Last night in Charleston, South Carolina on the day the nation celebrates the Rev. Dr. King, Governor Rick Perry used a question about voting rights to say the Federal government was at “war” with the states.
This was either ignorant or disgusting.
I think it should end the Perry candidacy in the Party of Lincoln.
Why?
One-hundred and fifty years ago Charleston South Carolina rebelled against the Constitution. They did so in the name of race-based slavery and defended the most loathsome views toward fellow human beings. The war they brought on the nation by firing on Federal facilities was more costly by far than the rest of the nation’s wars combined.
The Republican Party was forged in the fires of that war under the leadership of the most admired man in American history: Abraham Lincoln.
Either Rick Perry is ignorant of the remembrance events taking place all over the nation, including his home state of Texas, or he pandered to lingering fondness for the worst time in American history.
Don’t get me wrong: I believe in federalism and state’s rights. Lincoln did as well. What I do not believe in is a “nation” founded to protect slavery in her “constitution” run by some men willing to express disgusting views regarding fellow human beings. Americans still pay the price for hundreds of years of race based slavery.
Racism is real and impacts millions of Americans daily in slights small and great.
If Rick Perry was ignorant of that history, then he is not fit to lead a township let alone Lincoln’s party. If Rick Perry is a closet-Confederate sympathizer, he needs a new party . . . the party of Lincoln, Grant, and Theodore Roosevelt is no place for him. Provoking rebel yells in Charleston at a Republican debate is too weird.
As a historian Newt Gingrich proceeded to pander to Perry’s base by using perfectly defensible positions to send racial dog-whistles to his audience. He cannot plead ignorance. Much of what he said was innocuous in a different context, I even agree with it, but was toxic following Perry’s “rebel yell.”
Newt is one of the few GOP candidates to reach out to the African-American community and does not pander when he does. He is to be commended for this fact, but last night he allowed himself to be associated with Perry’s race baiting. As a Georgian he must be held to a higher standard.
Will Gingrich repudiate Perry’s comments? If not, then he is unfit to lead Lincoln’s party. We do not need the votes of those who think the Confederacy a noble cause.
January 17th, 2012 | 4:53 pm | #1
So, there are several problems with this post, and I usually respect what you say, but there are some issues here.
I am sure that I will be labeled a neo-confederate in the same way that you labeled Perry one, but I will give some pushback nonetheless.
Having a degree in history, I am no professional historian, but have studied in this area extensively. I don’t have time for a long rambling post, but Lincoln was no Dr. King on race issues. Also, there are levels of belief in states rights, and lincoln was far, far from a jeffersonian. This was a real issue.
The confederacy was fundamentally wrong in every way on the issue of slavery. The southern form of slavery was morally reprehensible, but there were other legitimate concerns at stake.
The analogy from perry was in poor taste, but does not a confederate make. (Also, I’m not even voting for Perry, just to clear that up).
You may not like Perry or what he said, but this post is over simplistic and sensationalized and not what I have come to expect from you.
January 17th, 2012 | 5:43 pm | #2
Lincoln was decent on race for his time. He learned as he went. He could have been better, but a quick read of contemporary Southern papers remind us there is no moral equivalence between a flawed but noble Lincoln and the slavers he opposed.
Lincoln was, thank God, no Jeffersonian, but a Clay man. He did see a role for states and state government.
As for the War: the right states thought in peril? Property. The property? Slaves. If slavery had not been, no war. The other issues, such as they were, could have been compromised.
Read John Hay’s Lincoln bio.
I do not recant on Perry who has made succession jokes before now. Again:
MLK Day
Charleston
Voting rights
War on states.
Coincidence from the Governor of Texas?
Did he not hear the rebel yells?
January 17th, 2012 | 11:31 pm | #3
There is no moral equivalence between a flawed and nobel lincoln and the slavers he opposed? A quick read indeed. I could make a strong case that many southerners, including Lee and Jackson, were more forward thinking in their views on race than Lincoln. I am having public school history flashbacks here.
Also, one immoral belief, such as being pro-slavery, does not discredit everything someone did. If it did, see you later Jonathan Edwards and many others.
