all or nothing" category. In reality, each state will go around 55/45 for different parties. Some states like California have more republicans (who count for nothing in this analysis) than most of the states combined in this pseudo analysis by Sullivan.
It's a partisan hack job, to claim "racism" is why people won't vote for Obama, when in reality its a much more complex situation.
Actually it's more rural/suburbs vs. urban as somebody alluded to.Delete
Context is good. Rothbard is good at context.ReplyDelete
More troubling than interesting to me at least. Maryland may be considered a Northern State by this poll, But being here, it may be run by Dems, and only because the rulers lie and cheat their way into office. It sure isn't inhabited by them.ReplyDelete
Hear me now, when the human defication hits the rotary osilator, the truth will be told!