Urban Legend: Goldwater Against Civil Rights

Urban Legends article-Goldwater

One of the most prominently held urban legends of our time is that Senator Barry Goldwater, the GOP candidate for president in 1964, was against civil rights because he voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This vote of Goldwater marked the start of when “the GOP began to go against civil rights” according to CNN’s Roland Martin’s version of the legend.

The truth is, the GOP has always been in favor of civil rights. From the creation of the party, which opposed slavery; to this present day, you cannot find a single plank on the GOP platform that indicates anything otherwise. In fact, it was Republican President Eisenhower who proffered the first civil rights act of 1957, which was watered down by White Southern Democrats [see Eisenhower on Civil rights].

This bill, however, was responsible for jump-starting the process of civil rights legislation with protection for voting rights; establishing the Civil Rights Division in the Justice Department; and among other things, establishing a six-member Civil Rights Commission.[1] In addition, a second Civil Rights bill was passed in 1960. Senator Goldwater supported both bills.

The problem arises in 1964. The new Civil Rights bill championed by President Johnson, who has now ironically had an epiphany about Civil Rights, comes to the Senate. The Southern Democrats oppose the bill as they had opposed similar legislation along with Senator Johnson. Now as president, Johnson realizes the bill will not pass the Senate without Republican help so he approaches Everett Dirksen. Dirksen garners Republican support, and the bill passes.

Of note, “The Republican Party was not so badly split as the Democrats by the civil rights issue. Only one Republican senator participated in the filibuster against the bill. In fact, since 1933, Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 % of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 % of the votes.”[2]

In the 1964 civil rights act, Republicans in the house voted 138 for and 34 against; Democrats voted 152 for and 96 against. In the Senate, the Republicans voted 27 for and 6 against; the Democrats voted 46 for and 21 against. Clearly, from these numbers, there was no apparent anti-Civil Rights movement in the GOP as Roland Martin, and others, suggest.

As a matter of fact, as one of the six voting against the 1964 Civil rights act, Senator Goldwater, on principle, disagreed with the idea of Federal government intervention regarding this matter. “His stance was based on his view that the act was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of states and, second, that the Act interfered with the rights of private persons to do business, or not, with whomever they chose.”[3]

More specifically, Goldwater had problems with title II and Title VII of the 1964 bill. He felt that constitutionally the federal government had no legal right to interfere in who people hired, fired; or to whom they sold their products, goods, and services. He felt that “power” laid in the various states, and with the people. He was a strong advocate of the tenth amendment. Goldwater’s constitutional stance did not mean he agreed with the segregation and racial discrimination practiced in the South. To the contrary, he fought against these kinds of racial divides in his own state of Arizona. He supported the integration of the Arizona National Guard and Phoenix public schools.[4] Goldwater was, also, a member of the NAACP and the Urban League.[5]

His personal feelings about discrimination are enshrined in the congressional record where he states, “I am unalterably opposed to discrimination or segregation on the basis of race, color, or creed or on any other basis; not only my words, but more importantly my actions through years have repeatedly demonstrated the sincerity of my feeling in this regard…”[6]. And, he would continue to hold fast to his strongly felt convictions that constitutionally the federal government was limited in what it could do, believing that the amoral actions of those perpetuating discrimination and segregation would have to be judged by those in that community. Eventually, the state’s government and local communities would come to pressure people to change their minds. Goldwater’s view was that the civil disobedience by private citizens against those business establishments was preferable than intervention by the feds. He, optimistically, believed that racial intolerance would soon buckle under the economic and societal pressure.

Unfortunately, Goldwater’s principled stand on this issue allowed the Democrats to brand Republicans, for the first time in their long history of fighting for civil rights, as racially insensitive at best, and racist at worst. Martin is correct in this regard that the Black vote went to the Democrats, and Johnson gets elected. What is not mentioned, however, is that many Republicans also defected to support LBJ because of a feud between moderates and conservatives in the GOP. Or, that from this time forward Democrats would use government largess to win the votes of the minority community. LBJ would call for a “War on Poverty” and challenge Americans to build a “Great Society.” Hence, the government became bigger and bigger thus exacerbating the difference between those who advocated smaller government and lower taxes from those who believed the government could solve many of society’s ills through government programs (spending).

