"Why do White Christians Vote Republican, and Black Christians Vote Democrat?"

Recommended Videos

ObsidianJones

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 29, 2020
1,118
1,442
118
Country
United States
It's a common response that, when pressed with the fact that the GOP tends to vote against minorities, that Conservatives will take time to remind us that Republicans were the party of Lincoln. And that eventually, Blacks slowly betrayed the Republican Party that helped them be free. Or, just that it was the Republicans who freed them.

Ok


.

During the commission’s deliberations, Hayes’ Republican allies met in secret with moderate southern Democrats in hopes of convincing them not to block the official counting of votes through filibuster and effectively allow Hayes’ election. In February, at a meeting held in Washington’s Wormley Hotel, the Democrats agreed to accept a Hayes victory, and to respect the civil and political rights of African Americans, on the condition that Republicans withdraw all federal troops from South, thus consolidating Democratic control in the region. Hayes would also have to agree to name a leading southerner to his cabinet and to support federal aid for the Texas and Pacific Railroad, a planned transcontinental line via a southern route. On March 2, the congressional commission voted 8-7 along party lines to award all the disputed electoral votes to Hayes, giving him 185 votes to Tilden’s 184.


Hayes appointed Tennessee’s David Key as postmaster general, but never followed through on the promised land grant for the Texas and Pacific. Within two months, however, Hayes had ordered federal troops from their posts guarding Louisiana and South Carolina statehouses, allowing Democrats to seize control in both those states. As Florida’s Supreme Court had earlier declared a Democratic victory in the 1876 gubernatorial election, Democrats had been restored to power all across the South.
The Compromise of 1876 effectively ended the Reconstruction era. Southern Democrats’ promises to protect civil and political rights of blacks were not kept, and the end of federal interference in southern affairs led to widespread disenfranchisement of blacks voters. From the late 1870s onward, southern legislatures passed a series of laws requiring the separation of whites from “persons of color” on public transportation, in schools, parks, restaurants, theaters and other locations. Known as the “Jim Crow laws” (after a popular minstrel act developed in the antebellum years), these segregationist statutes governed life in the South through the middle of the next century, ending only after the hard-won successes of the civil rights movement in the 1960s.

It’s a widely held belief that white Southerners began to leave the Democratic Party after Democratic President Lyndon Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, outlawing segregation in business such as restaurants and hotels and in public places such as schools and swimming pools. However, this new study finds that “racially conservative” whites in the South started switching to the Republican Party in the early 1950s in reaction to Democratic President Harry Truman’s support for civil rights initiatives in the late 1940s.

Before 1950, nearly 80 percent of white adults who lived in the 11 states of the former Confederacy identified as Democrats, compared with about 40 percent of white adults in other parts of the country, the study shows. By the early 2000s, about 30 percent of white adults in the South and nationwide identified as Democrats.

Since then, the percentage of white Southerners who consider themselves Democrats has not changed much. In 2014, 31 percent of white Southerners said they were Democrats or leaned Democratic, a Pew Research Center survey found.

Ilyana Kuziemko, an economics professor at Princeton, and Ebonya Washington, an economics professor at Yale, present new evidence to explain what they call “one of the largest and most debated partisan shifts in a modern democracy.” Despite decades of study, scholars have yet to reach a consensus as to why white Southerners left the Democratic Party and joined the GOP during the second half of the 20th century.

Much of the academic research to date points to two driving factors: 1) the Democratic Party’s support for 1960s civil rights legislation and 2) economic development within the region, which resulted in white people making more money and turning away from the political party that supports economic redistribution policies.

Research showing that civil rights legislation was the motivating factor has tended to rely more heavily on qualitative data while a lot of the research suggesting other factors played a leading role rely more on quantitative analyses, the authors explain. This study, based on newly available poll data, takes a quantitative approach and finds that anti-black attitudes were the primary reason for the shift.

It is now in President Donald Trump’s hands.

At his nominating convention this week, Trump’s party has repeatedly warned of lawlessness on America’s streets, pointing to the sometimes violent protests over police killings of Black Americans. The party gave a platform to a St. Louis couple made famous for waving guns at a Black Lives Matter protest outside their home. The president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., described the race between Trump and Democrat Joe Biden as “shaping up to be church, work and school versus rioting, looting and vandalism.”

On Wednesday, Vice President Mike Pence declared, “you won’t be safe in Joe Biden’s America.”

Historians and political observers say the lineage of this messaging is clear. The question isn’t whether Trump is employing the same tactics that helped Nixon seize the White House from Democrats, but whether those tactics can work at this moment — in a more diverse America, beset by a pandemic and weighing whether to reelect a Republican incumbent.

