Is it fair to call Republicans "The Party of Lincoln"?

[Fiddytree]

I think assigning MLK to the Republican Party needs some clarification in the interest of intellectual honesty.

Firstly, what is a Republican? I think there are three possible definitions:

1. Someone who has in some way officially associated with the Republican Party. This could include running for office as a GOP candidate, becoming a GOP campaign worker in some capacity or registering as a republican in a closed primary state. Georgia, MLK's home state is an open primary state that does not ask party affiliations of voters and to my understanding he never ran for office or worked as a GOP employee or volunteer. I do remember now MLK lived in Massachusetts, Alabama and Illinois for short periods and unlike Georgia might be closed primary states. I am unaware of any declaration of party affiliation by MLK while living outside of Georgia.

2. Someone who votes for republican candidates along strict party lines. For MLK this would have to mean he voted against the two presidents who did more for Civil Rights than any others, JFK and LBJ.

3. Someone who self-identifies as a republican. This one is in my opinion is possible but dubious. People who are highly involved in activism that benefits from having as few political foes as possible, often are wise with their political associations and either keep their political leanings secret and/or if they do live in a closed primary state say they're independent. This is done specifically to have friends and not enemies in the interest of what they see as a greater cause. I have not been able to see anything conclusive from MLK himself where he self-identified as a republican. The only evidence of which I am aware regarding an MLK GOP party affiliation is MLK's niece Alveda King, herself a GOP activist, is on record as saying her uncle was a republican coupled with no one in the civil rights leadership nor other members of the king family denying it.

Here's what I think is probably the most honest answer. MLK was politically independent who voted for republicans in southern state and local races were segregationists ran the democrat party at the time and voted for democrats in presidential elections where at the federal level the democrats were the biggest allies in the quest for racial equality.

An fun extra credit exercise would be to look into the history and see where MLK stood on the issues.

- obviously, he supported civil rights for minorities.
- he was against the Viet-Nam War
- he supported anti-poverty programs
- as a champion of non-violence he probably would have been for gun control
- he was in Memphis on that fateful day because he was helping in a worker action where black sanitation department employees were acting as a type of labor union and were on strike demanding better compensation and conditions.

...cant think of anything else off the top.

We know he stated he had traditionally voted for Democrats, if I recall correctly, for national office, as of 1956. In the following election, we have apparently some piece of evidence that he may have voted for Eisenhower by way of a meeting MLK had with Nixon the subsequent year (I haven't been able to quickly track that one down yet either). We know he had felt personally snubbed by Nixon in 1960, which makes it difficult to sell the idea that he would then vote for the man that he felt snubbed him. We know that MLK later stated that had Kennedy lived through the next election cycle, he would have publicly endorsed the candidate. We then know on top of that in 1964, MLK felt it urgent to publicly campaign against Barry Goldwater, not because Barry was somehow seen as a racist, but because his philosophy and platform seemed too congenial for racists. Then, in his final years we do know that he was very much moving toward the Left, perhaps always was, in the remaining years before his assassination.

 

[Fiddytree]

Really?

In '64, around 80% of the republicans voted YES for the civil rights act. Only around 60% of the democrats did.

Just one reason MLK would align himself with many republican. He has stated he normally voted democrat, but that was before the Civil rights act, and just voting "mostly for" should tell us he was likely not partisan. Still, she claims he had registered as a republican. He may have previously been registered as a democrat. Without digging up the archives, we really don't know, and I haven't seen such work done.

We can use the outside world as a backdrop, but we can't use it to rely on what one man's intellectual trajectory was. We have additional primary source documentation along with a long body of work on behalf of scholars that was able to get hold of the man's explicit views.

 

[Lord of Planar]

We can use the outside world as a backdrop, but we can't use it to rely on what one man's intellectual trajectory was. We have additional primary source documentation along with a long body of work on behalf of scholars that was able to get hold of the man's explicit views.

I've never seen it. Care to link it?

 

[Fiddytree]

I've never seen it. Care to link it?

I can link to some of it, but frankly, other stuff is off limits to the easily accessible public and/or behind publication.

http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/primarydocuments/Vol3/1-Oct-1956_ToSloan.pdf

King Encyclopedia

King Encyclopedia

King Encyclopedia

The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr. - Clayborne Carson - Google Books

For even some research into his radical few years:

Adam Fairclough: "Was Martin Luther King A Marxist" History Workshop April 1983, p. 117-125.

