Skip to main content

The GOP is only hurting themselves by trying to live in the distant past

While Republicans talking about their party's history with regard to slavery has been trending more in the past year or so, it reached a head this past week when Confederate flags started getting banned more than selfie sticks at construction jobs. I can't tell you how many times over this past week I've read memes, seen videos, or heard comments from conservatives claiming that the Democratic Party is the true party of slavery, insinuating it'd be wise for African-Americans to vote for the anti-slavery Republican Party. While the GOP may think they can only benefit their party's image by doing this, attempting to live in the past is only going to hurt them, and with that, the country at large.

Firstly, as I've said time and time again, the two parties are not what they used to be. When Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, the two parties slowly began to swap identities. Progressive Republicans slowly started becoming Democrats and conservative Democrats slowly started becoming Republicans. In the 1952 and 1956 elections, Republicans controlled the Northeast and West, which have always been liberal strongholds. Democrats, meanwhile, controlled the ever so conservative South. Not long after Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, Democrats began controlling the Northeast and West and Republicans started controlling the South. The identity (and electoral) swap wasn't complete until the 2000 election when Democrat Al Gore went on to win in the typical liberal strongholds and Republican George W. Bush did similarly in the conservative South and Plains states. The electoral map has remained this way through the past four elections, with Republicans winning two ('00 and '04) and Democrats winning two as well ('08 and '12). So, let's cut it with the BS. The Democrat Party of 1955 is the Republican Party of 2015 and the Republican Party of 1955 is the Democrat Party of 2015. While liberals and conservatives haven't altered ideologies much in that time-frame, they have switched parties. I would've been a Republican back in 1955. Chances are Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower would be Democrats today. Republican God Ronald Reagan would even have a difficult time making it through a Republican Primary in the modern age. So, I'm sorry to have to tell conservatives this, but you're not doing yourselves any favors by saying, "Come on! Vote for us! Our party was largely responsible for abolishing slavery!" Yeah, and guess what? Modern-day Democrats largely comprised your party when that happened. But keep on trying...

Also, what are these very Republicans insinuating with such subtly condescending statements? They're trying to tell minorities that they're the anti-slavery party, and due to this, more such individuals should vote for them, even though approximately 90% of African-Americans have voted Democrat in the past several elections (and over 70% of Latino- and Asian-Americans the past couple of elections). Are they unintentionally saying, "90% of African-Americans are obviously uneducated, borderline stupid, to not be voting Republican, since we were the ones that abolished slavery"? That's how it comes across to me, so once again, they're not doing themselves any favors by moving forward (by looking backward) with this narrative. 

Modern-day Republicans can adamantly declare all they'd like that they are the anti-slavery party, that African-Americans and other minorities should be voting for them in larger numbers, but they're going to have to prove that with what they do in 2015 and not what progressives in their party did in 1955. They're going to have to fight for minorities' voting rights, as opposed to trying to oppress them. They're going to have to fight for equal funding for schools across states, from the most rural to the most urban of areas. They're going to have to fight for prison and police reform, so that minorities are treated as equals in the eyes of the law. They're going to have to fight for equal rights and opportunities, and not continue to treat some minorities as 3/5 of a person. 

Over the past week, Republicans have continually spouted, "Democrats were the Confederates!" Yes, but that was 150 years ago. Just this past week, Republicans were the ones defending the Confederate flag, which again just goes to show that the Republicans of 2015 were the Confederate Democrats of 1865.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"