Metal Reviews

The thing is, from what I understand about the black voting bloc, is they tend to be more conservative, at least as far as religion, values, etc. (I am not talking about the entertainment sector, obviously, but regular everyday people)...
The factoid I posted above regarding the 70% vote against gays hooking up seems to support this. So why do they vote cosistently Dem? After all, a Republican freed the slaves; .
So what is the difference between Rep's and Dem's (henceforth referred to as D and R)?

The D mantra has always been one of affirmative action, welfare. The idea that racism is alive and well and blacks are victims of such. Sure, there is some racism, but is not a strictly black / white dichotomy. Racism crosses the spectrum of human existence, but in this case, it is played up and used as a tool. They perpetuate the idea that blacks are owed something for past greivances. This along with the idea that government will fix all this, has drawn blacks in as a sure bet as far as voting partylines goes. Never mind that the perpetuation of the idea that blacks are somehow incapable of mastering their own fate and forever need "a leg up" is inherently racist in and of itself.

The R mantra has always been to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, work hard and save your money (at least traditionally, the RINOs in DC bear very little resemblance to traditional conservatives), self-sufficency and so on. They frown on AA and quotas as being reverse racism. This obviously pushes blacks away, as contrasted to the D party line.

So really, they vote D based on which benefits their own race.

Has the Democratic party actually done anything to better the state of black America? Crime (drug-related and otherwise), unemployment, family dissolution, and the rest are actually higher than ever before, after many trillions and trillions of dollars spent on programs designed to level the playing field.
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day; teach a man how to fish, he'll never go hungry again" or something like that.
My take is the D's are using blacks as a guaranteed vote, so long as they keep their mantra of victimhood up.
In short they have been bamboozled.
Or maybe I'm just talking a lotta crazy shit...

ha ha, anti-semtitism is a phrase thrown around waaay to lightly these days.
Zionism is the ideology that Jews should have a homeland, a Jewish state, right?
Abe Foxman of ADL fame seems to think that such an idea is only for Jews and nobody else, in fact the ADL, SPLC etc. encourage immigration into lands where the majority of the populace has been historically white.
Seems like hypocrisy to me.
Of course, not all Jews are proponents of Zionism.
Anyway, equating oppositin to a hypocritical political ideology that has caused much suffering and loss among Palestinians (natives) to opposing Jews is ridiculous, and I daresay, nothing but a pigeon-hearted attempt to silence a differing POV.

Some quick numbers to prove that voting along racial lines is mostly done in states with bigger ethnic minorities:

CALIFORNIA: (many non-caucasian, culturally progressive)

demography:
63% caucasian vs nationally 74%
10% black vs nationally 13%
18% latin vs nationally 9%
6% asian vs nationally 2%

voted Obama:
- 52% caucasian vs nationally 43%
- 94% black vs nationally 95%
- 74% latin vs nationally 67%
- 64% asian vs nationally 62%

TEXAS (many non-caucasian, culturally conservative)

demography:
63% caucasian vs nationally 74%
13% black vs nationally 13%
20% latin vs nationally 9%
2% asian vs nationally 2%

voted Obama:
- 26% caucasian vs nationally 43% (exactly half that of California)
- 98% black vs nationally 95%
- 63% latin vs nationally 67%
- N/A asian vs nationally 62%

This is really what I meant with my post- when we refer to the Zionist lobby as the "Jewish lobby", what we are doing is equating an ethnic/religious group with a particular political ideology- and a racist one at that. Ok, maybe antisemitic is the wrong word, perhaps we will have to make do with "anti-Jewish", or "Jew-ist". But yeah, referring to the "Jewish lobby" as something with overwhelming power is bullshit to me. The "Israel lobby", sure...

Yeah, but to be fair to Karmakosmonaut, AIPAC, JENSA, etc, is fairly commonly referred to as pro-Jewish lobbies, rightly or wrongly.
You guys across the pond probably see the heavy hand Israel manages to wield over US foreign policy more than we at home do, being a more or less impartial observer.
The big question is: why, and once that is figured out, how?

Repiblicans may have freed the slaves, but that was a long time ago. Whereas it is only recent history that the Dems were the party of the Civil Rights legislation.

But anyway, IMO looking at cultural issues gets you nowhere, because I think people vote on the economy. African-Americans may be culturally more conservative, but overwhelmingly they are also lower down the socio-economic scale. The Democrats are the party of the trade unions, the less pro-Free Trade party, and the party that emphasises good quality and high employment, even if that requires government intervention. This is the economic ideology that working class people tend to vote for.



Well, you are characterising the Dem mantra in a perjorative way. "Welfare" has negative overtones nowadays, as does "affirmative action". But the Democratic party is/was a Keynsian liberal party. It emphasised high employment and good quality jobs, with wages rising in line with firm profits. These are positive values, right? You are emphasising welfare, but that is only the flip side, which is a necessary evil that has to be there. Before welfare unemployment meant starvation for large sections of the labour force, which ultimately I don't think even the most hardcore conservatives would prefer.



