Krugman: Republicans are Racists – It’s that Simple
Joe Gandelman selected a part of this column by Paul Krugman for his Quote of the Day. The quote:
Quite simply, America is becoming less white, mainly because of immigration. Hispanic and Asian voters were only 4 percent of the electorate in 1980, but they were 11 percent of voters in 2004 — and that number will keep rising for the foreseeable future.
Those numbers are the reason Karl Rove was so eager to reach out to Hispanic voters. But the whites the G.O.P. has counted on to vote their color, not their economic interests, are having none of it. From their point of view, it’s us versus them — and everyone who looks different is one of them.
So now we have the spectacle of Republicans competing over who can be most convincingly anti-Hispanic. I know, officially they’re not hostile to Hispanics in general, only to illegal immigrants, but that’s a distinction neither the G.O.P. base nor Hispanic voters takes seriously.
Today’s G.O.P., in short, is trapped by its history of cynicism. For decades it has exploited racial animosity to win over white voters — and now, when Republican politicians need to reach out to an increasingly diverse country, the base won’t let them.
Although the first three paragraphs of that part of the column are indeed right on – and therefore worthy of being Quote of the Day – the column in its entirety is one big hit-job. Krugman’s message? Republican voters are racists. It is, according to the Krugmeister, that simple. The base, as summarized in the last paragraph quoted above, is not truly concerned about moral values, or national security. No. It is worried about one thing, and one thing only: colored folks. Let me quote (since it’s Times Select I know that many of you cannot read the entire article) Krugman just so you know that I am not interpreting this creatively – he really put it that bluntly:
I suspect that the underlying importance of race to the Republican base is the reason Rudy Giuliani remains the front-runner for the G.O.P. nomination, despite his serial adultery and his past record as a social liberal. Never mind moral values: what really matters to the base is that Mr. Giuliani comes across as an authoritarian, willing in particular to crack down on you-know-who.
Next thing: let’s attack Bill O’Reilly for being overly-biased and partisan.
45 Responses to “Krugman: Republicans are Racists – It’s that Simple”
Michael,
Since you’re from the Netherlands, I can only assume that you’re unaware of LBJ’s policy decisions regarding the civil rights movement during the 60s and how, when he signed the legislation, he said that he was giving the Republicans the southern vote for a generation. And, since you’re from The Netherlands, I can only assume that you’re unaware of the segregationist policies of many of the southern states (and I’m from one of them, so yeah, I’ll point a finger at my own home).
Now, while it’s unfair to categorize all Republicans as racist (and is patently untrue), there is a very vocal and rabid part of the Republican base that looks and sounds to lean that way.
My suggestion is that you need to spend some time looking at the history and politics (and political fallout) of the civil rights movement.
Yes, Michael, do look at the names of these influential Republicans around the time of the Civil Rights Act of 1964……..George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Al Gore Sr.
I think it helps to state the issue in terms of racists instead of Republicans:
A racist is more likely to vote Republican. An anti-racist is less likely to vote for the party that racists vote for.
Socialists would be more likely to vote Democrat, but that doesn’t mean I accuse the Democratic party of catering to socialists. Broad brushes are usually pretty inaccurate, and unfair to those who get painted by them.
Umm, Michael is an American Studies grad student, so I think it’s reasonable to assume that he does indeed have some knowledge of American politics.
And being from one of the southern states you must know that it ws the Democrats who were the segregationists, until the 60′s or the ’70′s
Doxy, since you are an American you do know that Southern DEMOCRATS gave some of the stiffest opposition to integration, right? Remember George Wallace?
Interesting how the debate is much the same one all over, eh Michael? Different countries, same situation. Those calling for control of illegal immigration are called racists, fascists or nazis (different insults for different places, but the meaning is the same). No amount of explaining works. Nor does the fact that it’s not just Republicans opposed to illegal immigration, plenty of Democrats are as well. Republicans are dismissed as racists and Democrats are railed against as traitors. Odd, that.
Tom,
I don’t think it’s reasonable at all considering some of his posts that I’ve read in the past. Being a student of something doesn’t always imply knowledge of a subject, and talking about racism in US political parties is a fine example of a place he could improve on his studies.
And yes. I’m well aware of what party the segregationists were in. That’s why I said what I said about LBJ’s comments. It also would pay to look at Nixon’s proclivities of catering to the more racist segment, as well.