Kenneth Smith: "The Radicalization of Martin Luther King, Jr.: The Last Three Years" Journal of Ecumenical Studies Winter 1989, p. 270-288.

From Civil Rights to Human Rights: Martin Luther King Jr. and the Struggle for Economic Justice, Thomas F. Jackson, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I hate it when people link "information overload" and don't point out the relative quotes.

I don't think you have anything that trumps the words of his niece.

 

[Fiddytree]

I hate it when people link "information overload" and don't point out the relative quotes.

I don't think you have anything that trumps the words of his niece.

Lord, I gave it to you so you can read it for yourself. I am not going to dig out quotes for everything I thought pertinent. I combed it so you can dig the entire context of the sources I used, including the search query in the book (I couldn't figure out how to properly display it for another person).

In reality, I gave you far more than most posters will give you, and I was very selective in the process.

If you do not want to spend the time reading it, then that is your business.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Lord, I gave it to you so you can read it for yourself. I am not going to dig out quotes for everything I thought pertinent. I combed it so you can dig the entire context of the sources I used, including the search query in the book (I couldn't figure out how to properly display it for another person).

In reality, I gave you far more than most posters will give you, and I was very selective in the process.

If you do not want to spend the time reading it, then that is your business.

Fine.

I see this too often.

Information overload. Since you didn't search a relevant phrase, I say you have nothing.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Especially since what you linked, I have already seen.

 

[aberrant85]

YIKES! Where to start? Let's start with the Dixiecrats.

The constant liberal lie.

You are saying that Dixiecrats did not join the Republicans after 1968? The south was known as the "Solid South" since the Civil War because it was reliably Democrat. After 1968 there's been only one Democratic presidential candidate to win a majority in the south, Carter. Either these Democrats switched their votes to Republican, or they all moved out of the South. Which was it?

Racism still exists in both parties, but even today. More democrats are racist than republicans.

I'm not sure what statistics would support that. Anecdotally, during the Democratic primaries in '08 there were no publicized instances of racist remarks against Obama by voters. By comparison, there are countless YouTube videos of Republican primary voters and rally goers in '08 making racist and Islamophobic remarks.

More republicans as a percentage voted for the 1964 Civil Rights act than democrats.

Yes, and as you see, 1964 came before 1968 when the Southern Strategy realigned the parties. Indeed Republicans voted for it more than Democrats, but if you look at it by region it was overwhelmingly Southerners who voted against it. So we agree with the facts here.

Too many democrats believe in quota systems even today, which means they think blacks are inferior, and need help. That they can't compete equally.

Every statistic on unemployment, incarceration, single parenthood, and education shows Blacks at a disadvantage to Whites. There's only two ways to explain this. Either you have to accept the fact that a legacy of slavery and discrimination have a long-lasting impact on the Black community (like Democrats do), or you believe that there are no outside factors that should account for Black underperforming, so they must be lazy or naturally inferior. What do you think?

Think about it. Prejudice is not racism. Racism has to do with believing another race is inferior.

These opinions demonstrate to me exactly why modern Republicans do not deserve to call themselves "The Party of Lincoln." Lincoln believed that God created all people equal and worked to repair a system that treated them otherwise. Republicans today cannot claim to do the same.

 

[Fiddytree]

Fine.

I see this too often.

Information overload. Since you didn't search a relevant phrase, I say you have nothing.

Alright, if you consider this information overload, then you must have had a very hard time in public school and left in the dust in college.

Did you click the first link? It is a very very short letter. I gave you it, because I thought you could skim to find the sentence in the paragraph that is relevant. Did I overestimate your capability?

Are you capable of reading a wikipedia article entry about the size of half a page? If so, then you would be able to find the relevant quotes.

Are you capable of clicking on the first image that pops up in MLK's autobiography, and see the highlighted text? If not, we have problems.

Do you like reading books? If not, why bother studying history at all?

 

[SBu]

The GOP has often been called "The Party of Lincoln." It's true that the first Republican president was Abraham Lincoln.

But the implication is that the party is politically aligned with how Lincoln was. Do you think that that is a true description?

I think comparing any modern party, our modern issues, and our country now to the parties of that time, issues of that time, and country at that time is a waste of time. Parties will have their catchphrases, their branding, etc. etc. What's important for us is to filter out these superficial coatings and look deeper into why we support who and what we support.

 

[aberrant85]

I think comparing any modern party, our modern issues, and our country now to the parties of that time, issues of that time, and country at that time is a waste of time. Parties will have their catchphrases, their branding, etc. etc. What's important for us is to filter out these superficial coatings and look deeper into why we support who and what we support.