But if affirmative action was entirely erased as an issue- it had never been on the table, never debated etc, the Dems would still pick up the large majority of black votes, IMO. This is for the reasons outlined above. Black people are more likely to have a lower socio-economic status, and hence are more likely to vote Democratic, because the Dems emphasise the role of government in securing better, more, and improving jobs for ordinary people.



Well, look at it another way. Is it the Dems failure to do anything through social programmes, or is it the Republicans' success in destroying working class America? Under Reagan, US companies began exporting US jobs en masse to the developing world were labour is easier to exploit, and began replacing them with low paying service jobs. Under Reagan, welfare was actually HIGHER as a percentage of GDP than it was under Carter, because of the horrific unemployment that this caused. Don't forget that leadership in the US since 1980 has been overwhelmingly conservative. Bill Clinton was very conservative, compared to LBJ or Carter. Why would you attribute the climbs in problems such as crime and drug abuse to liberal policies?

Social programmes can only ever be a sticking plaster, and often an ineffective on at that. On the other hand, some Democratic policies have made massive improvements in quality of economic life, which is ultimately the factor that, above all others, determines crime, alienation, poverty, drug abuse and all these other things. It is not surprising at all, IMO, that the greatest known increase in living conditions in the USA were in the decades following FDR's New Deal. And it is even less of a surprise that the end to this improvement, and even in some sectors and areas its reversal, came following Reagan.

Haha. This is SO wrong. Some 95% of blacks are democrats and that's the highest percent of people backing one party in ANY demographic. Race, religion, economic status, you name it.

EDIT: Karmakosmonaut addressed this already...sort of...

Also it's just ridiculous to say that a Republican freed the slaves. The parties have changed so much since then that practically the only thing they have in common is the names.

Actually it's not.
I said CONSERVATIVE value wise, not PARTY wise, which is the basis for the whole why do they vote Dem as opposed to Rep thing.
A little closer inspection is in order.
Lincoln = Republican. Learn more before spouting off, please.

Both parties have changed a lot. Eisenhower (republican, no?) took the first steps towards civil liberties, and then subsequent Presidents, especially the great LBJ, continued that path. What a pity America got so freaked by this that they elected Nixon in response...

Its true that Lincoln was a Republican and that the Republicans (and the Whigs before them) were the ones who wanted to abolish slavery, while the Democrats wanted to maintain it. Still, applying that in any way to modern day politics makes no sense- both parties are completely different from what they were 150 years ago.

It was a long time ago, so was slavery, obviously; yet it is brought up rather frequently, even today.

As for voting blocs based on the economy, whites vote about fifty fifty Dem / Rep, so how does that equate?
A lot of working class people I know are conservatives, like I said it is about an even split among whites.



I was trying to establish why the Dems would be so appealing to a specific group. True, welfare is not a monopoloy held by any one group, but while blacks make up roughly 12% of the population, they make up around 38% of all AFDC reception.
I also cited AA, perpetual victim status and other assorted leg-up programs.



I disagree. Since this is supposition, let's leave it at that.



First, not all whites are upper crust; most of us are working class. Whites vote about fifty/fifty along party lines.
None of this explains why the vast majority, hell practically all, of blacks vote Dem.
Second, I am no fan of Reaganomics, so no argument there.
But, again, this doesn't explain the discrepancies between the the way blacks and whites vote.
Whites were affected just as much, if not more than blacks, since whites employment rates have historically been higher than blacks.
And besides, saying that the "greatest known increase in living conditions in the USA were in the decades following FDR's New Deal" isn't really saying a lot, because that was immediately following the Great Depression. And, yes I am aware that the presidents that were running the show at the time were Reps.
I never claimed that the climb in the ills afflicting blacks, i.e, drugs, crime, poverty, were caused by Democrats, only that theyhaven't fixed them. Which is the point.
(One of) the biggest detriments to American workers was the signing of NAFTA, a bill signed by Clinton, who, whether or not he is more conservative than LBJ or Carter, a Dem.
Social programs are one thing; establishing a system of perpetual dependency is anoher thing altogether.
I am a firm believer in taking the reins of your destiny into your own hands.

Anyway, as always, it's nice to bat it around with you, you have good arguments.
But, alas, my wife is looking at me with daggers in her eyes, so we'll have to pick this up later.

V is right in that blacks vote socially conservative yet economically liberal. I would hypothesize that it is due in part to the conservative Christian values a majority of blacks value. Now that the economy is so bad and is always a more important issue when voting for presidents, black vote democrats. Blacks hypocritically suppressed gay rights in California. One step forward, one step back.

I refuse to say African American because by that I would German American and that is just dumb. I'm white and they're black/brown.

