Funny, I never hear the Helms-hating, Republicans are racist crowd ever write anything about how the Democratic Party was the party of the KKK and concentration camps for Japanese, and long had as its U.S. Senate leader Klansman Byrd of West Virginia.

Seems to mee that there's a long history of racism and hatred in both parties. So why the double standard with Blacks forgiving the crimes of Democrats while continuing to rant on about Republicans?

Posted by Diane C. Russell | July 7, 2008 1:05 PM

Your premise is flawed. It compares the racist past of Democrats with the racist past AND present of Republicans. Obviously those two aren't the same thing. The point isn't that, in the past, Republicans have had racists among them--it's that they still have racists among them whom they venerate.

People don't begrudge Robert Byrd for being in the Klan, because he's repeatedly apologized for it. Helms, never once, apologized for being a segregationist. Jerry Falwell lauded apartheid in the 1980s--not in the 1960s. That Moseley-Braun episode happened in the 90s, not in the 60s. Trent Lott lauded the segregationist platform of Strom Thurmond this decade, not three decades ago.

Meanwhile George Wallace, not only recanted his segregationist views, but actually appointed a record number of blacks in his last term. Anyone can be a bigot, because bigotry is at its root, simply ignorance. But to revel in it, to make your bigotry just is dishonest and dishonorable.

Furthermore, the "Democrats are racist too" defense is weak, as it simply changes the subject. Either venerating Helms is wrong or it isn't. Saying the Dems have bigots among them is a dodge that doesn't answer the charge.

Posted by Ta-Nehisi Coates | July 7, 2008 1:33 PM

Also remember that the die-hard pro-segregationists, like Thurmond, switched parties around 1964 to support Barry Goldwater, who opposed the Civil Rights Act. So, in essence, the Democratic party's racist past is the Republican party's racist present.

Posted by Eric | July 7, 2008 1:52 PM

I have to agree that the GOP has done just about all it can to be as unwelcoming to black folks as possible, which is ironic since some aspects of its social conservatism would play pretty well with ordinary church-going black folks, and I would think that the laissez-faire economics view (although that seems to be dying off in the party) would be appealing to small business owners that are black.

However, I also think that fealty to the Democratic party minimizes rather than maximizes black political clout. Blacks as a voting bloc are largely taken for granted, and gerrymandering majority-black districts has only ensured that there is essentially a fixed number of black politicians in the House who are also virtually unelectable at the state level.

Posted by Arclight | July 7, 2008 3:35 PM

Arclight, you said, "However, I also think that fealty to the Democratic party minimizes rather than maximizes black political clout. Blacks as a voting bloc are largely taken for granted, and gerrymandering majority-black districts has only ensured that there is essentially a fixed number of black politicians in the House who are also virtually unelectable at the state level. "

Of course, the next question is, where are blacks who vote Democratic supposed to go? I think you have a point about the gerrymandered districts, but I think the question you have to ask yourself is about representation, if the seats were not gerrymandered, you'd end up most likely with white politician who cared about black issues.

I simply don't think of blacks voting for Democrats as fealty, but support for a movement that does more for them than the other party. It's nowhere near perfect, but then again, the Democratic party isn't a perfect venue for anybody, just simply better than the other side if you are a Democrat. I have my problems with the party, but we all do. It is somewhat insulting, it seems, to think of it as "fealty" as though it is a mindless attachment. When Republicans give blacks a reason to be Republicans, then maybe they will be, but I think Hilzoy and Ta-Nehisi just pointed out why that simply won't be the case for a long time.

When do I think Republicans will care about black votes? When they are forced to electorally. If the Democratic coallition of young voters, black voters, hispanic voters, and the urban upper middle class (Creative Class as Richard Florida would say) becomes the dominant coallition in America for an extended period of time, then maybe they'll start to care. I'm not going to hold my breath though.

Posted by Joel W | July 7, 2008 5:29 PM

There are no Black Republicans because Black folk, contrary to what some folks believe, DO have sense. They have the sense to know who is so bold as to hate you to your face. When you stand with those that would deny an entire segment of your population that only wanted their constitutional rights to be RESPECTED like any other citizenry, and you take pride in it, don't expect Black folk to be ok with it.