My thoughts exactly. I'd like to look beyond catchy labels and get to the truth.

 

[Lord of Planar]

YIKES! Where to start? Let's start with the Dixiecrats.



You are saying that Dixiecrats did not join the Republicans after 1968? The south was known as the "Solid South" since the Civil War because it was reliably Democrat. After 1968 there's been only one Democratic presidential candidate to win a majority in the south, Carter. Either these Democrats switched their votes to Republican, or they all moved out of the South. Which was it?

That has nothing to do with my argument. The "lie" is the portrayal republicans being racist because they don't support minority agendas.

I'm not sure what statistics would support that. Anecdotally, during the Democratic primaries in '08 there were no publicized instances of racist remarks against Obama by voters. By comparison, there are countless YouTube videos of Republican primary voters and rally goers in '08 making racist and Islamophobic remarks.

Racist remarks, or biased remarks?

Please look up the definition of "racism." You may also want to look at similar terms like bigot, racialism, prejudice, etc. and see which ones fit best.

Yes, and as you see, 1964 came before 1968 when the Southern Strategy realigned the parties. Indeed Republicans voted for it more than Democrats, but if you look at it by region it was overwhelmingly Southerners who voted against it. So we agree with the facts here.

Agreed. Democrats were primarily racists, there were very few republicans that held office in the south as well. there were probably 10 democrats for every republican. Just guessing, not taking the time to look it up.

Every statistic on unemployment, incarceration, single parenthood, and education shows Blacks at a disadvantage to Whites.

Is that racism, or because of culture?

There's only two ways to explain this. Either you have to accept the fact that a legacy of slavery and discrimination have a long-lasting impact on the Black community (like Democrats do), or you believe that there are no outside factors that should account for Black underperforming, so they must be lazy or naturally inferior. What do you think?

How about a third option. Blacks are taught the white man is the cause of their problems. They are not told to take hold of life and take responsibility for themselves. No, the democrats keep them at bay by telling them they are victims.

These opinions demonstrate to me exactly why modern Republicans do not deserve to call themselves "The Party of Lincoln." Lincoln believed that God created all people equal and worked to repair a system that treated them otherwise. Republicans today cannot claim to do the same.

This is why republicans are the right party for free blacks.

They don't coddle them like children, lie to them about who's at fault. Republicans judge blacks by their character, and not the color of their skin. Democrats judge people by the color of their skin.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Alright, if you consider this information overload, then you must have had a very hard time in public school and left in the dust in college.

Did you click the first link? It is a very very short letter. I gave you it, because I thought you could skim to find the sentence in the paragraph that is relevant. Did I overestimate your capability?

Are you capable of reading a wikipedia article entry about the size of half a page? If so, then you would be able to find the relevant quotes.

Are you capable of clicking on the first image that pops up in MLK's autobiography, and see the highlighted text? If not, we have problems.

Do you like reading books? If not, why bother studying history at all?

Yes.

I did not make that reply until I went to all those links.

Thanks for wasting my time. Next time I will ignore those useless links unless you provide a quote, or somehow indicate a passage.

Look at the date of that first one, and look at my words indicating time frames.

 

[Fiddytree]

Yes.

I did not make that reply until I went to all those links.

Thanks for wasting my time. Next time I will ignore those useless links unless you provide a quote, or somehow indicate a passage.

Look at the date of that first one, and look at my words indicating time frames.

So you read the links (actually read them), but want me to show you the quotes?

I already said the date of the first one above. I provided a synopsis of what we know. I gave you the links with the pertinent information, exactly there, if you would read it.

The only thing I can gather from this is that you actually didn't spend time on the source material, or just didn't want to admit your assertions had serious limitations.

No one should accuse a libertarian of being willing to learn.

 

[aberrant85]

Is that racism, or because of culture?

How about a third option. Blacks are taught the white man is the cause of their problems. They are not told to take hold of life and take responsibility for themselves. No, the democrats keep them at bay by telling them they are victims.

This is why republicans are the right party for free blacks.

They don't coddle them like children, lie to them about who's at fault. Republicans judge blacks by their character, and not the color of their skin. Democrats judge people by the color of their skin.

They say that liberals are idealists, but this is why I think conservatives are the real idealists. Your idealism tells you that everything is right with the world, that all anyone needs to do is recognize this and they can be successful; if they don't then they just haven't seen the light yet. It must be comfortable to you to know that America has no cultural guilt whatsoever to acknowledge.