FWIW, this isn’t a topic that is suited by painting with a broad brush (as CStanley said), but it does happen. It’s inaccurate on both sides when it does.
Lynx: it’s because the mindset is the same everywhere. Same ‘arguments’ because they are essentially the same people, albeit living in different countries.
Tom: it is not often that a liberal defends me, but that you
(you too of course Lynx)
Christine: well said.
Lynx,
Yes I do remember. And as I said to Tom, that’s why I mentioned LBJ’s comment about giving the Republicans the southern vote for a generation.
I guess I wasn’t clear enough in what I said if it’s being misread.
Doxy: trust me, I know more than enough about racism in the netherlands. Hell, I wrote quite a good essay about it last year, imagine that!
and yes, I know of the Southern strategy and the appeal to bigots. But that’s not the same as having to conclude that ‘the base” is racist as the distinguished gentleman does.
Notice how everyone avoids any disucssion of exactly what the U.S. will be like when the majority is Hispanic. There is the progressive argument that eventuall the Hispanic immigrants will become just like Ozzie and Harriett.
The opposite argument is that the U.S. will become like Mexico or Brazil is a permanent ruling class and a vast underclass. If that happens, there really is no place in the U.S. for middle class whites. They are too poor to isolate themselves but wealthy enough to become targets for the underclass.
I’m pro-immigration, but there are reasonable purposes for opposing the sort of immigration that Arellano (the girl who took sanctuarary at a church in chicago) was fighting for, that aren’t racist.
In fact, reading the responses in the local papers, I see a lot of Latino names that are against (I hate to use the I word here) illegal immigration, if for nothing else, on the grounds that they (the commentators) went through the process and waited in line like they were supposed to.
Other reasons, (that might be wrong, of course, but are open to debate, and aren’t by their nature racist) are
1. Economics: Immigrants take the kinds of jobs that make populists who occupy lower level factory jobs foam at the mouth (sorry, I’m anti populist. Can;t resist the jabs). Many democrats in the midwest are thinking exactly this when it comes to immigration.
2. Culture: They don’t learn the language, they keep to themselves (unfair painting yes, but a lot of this issue is perception, and everyone that doesn’t join into the mainstream makes the rest of the group look bad), etc… This is close to racism, but I think it is fair to not like someone from another culutre if they don;t follow certain accepted customs (One just has to be aware of who is trying to fit in).
3. Law and Order: We wait in line because it works well for everyone and is as fair as we can make things. People who don’t follow this rule, and enter illegally are by definition, disrespectful. One can seperate out people who don;t believe this is a real cause by asking if they think the US lets in too many immigrants legally.
Finally, if one wants to see if it’s racism or simple xenophobia (which could apply to a yankee as much as it applies to a mexican), ask if they care about the illegal polish immigrant, or an english person who overstays their visa (they probably don’t need one, but still, I’d imagine my point is obvious).
Both parties have used racial divisions to their advantage and continue to do it.
It is ironic that it’s the middle class that might be in danger of becoming a target of the lower classes considering they first targeted the higher class themselves
Michael,
I know you’re not going to like this, but you’re just as guilty of painting with that broad brush as Krugman. It’s one reason I generally avoid reading you. It may not be nearly as obvious in this column, but it definitely is in others.
Krugman is making a linkage that is undeniably there…for whatever reason. Racism is by no means limited to the Republican base, but it’s there and there’s a reason for it and the most cursory of study will show where it came from and how its been exploited.
Your comment on his piece for the most part looked like you were dismissive of that.
Yes I do remember. And as I said to Tom, that’s why I mentioned LBJ’s comment about giving the Republicans the southern vote for a generation.
So Doxy, you are aware that more than 40 years have passed since LBJ made that comment? By my count, that would be two generations already.
But the reason the mindset still sticks has more to do with the Democrats successfully fearmongering blacks on race issues than on any actual racist policies or activities of the GOP. The immigration issue is actually the perfect example of that; there are probably as many Democrats who oppose illegal immigration as Republicans, but the Democrats have so successfully planted the idea that GOP=racist until proven otherwise that they seem to be able to say that all Dems who oppose illegal immigration do so for economic reasons while most GOP who oppose it are trying to keep out the “brown people”.
You could probably say that about anyone here, including me.
CStanley
++So Doxy, you are aware that more than 40 years have passed since LBJ made that comment? By my count, that would be two generations already.++
Yes I am aware of it. Sadly, I think LBJ short changed the time it would take.
