The Republican Party and the African-American Vote

A speech at Howard University.

(Page 3 of 8)

When some people hear that, they tune us out and say: he’s just using code words for the state’s right to discriminate, for the state’s right to segregate and abuse.

But that’s simply not true.

Many Republicans do believe that decentralization of power is the best policy, that government is more efficient, more just, and more personal when it is smaller and more local.

But Republicans also realize that there are occasions of such egregious injustice that require federal involvement, and that is precisely what the 14th amendment and the Civil Rights Act were intended to do-protect citizens from state and local tyranny.

The 14th Amendment says,  “No state shall . . .”  The fourteenth amendment did change the constitution to give a role for the federal government in protecting citizenship and voting regardless of race.

I did not live through segregation nor did I experience it first-hand. I did grow up in the South in public schools comprised of white, black, and Latino students largely all getting along with each other.

So, perhaps some will say that I can never understand. But I don’t think you had to be there to have been affected by our nation’s history of racial strife.

The tragedy of segregation and Jim Crow in the South is compounded when you realize that integration began in New England in the 1840’s and 1850’s.

In 1841, Frederick Douglass was pulled from the white car on the Eastern Railroad, clutching his seat so tightly that he was thrown from the train with its remnants still tightly in his hands.

But, within a few years public transportation was integrated in the northeast.

It is a stain on our history that integration didn’t occur until more than 100 years later in the South. That in the 1960’s we were still fighting to integrate public transportation and schools is and was an embarrassment.

The story of emancipation, voting rights and citizenship, from Fredrick Douglass until the modern civil rights era, is in fact the history of the Republican Party.

How did the party that elected the first black U.S. Senator, the party that elected the first 20 African American Congressmen become a party that now loses 95 percent of the black vote?

How did the Republican Party, the party of the great Emancipator, lose the trust and faith of an entire race?

From the Civil War to the Civil Rights Movement, for a century, most black Americans voted Republican. How did we lose that vote?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • eyeroller||

    Republican Party is wonderful, blah, blah, blah.

  • jamson74||

    Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job Ive had. Last Monday I got a new Alfa Romeo from bringing in $7778. I started this 9 months ago and practically straight away started making more than $83 per hour. I work through this link, Mojo50.com

  • JohnD||

    And you are an idiot. Blah, blah, blah.

  • dave b.||

    "I'll have those n***ers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

    ~ Lyndon B. Johnson

    There's your answer. Free shit.

  • John C. Randolph||

    LBJ was a brilliant strategist, and absolutely devoid of scruples. He figured out how to turn black voters into a new class of sharecroppers.

    -jcr

  • KPres||

    It worked, didn't it? Shows what scruples are worth. This is a democracy. Corruption is the name of the game.

  • grey||

    +1

  • deified||

    Did he really say this? I never heard that quote before.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "Son, when I appoint a n***er to the court, I want everyone to know he's a n***er."

    "These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.” -- LBJ

  • mad libertarian guy||

    "These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.” -- LBJ

    And this right here is still the strategy. Give blacks a bunch of rhetoric about equality while wielding policies that imprison large numbers of blacks, and the urban poor blacks a welfare check not big enough to get out of the ghetto, but just enough to incentivize keeping the check for doing nothing rather than working for more. Not to mention the brainwashing operation that has convinced many blacks that having the temerity to vote Republican, or worse yet, be an upstanding member of the Republican community (I.e., Clarence Thomas) means that you're a lawn jockey Uncle Tom house nigger who hates both himself and his race.

    It's fucking sick, and racist at its core.

  • JohnD||

    Of course. The liberals, especially the blacks, don't want to hear about personal responsibility. They all think it's the governments job to take care of them.
    And they are all fools.

  • Kurbster||

    The civil rights act also forced private businesses to serve blacks....even if it was against their will.

    All money is green, and any attempt at refusing service to blacks in this day and age is sure to cause a public uproar, but that decision should be left up to the business owner....not the government

    Let's see what else we have here....felicitating Reagan, still saying that republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility....yup, Rand is showing his true GOP colors quite nicely

  • wareagle||

    seeing as how Rand and a few other Repubs have repeatedly talked fiscal responsibility while no Dem, it's weak support for the point of the GOP being the party of fiscal sanity but support nonetheless. Maybe Paul should have offered up more free shit since that seems to work so well.

  • Pro Libertate||

    From my perspective, I think he's trying to persuade other GOPers into thinking they really are pro-limited government and free markets.

  • T||

    They're not, so it seems he's pissing in the wind.

  • Pro Libertate||

    At least there's a battle being waged by him and others. Not that he's likely to win, but it beats no one making limited government arguments at all.

  • DarrenM||

    At least there's a battle being waged by him and others.

    It is kinda hard to win a war if you don't fight the battles. Too many prefer to surrender without firing a shot.

  • grey||

    Rand Paul is firing shots. I didn't see any give aways here, certainly compromises of principle. Just like when Obama sounded like he hated debt during the McCain run. He's selling Libertarian light, which was received at Howard like a bubbling shot of poison, and by Republicans at large as too stiff a drink.

  • Atanarjuat||

    Or at least assume leadership of those who are (tea partiers, libertarianish types, etc) and those who will fall in line if it's seen as a good way to get votes.