“Trump has dusted off the old playbook that puts racial fear and grievance on the table,” said Otis Johnson, who served from 2004 to 2012 as the second Black man elected mayor of Savannah, Georgia. He was a graduate student in Atlanta when Nixon ran in 1968. Trump’s tactics, he said, are “just a replay for me of 50 years ago.”

But manipulating racial divisions to unite white voters goes back much further in American politics. Before the Civil War, ominous warnings of potential slave uprisings were used to get poor Southern white people to vote in solidarity with wealthier landowners, said Keith Gaddie, a political scientist at the University of Oklahoma.
And the one thing the video really didn't get into is that Empacation was never about righting a wrong. It was about political means.


In short, yes, a Republican freed the slaves. Then Republicans sold out blacks. And then when Democrats started to care about the blacks they largely didn't care for before, the Citizens and Politicians of this nation turned into Republicans to attempt to slow down any progress Blacks could make.

Feel free to hotlink this any time someone tries to use that same tired line again!
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
15,526
4,295
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
Civil rights and not pandering to racists.

Really if it wasn't for all the racist pandering the republicans would probably win every election since minority groups tend to be more conservative on a whole.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dalisclock

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,580
7,215
118
Country
United States
Generally speaking , the "Party of Lincoln" line is supposed to reassure the GOP's white base that they aren't racist despite the comment section of damn near every police brutality video.
 

Dreiko

Elite Member
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,099
1,100
118
CT
Country
usa
Gender
male, pronouns: your majesty/my lord/daddy
I think it has to do with the location that those christians are at. More christian white folks are in conservative places so they are republicans and most christian black people are in liberal places so they vote democrat.


Also most christians are just gonna interpret their religion in whatever way is convenient for it to prescribe what they already wanted to do anyways so it's not like it'd affect their politics. If anything it'd make them even more strongly tied to whatever their politics is because through their interpretation it'll be imbued with divine purpose.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,580
7,215
118
Country
United States
Putting the kart before the horse: it isn't geography that makes people conservative and liberal (and whatever else), it's the other way 'round.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,179
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
I'm not sure why religion was brought into this. I know why black and white Americans generally vote for the parties they do, and I'd expect that to override any religious affiliation.

I mean, the US is pretty religious for an MEDC, period. Far as I'm aware, that goes across the board.
 

Kwak

Elite Member
Sep 11, 2014
2,443
2,056
118
Country
4
Putting the kart before the horse: it isn't geography that makes people conservative and liberal (and whatever else), it's the other way 'round.
A land-locked isolated population will tend to conservatism, a population at the center of a crossroads/port to other countries will tend to liberalism, ie more tolerance to different peoples and cultures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: deleted20220709

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
6,132
3,706
118
Country
United States of America
Civil rights and not pandering to racists.
not pandering to racists as much

Anyway, the historical genesis of Black people voting for Democrats is mostly economic and took expression during the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt even despite his administration's ambivalence concerning the tension between civil rights and retaining the support of Southern segregationists.

Really if it wasn't for all the racist pandering the republicans would probably win every election since minority groups tend to be more conservative on a whole.
this is, at best, an extremely hasty generalization.
 
Last edited:

PsychedelicDiamond

Wild at Heart and weird on top
Legacy
Jan 30, 2011
2,197
1,102
118
Because the Republican Party is openly white supremacist and accordingly all but unelectable, even for conservative black Americans?
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,660
978
118
Country
USA
Didn't someone in these forums say that the Southern Strategy wasn't real?
That would be correct. The Southern Strategy wasn't real.
Really if it wasn't for all the racist pandering the republicans would probably win every election since minority groups tend to be more conservative on a whole.
You're almost there: if it wasn't for the perception of racist pandering the Republicans would probably win every election.

Are the Republicans saying "we're racist, vote for racism"? No. Republicans deny that vehemently. The suggestion is that Republican policies and rhetoric are implicitly racist. Who is suggesting that Republican policies and rhetoric are racist pandering? Democrats. Who benefits from the perception that Republicans are pandering to racists? Democrats.

It's propaganda. It's not even subtle propaganda.
Tstorm. He honestly believes the nonsense PragerU and the like spout instead.
Give me a little credit. I've been making the argument longer than PragerU has existed. Mostly because it's true. The phrase "Southern Strategy" is not something any Republican invented, it was coined the by the freaking Democrats New York Times at precisely the moment the Democratic Party was saying "we're not racist, they're the racists!" Nevermind that outside presidential elections, the south was dominated by segregationist Democrats for decades beyond this, Lyndon Johnson was airing commercials about the KKK endorsing Goldwater (despite his firm rejection and repudiation of it), because it was a coordinated campaign by the Democrats to not only run from their centuries of racial crimes, but to point the finger at the other guy. Again, it's propaganda. It's not even particularly subtle propaganda. And everyone who believes in the Southern Strategy has fallen for it.