++But the reason the mindset still sticks has more to do with the Democrats successfully fearmongering blacks on race issues than on any actual racist policies or activities of the GOP.++
I’m sorry, but I completely disagree with you on that. Not surprising, really.
And apparently Matt Yglesias doesn’t like Krugman’s column either:
You hardly describe himas a conservative
Tom,
++You could probably say that about anyone here, including me.++
If you wrote a column, I might. It would simply depend on how frequently you did it.
Realize, folks, that this “debate” is an inherently senseless exercise.
We start with a wholly-unsupported assertion of political racism by a freakin’ “economist” (who, by the way, has now been discredited by none other than “The Economist” per se) and we (some of us) undertake to prove the negative.
Is there any Krugman column that is not a hit piece? He is the left’s Bill O’Reilly which is probably why they hate each other.
Personally, I think the issue is a lot more complicated than calling the GOP base “racist,” which I believe is inaccurate, but to people like Krugman, opposition to illegal immigration is inherently racist.
MvdG,
You’re far too dismissive of this claim, and it is indeed a problem for the Republican party, as they rushed headlong into pandering to this (mostly) Southern subset of voters back in the 1970s. The Southern states, solidly Democratic for a century ever since the Civil War (based entirely on Democrats such as FDR and Truman previously catering to these bigots), turns Repulican in an electoral blink of the eye. Remember the campaign ad against Harold Ford in the Tennessee Senate election of 2006? What exactly kind of attitude was that TV spot designed to appeal to, exactly? A staid, sober, non-racist Republican one, no doubt. To deny this is to deny something really obvious, such as Fox News’ conservative slant, but you have no problem with that, do you?
Maybe it’s different for white Republicans up North or out West, but I know for certain that the GOP “base” in south of the Mason-Dixon line wants such pandering, and in fact demands it. With illegal immigration, the issue has been inflamed yet again. And rural whites are not simply suddenly afraid for their jobs. This goes beyond that.
Try to keep your knee-jerk Republican sympathies in check next time before you heroically rush to their defense.
Also, reading some comments I didn’t see earlier, I completely agree about the Democrats’ racial exploitation, particularly of the black community. African Americans are by and large social and religious conservatives, yet have been hoodwinked into voting Democrat time and time again. The Democrats’ really do not deserve this en masse vote yet they get it anyway. So yes, such racial pandering does happen on both sides of the isle.
Democrats are just as racist as Republicans, maybe more so. They are just the one-eyed man in the kingdom of the blind.
They will do anything to keep minorities in the fold, and pander and cater to the every whim of the insanely corrupt and self-serving ‘Black leadership’.
It is also in their interest to keep alive as much racism within their as they can, to continue to portray themselves as the defenders against it.
Pure Machiavellian politics.
Lit3Bolt:
Well, I’m glad you admit that the Democratic exploitation of blacks is real, but on the GOP racism in recent years I completely disagree. If the Harold Ford ad had shown a black actress portraying a playboy bunny, the charge probably would have been that most of Hef’s gals are white but the racist GOP ad had to show him with a black admirer because Republicans can’t fathom interracial relationships.
If you are going to assert that the modern GOP exploits racist tendencies and aims for the southern bigot vote, you’re going to have to do better in the way of proof than, “that ad was obviously racist” every time the GOP dares to run any ad opposing a black democratic candidate. (for what it’s worth, I thought the ad against Ford was just dumb, really petty- but race issues had nothing to do with my opinion of it.)
It’s a shame that immigration has to be debated in the racism arena. Undeniably, though, that is one of the undertones, and both parties are exploiting it for all its worth.
Since conservatism, by definition, resists change, it’s no surprise Republicans would be suspicious, even fearful, about the future of changing demographics. If blonds lived on the other side of our southern border, the reaction would be somewhat different.(athough not totally). A racist, theredore, would be more likely to vote Republican than Dempcratic, but he would be disappointed, these days, to find that political prejudices, not racial ones, primarily drive the Republican Party.
Liberals, on the other hand, are too often of the ‘I love humanity, bu I hate people’ mold. They are, as individuals, equally capable of racism, but they are more successful at camoiflaging it, because they embacece change on a philosophical level. They promise more than they deliver, however.
“Painting with a broad brush’ is a practice employed by everyone. At some level, it can’t even be avoided, if the discussion is about groups and their prevalent characteristics. No special dispensation should be expected. It’s more a question of a small sampling not being used to characterize the whole.
