Are Liberals Racist, Both Historically and Actively?

It seems counter-intuitive to suggest, even for a conservative-leaning person such as myself, when considered the overwhelming support that Democrats receive from minorities, and the very notion of having the moral and ethical high-ground on all matters of race and diversity.

It continues:

Further:

It concludes:

Personal politics / feelings about Ann Coulter aside, is it a valid argument, and if not, why?

Link: http://spectator.org/archives/2012/09/27/mugged-ann-coulters-home-run/

 

Let's look at the places that were electing democrats then, vs now. Oh wait, that would defeat her argument.

The parties have changed a lot in 150 years.

 

opcorn:

 

I got about halfway through before realizing that equating "liberals" with "Democrats" was going to ruin the entire argument.

 

I am genuinely curious, Tenny D. Did you find this Coulter argument to be original? Convincing?

 

I was interested in the topic til I saw Anne Coulter was involved. Her accusing anyone of demagoguery is akin to R Kelly criticizing someone for being promiscuous. She's an idiot with an agenda. That removes any possible value from anything she says.

 

Absolutely. We're also almost entirely socially homophobic, in spite of the fact we're all gay, quixotically in pursuit of the perfect balance of contradictory inanity.

 

I agree with hat.

now whether the current democratic party is racist because they inherently think minorities are inferior and that is why they feel they need a leg up compared to white people is another conversation.

 

If I have to explain the concept of southern Democrats and the switch to Republicans since the Civil Rights Movement anymore, I am going to lose my mind. The fact that someone like Coulter, who should know better, perpetuates this myth and misrepresentation only furthers her rank amateurism at providing something other than biased, false information.

 

What about in the last 60 years?

 

My hope would be that each could enjoin / segment the two as they believed reasonable.

 

I believe that it is a worthy topic for exploration and discussion.

 

I struggle with a natural repulsion to some talking heads on the extremes of either side, too, so I can't blame anyone else for doing the same. However, if we are going to dismiss her as being "an idiot with an agenda", then I don't know who might remain, thereafter, on either side.

But, just to clarify, she isn't making a claim of just general demagoguery against a nameless group....but racial demagoguery, and squarely at the Democratic Party.

I'd like to hear your take on this, so if you could simply focus on the argument and not who presented it, it may be possible.

 

No, Dros, that's exactly what this conversation is about.

Forget who is making the claim, and what you may think of her - and look at her argument. I'm asking for reasons of its in/validity.

 

Sure, but when the first half of someone's argument is predicated entirely on equivocation, I'm less inclined to read the second half.

 

That isn't what this is about if one is using the party platforms of the 1850's and 60's as part of the argument. And what I was getting at is this isn't a new argument. Any time you hear "the party of Lincoln," that is what is being invoked. We both know Lincoln would not be a Republican by today's standards, given his stance on states' rights and the federal government.

 

I am with IP on this, she renders her entire argument invalid by equating "liberal" with "democrat." Not all liberals are democrats and not all democrats are liberal. A first semester high school debate team member could poke a whole in that awful reasoning.

Also, the Democrat segregationists she mentions were all pretty damn conservative, southern democrats. Add to that that there were, in fact, Republican segregationists (albeit a much smaller percentage than the Democrats) and with minimal research one can blow pretty much all of her main points out of the water.

 

The presenter is the argument in this case, same as it would be if some other right wing imbecile were engaging in this trite, cliched revisionist history. Coulter and her ilk intentionally ignore the fact that the parties have, over time, simply traded names. If one is unable to grasp that Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln would be running under the opposite political bannners today than the ones they were elected to the presidency under in their day, they are either stupid as hell or engaging in intentional dishonesty.

 

The type of Southerners who supported George Wallace are now the backbone of the Tea Party movement. It's not that difficult to see.

 

Her arguments have no merit. Most of what is written relates to her misrepresentation of the switch by Dixiecrats to the Republican Party. Then, there is the misrepresentation of Nixon losing the Deep South to "Democrats and Wallace" when it was really just Wallace and Democrats barely held onto Texas. The only argument worth any discussion is the nature of assistance provided to blacks and whether it is enabling or helpful, even if the bogus connection to people like Bull Connor is maintained.