  • Cytotoxic||

    1) Everything he said about Reagan is true.

    2) His comparison of Dem vs GOP is meant as a comparison of perceptions that lead to Dem dominance among blacks.

    It is you that is showing your colors quite nicely. The colors are of the obnoxious NO TRUE SCOTSMAN shade.

  • Kurbster||

    not true. GDP only stated going positive growth at about 7% constantly from 1983 onwards....2 years into his presidency

    but hey, if you want to keep on eating the GOP's lies of their false martyr, be my guest. They'll never tell you about his tax increases, unnecessary military involvement, or hatred for "assault weapons"

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "GDP only stated going positive growth at about 7% constantly from 1983 onwards....2 years into his presidency"

    You mean it didn't just go positive when he uttered the magic words at the inauguration? Shit

  • wareagle||

    GDP only stated going positive growth at about 7% constantly from 1983 onwards

    that's your argument? Okay, so what he inherited from Carter took a couple of years to change. Obama talked about inheriting things, too, and more than four years later.....well, that's what happens from taking the opposite approach.

    Yes, some taxes were hiked; income and cap gains rates went down, and the economy did quite well. For blacks, too. But let's hear Dem propaganda about how more head-patting and welfare will help.

  • Kurbster||

    But let's hear Dem propaganda about how more head-patting and welfare will help

    ain't gonna hear it from me, buddy.

    Reagan's little success was the result of corporatism, not from free-market policies. From the unabashed neoconism to the empowerment of the statist christian right, there is nothing special to place him on the pedestal any higher than other republican presidents

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "Reagan's little success was the result of corporatism, not from free-market policies."

    So corporatism really DOES work!
    I'll take question begging for 2000, Alex

  • Kurbster||

    am I seriously on a libertarian site that readers think corporatism is a good idea?

    god fucking damn it....corporatism creates a temporary bubble that is essentially wealth distribution to government-protected corporations. A universal tax system that cuts for everyone is the best route.

    Reagan did not cut taxes for everyone.

  • ||

    You're not very smart, are you?

  • Kurbster||

    enlighten me, then

  • JW||

    Lurk, and yee shall be enlightened.

  • ||

    What we've got here is a failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach.

  • wareagle||

    am I seriously on a libertarian site that readers think corporatism is a good idea?

    I'll guess your new because that's one argument no one here makes.

  • Kurbster||

    nah...I've been reader for awhile. However, it didn't take long for me to realize that Reason is full of "recovering republicans"

    still beats the hell out of theBlaze or Breitbart, though

  • Eric||

    I've found that if you couch any and every argument as follows, you will find some peace here.

    "Republicans are bad, but Democrats are way worse"

    It appeases the Republicans-who-think-they're-libertarians and libertarians alike...which makes up most of this commetariate.

    Oh. And don't point out to the Republicans-who-think-they're-libertarians that they in fact are proponents of positive rights either. You'll get fucking clobbered.

  • KPres||

    Republican and libertarian aren't mutually exclusive; they're not even the same category of thing. Libertarian is a political philosophy, Republican is a coalition of different (sometimes vastly different) political philosophies that come together in order to win elections.

    This is something a lot of the naive teenage idealists around here can't seem to wrap their minds around.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Why am I left with the impression that Kurbster is Bill Maher's nom-de-plume?

  • Kurbster||

    ah hell...ABORT ABORT

  • Loki||

    that's one argument no one here makes.

    *peruses comments upthread*

    And no one was making that argument at the time either.

  • robc||

    Um...yeah.

    Ive always assumed an 18 month lag, so that is pretty immediate in my book.

  • ||

    Markets started moving in 82.

    60-present

    Interesting to note the two periods of substantial market growth. Post WWII and Reagan.

    1900-present

  • Libertymike||

    To the extent that one includes government spending as part of one's measure of how free and robust an economy is, one is deluded.

    Don't forget that it was the Carter and Teddy K who spearheaded the very limited deregulation of portions of the transportation industry.

    Some dimwits around here write as if the 1980s were some kind of golden age for free minds and free markets.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Compared to the last 20 years they were.

  • ||

    I'd take the 80 over what I've got now.

  • grey||

    I thought I'd state that as a simple metric of my freedom the federal government was smaller under Reagan than now. But I just looked up the number of federal employees and it came up as smaller under Obama....what am I missing?

    http://www.opm.gov/policy-data.....ince-1962/

  • Ray||

    The military is smaller today than it was back then.

  • Jon Lester||

    I bought a paperback of Barry Goldwater's "The Conscience of a Conservative" for 10 cents at a Salvation Army store. When I got to the part where he went over the academics of that argument, and then said that he personally thought segregation was wrong and a stupid waste of resources, I found a clipping from the Atlanta Constitution editorial page, which basically said, 'Integrationist! Vote Johnson!'

  • Butler T. Reynolds||

    The forced integration of schools (busing) in Atlanta did wonders for the neighborhoods there. It caused a mass exodus of middle income people of all colors to the suburbs that has never recovered. That fantastic piece of social engineering did wonders for black families.

