Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabine Gallais
You do realize there are racists and homophobes rampant in all political parties, right?
|
Yes, there are racists in all political parties. There are homophobes in all political parties. However, increasingly, even at the grassroots I believe that talking about parties doesn't *necessarily* reveal much--talking about political orientation (liberal or conservative) does reveal much.
The racism and nativism may come from both Democrats and Republicans but, for a particular strain of racism, it is a safe bet that the person is going to be *conservative* and not liberal. For example, a statement about how 'whites are being outbred and we need to do something about it' is far more likely to come from a conservative than a liberal. Statements regarding how America, in its glory days, was run by whites with a sizeable but still overwhelmed minority population of blacks with a smattering of other racial groups thrown in for good measure are more likely to come from a conservative than a liberal. (And yes, both of these statements are paraphrases of comments of a very prominent conservative.)
It is simply true that, to take another for instance, conservatives from William F. Buckley to Ayn Rand to George Wallace opposed civil rights laws. Buckley opposed them because, to quote him, "for the time being whites are the superior race and provided that they are not brutal to blacks, it is reasonable for whites to prevent blacks from voting". Rand opposed the civil rights laws because, while she did not think that blacks were inherently inferior, she thought that we should just be patient and eventually the magic of the market would resolve any racial problems. Wallace, of course, was simply an honest segregationist. Conservatives opposed the ERA, liberals supported it. Conservatives, on the whole, oppose gay rights in any form while liberals, largely support it*.
I understand the myth that the Tea Party wants to tell about itself that in all of the inchoate rage and talk of "lying Africans" and such that there's nothing racist going on and that if, for instance, our president were named Shamus McPherson they would *still* be calling him a lying African. But it's a *myth*. Is the Tea Party fully aware of just how racially charged their rhetoric is? No, I don't think they do. However, you can hear it in the "we want our country back". Over the years, I have asked numerous conservatives what they meant by "want our country back" and, as far as I can tell, the ideal period would be some point in the early 1950's. Now, what's really interesting about this is that when pressed one gets the feeling NOT that they want the country to go back to Jim Crow and segregation but that, from their perspective, that might be regrettable but
worth the price of admission to go back to an America where blacks had a place and stayed in it. So it's not that they *want* Jim Crow, it's just that they wouldn't be exercised about it either way--if we could go back to the 50's without it, fine, but if we have to have it in order to go back to that more 'innocent' age then so be it, small price to pay and all that.
As far as homphobia--are there homophobes in all parties? Yes. However, if you tell me you are a conservative and, unless I know you're gay, I'm going to presume that you are opposed to gay marriage in the name of 'family values' and in almost all instances I am going to be correct. Democratic politicians are, I suspect, largely in favor of same-sex marriage however they are too cowardly to actually stand up and say that so they hem and haw until the subject changes. Republican politicians, I suspect, don't care as much about it as they say they do--but it *wins* for them. If they thought they could win on being against interracial marriage they would do that, using almost exactly the same language and would issue almost precisely the same denials that this isn't motivated by racism but by a sincere desire to "protect the children".