The point I am making is that it is irresponsible to call Perry a neo-confederate based on what he said. You may disagree with it (being more of a Clay man) but the jump from what he said to pro-slavery and racist is a big one.
January 18th, 2012 | 9:09 am | #4
There’s no reason to assume that Perry was alluding to the Civil War. As we all know, he’s not particularly articulate or quick on his feet.
He explained what he meant. JMR ignores the actual issues that Perry raised as a pretext to do a pious little rant about something that happened long before any of us were born. JMR is obsessed with empty symbolism rather than actual issues.
January 18th, 2012 | 11:24 am | #5
No reason?
Perry is a bad debater, but he has played the CSA card in Texas before now. It is in his play book.
The governor of Texas is asked a voting rights question in Charleston on MLK Day and talks about war with the states.
Let’s ignore that lest I be accused if caring only about symbolism…Governor Perry, do you favor bills like the voting rights act? Are they still necessary?
That is areal issue and Perry ignored it.
We all know why.
January 18th, 2012 | 12:45 pm | #6
The Republican Party has changed quite a bit since Lincoln’s time, especially in the South, and especially with regard to issues of race, civil rights, and state’s rights. On these issues, the dominant attitudes in the South have changed much less than the Republican Party. The Republican Party has come to embrace many of these Southern attitudes. So it’s best to think of Perry and Gingrich as prototypical Southern politicians acting in character. And it’s best to think of the Republican Party not as Lincoln’s party, but as a party that has fundamentally changed since Lincoln’s time.
January 18th, 2012 | 1:15 pm | #7
It is the South that has changed most. Most Evangelicals even in South Carolina are post-Civil War. We don’t like racial politics.
I will bet that in most Evangelical churches in the South Lincoln is more popular than Jeff Davis. Even where CSA talk exists it comes with huge disclaimers that slavery was bad and civil rights are good. In short, it is nothing like South Carolinian papers in 1861.
Lincoln has won.
January 18th, 2012 | 1:16 pm | #8
Don’t believe that Lincoln has won in South Carolina? Add the votes Saturday for Massachusetts Mormon Mitt (now leading polls) and for Catholic Pennsylvanian Santorum.
January 18th, 2012 | 1:27 pm | #9
The Strom Thurmond voter is vanishing. The New Evangelical voter (who likes Lincoln!) is rising.
January 18th, 2012 | 1:29 pm | #10
One immoral belief does not discredit a man, but a cause in favor of an immoral thing is unworthy. The notion the CSA wasn’t about slavery is ludicrous.
January 18th, 2012 | 2:52 pm | #11
What we see in the Republican South is an enduring susceptibility towards racism and belligerence, alongside a continuing hesitation to lend support to a Northerner–despite the powerful motivation to nominate a credible national candidate to defeat the Kenyan in the White House. It was the Democrat’s push for civil rights, like in the Voting Rights Act, which pushed the South into the Republican Party. Since then the Republican Party has all too gladly pandered to traditional Southern attitudes. If there weren’t strong appetites for this sort of stuff in Republican Party, Perry and Gingrich wouldn’t pander so. Even Santorum and Romney try to work this angle when they can.
January 18th, 2012 | 4:02 pm | #12
John Mark Reynolds
“The governor of Texas is asked a voting rights question in Charleston on MLK Day and talks about war with the states.”
You’re the one who’s pedaling racism here by your patronizing attitude toward black voters. Do you really think a voter ID law singles out blacks? Do you really think blacks are unduly burdened by having to acquire photo ID like the rest of us? Your low expectations for blacks is bigoted.
January 18th, 2012 | 4:06 pm | #13
John Mark Reynolds
“The governor of Texas is asked a voting rights question in Charleston on MLK Day and talks about war with the states.”
Why is MLK day supposed to be significant? That’s just empty symbolism. Just another holiday to go shopping or stay at home or go for a walk–like Presidents’ Day.
Empty symbolism that does nothing to actually advance the socioeconomic situation of the black community.
January 18th, 2012 | 4:16 pm | #14
Steve Hays, it is well known that the proposed voter ID laws would disproportionately disenfranchise poor minorities–without significant gains against voting fraud. As such, the support of such laws is another sad indication either of the intentions of Republican Southerners or of their ignorance.