  • Bill C||

    The free market wanted to integrate the South but RACIST big government forced segregation on businessmen: http://www.libertarianism.com/.....ost_id=227

  • Doctor Whom||

    That was one of the first things we learned in employment-discrimination law, but since it didn't fit the narrative, we quickly moved on to other topics.

  • Virginian||

    Yep. Explaining to people that before government took over the mass transit system, things were integrated, even in places like my own Richmond, is always fun.

  • ||

    That's unpossible. Publik skul told me so.

  • Tony||

    It's just an amazing coincidence that segregation laws were concentrated in the most racist parts of the country. It's not like governments are elected by the people they serve, after all.

  • ||

    $

  • wareagle||

    you mean like Boston where black kids being bussed in were greeted with far worse than those in Montgomery or Atlanta? By the way, walk through Harlem, Detroit, Chicago south side, or parts of LA and get back to me on racism.

  • Just Sayin'||

    It's also an amazing coincidence that the most racist parts of the country are also the ones with the highest concentration of blacks.

    Just sayin'....

  • Virginian||

    The private sector had provided affordable integrated mass transit before WWI. Yes, even in the South.

    Segregation laws are just a particularly nasty example of your precious government interfering in the free market.

  • ||

    $

  • MJGreen||

    Well now I'm intrigued. What was the point here, exactly?

    The libertarian argument, after all, is that government action should be circumscribed according to certain principles, regardless of what voters want. I'm pretty sure you've even called us anti-democratic in the past.

    So... yeah. You're a troll.

  • ||

    "Let's see what else we have here....felicitating Reagan, still saying that republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility....yup, Rand is showing his true GOP colors quite nicely."

    He's in the GOP. He has to say that stuff to keep his run going. The important thing is that he criticizes other Republicans when they take the wrong position and he at least attempts to persuade them in the right direction. Things aren't going to come our way overnight.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The civil rights act also forced private businesses to serve blacks....even if it was against their will.

    This is utter bullshit, a complete rewriting of the history of Jim Crow.

    Woolworth's lunch counter wasn't segregated because the business owner wanted it that way.

    It was segregated by law, and was an imposition on the business as well as black people.

    The commercial aspects of Jim Crown laws were about forcibly excluding black people from the larger market, they limited the ways that business could serve that sector of their potential customers and prevented black people from competing with whites for jobs and contracts.

  • JohnD||

    So you prefer the Dems?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Multiple pages? You bastards.

  • John||

    Here is the problem. We have never really solved the black achievement and economic gap. What we did was create a huge government to paper over the problem. The black middle class works in the government sector much more than the white middle class. So when the day comes that those government jobs go away, a big portion of the black middle class will go with them.

  • ||

    Well, John, your phrasing is interesting. Do "we" solve anything for "black people"? How does one "solve" the "black achievement gap"? Or do you just treat people as individuals and let them figure shit out for themselves?

  • ||

    Isn't the "black achievement gap" what your mom calls her snatch?

  • John||

    She always told me she called it "el gato gigante"

  • ||

    Oh, she's quite color blind. It's anybody's achievement gap.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    White man's burden?

    Get the government out of the way* and blacks will solve their own problems.

    *do away with the drug war, affirmative action, welfare, etc.

  • John||

    That sounds nice. But you can't expect the millions of middle class people who hold government jobs to sign up for a small government agenda out of the kindness of their hearts. That is just reality. Going back to Roosevelt, the Dems bought off the black vote with government jobs. And there is really no way to get those votes back.

  • ||

    I don't care about votes or agendas, John. I am morally responsible for what I do only, not for what anyone else does.

  • ||

    "You don't have to be responsible for the world that you're in."

  • Cytotoxic||

    I think you're missing John's point.

  • $park¥||

    I think you're missing Epi's point.

  • ||

    And while I'm quoting von Neumann, "It is just as foolish to complain that people are selfish and treacherous as it is to complain that the magnetic field does not increase unless the electric field has a curl. Both are laws of nature."

  • John||

    That is a great quote.

  • ||

    One of the great heroes of the 20th century. Look him up.

  • John||

    I know him from all of the history of science I have read. He is one of those people that just reading about makes you feel pretty much retarded. Von Neumann was to the rest of us, what a normal intelligent person is to someone like Matthew Yglesias.

  • ||

    I have him on the brain because I'm reading this right now.

  • $park¥||

    Why are you reading those words? Are you a fag?

  • JW||

    One of the great heroes of the 20th century. Look him up.

    You're one of his infernal machines, aren't you?!

  • ||

    *beep boop* Wartybot activated. JW sighted. Dismemberment subroutine 2.4 activated. *beep boop*

  • Tman||

    And more importantly John, if the answer the this problem is either-

    A.)just treat people as individuals and let them figure shit out for themselves?

    or

    B.) Give them more free shit than the other party

    - I'm not sure where the big compromise is. It wouldn't benefit the GOP or libertarians to compromise on the principle that individual liberty and free enterprise are what is needed to truly address and resolve these problems. Saying "hey, we will still give you free shit like the Democrats but maybe you should read some Uncle Milton or something" won't stop blacks from voting democrat.

  • John||

    There is no short term answer. The long term answer is to go after the race hustlers and hope to get blacks to stop voting as a single block.