Bill Clinton was such a disappointing democrat.

Hey V/CotB,

Fair enough, I hold no brief at all for the Democratic party, so have no qualms about condeming Clinton for NAFTA. Incidentally, I agree with you on that one, it does seem to have had a big negative effect on US workers.

IMO marketization and the ever-increasing search for profit is one of the most damaging things to working people, it is to further these nefarious ends that we have things like NAFTA- this, to me, is a conservative philosophy, and hence why I tend to be very opposed to most conservative economic thought. Whilst, as should be clear from other (slightly long-winded) posts I have made, I don't consider myself a liberal at all either, I still view the latter as preferable. Partly, this is because liberalism to me seems to have delivered the goods in many ways. The 1950s until about 1970 saw the most amazing economic improvements in Western societies and the most dramatic rises in the quality of life we have ever had in our countries. I don't just mean this in a relative, post Depression way, but overall- people began to live like they had never done before in this period. In my view, a lot of this can be attributed to I guess what we would call the "Social COntract", i.e. the liberal idea that government should have a role in ensuring higher and better employment with rising wages, and safety nets for those that fall by the wayside.

Where it goes beyond a safety net into "dependence" or membership of the "underclass"- (an unpleasant term but sadly maybe an accurate one a lot of the time)- is, IMO a conservative creation. We agree on Reagonomics, and things such as NAFTA, so it seems- to my mind, it is the loss of good jobs from these policies that has created dependency. It is not laziness or fecklessness- it is the simple fact that there are as many opportunities as there once were, so many people are forced into a spiral of dependency.

re: white voters being more divided between Reps/Dems than blacks, couldn't this just be because the division of whites between high and low socio-economic classes is more even than that of blacks? Anyway, let's not get into another "race" argument.

Maybe I was generalising too much before by saying that people vote overwhelmingly on economic rather than cultural issues. As an outside observer it seems to me that the latter is a lot more important in the US than it is in the UK, or most likely the rest of Europe. I'm not 100% why this is- maybe it is religion, but maybe it is also the size of the US and its history. There are so many self contained small-town communities in the US that have a history of self-sufficiency that perhaps the idea of identifiying yourself on a national level with other people as a specific "class" with clear economic interests is not as powerful as it is here, where everyone lives in very close proximity to eachother.

As always, rio, an interesting viewpoint.

I favor conservative ideas based on self-sufficiency, living within ones means, planning ahead, thinking long term vs. instant gratification, and what would be called traditional values.
Small government, less waste as opposed to more spending and fighting wars that are only absolutely necessary.
I watch as Western civilisation has become more crass, materialistic, vulgar and dangerous ever since the late 1950's. is this due to libearlism?
Perhaps; it has a lot to due with the erosion of traditional values (we've already had this discussion, and I am not eager to resurrect it) more than any economic model. Perhaps it is combination of the two.
Any in depth discussion regarding the dynamics of economics will have to count me out, though; what I know about economics and it's various models is fuck all, and any attempt at thoughtful discussion would be hopeless on my part.

However, socialist (NOT communist, I'm talking Scandinavia, not Cuba, for example) economic policies have (almost) always been proven to work, especially in the long run. The problem with theories like trickle-down economics is that they can only work if the productive factors of supply are working at a 100% efficiency rate, which is only possible as an abstract concept.

Things improved after Einsenhower, and esp. after LBJ, and Americans reacted disfavourably to it. Hence Reagan and the world being in the shitty state it's in.

...why would they vote against their beliefs? They're obviously not conservative. If you're saying they voted for Obama because he's black, that's bullshit--they've been voting democrat for years. And yeah, other people clarified what I've said...the Republicans of Lincoln's time were completely different from Republicans now.

Also, it seems kind of foolish to say that materialism comes from traditional values eroding. When did we ever have traditional values?

Again, they are. Do a little research before spouting off.


Saying "that's bullshit" isn't a valid point.
And, if you have been paying attention, it has already been established that yes, blacks vote overwhelmingly dem. This whole discussion is about discerning the reasons behind this phenomenom.


One sentence out of the many written, and that is all you have to say?


Who said it did? Materialism is but one small piece of the picture.

Anyway, saying blacks vote Democrat due to economic reasons alone doesn't seem to add up.
Roughly 30% of blacks are considered "poor", yet they vote practically exclusively Democrat.

less than 10% of whites live in poverty, yet the voting trend is much more evenly divided between the two parties.

http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/s ... vrace.html

Somebody mentioned civil rights... well, that was generations ago.
And at any rate saying blacks vote based on civil rights is basically stating that blacks vote for their own racial interests over all else.

Now, whites in America are being pushed ever nearer into minority status, should whites therefore vote based on what is good for themselves over all else?
And anybody that says blacks are not acutely racially aware is a liar. Indeed they are almost obsessive about it.

Whites being racially aware is where the right-wing of politics arises.

!