Skip to main content

Why Ann Coulter misses the mark with her Civil Rights comments

Over the past year or two, I've heard with growing frequency, Republican politicians and commentators saying, "Why do minorities support Democrats? Republicans were the ones that voted to abolish slavery, the ones that fought for their Civil Rights!"

When discussing the Charleston, South Carolina shooting and Confederate flag debate on C-SPAN recently, conservative author and woman voted most likely to have been a demon-skeleton in a past life - Ann Coulter - continued this trend, as she said the following:

"I think it's completely moronic (debating the Confederate flag). ...This is an awful, awful thing that happened in Charleston. Luckily, it's quite rare. To jump on this and go back to a litany of liberal talking points that make Republicans look bad, how about banning the Democratic Party? They were the ones on the Confederate side of the Civil War. They were the ones who supported segregation for 100 years."

This is the point many Republicans keep talking about, thinking it will convince the 90% of African-Americans, 71% of Latino-Americans, and 73% of Asian-Americans, whom voted for Democrats, to switch sides. The thing she and others like her seem to keep missing is the fact that things can change, and the Republican and Democratic Parties of today are not what they were 60-150 years ago.

Just look at the electoral maps of presidential elections throughout this country's history. The African-American Civil Rights era went from 1952-1968, with the Civil Rights Act being passed in 1964 (another being passed in 1968). In the 1952 presidential election, Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson won just the nine following states: Kentucky, West Virginia, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. Yes, this was a Democratic nominee. In 1956, it was more of the same, as Stevenson won just the following seven states: Missouri, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. With John F. Kennedy as the Democratic nominee in the 1960 election, the map started changing a bit. Kennedy hung on to many of the Southern states, but added a large chunk of the Northeastern states, and even a few in the Midwest. In 1964, when Lyndon B. Johnson was the Democratic nominee, the map completed reversed itself from just 8-12 years prior, for the only six states Republican nominee Barry Goldwater won were: Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Arizona. The transition had yet to be fully settled, though, for in 1976, Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter, a Georgia native, won most of the Southern states, but went on to win almost none of them when facing Ronald Reagan in the 1980 election. Democratic candidates continued to struggle in 1984 and 1988, but found renowned hope with Bill Clinton in 1992. Clinton, an Arkansas native, dominated the Northeast, the West, and even won the states of: Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Georgia, Kentucky, and West Virginia. Clinton held on to most every state in the 1996 election. It wasn't until the 2000 election where the Civil Rights-era transition seemed to finally be complete. Al Gore dominated the Northeast and West, while George W. Bush dominated the Southern and Plains states. That trend continued in the 2004 election between the before-mentioned Bush and Democratic nominee John Kerry. Barack Obama was able to expand the Democrat's voting map some in the 2008 and 2012 elections, putting North Carolina and Virginia in play, but outside of that, the electoral map trend stayed the same. It's now reached a time where most Republican nominees see little to no point in visiting Western or Northeastern states, former strongholds of the party, and most Democratic nominees see little to no point in visiting the Southern or Plains states, former strongholds of their party. So Ann Coulter and other Republicans can attempt to lay claim that the Republican Party is responsible for fighting against segregation during the Civil Rights era, but as the electoral maps suggest, the two parties are far different today than they were then.

The Civil Rights era slowly brought liberals over to the Democratic Party and conservatives over to the Republican Party. That's the thing - if we want to pose a competitive match-up for the battle over Civil Rights, it wouldn't be the Republican Party vs. the Democratic Party, because the two parties have significantly changed through the years. No, the match-up would be between progressives vs. conservatives. The Democratic Party may not have always been the party of Civil Rights, but progressives have always fought for this cause, and while the Republican Party had been largely filled with progressives several decades ago, that's no longer the case. I'm a progressive. If I had been a voter in 1952, I probably would have viewed myself as a Republican. However, it's no longer 1952; it's 2015. While the Democratic Party has been fighting for: Women's rights, voting rights, gay marriage rights, police reform, prison reform, equal opportunity, etc., the Republican Party has been fighting to: Make voting more difficult, strip away women's rights, limit or ban the rights of the LGBT community, etc.

Through the years, I've heard many people utter the line, "I didn't leave the Republican/Democratic Party, the Republican/Democratic Party left me." If they were alive during the Civil Rights era, they'd probably be correct. As much as it'd pain her to say it, Ann Coulter would have been a Democrat during those times of segregation she spoke out about. However, the Democratic Party would have left her and sent her over to the Republican Party. She can deny it all she wants, but the two parties haven't been consistently defined throughout history, but ideologies have been, and if she wants more women, minorities, and members of the LGBT community to vote for Republicans in 2015, she and others like her will have to fight for the Civil Rights of today and not of decades past. There's a reason why a large majority of such demographics vote for Democrats today - simply because they're not the Democrats of decades past nor the Republicans of today.

http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/352651/ann-coulter-calls-removing-confederate-flag-moronic-likens-herself-to-bob-woodward/

http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/

Comments

  1. Coulter's political analysis has been flawed for years. She still dreams of a Romney run in 2016.

    See “Adios, Ann: Only Mitt for Me” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-70.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

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!"