Non-Support of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act are dealbreakers for Black folk. They are called ' The Bare Minimum Requirements'.

It's the reason for me never getting on board the Ron Paul train. Some things are non-negotiable.

Republicans don't understand the Black community. They were sure, with the advent of a Black Middle Class, that the Middle Class would overwhelm the 'Black', and they'd get all these Black Republicans. They simply don't understand Black folk.

Would I like it if both parties competed for the Black vote? Of course I would. But, that's not the world we live in, is it?

Posted by rikyrah | July 7, 2008 9:53 PM

Let's make it clear: if most Republicans were of the Jack Kemp kind, crazy market ideas and all, there WOULD be Black Republicans.

Posted by rikyrah | July 7, 2008 9:55 PM

First, let me say that I wasn't trying to be condescending in using the word "fealty." However, I don't know of any other demographic in the country that has such a high percentage of its members with such devotion to one party or another. While I think saying that Democrats have done more for black voters would be true if this was 1968, I'm not so sure the last 40 years is chock full of examples of black voters profiting from overwhelming support of the Democrats. On the other hand, I don't think there is a such thing as a unified black political platform (nor should there be, really) so perhaps absent the necessity of something like the Civil Rights Act it isn't possible to point to any one thing as a major help to the majority of black voters.

As for gerrymandering, I think long term it would make sense for Dem state legislators to draw more racially balanced districts where possible. Yes, it would cost them a few CBC members in the near term, but a more free-market political approach would probably result in the election of black politicians that are better at appealing to a broader public and thus better positioned to run for statewide office.

For example, had Mr. Obama beaten Bobby Rush way back when, I think there would be very little chance of him subsequently winning a Senate seat, much less running for president. The public statements and positions he would get pigeonholed into to take that district and keep it is very different than what he's been able to say and do as a prospective representative of the entire state. Similarly, I don't think you'd have had govs Wilder and Patrick had they first been in the US House.

Posted by Arclight | July 7, 2008 10:59 PM

Arclight,

With the "Hispanic" vote divided among Republicans and Democrats, what has been the benefit, in real terms, to the Hispanic community?

There's something wrong with your reaction to the idea of "such devotion to one party" and the assumption that there is a better or more functional alternative.

Also, your point about the supposed lack of a "unified black political platform" and how it's not possible to point to any one thing that's a "major help" to the majority of black voters ignores what the majority of black voters vote on which is not necessarily their own individual self-interest but instead what they see as in their group's collective interest which may or may not be what's "a major help to a majority of black voters"...

Posted by Nquest | July 7, 2008 11:45 PM

For all of the talk of the Ivy League David Brookses of the world about how the GOP and conservatives stand for individual liberty and so forth, they have a hard time talking about the GOP and the conservative movement as it actually is and has been since McCarthy and Goldwater. The truth of the matter is, most people don't like GOP economic plans. That goes double for the working class in Red States with a lot of economic inequality (the Great Plains and the South, for instance).
The GOP has been afraid to enact their plans in a way that makes sense - to lower taxes, you need to cut spending and to go to war for an extended period of time, you need to raise taxes - so we've just gotten tax cuts and spending increases under Reagan and Bush II to cover up the fact that actually enacting the GOP economic platform in its most basic and logical form would be political suicide.

To be able to sell the GOP brand to working class whites post-Eisenhower, the GOP has had to rely on racist dog whistles and conservative white anger on racial issues. As those issues have decreased in salience (with the 1990's bringing falling crime rates and welfare reform), the GOP has had to rely on fear of new Others: Muslims, Arabs, Mexicans and gays. The number of Republican politicians who get elected on high-minded Burkean proposals is a lot smaller than the number of Republicans elected on hating on whichever group talk radio says to hate that year. As such, a huge majority of African-Americans, Native Americans, American Jews, gays and lesbians, a large majority of Latinos and a majority of Asian-Americans and American Muslims vote Democratic. It's hard to respect yourself

Posted by Reality Man | July 8, 2008 2:36 AM

Hmmm, my comment got caught off, probably due to my own idiocy. Anyway:

It's hard to respect yourself when you associate with people you know hate you for no good reason.