January 18th, 2012 | 4:44 pm | #15
Bill S.
“Steve Hays, it is well known that the proposed voter ID laws would disproportionately disenfranchise poor minorities–without significant gains against voting fraud.”
That’s an assertion, not an argument. And a patronizing assertion, at that.
January 18th, 2012 | 7:10 pm | #16
Show some sympathy. It’s difficult to avoid sounding patronizing when pointing out a well known and obviously relevant fact.
January 18th, 2012 | 8:22 pm | #17
All you’ve done is to repeat your tendentious assertion. Calling it a “fact” doesn’t make it a fact.
“Poor people” (whatever that means) need photo ID to cash a check, or write a check, or cash food stamps, or buy liquor (in case they’re carded), or drive a car, or have car insurance, and so on and so forth.
You have a condescending attitude toward blacks if you imagine that they can’t do that.
Did I say you were patronizing me? No. I said you were patronizing blacks. Is that too difficult for you to follow?
January 18th, 2012 | 9:25 pm | #18
Let’s agree to disagree Steve Hays. Though the facts you deny are widely available, I realize that this is not enough. God bless you.
January 18th, 2012 | 9:48 pm | #19
Steve Hays: ““Poor people” (whatever that means) need photo ID to cash a check, or write a check, or cash food stamps, or buy liquor (in case they’re carded), or drive a car, or have car insurance, and so on and so forth.
You have a condescending attitude toward blacks if you imagine that they can’t do that.”
Are there really people who think that black people can’t show ID to do the things they need to do today?
January 18th, 2012 | 9:49 pm | #20
Bill S. writes: “Steve Hays, it is well known that the proposed voter ID laws would disproportionately disenfranchise poor minorities–without significant gains against voting fraud.”
How do you know that?
And even if it were true, isn’t the integrity of the election more important the number of people who vote? After all, allowing everyone to vote without concern for citizenship, criminal status, etc. would disenfranchise no one. But the integrity of the process would collapse.
January 19th, 2012 | 11:48 am | #21
Yes. I really think voter ID laws or other regulations to voting are and always have been designed to lower minority turnout. Some communities are very wary of showing id to government.
January 19th, 2012 | 11:56 am | #22
“Some communities are very wary of showing id to government.”
Like illegal aliens?
January 19th, 2012 | 12:31 pm | #23
John Mark Reynolds
“Yes. I really think voter ID laws or other regulations to voting are and always have been designed to lower minority turnout. Some communities are very wary of showing id to government.”
You act as if we have an all-white gov’t keeping minorities under its heel. In case you hadn’t noticed, there are minority governors, mayors, police chiefs, policemen, state and federal lawmakers, and–last time I checked, a black POTUS and black attorney general. You need to break out of the timewarp you’re trapped in.
January 19th, 2012 | 3:19 pm | #24
Some folks on this thread have a rather under-informed and tendentious view of the Republican party. The Democrats, not the Republicans, fought against the civil rights laws of the 1960s. George Wallace, who resisted James Meredith’s university enrollment, and who won the Michigan presidential primary in 1968, was a Democrat. Axe-handle wielding Lester Maddox, later his state’s governor, was a Democrat. Former Klansman Robert Byrd was an honored Democrat. Lincoln, of course, was a Republican.
In other words, you’re not going to get a good guy/bad guy outcome if you’re looking for a racist political party. Both sides have their strengths and their weaknesses. But clearly neither Perry nor Gingrich are racists. They talk about states’ rights no matter to what states their campaigns take them. To talk about states’ rights in an era when those rights are under siege by the federal government is not racist, no matter where you address it.
January 19th, 2012 | 3:24 pm | #25
Bauman (a Republican, I suppose?) forgets to mention that the primary resistance to the Democrat’s civil right legislation were Southern Democrats, who thereafter switched parties.
January 19th, 2012 | 6:28 pm | #26
JMR: “Will Gingrich repudiate Perry’s comments? If not, then he is unfit to lead Lincoln’s party.”
As far as I know, Gingrich did not repudiate Perry’s comments. And Perry dropped out of the race and endorsed Gingrich.
I thought Perry would have endorsed Santorum, but he chose Gingrich.