  • Pro Libertate||

    No free shit, but a whole lot more opportunity to buy your own shit and stick it to the Man.

  • fearsomepirate||

    Here is the problem: black people are ethnically segregated. If they weren't, we wouldn't have a group called "black people" to talk about, same as how we no longer have a distinct group called "Italians" or "Irish" to talk about.

  • John||

    That is the other problem. The number of blacks who don't depend on the government and whose interest a small government agenda would serve, won't agree to vote for one out of racial solidarity for the ones who can't. This is why the Dems constantly fan the flames of racism. They depend on racial segregation and alienation to survive as a national party. If they lost even 30% of the black vote, they would cease to be a national party.

  • Kurbster||

    The black culture, ever since the death of Dr. King, has turned into a culture of entitlement and vengeance against their "oppressors." Blacks don't bother to get an education because they know the democrats and many republicans will just give them anything they want anyways.

    When it comes a time when the government can't afford to keep the entitlement train operational, there will be violence.....with the war drums beating from the NAACP and the Black Panthers

  • ||

    Collectively guilting everyone with a certain skin color is collectivist. You know who else collectively guilted people? You are not allowed to answer Idi Amin.

  • ||

    No, dude, he's personally talked to every black person out there, so he knows what he's talking about.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Thee Lord Jehovah?

  • Kurbster||

    give it up...there's a bit of collectivism in all of us. Liberals are retards, don't ya think? whoops...can't label all liberals as retards, that might hurt their feelings.

    it's people who act on that collectivism that should be judged

  • $park¥||

    there's a bit of collectivism in all of us

    Fuck. you.

  • Kurbster||

    learn about human nature first before doing your little temper-tantrum

  • $park¥||

    I am a human, therefore I know about my nature.
    I do not collectivize, therefore your statement is false.

    But I can see you're a person who whines when people don't just agree with you.

  • Kurbster||

    and you're not doing the same thing because I believe blacks have a violent culture?

    Am I saying there should be regulations to control such degenerate culture?
    Am I saying that all blacks should be put back in chains?

    I know my personal views are an enemy of a free society. A free society also has no right stopping others how they think

  • $park¥||

    and you're not doing the same thing because I believe blacks have a violent culture?

    I'm not whining, I'm calling you a collectivist dickhead.

    And it's too bad too because I believe I actually agree with you in regards to anti-discrimination laws. That is, if I'm reading your posts right and you're against them.

  • Kurbster||

    You're right, I'm against anti-discrimation laws, but only for private individuals and businesses. If you pay taxes, then you have no right being discriminated by the government

    also, interesting read that descibes the differences between collectivism and stereotyping:

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/s.....ctivism-is

  • ||

    Go fuck yourself, collectivist.

  • Kurbster||

    how cute...baby need a pacifier?

  • ||

    You sound inarticulate and dirty, Epi. I think your father was a Black.

  • ||

    I thought it was already common knowledge that Epi was North African.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Isn't that like the Jersey of Africa?

  • T||

    Oh, so he's really Sicilian, not Italian as he's always claimed? That explains a lot.

  • ||

    HOW DARE YOU

  • T||

    Who dares wins, Epi. Duh.

  • $park¥||

    He's not even Italian, he's from Connecticut. The preppy part.

  • Hugh Akston||

    So that's why his license plate says TADSTOY.

  • $park¥||

    When did he change it from WOPMOBL?

  • T||

    Is there a non-preppy part to Connecticut? I've never been. Too far north for me.

  • ||

    If anyone here is from the preppy part, it's Goldwater.

  • Mr. Soul||

    to be clear, that might hurt the retards feelings.

  • John C. Randolph||

    We have never really solved the black achievement and economic gap.

    They were solving it themselves, until government decided to "help".

    -jcr

  • JohnD||

    If you want to see the result of black rule, look at Africa.

  • ||

    Don't forget, he also answered "who killed Malcolm X?"

  • T||

    You and me?

    No, wait, that was the Kennedys. Shit, I know this one, just give me a minute...

  • lap83||

    "You are more important than any political party, more important than any partisan pleadings."

    I thought that was the best line of the speech. Principled Republicans have to articulate the ways in which their policies are better for any given person who is listening. I think you can get someone's attention if you make it about THEM more than about the 99% or Obama's dead children.

  • NoVAHockey||

    i'll repost this -- but it seemed that opposition to regulatory capture resonated with the crowd.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "resonated with the crowd"

    Another collectivist

  • ||

    Motherfucker's out there quoting TS Eliot now? Goddamnit I will not fall in love with a politician.

  • ||

    He made a point of saying that he's against drug legalization in the questions. Also, your contract specifically says you're not allowed to fall in love with clients.

  • ||

    She falls in love with every $100 bill she sees; don't worry, this will pass. Whores gonna whore.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Quoting TS Eliot goes on the demerit column. Maybe he should find someone to quote who didn't kill poetry.

  • ||

    Do you dare to eat a peach, Hugh? Or just to be worse than Hitler?

  • Hugh Akston||

    This post is just to say

    I have eaten
    the plums
    that were in
    the icebox

    and which
    you were probably
    saving
    for breakfast

    Forgive me
    they were delicious
    so sweet
    and so cold

  • $park¥||

    So you're admitting you're worse than Hitler? Most people usually start by denying it a couple of times at least.