If the GOP was actually based around and led by people like Condi, Colin Powell, Issa, Mel Martinez, etc., the GOP could have an easier time connecting with minority voters. Instead, the GOP is controlled by the likes of Trent Lott, George "I don't care about black people" Bush, Dick "Mandela is a terrorist" Cheney, Lee Atwater and until recently the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond. Helms, after all, blocked the nomination of a GOP moderate in Bill Weld to be our ambassador to Mexico because Weld didn't hate Mexicans.

Posted by Reality Man | July 8, 2008 2:49 AM

I think that you might want to study up on your American history before you start throwing around terms like, "treasonous Confederate thugs."

Saying such blanket, venomous statements weakens your position, and exposes you as the very thing you are railing against; ignorantly stereotyping whole groups of people, be it race, sexual or political orientation. All the while, under the guise of a double standard.

You at least had the foresight to look at the Republican party abstractly. You should be consistence in all your endeavors. Doing anything less reveals your limitations.

-Chris

Posted by Christopher McQueen | July 8, 2008 9:34 AM

This may seem a minor point, but considering the topic it chagrins me that you would misidentify our nations greatest civil rights leader. By leaving the "Jr." off of Martin Luther King Jr.'s name, you minimize the accomplishments of Martin Luther King Sr., and really don't show much respect for the son, either.

Posted by Josh Powers | July 8, 2008 9:52 AM

Nquest - so what exactly is the collective black self interest that has been served so well by the Democratic party? I don't see anything in your post that illustrates a reason for such strong party loyalty, so what is it?

Posted by Arclight | July 8, 2008 10:30 AM

I don't agree with Nquest completely, and I'm sympathetic to the point about not being in the pocket of Republicans. But this isn't really a choice for most black folks. For what it's worth the Clinton years were arguably the most prosperous years for African-Americans in our entire history. Take that with a grain of salt--but the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit has been major for poor black families. Furthermore, Democrats have at least put forth an argument for equality. Flawed it may be, and over-reliant on state action it may be--but it's a plan.

The Republican rebuttal has been the likes of Jesse Helms, the disaster of Katrina, and a refusal to attend a primary debates geared to black (and Latino!) audiences. You can be credible and be against Affirmative Action. But you better damn well be for something. I think the example of Jack Kemp, for instance, is great example of what I'm talking about.

The fact that Dems are so weak on helping black folks shouldn't give conservatives any comfort. To the contrary, they should wonder why black voters consistently look past them, given how feeble to competition is.

Posted by Ta-Nehisi Coates | July 8, 2008 10:51 AM

How interesting it is to come on over to "the other side" and see conversations like this. For the most part it's a level headed discussion, and I appreciate that, although I disagree with much of it.

It's amazing to me that we've come to a point in American history where the sin qua non of compassion is what can government do for me or give to me, or for my people. What is ignored or avoided in this discussion is what Democrat public policy (Republicans are guilty too) has actually done to the Black community. Are you saying that we should give people money without thought of the actual consequences? Is that what you mean by "helping black folks?" Seriously? Prior to the "Great Society" the Black family was relatively in tact. After 40 plus years of wealth transfers what exactly has this gotten the Black community?

The reason I could never be a liberal, according to the modern definition, or a Democrat is just this mentality. You give somebody something for nothing and you create nothing but weakness. Try doing that with your kids. Human nature is real, and government policies of social welfare more often than not mess it up. We should teach and preach independence and self-sufficiency, and I could go on, but I don't want to rant.

And if Jesse Helms was a vile bigot, he should be condemned as such. But maybe because I wasn't on the other side of said bigotry I can say that didn't make him wrong about everything.

Posted by Mike D'Virgilio | July 8, 2008 1:09 PM

"And if Jesse Helms was a vile bigot, he should be condemned as such. But maybe because I wasn't on the other side of said bigotry I can say that didn't make him wrong about everything."

I find that "if" interesting, especially given that the its basically the substance of the original post. Please read Hilzoy's take on this, which I linked. I'd like to see the content of the original argument answered.

I start there, because the top of your post veers into territory that I never actually claimed. Short of mention the EITC, I don't know where I advocated giving "people money withouth thought of the actual consequence." Indeed, a good read through this blog (take our discussions of Section 8 or Affirmative Action) would reveal that I'm quite against that.