Many would argue that the advent of the Great Society initiates the decline of the Black family. What Blacks gained from Civil Rights legislation was lost by government largess. They lost individual liberty and fidelity. They became more dependent on government programs; and less dependent on their own ability to improve themselves by the work of their own hands, and the sweat of their brow. If you read Barry Goldwater’s Conscience of a Conservative you’ll see that he understood this dynamic [see my article Conservatism vs The Borg (liberalism)].

Consequently, an Urban Legend begins depicting the GOP, despite its 100 years of civil rights history prior to Goldwater and Goldwater’s own support for civil rights, as racist or racially insensitive because a man stood on principle. I see no ‘horrible history’ here unless you say that the Civil Rights leaders overreached with good intentions, which eventually lead to the maladies and pathologies that plague our community today.

In articles to come, we will address other legends that Roland Martin, and others, propagate to support the “GOP’s horrible history with Blacks.” We will tackle the Dixiecrats, the Southern Strategy, Bull Connor and other Urban Legends. Stay Tuned.

[1] http://crdl.usg.edu/events/civil_rights_act_1957/?Welcome . Also, see http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=482

[2] http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_histmats_civilrights64text.htm

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater

[4] Jonathan Bean, Race and Liberty in America (Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky, 2009), p. 226.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid. Also see Barry Goldwater, “Civil Rights,” Congressional Record, June 18, 1964, 14318-19.

Default Comments (80)

80 thoughts on “Urban Legend: Goldwater Against Civil Rights

  1. Wayne Embry says:

    Thanks for info.

  2. Greg says:

    At the end of the day, Goldwater defended the right to segregate. If he had won, segregation would’ve been in place, it’s cute how you try to make historical revisionism, but that’s actually what would’ve happened. Both southern democrats and republicans opposed, after the act passed under a democratic president, and the nominee for the republicans was a pro-segregationists, the southerners switched over to republicans.

    1. Eric M. Wallace, PhD Eric M. Wallace, PhD says:

      No. He felt that it was not the federal governments job to tell local businesses whom they had to sell too. He wanted to leave that to the States. This is an argument about the role of the federal government not about whether someone has the right to discriminate. He showed his opposition to racial discriminate by supporting the other pieces of legislation proffered by Eisenhower in 1957 and 1960. He was a member of the Arizona NAACP.

      1. Jasmine says:

        Good article- it is important to note that Barry was simply trying to defend states’ rights. However, I do not think it did him, or the Republican party, any service by trying to point out that the act was unconstitutional. It would have been better to compromise on this in order to demonstrate support for an equal America.
        On a side note, I believe Johnson voted for the 1957 Act- you said in this article he voted against both 1957 and 1960. See link: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/85-1957/s75

        1. Eric M. Wallace, PhD Eric M. Wallace, PhD says:

          You are correct about Johnson. Thanks for the information. I stand corrected. Kennedy and Johnson Supported the 1957 bill.

      2. Grady J. says:


      3. Charles Egan Smith says:

        I read the article and comments below. I am not an expert on politics or history, but I do know that neither political party has been there one hundred percent for blacks and minorities. The facts and evidence remain that the American system of government is and has always been racist toward people of color and women. It has been and still a white controlled and operated system and to debate politics is no more than a debate and doesn’t change anything about the condition of black people in this country.There was nothing great about Lincoln, Washington or any of the so-called great white men of American history. Slavery and oppression was legalized and part of the system and culture, while white men profited off search a system. But this kind of discussion is often overlooked of afraid to be mentioned today. Had either party seriously had the interest and well being of the black community at heart and worked to give us the same rights the constitution (which was written for blacks) afforded whites, then black Americans wouldn’t be in the condition we are today.

      4. kris says:

        >No. He felt that it was not the federal governments job to tell local businesses whom they had to sell too.

        Goldwater was dead wrong. The Federal Government’s job is to ensure Equal Protection of the laws by the Constitution, and allowing private businesses to refuse entry to negroes was certainly not fulfilling that duty. ‘States Rights’ was again used as a silly cover for the core issue of discrimination/segregation, and Goldwater was betraying his prior civil rights record to try to increase his political base for a presidential run. Deeply unethical.

    2. Stephen Davis says:

      Maybe. I would love to see people make more meaningful, consistent changes at the state level instead of being so dependent of the Feds to use well meaning, yet heavy handed Central Government changes like we saw with FDR. Welfare has had horrible throat-hold on the progress of so many Americans that might have otherwise been on their own feet long ago. Goldwater voted yes on the 57, and 60 acts, right? The man wasn’t racist, even if he might have been more aggressive. Ironically, Thurmond ended lynchings in his state on his own nickel, even though he was a segregationist and voted against 57, 60, and 64.