  • Hugh Akston||

    This is the way the thread ends
    This is the way the thread ends
    This is the way the thread ends

    Not with a bang but a whimper.

  • ||

    It's like you fools don't even want to hear the mermaids singing, each to each. Talk about why there are no female libertarians.

  • SugarFree||

    Merpeople, you sexist sea hag!

  • $park¥||

    Merfolk. I thought you were a librarian.

  • SugarFree||

    All you want to do is de-humanize them so you can fingerbang their tender fishginas. You are sick, Sparky.

  • Ska||

    Tender fishginas.... OK, you my have attention. Go on.

  • $park¥||

    fingerbang their tender fishginas

    It's called noodling, dumbass.

  • SugarFree||

    Noodling is transpecies oral fisting, dumbass.

  • T||

    Well, it's not like they're singing to me, so why should I care? I gotta go dump sand out of my cuffs, anyway.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Let be be finale of seem.

  • SugarFree||

    But Warty really is a pair of ragged claws scuttling across the floors of silent seas.

    I've seen that sumbitch scuttle.

  • ||

    I sent you those videos in confidence!

  • SugarFree||

    What? It was impressive. Don't be ashamed of your talent. Epi can fire ping pong balls out of his butthole like it was a T-shirt cannon, and he's not shy about it at all.

  • Ted S.||

    Motherfucker's out there quoting TS Eliot now?

    Does Rand dare to eat a peach?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Yeah, that is one thing you've got to give Paul. Even if he weren't the closest thing to a libertarian in major party politics, the guy gives some of the most shamelessly literate speeches out there.

  • JohnD||

    Apparently you haven't been listening to Obama and Biden lately. Oh, did I fail to mention Pelosi, Schumer and Durbin?

    Maybe you should rethink that comment.

  • John||

    The best hope the Republicans have for a low black turnout or even picking up 10 or 15% of the black vote in 2016 is for the Dems to run someone like Nanny Bloomburg or Warren. The busy body rich white person is not exactly going to excite the black vote no matter how much free shit they promise.

  • jdkchem||

    You really believe that princess sac-o-shit won't point to her ebony pubes as proof their is a Mandingo branch in her family tree?

  • Tim||

    What gets me is when 99% of people in the USSR voted for comrade Stalin it was obviously a corrupt sham, yet when 99% of people in Chicago vote Democrat it's perfectly legit.

  • $park¥||

    Wrong person gets votes = sham
    Right person gets votes = legit

  • Pro Libertate||

    If there's an afterlife where we get access to all information or if I get total omniscience as a super power from aliens, one of the first few things I'm going to look up is how many votes were fraudulent in U.S. elections.

  • Hyperion||

    Dude, if you get total power from aliens, in an afterlife, your first duty is to turn every proglodyte into a pillar of salt. We can go from there.

  • Ska||

    His first duty would be to reveal himself to the ancient alien guy, only to disappear and leave no evidence of his being.

  • ||

    I don't know how not-legit it is, to be honest. I mean, in Chicago. I voted in the Republican primary last year sometime in the afternoon and the folks at my polling place had to make a point of looking for the R ballot because "you're the first one today who's needed one!"

  • ||

    You voted??? I used to think you were cool, man.

  • ||

    Only in the primary. I was happy to be able to fuck with a POS private organization.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Whatever fraud there is probably involves casting votes for nonvoters and putting pressure on people to vote a specific slate (like with unions). Some is less fraud and more coercion, but it's all wrong in my book. Of course, only bits and pieces ever come out, so it's hard to know how serious the problem is. Plenty of us are stupid--that shouldn't be left out of the equation.

  • ||

    I had that happen last election cycle but they were just really confused that someone was registered L. They had the ballot handy because it was a rollup of Libertarian, Green and Peace and Freedom.

  • Xlotl||

    Yeah, I had some very frustrating arguments with people about this in Philly. They're like "of course every single vote in certain wards was for Obama."

  • RandomJackass||

    Pretty good speech, lots of nitpicking on this forum (shocking) but Rand did a nice job. Here's a video of the event: http://www.c-span.org/flvPop.aspx?id=10737439198

  • MasterDarque||

    Poor Rand every time he reaches out you get poor white trash like this
    http://www.yourblackworld.net/.....g-comment/

  • Hyperion||

    He's still pandering to SoCons. Very disappointing. If he's not going to listen to me, how does he expect to ever be POTUS?

  • T||

    To be fair, your track record of winning elections is pretty poor.

    Of course, they still let Joe Trippi natter on about it like he has a clue, so keep on offering advice.

  • Hyperion||

    What do you know about my track record of winning elections? I predicted the last POTUS election one well enough, and the one before that. And as soon as the Ds announce their nominee in 2016, I will also tell you who will win that one. Right now I am giving 50+% chance, it will be the Hildebeast.

  • T||

    You didn't build that. You just made a bet on the outcome.

  • Joao||

    What a waste of time for a limited government person.

    Black folks are just that: folks, people. What people would want to change from a situation of privilege and addiction to gov money/stuff.