All of this, however, is just a diversion from what ails us: our broken immigration system. That crucial topic has been hijacked by extremists on both ends of the political spectrum Reality based thinkers have been left far behind, shoking on the dust of overheated rhetoric.
The law-and-order types fail to recognze that laws can;t fix every problem (see our drug laws) and that laws only work insofar as they are enforceable and just. Some laws just aren’t.
The open borders types fail to reognize that no society can function in anrchtic conditions. We need to have a coherent set of policies and enforceable laws to manage the movement of peoples. People just don’t sort things out satisfactorily without guidance and restrictions.
The debates are disheartening, to say the least.
Great comment, doma.
Wow, Doma, awesome comment!
“Notice how everyone avoids any disucssion of exactly what the U.S. will be like when the majority is Hispanic.”
Lol yea. If mexico has a population boom well past their current 108 million and then they ALL move here that might be the case. Everyone here avoids discussing it because its not going to happen.
I’m sorta in line with Krugman’s thing. The vast majority of my family are what you’d consider prime GOP “Base”, and I can tell you they are practically all racists. Not Klan material racist, but definitely run the gamut from openly using the word nigger to wouldn’t pick them up if they were driving a cab racism. Their friends who also are “Base” are the same way. Throw in the various comments of people like Rush’s wonderful 15 minutes as a sportscaster to George Allen’s macacca comments and you really get to see the hidden undercurrents of right wing racism.
I know this is mostly anecdotal evidence from my experience and what I see from right wing talking heads, but Krugman doesn’t appear to be as far off base as you might think. Also, I’m sure there was large democratic opposition in the 60′s and especially in the south to civil rights reforms. But you should also keep in mind that was 40 years ago and a lot has changed since then. What Krugman is talking about is the GOP as it stands TODAY.
Agree with the accolades for domajot.
Now that is a quintessential “centrist” post.
Sam,
Hispanic counts more than Mexico. There are currently somewhere around 40 million hispanics living in the U.S. and they are having children at twice the rate as whites. California, New Mexico, and Texas will soon be majority Hispanic.
Look at how whites in California are handling the growing Hispanic population. they are either moving to walled communities, moving to areas that are majority white, or moving to other states. The absolute number of whites in California has decreased since 1990. the one thing that whites, no matter their politics, are doing is living side by side with Hispanics.
I know what you’re saying superd, but the vast majority of hispanics in the US are mexican. And 40 million is a far cry from becoming the majority here in the states. Poor immigrants have traditionally had a higher birth rate and lived in enclaves with others from their home countries.
However as they advance up the social ladder they do in fact meld in with the existing population. They will become the middle class not consume it. I live in the CA bay area and have some experience with what its like to live in an area with lots of hispanic immigrants and its not so bad.
This mentality of something new and unfounded happening, that is going to take away from America instead of add to it, has repeated itself many times with numerous waves of immigrants. Will they change the landscape? Certainly, just as Boston is known as an Irish city it is still without a doubt an American city with its own culture. Its about flavor and overall it makes us stronger.
Basically the idea that they are going to “Take over” is just silly to me and doesn’t have much actual likelyhood of happening. I do have issues with those that wish to live in my country and not assimilate, but assimilation happens over time whether people wish to participate or not.
Also, you pointed out the ratio of whites to non-whites is sliding out of our favor. To that I say, so what? The scales won’t tip till well past my grandchildren’s lifetime and even if they magically did today, so what? Will the Bill of Rights no longer apply to me? Do you imagine segregation and enslavement of whites? What exactly is your point?
Sam,
The prediciton is that the U.S. will be less than 50% white by 2050. That is 40 years so it is something that your granddaughter will have to deal with.
The bill of rights may not mean anything in a community where blacks and hispanics are the majority. Just look at places like Baltimore where the crime rate is very high and the government cannot seem to close felony cases and the government definitely cannot protect the citizens from criminals. Just look at the Dont Snitch movement.
All middle class whites have to do is see how the African-American community acted in the Duke Rape case and they rightly see that the Bill of Rights may not mean anything in the future.
Less than 50% white yes, but still the single largest grp in the country by far. Unless you envision a political block comprised of all non-whites working in unison we still run the show. And I’d like to point out things worked themselves out via the system in the Duke case, which is what is supposed to happen.
Are some of the posters trying to claim that there never was a “Southern Strategy” ? That race played absolutely no part in the political transformation of the South?