 

[SBu]

My thoughts exactly. I'd like to look beyond catchy labels and get to the truth.

If you're interested in branding and catchphrases and the like in modern politics, I think one of the most successful brandings of our modern time is actually not a political party branding itself...but a political party branding another political party with near impunity. The Democrats have not only been hugely successful branding themselves as the "mainstream" party of minorities, women, and immigrants...but have also successfully branded the Republicans as the antithesis of those groups. Now, the truth of the Democrats being that, or the Republicans being that is debatable (and would be a great thread on here). Either way, it's incredibly effective politics...good for our country?...who knows.

 

[joko104]

Democrats don't call themselves "The party of Andrew Jackson."

It was LBJ who said "there goes the South for a generation" (to Republicans) when the Civil Rights Act was passed and then it worsened with court ordered busing. That strange court ruling by the Supreme Court that they cannot order states to fairly distribute school money so then had to move the children instead by buses is what more likely turned the South solidly Republican in presidential elections.

 

[Smeagol]

We know he stated he had traditionally voted for Democrats, if I recall correctly, for national office, as of 1956. In the following election, we have apparently some piece of evidence that he may have voted for Eisenhower by way of a meeting MLK had with Nixon the subsequent year (I haven't been able to quickly track that one down yet either). We know he had felt personally snubbed by Nixon in 1960, which makes it difficult to sell the idea that he would then vote for the man that he felt snubbed him. We know that MLK later stated that had Kennedy lived through the next election cycle, he would have publicly endorsed the candidate. We then know on top of that in 1964, MLK felt it urgent to publicly campaign against Barry Goldwater, not because Barry was somehow seen as a racist, but because his philosophy and platform seemed too congenial for racists. Then, in his final years we do know that he was very much moving toward the Left, perhaps always was, in the remaining years before his assassination.

Thanks for the information. To me its not about who gets the bragging rights but being honest and historically accurate.

 

[Lord of Planar]

So you read the links (actually read them), but want me to show you the quotes?

I already said the date of the first one above. I provided a synopsis of what we know. I gave you the links with the pertinent information, exactly there, if you would read it.

The only thing I can gather from this is that you actually didn't spend time on the source material, or just didn't want to admit your assertions had serious limitations.

No one should accuse a libertarian of being willing to learn.

I see nothing that states, as fact, that MLK was not a republican in his later life. As I said before, I will trust his niece, over material that only suggests. Unless you have something that is definitive, you are wasting all our time.

 

[Lord of Planar]

They say that liberals are idealists, but this is why I think conservatives are the real idealists. Your idealism tells you that everything is right with the world, that all anyone needs to do is recognize this and they can be successful; if they don't then they just haven't seen the light yet. It must be comfortable to you to know that America has no cultural guilt whatsoever to acknowledge.

If you want to be held back by the past, who am I to stop you?

 

[Fiddytree]

I see nothing that states, as fact, that MLK was not a republican in his later life. As I said before, I will trust his niece, over material that only suggests. Unless you have something that is definitive, you are wasting all our time.

His votes, his support and opposition to certain candidates does not in any way actually convince you that whatever possible Republicans he could have voted for or supported at the local level, he still by and large was supportive of a number of Democratic candidates?

The only one who wasted time was you asking me to provide proof, which I did (and plenty of it). The fact that you rely on his niece's widely critiqued view, against all odds, tells me enough about you, your intellectual curiosity, and your integrity. By all means, agree with a poorly-researched newsletter. You would still be the fool.

 

[Gipper]

Can Republicans these days slay vampires? I hear Lincoln could.

 

[aberrant85]

If you want to be held back by the past, who am I to stop you?

I'm a white person, and I feel no personal guilt over inequality in the US. You want to know my secret?

I recognize that some things are out of my control! Which, of course, is the reason why some people are treated unequally. Because there are some things out of their control.

 

[Lord of Planar]

His votes, his support and opposition to certain candidates does not in any way actually convince you that whatever possible Republicans he could have voted for or supported at the local level, he still by and large was supportive of a number of Democratic candidates?

The only one who wasted time was you asking me to provide proof, which I did (and plenty of it). The fact that you rely on his niece's widely critiqued view, against all odds, tells me enough about you, your intellectual curiosity, and your integrity. By all means, agree with a poorly-researched newsletter. You would still be the fool.

Wow...

You sure are a nice snot...