    3. Tyke Morris says:

      Defended the right to segregate? Republicans still opposed segregation of schools so that by the Kennedy administration it was more a matter of enforcement in Democrat controlled states in the deep south. It was Democrats and specifically George Wallace and Joe Biden and the Democrat Supreme Court who fought for the right to segregate. Goldwater refused to sign the bill because of forcing businesses to hire, which he felt violated the 10th Amendment. So yes at the end of the day Goldwater defended hiring discrimination even though he hated it. His own party hated him for that and he lost in an historic landslide. Yet to say “had he won” we would have continued Jim Crow is false. The Civil Rights Act would have easily passed anyway because almost all Republican Senators disagreed with Goldwater and even a majority of Democrats did too. Had Goldwater won the presidency he would have been inaugurated in 1965 after the Civil Rights Act so he couldn’t have vetoed it and he supported the Voting Rights Act of 1965 anyway.

  3. Greg says:

    You might say, oh ‘he personally opposed segregation’. That’s like someone saying he’s against slavery, but that he also refuses to federally ban it, and thus allows various states to continue holding slaves…..

    1. Eric M. Wallace, PhD Eric M. Wallace, PhD says:

      That’s a dumb argument. Both have to do with the power of the federal government to act. Lincoln didn’t have the authority to free the slaves. After the war with Britain individual Northern states freed their slaves. The emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in states that had been taken over by the North. The Federal government is limit by the tenth amendment to the constitution…” The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

      Goldwater felt the 1964 Civil Right Act was unconstitutional. Lincoln was able to free the slave because the South considered Slaves as their property and once capture became the property of the North and could therefore be set free. This is basically the difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives want to limit the arm of the feds while Liberals want to extend the reach of the feds.

      1. Frank says:

        People are OK with the fed dictating to the states until the fed dictates something those people don’t like. Then they understand how federal overreach creates tyranny.

  4. Maddie Ross says:

    And ever since, the GOP has systematically worked to disenfranchise people of color, the poor, and the elderly. And let’s not even start on their horrific civil rights record concerning LGBT and Muslim citizens. This is no longer the party of Lincoln, but the party of Strom Thurmond, David Duke, Donald Trump, and the KKK.

    1. Eric M. Wallace, PhD Eric M. Wallace, PhD says:

      Maddie your comments are not based on fact but fiction. The Democrat party is the party of slavery, KKK, Strom Thurmond’s early days, Woodrow Wilson, the Dixiecrats, Jim Crow, Robert Byrd and segregation. They are now the party of urban blight, gang violence, welfare, unemployment, abortion, and failing schools. The GOP has championed civil rights since its inception and now champions school choice, welfare reform, immigration reform, tax reform and real healthcare reform. And when it comes to LGBT community they don’t need special rights for their sexual behavior. They have rights because they are human beings.

      1. Snow says:

        As a student of history like yourself surely knows, what a party stands for changes over time and by region. The Democrats in 1900 could be anything from a party for Catholics & non-Anglo immigrants (in the North), a party for Populist-leaning farmers (in the West), and the party of racist Dixiecrats seeking to overturn Reconstruction (in the South).

        It would be better to look at ideologies, and here the answer is *quite* plain. The Dixiecrats themselves blamed all the Civil Rights “troubles” of the 60s on “white liberals” stirring up Negros and disrupting a happy, orderly society where everyone knew their place. When the (white) South transitioned from Democratic-favoring to Republican-favoring, the politicians openly said it was because the Republicans represented conservatism now, while the Democrats liberalism. Again, don’t take my word for it, take the rhetoric used at the time.

        The South has been remarkably consistent: “liberals” have favored civil rights, “conservatives” have not. In 1900, Southern Republicans were “liberal”, Southern Democrats were “conservative.” In 1940, partially thanks to the influence of FDR, everybody in the South was a Democrat and the primaries were between liberals, moderates, and conservatives. By 1980, the conservatives were Republicans and the liberals were Democrats, thanks to Goldwater, Nixon, & Reagan.

        Is it any surprise that people who care about basic, fundamental civil rights are going to vote for the liberal candidates, no matter what party they belong to?