Who benefits from Republicans being perceived as racist? Democrats. Who told you Republicans were racist? Democrats. Stop believing the lies.

Sort of OT: The Bible Belt votes for Republicans because of abortion. Full stop. Democrats continued to win in the south long after the successes of the Civil Rights Movement, the southern states flipping between parties in Presidential elections and controlled by majority Democrats locally up until the current century. The thing is, there's a reasonable likelihood the local Democrats that kept winning weren't pro-choice. Look at who the south voted for since Roe v Wade in 1973.

Jimmy Carter: southerner who identifies abortion as the only conflict between his faith and his politics
Ronald Reagan: pro-life Republican
George Bush: pro-life Republican
Clinton: southern Christian, said "safe, legal, and rare", split off just a few southern states in both elections.
And they've voted for pro-life Republicans every 4 years since.

So is it: "The south was so racist, they turned Republican but only in national elections and only sometimes for the next 4 decades."

OR

"The Bible Belt won't vote for people who support abortion."

To flip the topic of Worgen's comment, if the Democrats stopped actively pushing abortion, they'd win all the elections.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Specter Von Baren

Hades

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2013
2,649
2,031
118
Country
The Netherlands
Who benefits from Republicans being perceived as racist? Democrats. Who told you Republicans were racist? Democrats. Stop believing the lies.
Its not really a zero sum game. Racist parties still end up attracting the vote of the racists or people who are to some degree uncomfortable with minorities. Policies aimed against minorities and opposition to immigration can be quite the vote magnet. Republicans now being so terrified of upsetting the worst aspects of their electorate shows that appealing to those aspects can be very lucrative on an electoral level.

Are the Republicans saying "we're racist, vote for racism"? No. Republicans deny that vehemently.
No but they do say the closest thing they can get away with saying. Trump saying ''They send criminals and rapists'' or proclaiming a black president can't possibly be born in America isn't just him failing to restrain his worst impulses. To a strong degree its also him recognizing there is a big market for those kind of statements. Them denying it means nothing. Even the likes of Thiery Baudet who says he wants to keep Europe white, sits down for lunch with famous racists, obsesses over ''Homeopathic dilution'' and who wants to protect our ''boreal world'' denies being racist. Even those that want the votes of racists don't want the stigma associated with it so of course they deny it. Many racists themselves also don't want to see themselves as racists either.
 
Last edited:

XsjadoBlayde

~ just another dread messenger & artisanal kunt ~
Apr 29, 2020
3,702
3,824
118
Wonderful, ppl are still stuck on this blatant historical revisionism. Though, am not surprised, just disappointed.

*Hovers over Candice Owens idiot rambling video share link*

Nah, not feeling up for that cruelty today. Instead...


Candace Owens' false statement that the Southern strategy is a myth

During a congressional hearing on hate crimes, conservative African American commentator Candace Owens said that the Republican Party never had a strategy of capitalizing on racism to lure voters.

Owens said that black conservatives face criticism from the left because they "have the audacity to think for ourselves and become educated about our history, and the myth of things, like the Southern switch and the Southern strategy, which never happened."

The "Southern strategy" refers to efforts by the Republican Party to appeal to Southern white voters who were turned off by the Democratic Party advocating for civil rights.

Historians disputed her statement, including Cornell professor Lawrence Glickman and University of Arkansas professor Angie Maxwell. Princeton historian Kevin Kruse called Owens’ statements "utter nonsense."

Owens is a spokesperson for the conservative nonprofit Turning Point USA and encourages black people to leave the Democratic Party (calling it "Blexit").

Owens did not respond to our emailed request for comment. On Twitter, she said she was referring to the "myth" that the Republicans and Democrats in Congress switched parties.

Kruse challenged her explanation, saying, "Owens, predictably, points to the small number of congressmen who switched parties as ‘proof’ that the larger literature on the racial realignment is a myth — even though that isn't actually something historians and political scientists emphasize in the work on this."

The Republicans’ Southern strategy has been documented for decades — including by Republicans who were a part of it.

The facts about the Southern strategy
For this fact-check, we interviewed historians and reviewed news articles from the civil rights era.

Joseph Alsop, an influential syndicated newspaper columnist, called it "basically a segregationist strategy" in a 1962 column.

When Republican Barry Goldwater ran for president in 1964, his Southern surrogates played up the fact that he had just voted against the Civil Rights Act. That paid off in the Deep South where he won a handful of states, but he ultimately lost to Lyndon B. Johnson.