January 19th, 2012 | 7:09 pm | #27
Bill, they resisted the new laws as Democrats. They lost the fight and went over to the winners.
My point here, if you missed it, was that on the race issue both parties have their strengths and their weaknesses, and that talking about states’ right in a time when they are under attack is not racist.
January 19th, 2012 | 7:24 pm | #28
As I said, by and large Southerners have been characteristically prone to racism and belligerence, opposing civil rights legislation, and promoting state’s rights as a way to resist compliance with the civil rights laws of the federal government.
When Republicans opposed slavery and sought minority rights, Southerners were by and large not Republican. However, once the Democratic party started pushing for civil rights legislation, the Southerners switched parties. Unfortunately today we see the Republican party pandering to the traditional Southern attitudes, especially with the primaries heading southward.
January 19th, 2012 | 7:26 pm | #29
“You act as if we have an all-white gov’t keeping minorities under its heel. In case you hadn’t noticed, there are minority governors, mayors, police chiefs, policemen, state and federal lawmakers, and–last time I checked, a black POTUS and black attorney general. You need to break out of the timewarp you’re trapped in.”
Pointing out examples of black Americans in government doesn’t mean that there aren’t substantial issues facing minority communities today. (I don’t like the word “minority,” but for the sake of this argument I think we all understand its meaning). Black Americans and hispanic Americans still face strong degrees of animosity from many people in America; though this isn’t institutionalized in the government necessarily, it’s still there.
Also TUAD, the insinuation that the only people afraid to show ID are illegal immigrants is quite offensive. Yes, it’s obviously true that those who have come into this country illegally will be more wary to show any form of ID, but JMR’s point isn’t limited to just them. Many people in disenfranchised social groups don’t have state IDs; their political expression is important, but under suggested legislation their votes would be nullified. A good article on this can be seen here: http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2012/20120118081645.aspx
Thousands of Americans, notably felons and ex-felons, already have the vote unjustly deprived of them through unfortunate legal means. We should be trying to encourage democracy, not discourage it.
January 19th, 2012 | 11:08 pm | #30
Dr. Bauman:
Thank you for commenting.
My limited points as a federalist myself was the context of the response was an obvious dog-whistle to our lesser angels.
Can you defend Perry’s statements in context?
Of course, being for states rights is not racism.
Of course, most of what was said was not racist in and of itself.
But Perry said what he said in Charleston to a question on voting rights on MLK Day. Perry has made CSA “jokes” about Texas leaving the union before.
These are inappropriate dog-whistles to racists that do exist.
Yes?
Why not if not?
John Mark
January 20th, 2012 | 2:21 pm | #31
Professor John Mark Reynolds: “Yes. I really think voter ID laws or other regulations to voting are and always have been designed to lower minority turnout.”
So then you’re against laws and regulations requiring people to show proper ID in order to cast a vote, is that right?
January 20th, 2012 | 7:39 pm | #32
Nikolai Volk
“Pointing out examples of black Americans in government doesn’t mean that there aren’t substantial issues facing minority communities today. (I don’t like the word ‘minority,’ but for the sake of this argument I think we all understand its meaning). Black Americans and hispanic Americans still face strong degrees of animosity from many people in America; though this isn’t institutionalized in the government necessarily, it’s still there.”
i) How is that relevant to photo ID?
ii) Racial tensions aren’t limited to white/black or white/latino relations. There are racial tensions between various ethnic groups in America. You need to break out of your quaint, Jim Crow paradigm. For instance, successful Asian-American students are discriminated against in the admissions process to make room for less academically qualified minority applicants.
“Many people in disenfranchised social groups don’t have state IDs; their political expression is important, but under suggested legislation their votes would be nullified.”
Voter fraud disenfranchises legal minority voters. Their legally cast votes are nullified by illegally cast votes.
January 20th, 2012 | 7:43 pm | #33
Nikolai Volk
“Many people in disenfranchised social groups don’t have state IDs; their political expression is important, but under suggested legislation their votes would be nullified.”
Even if we grant that assertion for the sake of argument, why shouldn’t they assume a minimal responsibility for acquiring proper ID–just like other voters do? Why do you have such condescending standards for minorities?