        1. Eric M. Wallace, PhD Eric M. Wallace, PhD says:

          Snow, If you are a student of history you need to do some better research. Your understanding of “Liberals” vs “conservatives” will not fly. Southern Democrats were liberal in regards to federal spending. They were for higher taxes. Conservatives were the ones who today argue for limited government. You can’t be a conservative or classical liberal and have Jim crow laws. Classical liberal or today’s conservatives have always been for less government. Progressives or today’s liberals have always been for more government. Conservatives today are what used to be called “classical liberals”. Slavery and Jim crow are at cross purposes with modern conservative ideology and if you did your homework or read my article a little closer you’d know this.

          Understand that the South changed over time and had to abandon their segregationist ways. Racist died, some moved and others retired from politics. The South was not stagnant. New people have moved to the South. The Economics of the South have changed.

          Reagan and Goldwater were not racist. And Nixon was no more racist than LBJ. They had a political agenda. LBJ help past Civil rights legislation that Nixon and Eisenhower had already set in motion. Nixon brought us affirmative action. He supported the civil rights acts of 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1968. (see Article by Buchanan). Winning the South does not mean you are racist. Carter and Bill Clinton and Obama won the South. Reagan won every state against accept Minnesota against Mondale. Does that mean all the states were racist? Or could it be that the electorate was voting based on other ideas? (see the electoral map).

          The standard argument to prove a candidates policies are racist thus does not hold up. The South has more issues than race. Economics, government control, foreign policy, and a host of other issues are on the minds of more people than race relations. Your argument is too simplistic and naive. Democrats have a reason to restate the simple version of the “Southern strategy” and the GOP “disregard of civil rights”. It’s a great tool to keep Black folks voting Democrat. It doesn’t have to be true because if you repeat a lie often enough people begin to believe it, even if they are so called “students of history.” If you really want to be a student of history do your home work. Go to the original sources. Don’t rely on what I say or anyone else. Go to the congressional voting records. Read what people wrote not what other wrote about them. Get a good definition of conservatism and liberalism. Then you can recognize them when you see them. You can also recognize when someone is trying to pull the wool over your eyes. Then back up your statements. Nothing is true because we say it is. It true because your can prove it. You have data to back it up. Read the what Goldwater wrote. Look at the presidential election maps. Is what others are saying based on the data you see? Does George W. win the South because he is racist or because he’s an evangelical Christian? Or could it be his economic message. He solidly beats Kerry in 2004.

          Last word. The only people playing race politics are the Democrats. They keep reaping the lie that they are for Black people and the GOP is for white people. SO far it has been effective but still untrue.

          1. Stephen Davis says:

            Loved this. I think the thing that is throwing people off is the term Classic Liberal, which at the time had an acronym. The RISE principles, right? I think that at the time, classically liberal was a term that reflected a sense of “new thinking” that was penned out in the constitution. These forward thinking ideas that were manifested in our founding documents were the opposite of conserving ideas forged in monarchy. Forward to 1948, the “classic liberals” were today’s conservatives, conserving the ideals of constitutionalism. Today’ liberals feel like the Feds should have a larger mantle, and consider the constitution “old -fashioned”, and in need of new ideas.

        2. Roger Williams says:

          Snow, a reply to you could not be stated better than what Dr Wallace said here. I will add this; if any group “flipped” or “switched” or “changed something”… it was the democrats “flipping” the word liberal. The progressive left democrats no more believe in nor practice liberalism than the man-in-the-moon. Like many things they’ve taken, they’ve taken the label Liberal…. why wouldn’t they? hey, it’s sure a more acceptable label than racist.

          So, Snow, you think that the murderers of Elmet Till were republicans? were conservatives? Snow, you think the Southern governors and mayors and police who beat up, killed and humiliated (controlled) Negros through the 1960’s were republicans? conservatives?

          Snow, you speak of being a student of history. I’m not sure what your sources you’ve studied are; but, it’s possible some of your foundational information may have risen out of the “Southern Cause Regained” branch of history re-write. Since almost immediately after the U.S. Civil War, the South has wore two faces: 1.) obstruct all paths to Freedman gaining their natural rights. 2.) Rewrite history and change language and words to misrepresent what they’re doing.

          By the 1890’s – 1950’s they actually taught the “lost cause regained” or sometimes called ” the cause regained” corruption of Southern history in Southern Schools.