    Pride is a fool's crutch and "cometh before a crash". And pride is what Leftism promotes in all kinds; division. Pound your chests louder, folks.

    Think about it. If there is just one word wrong in a speech to a group that is prone to offense, forget it. Pride, division.

    Those outside of groupthink already get it. Those inside are just lost to your message. Go around them, man.

  • Hyperion||

    So, if someone introduces a bill in the senate to start dismantling the WOD, in any way, is Rand saying that he will vote against it? That would be a deal breaker and he has to know he will lose a lot of Libertarian support if he does that. He needs to STFU about not being for legalizing drugs, WTF is he thinking? This is what I mean about pandering to stupid SoCons.

  • Kurbster||

    he knows that coming out in full support for legalizing drugs would be a nail in the coffin when trying to win support from statist republicans

    it's more or less making Rand look like a snake-oil salesman

  • Cytotoxic||

    he knows that coming out in full support for legalizing drugs would be a nail in the coffin when trying to win support from statist republicans an election

    Outright federal legalization ain't gonna happen for the time being. It's instant political death for the prez race. That isn't snake that's reality. Lets try fighting some political battles we can actually win. Like defunding the WoD enforcers domestically and abroad, decentralizing power by respecting state legalization initiatives, and dismantling crazy sentences. President Rand is by far the best bet for all that. If you can't beat the machine, break it.

  • Hyperion||

    That's all fine and dandy, but he needs to stop wading into these issues and trying to appease SoCons. He could just say, I think it's a state issue. Short and Sweet. Instead he has to wade around in the swamp and get all stinky.

  • Kurbster||

    that is one my biggest issues with Rand. Alot of opposition that Rand might get with more principled libertarian can easily be alleviated by supporting the state's right.

    Rand is not doing that, especially on social issues

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Dude. He's using the same approach as he did with domestic drones. Unless you think Ron fathered a complete idiot that particular instance of executive over-reach stymied wasn't the goal. He using the same tactic by introducing the argument against the WOD in the context of mandatory minimum sentencing. You can't just beat people over the head to change their minds. Libertarians of all people should realize that by now.

    "We should stand and loudly proclaim enough is enough. We should not have laws that ruin the lives of young men and women who have committed no violence."

  • Hyperion||

    President Rand is by far the best

    I am sure I would vote for him over anyone else who might be running in 16, not that it will matter, it won't.

  • MasterDarque||

    How can it be pandering if its what you believe?

  • CampingInYourPark||

    What exactly are you on about here?

    "We should stand and loudly proclaim enough is enough. We should not have laws that ruin the lives of young men and women who have committed no violence."

  • JohnD||

    As opposed to pandering to moronic, pot head Libertarians?

  • Xlotl||

    If you've never been in the owner "class" and don't have much hope of ever getting into the owner "class" (at least, not without losing your shirt in the process), it's not completely irrational to reject Politician A's promise of better times tomorrow in favor of Politician B's promise of goodies NOW.

    Just sayin'.

  • Butler T. Reynolds||

    Despite what he said in his speech, Rand is obviously a racist. After all, he's white and a Republican.

  • Hyperion||

    The curly hair is a dead give away for me. Totally racist.

  • ||

    It's probably an indication of Irish blood. And we all know what they're like.

  • Hyperion||

    Oh, yeah, damn Micks, they're as fucking bad as those limey scum.

  • carol||

    Speaking at Howard is a nice gesture but that is all it amounts to. The black vote is won in the black church and in the black barber shop. Those are the places where opinions are formed. There are plenty of black intellectuals but their opinions and their example mean squat. Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, etc. on and on, are considered race traitors. Unless the idea that a person can work their way out of poverty takes hold in the black community I don't see any reason to believe that signifacnt numbers of black voters will stop voting for democrats.

  • DarrenM||

    The concept of "race traitors" is itself racist.

  • Hyperion||

    I don't think the black vote by itself can decide an election, anyway.

    It's the free stuff that now decides POTUS elections. And free stuff is really color blind. If the dems can buy you, they don't care what color you are.

    Rand is wasting time running for POTUS, he needs to concentrate on staying in the Senate and supporting other liberty leaning candidates who are running for congress.

  • John Galt||

    Seems hundreds of millions of dollars worth of free phones aren't necessary to get the Black vote. Not that it hurts. But as long as the candidate is Democrat, or better yet has a sufficiently dark shade of skin, they'll pull in all but a small handful of the votes from the African-American bloc.

  • Hyperion||

    I don't think there is anyway to get the black vote, for the GOP. Large percentages of blacks work in government jobs. Large percentages of blacks are on state assistance. They are also very segregated, living in their own communities. So I don't think that small government is a very attractive option, overall, for black communities. Some blacks, a small percentage, have escaped all of the above, I work with some of them. But they are a very small percentage.

    Even when the economy crashes and lots of government jobs are gone, and entitlements dry up, as John mentioned, (and he's right because we're going to run out of money), the Dems will blame it on Republicans, and the same voters will just continue to vote Dem.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    Unless the idea that a person can work their way out of poverty takes hold in the black community I don't see any reason to believe that signifacnt numbers of black voters will stop voting for democrats.