As far as Austin’s post, it is far more insulting than anything Krugman claimed.
SD says:
Lets put this in perspective:
One hundred years ago, the U.S. stopped immigration for several decades. It gave the U.S. time to assimilate the immigrants. In addition, there were no Univision, no cell phones, no international air travel, no satellite dishes, and no public policy to support non-assimilation.
Look at cities like El Paso. It is becoming more like Mexico instead of the residents becoming more like Iowians.
My father-in-law once said to me, “When the blacks and hispanics lay down their guns, I’ll lay down mine.” He’s a signature Rush-listening conservative Republican. He’s also a Sudeten German immigrant, so he’s less frothing on the immigration question per se.
Everybody in the family recognizes he’s a racist. But he won’t admit to being a racist even though he clearly believes that black people are dumber, more corrupt, more prone to crime, lazier, and more sexually driven than white people. He is the GOP base in so many ways. He speaks of “colorblindness” but would never hire a black person if he wasn’t forced to. He actually points out the occasions where a black person in his office “is surprisingly competent considering he/she is a non-caucasian.” snicker snicker. Yes that’s his form of humor. Oh, and he contributes money to some black Republican PAC because he likes that they don’t complain about racists like him.
You want to know why so few blacks vote Republican? Because they know what the base of Republican Party really believes. Most blacks will tell you that the Democrats aren’t to be trusted either. That the Dems are using them for their votes. But for blacks, the Dems are the lesser of two evils. Most African Americans are extremely liberal on economic issues, and they see through all the culture war crap that whips up religious folk for the GOP. In fact, a reason so many blacks love Bill Clinton so much is that they see countless examples of blacks held up and crucified by self-righteous moralizers; Clinton, to them, was persecuted the way black people are persecuted. It was this that made Clinton the “first black President.”
Elrod – To continue the Clenis love affair, another thing about Clinton and the “black vote” is that he felt at home in black churches and such talking to that audience. He talked to them, not at them. I don’t see that in Hillary as a public figure.
SD Back in 2000 I spent quite a bit of time in Mexico and visited Laredo to get my feet back in the USA. Guess what, English was a foreign language in that border town. In Michigan Hamtramck is a city surrounded by Detroit that was a starting point for new immigrants. Polish and other languages is the first spoken words. Are you telling me that the Germans, Italians and Irish never assimilated into America. Are pizza and smorgasborg(sp) native to America, or is assimilation a two way street?
El Paso has always been more like Mexico than Iowa.
Tom wrote
The term “Dixiecrat” gained currency to describe Southern Democrats who were not only segregationist but more militaristic and hard-line anticommunists than many Republicans of the time. By the mid-1950s’s, they saw handwriting all over the wall, but continued running as Democrats on tradition and the momentum of still-proud association wth Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. That, despite Eleanor Roosevelt’s outspokenness on civil rights reform.
Strom Thurmond, who bolted the Democratic Party in the late 1940′s to run against Harry Truman, was a harbinger of Dixiecrats-cum-Republicans to come.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, passed largely thanks to President Lyndon Johnson’s herculean efforts and the acquiescence of several Southern and border-state Democrats who owed him, did indeed deliver the South to Republicans within a few years.
Any more, Johnson seems to be remembered only for his terrible Vietnam escalation. That’s a shame, because flawed though he was in that, Johnson accomplished more in less time than any president except FDR, and distinguished himself with acts of political courage and of principle over political expedience of a magnitude rarely seen in U.S. history.
After 1965, Dixiecrats mostly either retired or liberated their inner Republican, having been assured, wink-nod, that the GOP’s progressive national stand on civil rights wouldn’t unduly encroach on some of the race-based traditions of their Southern way of life.
The bargain has held together remarkably well for the GOP and southern politicians ever since. Krugman does make an intriguing and plausible case about the bid for Hispanics, though. If he’s right, it would be in keeping with Republicans’ trademark tendency to overreach badly in pursuit of political advantage.
SuperDestroyer wrote:
The odds Hispanic immigrants will be changed by the dominant culture is far greater than that they will transform it into the neofeudal too long common to Central and South American nations.
That’s not to say the U.S. is in no danger of such a fate. In fact, we’ve drawn much closer over the past 30 years.
Keep following where conservative Republican ideologues lead and that will be America’s destination. It’s exactly what their economic Darwinism, unremitting greed for money and power, and regressive political ideology lead to.