By 1968, the Republicans fine-tuned their approach and packaged it in a way they could win, said Maxwell, the Arkansas professor and an expert on southern politics.

Republican nominee Richard Nixon reached out to white Southerners by opposing school busing and promising that his administration would not "ram anything down your throats" and would appoint "strict constructionist" Supreme Court justices.

The strongest evidence of the Southern strategy comes directly from Republicans at the time.

That includes Clarence Townes, who served as director of the Minorities Division of the Republican National Committee in the 1960s. Harvard professor Leah Wright Rigueur wrote about Townes in her book "The Loneliness of the Black Republican."

When Nixon disbanded the division, Townes told reporters in 1970, "There’s a total fear of what’s called the Southern strategy. Blacks understand that their wellbeing is being sacrificed to political gain. There has to be some moral leadership from the president on the race question, and there just hasn’t been any."

In 1969, Nixon White House aide Lamar Alexander, who now represents Tennessee in the U.S. Senate, wrote about the Southern strategy in a memo following the unsuccessful Supreme Court nomination of Clement Haynsworth, who was opposed by civil rights groups.

"SOUTHERN STRATEGY — we flat out invited the kind of political battle that ultimately erupted when we named a Democrat-turned-Republican conservative from South Carolina. This confirmed the Southern strategy just at a time when it was being nationally debated," Alexander wrote.

Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips openly discussed the Southern strategy in a newspaper article in 1973:

"If the New Washington liberal crowd could tear themselves away from Watergate ecstasy and the lionizing of Daniel Ellsberg for a little look-see below the Mason-Dixon line, they might glean a useful political insight, namely that the GOP 'Southern Strategy' seems to be rolling along — and rolling up local victories — just as if G. Gordon Liddy had never existed." (Ellsberg released the Pentagon papers in 1971 while Liddy was an FBI agent convicted of illegal wiretapping.)

Phillips told the New York Times in 1970 that the Republicans were never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the "Negro vote and they don't need any more than that."

"The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans," he wrote. "That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."

Ultimately, winning over white Southern voters required using coded language, as campaign consultant Lee Atwater, who worked on Reagan’s 1980 campaign, explained in an interview 1981. In audio, he can be heard describing how in 1954, a racial slur could be used to describe black Americans, but that "backfired" by 1968 — requiring a pivot to use more abstract language.

"So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites," he said.

Reagan used language such as "states’ rights" and "welfare queens," which critics said was coded racist language.

"The partisan shift in the South from the 1960s to George W. Bush is the greatest partisan shift in all of American history," Maxwell said.

In 2005, Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman told the NAACP national convention in Milwaukee that using race as a wedge issue was "wrong."

"By the ‘70s and into the ‘80s and ‘90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out. Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

Our ruling
Owens said the Southern strategy is a "myth" that "never happened."

Efforts by the Republican Party starting in the 1960s to win over white Southern voters have been documented by scholars for decades.

The strongest evidence that it happened comes from the Republicans who were part of that strategy. There are numerous instances of them talking about the approach in documents or interviews.

We rate this statement False.
(Had to remove hyperlinks so it would let me post here, but they are in the full article, sorry)

Mountainous characteristic bullshit by white supremacists, white supremacist """"sympathisers"""" and self-interested grifters yet again. 🙄 The reliance on this commitment to distorting truth should be enough to know not to take these people at their word. Yet again, it's results and numbers that matter to them, not morality.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
15,526
4,295
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
You're almost there: if it wasn't for the perception of racist pandering the Republicans would probably win every election.

Are the Republicans saying "we're racist, vote for racism"? No. Republicans deny that vehemently. The suggestion is that Republican policies and rhetoric are implicitly racist. Who is suggesting that Republican policies and rhetoric are racist pandering? Democrats. Who benefits from the perception that Republicans are pandering to racists? Democrats.
No, republicans tend to avoid direct racism and emphasize states rights, such as the right to treat a certain portion of the population worse. But you are right about the perception, the perception that republicans are more racist made racists go for that party so its not just what republicans attempt but also what people perceive them doing.
 

SilentPony

Previously known as an alleged "Feather-Rustler"
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
12,060
2,477
118
Corner of No and Where
Generally speaking , the "Party of Lincoln" line is supposed to reassure the GOP's white base that they aren't racist despite the comment section of damn near every police brutality video.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but by "Party of Lincoln" we actually do mean Democrats, right? Yes yes I know he was famously a Republican, but the two parties switched names during FDR's terms and his new deal. Southern Democrats became Republicans, and Northern Republicans became Democrats. Yes Lincoln helped found the then Republican party, but the inheritors of that party are the Democrats.