    This is why he needs to keep pounding the small government, reduction in regulations drum. Unfortunately I don't think the repubs believe in small government. So I don't think he will make much progress with blacks.

  • Hyperion||

    I don't think the repubs believe in small government

    A select few of them do. They can be counted on the fingers of one hand, unfortunately.

  • John Galt||

    Unfortunately I don't think the repubs believe in small government. So I don't think he will make much progress with blacks.

    Blacks, other than a handful of T.P.ers, desire small government?

    Guess I missed that one.

  • MasterDarque||

    carol r u black?

  • JohnD||

    And that's why the majority are condemned to a life of poverty and crime. What a waste.

  • Tony||

    Free markets are a really tough sell to economically underprivileged minorities, and it's not because those minorities are inherently predisposed to laziness or seeking handouts (that would be a racist claim). It's because being economically underprivileged means the market works against you rather than for you, that absent all government intervention in the market, the color of your skin (more specifically the economic circumstances of your parents) by itself makes you disadvantaged relative to others. A free market maximizes the benefits of parentage. We should really be talking about this imbalance of advantage in the economy as it pertains to any race, but there are of course very good reasons black people happen to disproportionately fill the ranks of the disadvantaged (generations of slavery followed by generations of racist social oppression and occasional outright pillaging of black wealth by whites, followed by Reaganomics and its associated white racial resentment motivations).

    And it's not only not sufficient, but it's completely wrong, to blame "culture" or anything like that--any cultural problems are just as much a consequence of the poor economic circumstance.

    If the GOP wants to skim some of the minority vote (which is all we're really talking about), it has to stop being the GOP. Its existence in its current incarnation is to serve as the protector of the entrenched social structure and wealth distribution (free markets!).

  • ||

    $

  • Tony||

    Please read another book for Christ's sake.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It's because being economically underprivileged means the market works against you rather than for you, that absent all government intervention in the market, the color of your skin (more specifically the economic circumstances of your parents) by itself makes you disadvantaged relative to others.

    Shorter Tony - Communism is great for the poor.

  • Tony||

    I like being richer than most other people. It makes me feel like I've succeeded at life. I'd hate to remove that wonderful feeling from the world by making everyone's wealth equal.

    Of course I didn't really have to work that hard to succeed at life, as I was lucky enough to be born white and privileged in a civilized country.

    I can't decide whether it must feel wonderful or subtly horrible to be a libertarian and feel that it was all ME ME ME and thus everyone who is suffering did it to themselves.

  • KPres||

    "Of course I didn't really have to work that hard to succeed at life, as I was lucky enough to be born white and privileged in a civilized country."

    Well, my parents were lower middle class and I'm in the top 30% according to my tax returns. But, then again, I have worked hard so I guess that explains the difference between my growth and your stagnation.

  • Calidissident||

    Yes, Tony, because obviously the Great Society programs have done such a fantastic job of leveling the playing field and solving the problems blacks, minorities, and the underprivileged. Let me guess, it's only because they didn't go far enough

  • Tony||

    Your explanation must necessarily be either racist or much more convoluted than that one.

  • Calidissident||

    Tony, the king of the false dichotomy

  • Tony||

    Do you think minorities are in as bad or worse a circumstance than in the 60s? If not, then something has worked to some degree.

  • KPres||

    Only because everybody is in a better circumstance than the 60s. The racial income gap is unchanged.

    http://media.economist.com/sit.....CFB280.gif

    Of course, there was a massive convergence that happened in the 40s, long before the CRA and Great Society put an end to all that.

  • ||

    Who is in a worse circumstance than they were in the 1960's? No people on earth, save maybe Somalians and North Koreans. Does that mean all systems worked?

  • MJGreen||

    A free market maximizes the benefits of parentage.

    Holy shit, you're funny.

  • KPres||

    Free markets are a really tough sell to economically underprivileged minorities, and it's not because those minorities are inherently predisposed to laziness or seeking handouts (that would be a racist claim)."

    Yes, that would be racist, but that's not the claim. The economically underprivileged may or may not be predisposed to seeking handouts, but the point is that they have more opportunity for them.

    "It's because being economically underprivileged means the market works against you rather than for you"

    Quite the opposite. Lower income people have more opportunity to pick low-hanging fruit.

    "of course very good reasons black people happen to disproportionately fill the ranks of the disadvantaged (generations of slavery followed by generations of racist social oppression and occasional outright pillaging of black wealth by whites"

    The vast majority of it is explained by the IQ gap, which also explains the gap in asian/white income gap, and the parents/children income relationship you're always going on about, since IQ is mostly hereditary.

    "followed by Reaganomics and its associated white racial resentment motivations)"

    You realize that the black/white income gap closed more under Reagan than any other president over the last 60 some odd years? No, of course you didn't. And so you made an ass of yourself again.

  • John C. Randolph||

    A free market maximizes the benefits of parentage.

    ..and that's why all those italians, poles, jews, chinese and slavs who came to the USA in the late 1800s are still living ten to a room in tenements, right?

    You're an idiot, Tony. You always were, you always will be, and it's not your parents' fault.

    -jcr

  • Tony||

    We had a free market in the late 1800s?

  • JohnD||

    So how long have you been a commie A_hole?