It's also interesting to me that you think of the Great Society as a wealth transfer to black people. In fact, the Great Society programs were color-blinded, and to the extent they transferred wealth they sent it to many more white people than they did blacks. It's true that a disproportionate number of poor people are black. But the majority of poor people are not black, thus the majority of people on the receiving end of those programs weren't black.

That being said, this post never made a policy argument. To invoke policy is a dodge, an attempt to change the subject because the actual debate at hand isn't going the way one might want. I have said several times that people of level-heads and good hearts can disagree on policy. The only point made by this post is that black people, generally, will not be receptive to a party that considers men like Jesse Helms as their champion. That is my argument

Posted by Ta-Nehisi Coates | July 8, 2008 1:44 PM

>"I think that you might want to study up on your American history before you start throwing around terms like, >"treasonous Confederate thugs."

How was supporting the Confederacy *not* treason? Making war against the government is pretty much the exact definition of treason in Article III of the Constitution. Here it is:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Posted by Eric | July 8, 2008 3:50 PM

Claiming what I'm saying was a dodge assumes you can read my motives. I have nothing to "dodge". It wasn't just your post, but yours and others comments I was referring to. You mentioned something in the comment previous to mine about Dems helping blacks. What does that mean but policy? But whatever.

Let's get back to Helms. I read through much of the stuff about Helms, the vial hatred of Helms I might add (really makes me want to jump to your side) and again I cannot justify anything he said or did in this regard. I don't take the Left's word on it that he was unrepentant. Just a statement I have no factual corroboration to back up. But even if he was, it doesn't make everything he stood for wrong. In fact in my opinion he was right on a very lot, and on some very important issues in our time.

Maybe that's the unforgivable original sin for you, and that makes supporting anything about him verboten (and thus confirms your original contention). But a certain presidential candidate sat in church at the foot of a Black racist for 20 years. And we're supposed to just ignore it and get over it. I suppose being a Black racist is less vile than being a Caucasian one, but this is what I call a double standard. And not only is he not repentant, he's proud of it. Ah, but this is for another post and another debate.

Posted by Mike D'Virgilio | July 8, 2008 4:55 PM

Mike,

Thanks for replying. I doubt there's much else to be said here.

Posted by Ta-Nehisi Coates | July 8, 2008 5:22 PM

Sooooooo..... Jesse Helms was a white, racist Republican; that's original. & voting for a Democrat is better b/c they may be racist, but @ least they aren't open about it??? I honestly don't care about either parties. Granted, Democrats do tend to assist poor people, spec. black people, more than Republicans. But, @ the end of the day, it's about what you do for yourself. & I highly agree w/ Mike D. in regards to the mentality of most poor people. Whether you want to be a Republican or Democrat, let's stop crippling people, & start empowering them. Let's challenge people & stop allowing them to think it's ok to vote Democrat b/c all of their family members are Democrats, & encourage them to educate themselves on both parties in order to make an informed decision. Let's stop allowing people to think it's ok to wait for government assistance, & encourage them to educate themselves in order to become a nurse, teacher, & not just a cashier, waitress, or sales associate. Let's educate people & let them know that they have a choice. You wanna know why most blacks aren't republicans.... it's b/c they don't believe they have a choice.

Posted by nista206 | July 8, 2008 5:35 PM

First off, I've been reading the posts & comments for the past week and I'd like to thank Mr. Coates & all for great points.

As for this particular post, I was struck by Mr. Straight Talk's praise for Senator Helms:

John McCain:
"At this time, let us remember a life dedicated to serving this nation."

Now that's a great way of saying as little as possible. As standard bearer for the GOP, you would think he'd have a little more to say about a major figure in his party's recent history. Perhaps, he was holding back a bit so he could tell the group in Virginia just how he really felt:

"A small group of black Republican current and former elected officials met with McCain at his Virginia headquarters, carrying a message that McCain and the Republican Party should reach out to black voters through “conversation and engagement” on issues like economic policy and healthcare."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/08/1187885.aspx

Let me also say (off topic) that arclight's point about Senator Obama winning a state wide office from the Illinois Senate seat as opposed to a US House seat was very interesting. As somebody who was in the Daley Center when Senator Obama delivered his speech in opposiion to the war in Iraq, most of us knew then that the buzz about this local politician was true - he was going places fast.

Also, Nquest asks what benefit has the divided vote of the Hispanic community brought forth. Trouble is, there is no Hispanic vote. There are large blocs of Cuban voters, Puerto Rican voters, Mexican voters, and various other Central & South American voters. Sometimes, but very rarely do these voters have the same main issues. So, the Cubans have largely voted Republican as have some of the Central & South Americans. The Mexican & Puerto Rican voters have been more Democratic for the most part. As a Mexican American, when the pundits cited the "Hispanic vote" during the primaries, I cringed when they lumped all these ethnic groups into one single bloc, especially for the general election.

Posted by JT (Chicago) | July 9, 2008 1:09 AM

Coming late to the party: I'd like to take issue with the idea that Helms was right about a lot, but unfortunately a bigot.

Part of the reason I let my obsessive traits out to play on Helms quotes was that I have a standing interest in southern Africa, especially Mozambique. For that reason, I am not in the least inclined to credit such ideas as: Helms' anticommunism was great. In the parts of the world I know about, his anticommunism manifested itself in support for people who nailed their opponents to trees, and forced children to kill their parents, because -- hey! -- they were not Communists.

Well: I was anticommunist too, but the reason was that I thought that Communist governments were, well, repressive and bad. So the idea that I should help inflict a civil war on another country in order to replace bad Communist governments with the likes of UNITA or RENAMO was absurd.

Not for Jesse Helms, though. He played a crucial role in keeping a civil war that cost half a million lives going in Angola, and in nearly destroying Mozambique. I don't know enough about Central America, but I have a sneaking suspicion that learning more about D'Aubuisson's death squads would just give me even more reasons not to like Jesse Helms.

It was his other policies that made me react as I did to Bush's statement and the rest of the whitewashes, and that made me mad enough to go to town finding cites for all those quotes. He was an enormously destructive person, not an otherwise admirable figure sadly marred by bigotry.

Posted by hilzoy | July 9, 2008 1:34 AM

I'm glad Mike wrote his post above because that is basically why, generally speaking, blacks and the GOP talk past each other. It is very hard to take Helms' waxing poetic about people behind the Iron Curtain wanting to be free when he was doing all he could to deprive freedom at home.

I went to college in North Carolina in the 90's and had lots of white friends that voted for Helms and when I would tell them that I though Helms was a racist, they would say "He is, but what do you want me to do? I am prolife, and that is more important." Like Mike said, if being a racist is a dealbreaker, then it doesn't matter what your other views are. Kind of like Democrats trying to win over prolife voters with an economic message -- if being prolife is a must, then it doesn't matter what else you have if you miss that.

I just wish those over at Heritage, National Review, etc. would just say "Being a racist isn't the worse thing you can be. Being a commie is." It would cut through the b.s.

Posted by The_DA | July 9, 2008 11:02 AM

Eric,
You are putting the cart before the Constitutional horse. The Constitution, and US citizens’ right were already violated prior to secession.
If you think secession is “treasonous” I suggest you take a Civics class at your local adult center for education. While the Constitution does not implicitly allow secession, it does not implicitly forbid it. That is just the facts of over 200 years of interpretation and debate. If you consider it treasonous, it is your interpretation, and it can, and has been debated. But in the end, it is your interpretation.
Without definitive evidence of a Constitutional violation, treason simply does not apply. Furthermore, treason is punishable by death. Only one Confederate officer suffered such a fate. And he was not even put to death for treason, but for supposed human rights violations against Union prisons at Andersonville.
But if its Constitutional violations you are looking for, my question to you is this; were the following Sections of the Constitution violated prior to secession?
“Section 7. No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.
“Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.”

But more to the point; Mr. Coates’ tone reflects ignorance, anger, and frustration. “Treasonous Confederate thugs” is neither academic nor smart. If Mr. Coates wishes to convey a point outside of his followers, who no doubtably already agree with him, he has failed.

Posted by Christopher McQueen | July 10, 2008 5:04 PM