Wednesday, November 01, 2006

I Did Not Know This

The National Black Republican Association states that Dr. King was a registered Republican.

It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans.

I knew the 2nd part, but not the first. I'm impressed--and insufferably pleased to be in such good company politically.

That same paragraph ends thusly:

And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and now Socialism.


What do the libs say about "diversity" now? Probably that the authors of the linked post are Uncle Toms like General Powell, Justice Thomas, and Secretary Rice.

Hat tip to Lillian Perry (see blogroll at left).

17 comments:

Chanman said...

That's kinda funny when I have read in other sources that MLK was a communist.

Compared to today's so-called civil rights activists, I would definitely put MLK in the Republican column.

Dean Baird said...

Martin Luther King, Jr. voted for John F. Kennedy, and for Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson four years later. In that election, King publicly denounced the Republican candidate, Barry Goldwater.

Darren said...

I'm not sure John Kennedy would recognize his party today. Let's not forget, he served in the military, pushed for tax cuts, deepened involvement in what became a relatively unpopular war, and took us to the brink of nuclear war in Cuba.

Different kind of Democrat.

James Loewen, (socialist and) author of Lies My Teacher Told Me, doesn't treat the Democrats too nicely when discussing the Civil Rights Movement from the Civil War to the 60s. Don't feel bad, though--he obviously despises someone called "Reaganbush".

Dean Baird said...

Martin Luther King, Jr. was a liberal. Conservatives were not his friends. Conservatives moved to block his agenda. Those conservatives were primarily Dixiecrats. Dixiecrats who remained in politics through the 1970s and 80s switched parties: from Democrat to Republican.

Barry Goldwater would not recognize the Republican Party of today, either.

EllenK said...

That's not the only surprising fact you may find regarding perceived political and social opinions of minorities. My son was doing a research paper on LULAC and found the original charter. One of its key tenets was that all Latinos would learn English in order to promote economic growth and improvement in the Hispanic community. Isn't that interesting in light of these days of bilingual and ESL educational standards?

Anonymous said...

I think that the parties have changed a lot since then. My grandfather was a CO in WWII, and he registered Republican. Now, I'm almost positive he would vote Democrat down the line. He's also a Mennonite, which I'm told basically means a Liberal politically. I've heard most Mennonites registered Republican. Now, I'm almost positive they don't vote Republican. I've also read that blacks typically vote Democrat now.

Darren said...

You can choose to believe that "the parties have changed sides" but I don't accept that.

Anonymous said...

There was a special about Barry Goldwater on HBO. Those singing his praises were mostly Democrats.

The parties have switched sides.

Republicans accept women, minorities, and gays only if they are willing to accept subservient roles.

Anonymous said...

The real FACTS:
• Martin Luther King Jr. was a registered Republican JFK illegally tapped King's telephone lines (and to think the Dems complain about Watergate)
• Democrats founded the KKK
• Jackie Robinson voted for Nixon
• Many blacks are in fact Republicans (should I mention George Washington Carver, Booker T. Washington, and Karl Malone?)
• The first black in the Sentate was a GOP member
• Before Civil Rights passed there were 10 bills purposed by Republicans after 1866 that Democrats opposed and filibustered.
• If Republicans had their way Civil Rights would have passed in 1866
• Later the Dems regretted it and supported it to get political benefit even though it was the GOP's idea in the first place, but somehow those GOP members are racist (although we don't know how)!
• The GOP was founded as the abolitionist party, and elected Lincoln; the Dems seceded from the Union.
• The GOP created and passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, and the southern Dems couldn't vote on them because they hadn't returned to the Union; the NORTHERN dems voted against and filibustered them.
• The KKK was founded by Democrat Confederate Soldier veterans, and the KKK supported Democratic politics.
• Wilson resegregated Federal Government offices and resisted integration of the military and of his student body while president of Princeton. He premiered "Birth of a Nation" in his white house, and quotes of his supporting the KKK are featured in the film.
• FDR nominated a Klansman and segregationist to the Supreme Court.
• Orval Faubus tried to have the Arkansas National Guard prevent the "Little Rock Nine" from entering Central High School; Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne in to stop him.
• JFK told MLK to keep his people quiet, while RFK as Attorney General tapped MLK's phones.
• Former Klansman Robert Byrd (D) filibustered the Civil Rights Act of '64, a bill which could not have been passed without Republican support.
• Same with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
• Affirmative Action and quotas were actually implemented by Richard Nixon, a strong supporter of minorities who had a history of hiring many of them as far back as the 50's when he was VP.
Bottom Line:
There is an aphorism frequently offered in the study of economics that asserts: “Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime.” In essence this phrase reveals a principal difference between the Republican and Democratic Parties. Historical record confirms time and time again that no political party has done more for the advancement of blacks in American society than the Republican Party. Moreover, it establishes that from the party’s inception through the modern era, the Democratic Party has a history deeply rooted in slavery, racism, and indifference towards black Americans.
Contrary to what is taught in public education, the Republican Party has created countless opportunities for black Americans, while many of the Democratic Parties leading “triumphs” in black American history (the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Affirmative Action, for example) are in actuality not so triumphant— at least, not without the aid of Republicans.
If there is one institution that owes reparations to black Americans after nearly two hundred years of slavery, bigotry, repression, and inopportunity in American society, it is the Democratic National Committee.
The sole reason that blacks vote Democrat started during the Hoover Administration. The administration refused to send federal aid to a city in the south that was ravaged by a flood. The town was primarily black, and politically overnight, the party alignment changed. But because the Republican Party gives everyone the tools to succeed (as opposed to giving them a fish everyday) the Dems can use this as a tool saying that the GOP hates the poor, etc.

allen said...

I don't think it's so much a matter of both parties having changed sides as it was the political landscape tilting strongly to the left, carrying both parties with it. Besides that, going to the left is the natural inclination of all politicians since socialism invests power in the state aka politicians. Not to say there aren't exceptions but that's precisely what they are and exceptions don't win elections. Oooh, I just had a Maya Angelou moment.

Fortunately there are glimmers of light.

Most of the agenda of the left is dead in the water where it isn't being rolled back, with the occasional exception of course.

Welfare's been shown to be a false promise. The Second Amendment is bulldozing the prohibitionists aside. Social security is no longer the third rail of American politics. Affirmative action is under successful attack. The House and Senate Republicans may get their comeuppance for treating tax revenues in a manner that any tax-and-spend Democrat would approve, i.e. irresponsibly. The abortion debate turns out not to have been quite so settled as many liberals claimed and would like to believe. NCLB has made public school accountability a national issue.

Then there's the drug entitlement. Sigh.

Anonymous said...

It was predominately the Democrats and/or DixieCrats, who accused King of being a Communist.

These were the folks (along with Robert Kennedy) who made life fairly miserable for the leaders of the Civil Rights movement of the 50's and 60's.

Anonymous said...

With all due respect to Mr. Baird, the definitions of conservative and liberal have drastically changed through the years.

Your comments are moot.

Darren said...

Allen, please continue to have such Maya Angelou moments!

Lillian said...

Sometimes it seems that ANONYMOUS is One Person, but obviously not. The Anonymous who posted the long list of FACTS,has an awesome grasp of, well, the FACTS.

However, some of the other ANONYMOUS comments, are quite opposite in viewpoint and facts.

Perhaps there should be designations, i.e., Anonymous1, Anonymous2, Anonymous3, etc., so one can keep ones people straight.

Darren said...

It's ok, Lillian. The anonymous troll seems to know enough about me and my school life for me to have identified him.

It's still entertaining to pretend to be mystified, though.

I don't know why people don't click "Other" and type in a name, but if they want to remain anonymous for whatever, reason, I guess there's no harm done.

Jason S. said...

Good discussion. The notion that any one party represents any one coherent set of beliefs, ideals, and rhetoric over the entire scope of history is an “ideal type” and scoffs at the notion of historical development and change over time. Certainly, Lincoln, Calhoun, T. Roosevelt, F. Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and JFK, along with Dr. King would have different views of the political landscape today. The parties overtime have continuously drawn from the ideals of republicanism (small r) and liberalism to address their interests at any given moment. Likewise, we are assuming republicanism and liberalism are concepts that reach back to those in the past and we are assuming they would have understood those terms as we have understood them. Likewise, to assume that one ideal structures a person’s entire thought process and one is incapable of drawing form both, neither, or reflect independently is to succumb to the notion that individuality and free will is also a myth (how Marxist!). That is, I am suspicious of the notion that any one person is defined by any one ideal absolutely. Another interesting point is to this discussion on parties flip flopping overtime. This is interesting to think in these terms—it well could be true. Still, that does not seem likely to have an entire party flip exactly to another viewpoint. Instead, the parties have changed overtime in differing and like ways with historical developments transforming them in to entities that are not flip flopped, but altered—different than they were in the past. Calhoun owned slaves, the KKK had Democrats, and King was a registered Republican. What does this do for us today? We can always look to the past to find examples of things that fit what we perceive as our “ideal type.” If Lincoln and King were Republicans, does it mean I should find solitude in this fact? That Democrats were founders of slavery and the KKK is it likely that the Democrats today embody these values? What about the “fact” that the KKK is a Christian organization. Regardless whether any rational person understands they truly are not, they profess to be and espouse those ideas—so did Hitler. Christians burned witches, fought crusades, etc, etc. Nevertheless, today, would I rationally categorize some great humanitarian like Rev. Billy Graham in the same company? I mean, it is the history! Of course, not, that is ridiculous. The parties of the past were cast in different molds than the parties today. You can not remove an historical person from the context of their era, drop them in today’s world, and expect modern circumstances not to transform or alter their beliefs! The best we can do is contextualize them and deduce what they would be today (and that is highly relative!). King obviously a Democrat, Kennedy obviously a Republican. This does not mean they would be so—just that the parties have evolved over time. I am a registered Democrat today, but that does not define me, I do not perceive myself in that fashion. I would be a Republican in 1860, and would have been an Anti-Federalist in the 1780s. Drawing parallels from the past is dangerous. Also, as a Republican in 1860 I would not even conceive of the party of either side as they exist today. I would just be trying to fit in with a party that best represented my values at the time. Advancements for Civil Rights have been a long and continuous battle were people on both sides of the aisle have made mistakes in the past and have made positive changes for the future. Humanity and decency, as well as perversion and corruption, are not monopolized by any one party or should they be. No party is an ideal type today, yesterday, or tomorrow for that matter. Vote what is best for you today. And to that, I vote democrat—though I do not define myself as such.

Dean Baird said...

Politifact