January 20th, 2012 | 9:54 pm | #34
JMR,
I’ve always seen you as the level headed and reasonable type, so I was really surprised to read this impassioned post.
But I have to disagree.
I really don’t think that Perry was referring to CSA or beckoning back to a period of slavery or racism, rather he was using his usual rhetoric and references that he always uses (regardless of the state/day).
The question that he answered was “Now, Gov. Perry, are you suggesting on this Martin Luther King Jr. day that the federal government has no business scrutinizing the states where they were denied the right to vote?”
Now, notice that the question itself throws Perry into a trap. First, with the mention of Martin Luther Kind Jr. which had LITERALLY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION. The question was loaded from the beginning. The moderator didn’t just throw “on this Martin Luther King Jr. day” into every question, it was specifically inserted into this question. Before Perry could ever answer the question, the moderator was already hinting that he thought Perry supported racist policies. I think that it’s obvious to anyone watching that the question was intended to force Perry into a situation to make him look racist.
The second part, I’m afraid (regarding you’re accusation that he was referring to CSA) is you reading into his statements what you already would like to believe is there. Fist, Perry did what any smart and slick politician would do. He easily saw that the question was loaded and knew that the moderator was wanting Perry to make the debate about race. Once the debate becomes about race, Perry is automatically a racist (we see this even here, you were itching to calling him racist). After seeing this trap, he made the issue not about race, but about federalism. Likely because States’ rights is an issue that is really hot among Republican voters. As you said yourself, it is not racist to support state’s rights, rather what you found racist was simply the fashion in which he said it, and the place and time.
As you noted, Perry used the imagery of war, as if the States were at war with the Federal Government. But I’m afraid that you’re link of this rhetoric to the CSA isn’t really a unique one. Perry (among others, even democrats) often refer to certain issues as wars. Think to yourself, if it was a democrat, that said “States at war with the Federal government” and was in California, would you assume he was a racist? I wouldn’t think so. Yet we find that using this reference to war is not anything unique to Perry (or republicans for that matter). Rather, it was the same heated rhetoric that politicians always use.
Then the issue of South Carolina. Perry has been calling this issue a war for a while now, and NOT JUST IN SOUTH CAROLINA. The fact that he was in South Carolina had nothing to do with his rhetoric. He was in South Carolina because there was an election there coming up. If he had been asked this same question, any other day, in any other state, the rhetoric is likely to be the same.
I for one, do not like Perry. Nor am I a Republican. Nor do I necessarily support these laws. What I do care about is carelessly labeling people racist because they support a certain law or are a part of a certain party.
Which leads to my last concern, which is labeling an entire party as “Racist”, this not coming from you JMR, but from others in the forum. I think it’s worth noting that the fact that Southern Democrats opposed the Republican Party but then switched is a good indication the name of the party you adhere to doesn’t necessarily make you a racist. They were racist as democrats, and racist as Republicans. What does this mean? A person can be racist regardless of their party.
As far as Voter I.D. laws go, I don’t think that they’re inherently racist, but that there is a caution that needs to be taken to avoid reintroducing poll taxes used in the South. In some states (Texas for example) it’s free to get a voter I.D. that never expires. The other issue though is Birth Certificates, which it costs a fee to acquire. This doesn’t make sense to me. I can get a free ID card but not birth certificate.
I think that the purpose of the law is to protect the integrity of the election, not to keep minorities from voting. Yet we’re faced with unintended consequences and complications. IF this law were to be in place, it should be free to obtain an ID, just as it is free to register to vote.
But, as it stands, the integrity of the election is at enough danger to constitute risking excluding minorities from their right to vote.
January 21st, 2012 | 10:48 pm | #35
Worth considering: A brief article from Frances Rice on racism and the two parties
http://www.reformedandconservative.com/2012/01/why-martin-luther-king-was-republican.html
January 23rd, 2012 | 10:22 am | #36
Thanks for the link, Dr. Bauman.
January 23rd, 2012 | 11:39 pm | #37
“Are there really people who think that black people can’t show ID to do the things they need to do today?”
Exactly. Exactly. Exactly.
January 24th, 2012 | 7:36 pm | #38
JMR “The Civil War Should Be Over”
So quit bringing it up!
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact