The racist - and rather recent - origins of the Moral Majority's alliance with the Republican Party

[82_VOL_83]

Oh Snap!

 

[82_VOL_83]

Life experience?

My dad's parents were pretty hardcore racists and were highly conservative. My mom's parents were not racist at all but were also hardcore conservative. I grew up in a fairly well integrated area (Soddy Daisy) where there wasn't much racial tension.

Ask my little brother, though, and he'd tell you it was s racist haven. Same address, same family, same schools, but his experience was very different than mine.

I wish we could reach a point where we could divorce racism from party affiliation. I've known extreme racists on both sides and I've known some of the most accepting people in the world on both sides. We all have.

You don't have to be white, black, yellow, red, conservative, liberal, gay, straight, or somewhere in between all of these to be a racist. All you need is a sense of self importance and a fear of anyone different than you.

Why does it always boil down to telling people they are scared of something. Can you quote something other than the canned party line for a change?

 

[azVolFan]

That's not clear at all. Democrats sold out for the population centers? What is clear is that republicans chased the South and Midwest by playing on racial divisiveness.

The left is currently screaming mad for segregation. No?

 

[0nelilreb]

Our politics have devolved to a sickening point. That's a reflection of us. The democrats aren't much better than the republicans in the way they play the game of politics.
None of that changes the fact that the democratic party is the best viable option I currently have of moving the country in the direction I deem best.

This is one of the best posts I’ve seen you make . It’s very honest and reads like you made it without blinders on .

 

[AshG]

Why does it always boil down to telling people they are scared of something. Can you quote something other than the canned party line for a change?

Canned party line? What?

Oh... You think I adhere to a party. Assumption incorrect.

Saying "fear of anyone different than you" is much easier than saying "when confronted with an unfamiliar individual or group, release of norepinephrine in the sympathetic nervous systems provokes an adrenalized survival response. This reaction continues over time until the person becomes conditioned to see the other as a non-threat. This is where the amygdala, ventral strata, insula, and prefrontal cortex take over and provide a sense of safety through group conformity and identity. When the other is included in the group identity, there is generally no issue; when the other is not included in the group identity, the result is an exclusionary status with the intent of separation."

I love science.

 

[Weezer]

Our politics have devolved to a sickening point. That's a reflection of us. The democrats aren't much better than the republicans in the way they play the game of politics.
None of that changes the fact that the democratic party is the best viable option I currently have of moving the country in the direction I deem best.

The fact you believe that is sad. And if you do believe that, why would you not demand better from the party you associate with? You routinely defend or simply dismiss their corruption, their shortfalls, their idiocy. If you believe in them so much, why would you not ask for more? It makes no sense not to call them out on obvious missteps.

But ultimately I disagree that either party is a better viable option than the other. Both are leading us down a dark path IMO, which is not the direction I would deem best for our country. The truth that neither party wants to acknowledge is that most people have grown tired of the establishment. It's why Trump won. He may be an ass, but he represented something different than a career politician. That was his appeal. The masses want change, while partisans such as yourself are content with more of the same.

 

[volinbham]

I'm not sure; some of us read the article and understand that it's not about abortion - which I agree is a major issue with spiritual import - but about the desire to use whatever means necessary to gain power and influence.

Also, primary sources matter. The article is a tertiary source. Whether you agree with the article or not, the source material is academically viable, searchable, and confirmable.

I understand skepticism with internet writers, but the extension of distrust to primary sources is growing more ridiculous by the day. If this author had said the world was spheroid I can almost guarantee we'd have people arguing over whether the science was valid.

Some of it is the Vox model. Choose some facts that support your claim. The alternative is collect all the facts and see where they lead. Vox claims to be objective via use of data (of all sorts) but if you read the articles it's begins with the political premise and only sources data that supports the premise. Ezra Klein is a master at it. The problem isn't use of primary sources; it's the selective use.

 

[37L1]

Canned party line? What?

Oh... You think I adhere to a party. Assumption incorrect.

Saying "fear of anyone different than you" is much easier than saying "when confronted with an unfamiliar individual or group, release of norepinephrine in the sympathetic nervous systems provokes an adrenalized survival response. This reaction continues over time until the person becomes conditioned to see the other as a non-threat. This is where the amygdala, ventral strata, insula, and prefrontal cortex take over and provide a sense of safety through group conformity and identity. When the other is included in the group identity, there is generally no issue; when the other is not included in the group identity, the result is an exclusionary status with the intent of separation."

I love science.

You love Bull Schit.

 

[volinbham]

I just reread the article and do not agree that the author supported his premise (in many ways it's contradicted).

Believe what you want to believe but this article hardly passes muster as any proof of what the author claims.

 

[GAVol]

I just reread the article and do not agree that the author supported his premise (in many ways it's contradicted).

Believe what you want to believe but this article hardly passes muster as any proof of what the author claims.

It's a conclusion in search of an argument.

 

[37L1]

It's a conclusion in search of an argument.

But AshG loved it.

Science.

[youtube]

 

[Weezer]

The more idiocy I see sprout from both parties, the more convinced I become we need some kind of new revolution. Not necessarily a violent one, but some kind of upheaval that unseats those currently governing the country. We need fresh minds willing to put aside petty partisan squabbling for the betterment of country.

 

[37L1]

The more idiocy I see sprout from both parties, the more convinced I become we need some kind of new revolution. Not necessarily a violent one, but some kind of upheaval that unseats those currently governing the country. We need fresh minds willing to put aside petty partisan squabbling for the betterment of country.

Where exactly are you going to find these minds that are willing to take on the powers that be and not become like the abyss that they are staring into?

 

[volinbham]

Here's an example

"By 1980, even though Carter had sought, both as governor of Georgia and as president, to reduce the incidence of abortion, his refusal to seek a constitutional amendment outlawing it was viewed by politically conservative evangelicals as an unpardonable sin. Never mind the fact that his Republican opponent that year, Ronald Reagan, had signed into law, as governor of California in 1967, the most liberal abortion bill in the country. When Reagan addressed a rally of 10,000 evangelicals at Reunion Arena in Dallas in August 1980, he excoriated the “unconstitutional regulatory agenda” directed by the IRS “against independent schools,” but he made no mention of abortion. Nevertheless, leaders of the religious right hammered away at the issue, persuading many evangelicals to make support for a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion a litmus test for their votes."

Makes it sound like Carter was the pro-life candidate and Reagan not so much.

Also the example of August 1980 rally implies that Reagan was not advocating a pro-life position - I guarantee if you check other rallies, speeches and platform you'll see he was clearly more pro-life than Carter.

Finally, the conclusion throughout is that religious right voters were voting based on concerns about abortion (even says so in the last line above). Even if Falwell and the other dude didn't give a rip about abortion and were segregationists the facts throughout the article show voters were motivated by abortion issues - it does not establish that they were only saying they care about abortion when in fact they are segregationists.

 

[Weezer]

Where exactly are you going to find these minds that are willing to take on the powers that be and not become like the abyss that they are staring into?

I don't know, but we are in need of a new age of revolutionary minds. How did Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and all our revolutionary forefathers find each other? I guess the need was there and a void was filled. I doubt I'll see it in my lifetime, but I do believe it's what the country needs. And the best way to destroy the current abyss, IMO, is Congressional term limits. Too much time in office allows for politicians to build formidable power bases that are hard to defeat. It needs to stop being about power, and focusing more on service.

I admit, I'm a bit of a dreamer. I would like to see something that may no longer be possible. But I find it hard to accept we that we as a people have become so complacent with a horrible government that we will allow it to continue in perpetuum.

 

[luthervol]

The fact you believe that is sad. And if you do believe that, why would you not demand better from the party you associate with? You routinely defend or simply dismiss their corruption, their shortfalls, their idiocy. If you believe in them so much, why would you not ask for more? It makes no sense not to call them out on obvious missteps.

But ultimately I disagree that either party is a better viable option than the other. Both are leading us down a dark path IMO, which is not the direction I would deem best for our country. The truth that neither party wants to acknowledge is that most people have grown tired of the establishment. It's why Trump won. He may be an ass, but he represented something different than a career politician. That was his appeal. The masses want change, while partisans such as yourself are content with more of the same.

I do demand better, which amounts to pretty much zilch; and what exactly would asking for more look like?
Do you demand better? How's that working out?
I've always known what issues are most important to me and in what order. I've always voted accordingly.
Everybody wants change....................for the better.
All Trump has served to prove for most is that there are things worse than the establishment and career politicians.

 

[luthervol]

This is one of the best posts I’ve seen you make . It’s very honest and reads like you made it without blinders on .

Thanks, I guess.

I don't wear blinders, I only post as if I do.
I've lived in a solidly red county for the past 21 years, in a state that's pretty much been solidly red over the same period, and the PF is mostly red.
This forum is my place to vent in a way that can't be done elsewhere.

 

[37L1]

Thanks, I guess.

I don't wear blinders, I only post as if I do.
I've lived in a solidly red county for the past 21 years, in a state that's pretty much been solidly red over the same period, and the PF is mostly red.
This forum is my place to vent in a way that can't be done elsewhere.

Why us, why, why, why?



I find your perspective very interesting but stupid, to quote Arte Johnson.

 

[Roustabout]

I do demand better, which amounts to pretty much zilch; and what exactly would asking for more look like?
Do you demand better? How's that working out?
I've always known what issues are most important to me and in what order. I've always voted accordingly.
Everybody wants change....................for the better.
All Trump has served to prove for most is that there are things worse than the establishment and career politicians.

I can just about bet you’ve voted right on the party line. I’ve voted 3rd party or independent in the last four presidential elections.
The problem is everyone says this **** and then pulls the lever because they are afraid to venture outside the norm. No one protested or got upset when Gary Johnson was shutout of the debates. Instead they made fun of him while supporting nuts like Hillary, Bernie and Trump.

You’re all full of it.