  • heyjoebear||

    Is it free markets that have marginalized or eliminated collective bargaining for half the wage earning public since 1951, turned anti-trust law on its head? The only union movement left is for millionaire athletes, because the greedy bastards haven't changed, every cent labor gains is passed on to the public, the owners maintain their rakeoff; it's a C-note to take your kid to a game and buy a hotdog—

  • Hyperion||

    DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!

  • John Galt||

    Great idea.

  • John Galt||

    Eight pages? What happened to the read article on one page button?

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    Eight pages? What happened to the read article on one page button?

    Sequestration. They have to make up the revenues somehow.

  • John Galt||

    Never let a good sequestration go to waste?

  • Hyperion||

    So they decided to increase it to 10 pages, but instead only increased it to 8. So, they really cut the number of pages, you see?

  • heyjoebear||

    It's SQUEETRATED alright

  • TheIronSheik||

    Blacks have a very limited ability to think past the short term consequences of any action, therefore will never be persuaded to vote for Republican or libertarian candidate.

  • Calidissident||

    Why limit it to blacks racist fuck? People in general suffer from the same problem

  • TheIronSheik||

    Because that trait was bred into them over several centuries, whether or not it existed in them in their natural state.

  • MasterDarque||

    I think you are right...I was wondering why I prefer thicker females with larger asses...in was "bred" into me...One step closer to learning the mysteries of the known universe

  • KPres||

    "I was wondering why I prefer thicker females with larger asses."

    LOL! No, I'm pretty sure that's natural. I actually read a study somewhere that said Nigerian black men like a good badonkadonk just as much as their American counterparts. They might have used different terms.

  • KPres||

    Either way I'm pretty sure it's rape culture.

  • MasterDarque||

    I like you kpres

  • heyjoebear||

    Sheik, is you a raghead? or just a dumbass?

  • JohnD||

    I'm sure he would include you CaliDissident, since you re exhibiting a limited ability to think in general.

  • Mensan||

    The Mother Jones headline for this story (paraphrased): Rand Paul is Lying Racist!!!

    Apparently I'm a masochist, because I read through the comments, and that is some world class derp right there. Especially the idiot who repeatedly wrote that Rand Paul was lying and offered as proof links to blogs about Ron Paul's position on the CRA.

  • ||

    Apparently I'm a masochist, because I read through the comments

    With a gift for understatement.

  • John C. Randolph||

    I'd be a bit worried if a pack of commie rat bastards like the Mother Jones staff suddenly started supporting him.

    -jcr

  • buybuydandavis||

    He should have pointed out that the government was not a fried to black employment in the depression. The Davis Bacon Act was primarily a response to black companies from the south coming to the north and out competing the northern companies on price. The Davis Bacon Act made that competition illegal.

  • KPres||

    It also kept the South poorer than it otherwise would have been, given that markets tend to EQUALIZE unfair income disparities.

  • Tony||

    How do they do that?

    The South is richer than it otherwise would be because the federal government subsidizes so much of its industry.

  • NL_||

    People who overtly despise the poor and think cops are presumed correct in any confrontation are still, in my experience, more likely to be Republicans than Democrats. And certainly the "poor people deserve to be poor" and "innocent people have nothing to fear from police" arguments are more consonant with Republicans.

    Democrats are more likely to voice sympathy and radicalism, even as they support policies that make life harder for the disadvantaged (e.g. higher employment regulations), and mock policies that might make life easier on them (e.g. ending the drug war or the border war). So even if their policy platform is ridiculous, it's presented in a way that's entirely couched in emotion and compassion. Meanwhile, lots of Republicans like to revel in a lack of sympathy for the disadvantaged (perhaps mainly out of contrarianism, a trait I definitely share).

    So I'm not really expecting things to shift much, even if the ideas are better. I think Rand Paul's real audience here was socially progressive libertarians, liberals, and moderates. Just showing up and giving the speech allows him to seem more forward thinking, even if it doesn't sway any black voters.

  • jordanjerry||

    just as Amy implied I am surprised that a mother able to earn $9068 in 1 month on the computer. did you see this web site and go to home tab for more detail--- BIG76.COM

  • Marcus75||

    Aaron. you think Jack`s rep0rt is flabbergasting, last wednesday I bought a great new Audi Quattro when I got my cheque for $5998 this-last/five weeks and even more than $10,000 last-month. with-out any doubt it's my favourite job Ive ever had. I began this 3 months ago and practically straight away started making a nice more than $73, per hour. I use the details on this website, http://www.wow92.com

  • joeedick||

    til I looked at the draft which said $4195, I accept ...that...my cousin was really bringing in money in there spare time at there computar.. there great aunt started doing this 4 only 16 months and as of now cleard the loans on there home and got a gorgeous Mazda. I went here,-- Gig60.ℂOM

  • heyjoebear||

    The Contract on America Republican legislated the 1994 Crime Bill that among other things limits federal petitions for habeas corpus to one per prisoner; the first monkeying with those rights since honest Abe suspended them completely. So—

  • Conrad97||

    my neighbor's aunt makes $60 every hour on the computer. She has been fired for five months but last month her pay check was $21473 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more on this site http://www.wow92.com

  • lizmy||

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement