Is this a total contradiction or what?

Question

When a Republican is called racist, they quickly refer to the civil rights era and explain how they helped aid minorities. They also bring up how they created NAACP, affirmative action, and the civil rights act of 1964. But when they are NOT under defense, they bash Democrats for "enabling" minorities with these things. Republicans refer to NAACP as being unfair because it only supports a certain ethnicity and they believe affirmative action is an unfair act. I don't get it, do Republicans support NAACP, affirmative action, etc. or not.
I've learned that the Democrats NOW are the OLD Republicans from the 60's. Southern Democrats from the 60's migrated to the Republican party.

Answer 1

It's almost a moot point in today's world when you get right down to it. I registered as a Republican long after the civil rights era and lived in the northeast at the time.

I'm wondering how many of those original Democrats who switched parties are even alive and voting today? I really wish that both sides would quit the racism stuff. I've seen racism here and don't like it, but because of my registration, I've also been referred to as one.

Answer 2

You could rationalize that seeming contradiction by claiming that the former is a reference to history - when AA was sorely needed, the speaker's ideaological predicessors supported it, now that it's outlived it's usefulness, he opposes it.

It's even true. AA and other race-based initiatives may have been justified in the past, but have probably accomplished all they can, and are likely even starting to become counterproductive.

But, it's probably, in all honesty, not what's going through the politician's head. All he's thinking is "How do I spin my message to my current audience to get more votes, or avoid losing votes I'm already getting?"


The Democrats of today are not the Republicans of the 60s, though, nor are the Democrats of the 60s Republicans, today. Most office-holding politicians are middle aged. The Democrats and Republicans of the 60s are in thier 80s & 90s, those that are still alive.

The Democratic party went through something of a schism in the previous century. The party had been dominated by the Southern Democrats following the Civil War, durring the Great Depression, that dominance was challenged by the socialist/progressive 'New Deal Democrats.' Though a few wizened old Conservative Southern Democrats held on to thier seats long enough to support Reagan on a few key pieces of legislation, thier breed is now virtually extinct. For that matter, the New Deal Democrat is fading fast, and many of them, like Reagan, made the switch to Republican as thier party "moved so far left that they left America." The modern Democratic party is dominated by the ideals of socialism and multi-culturalism (and thus, philosophically, moral relativism) - and, of course, more than anything else, by thier opposition to the Republicans.

The Republican party has also undergone it's schisms and re-alignments over the years. The Religious Right, most notably, became a major force in the party over the last 20 years or so.

Answer 3

It is a contradiction of sorts.

The question is does the NAACP that they remember helping to create actually reflect what the NAACP has become? I put it to you that the NAACP does not reflect the same ideals that it once did, now that it has become a political entity and has entrenched itself with the Democratic party. You can't expect the NAACP's needs to be high on the Republican agenda when it has become such an aggressive critic of them.

I would say that an NAACP that was not so quick to side with the Democrats and to demand solutions from both parties would have served both the Civil Rights movement in general and the NAACP in particualr better over the last 40 years. By allowing themselves to get embroiled in the partisan political fueds, they have diminished the potential power they could have by cutting off access to half of their supporters.

Answer 4

Its crazy how the parties change views. I still believe that republicans have always been more for the rich and the democrats more for the poor, but now the parties are seperated by little except republicans believe religion should be part of politics (ie the religious right) and democrats believe it has no place in politics.

Answer 5

Yea..good point...I started as a Republican and after Reagan and Bush I switched to Democrat although I trust neither much, I hold that all parties in power should be mistrusted, the more secretive they are the more they should be mistrusted. Democratic republics only operate in the light of day, the midnight deals and backroom follies are so rife with corruption they should all be run out of Washington.

Answer 6

Not at all. Democrats run around as the high and mighty supporting minorities, yet the history of the party shows otherwise.

Southern Democrats are still democrats. Try again.

Answer 7

The parties have swapped several times since the 1800's. Why would any Republican think they were the party with the most minority interest? If I didn't know any better I would think they both hated us, one pretends to like us at election time the other just totally ignores us.

Still, Democrats try to get us educated, Republicans destroy those programs every time they get the majority in Congress.

Answer 8

Of course it is! Unfortunately racism is a sickness that men still don't know how to heal. How can someone consider himself better than anybody else if he is as vunerable as any other human being in the planet? That's blindness, craziness, lack of love and many other thing. IT IS RACISM.

Answer 9

Why does NAACP still call you "Colored People"? I thought that was offensive in it's self. Just an observation.

Answer 10

Every party creates it own opposite ideal party for the next generation. This is why they they appear to "trade" places every so often.