          Snow, so do you think it was Southern democrats or republicans who murdered those three or four students ( I think they were all or mostly young white college students ) and buried the bodies in a levy construction site. These were liberal ( true liberal ) idealistic college students who took a bus to (?) one of the Southern states to fight for Negro voter rights. they were killed. Who do you think killed them? Southern democrat leftist KKK good ole boys racists? or Republicans? conservatives? Snow, I got a clue for you, there were hardly NO republicans living in the South until the huge change due to commerce, Northern factories moving there, Northern populations of people moving south to supply the industrialization happening in the South.

          Snow, they used to call it “the Solid South”. Snow, do you know what that means? Snow, it meant “The Solid DEMOCRATIC JIM CROW South”. That was true at least through the 1960’s. Snow, I’m old enough to have personally seen “white only” signs? I’ve also been foreman running work crews of Southern white boys. The only reason they would vote republican is the democrats are for Gun Control, and they aren’t.

          Snow, even with the GCA 1968, restrictive firearm laws, in the South, were to keep firearms out of the hands of Negros. Does that sound “liberal”? No, Snow, gun control is not a liberal (true liberal) idea . it is a big government, tyrannical government idea… nothing to do with Liberty of the individual (classical liberal).

          Read Dr Wallace’s reply to you in this discussion, the Dr. ‘s reply was accurate.

      2. Rose Law says:

        Since when did moral deviation become a right and recognized as a freedom having to do with anything that stands with anything, other than orientation. How is this consider in any way as an issue that classifies this behavior as a minority. It’s bad enough that we’re the underdog as is, but now we’re added with any and everything that is out of order with what is right. That’s as though to say, that we’re abominations and should be judged for the color of our skin. We’re talking about people who have been enslaved and treated far less than human. We the rope that being pulled by two sides. As mentioned by Wallace. Lincoln could free states, and by free our ancestors from one state, we became the property of another state (that gave us our freedom), but that’s not getting the freedom they have. It is the freedom, that the white man has that we want, which is total independence and the rights to everything that liberates a human being, inasmuch as he or she can choose their fate as well as decide for themselves as do the white people who came and took this country from those who lived here before they got here. This world has been the same since they discovered the world isn’t flat and there’s no edge to it, that leads to dropping off.

      3. Indeed, the KKK and Jim Crow laws were because of Democrats. But those Democrats were southern and Conservative – Conservative Democrats aka Blue Dog Democrats.

        Racism and bigotry are not a Democrat or Republican ideology, but racism and bigotry are both 100% Conservative ideologies. But, because bigoted and racist Conservatives reside inside the Republican party, is the reason why Republicans are loathed.

        1. Eric M. Wallace, PhD Eric M. Wallace, PhD says:

          Then tell me how you account for the racism of progressive Woodrow Wilson?

        2. Tyke Morris says:

          By definition “conservative” means a strict or limited (conservative) adherence to the constitution. “Liberal” means a loose interpretation allowing more sweeping government powers. Jim Crow laws would never be accepted by a conservative and, according to all historical accounts and my memory of the time, they weren’t. Republicans have always been the party of equality and Democrats have always been the party of racism. Republicans fought for decades to get rid of Jim Crow laws. LBJ turned the tables on Republicans by agreeing to civil rights but only if it included affirmation action. Most Republicans agreed to the compromise but Goldwater did not. Thus the racist Johnson ironically signed the bill but the civil rights integrationist from the NAACP, Goldwater, did not. Blacks immediately switched parties. The bigots got the last laugh.

  5. Stuart Birch says:

    Thanks Eric. Good article.

  6. Jim Davis says:

    This tome represents only the narrow subject of Senate votes. Once Johnson had led the Dems toward civil rights, the racist Dixiecrats all became Republicans. Since then, Republicans have refused to renew the Voting Rights Act, opposed every piece of civil rights legislation, gerrymandered around minority voters, and enacted a variety of voter-suppression tactics. The GOP hasn’t been the party of Lincoln in a long, long time.

    1. Eric M. Wallace, PhD Eric M. Wallace, PhD says:

      Jim, do us a favor and name all the dixicrats. Then point out the ones that became Republican. Then let us know what parts of the voting rights act need to be reauthorized. Then we can have a discussion but your ignorance of the subject matter make it a waste of time right now.

  7. At the end of the day, republican Barry Goldwater was still opposed to the 1964 civil rights act, and the 1965 voting rights act, and that is how he got the deep southern states, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina.
    The first time the South went republican, and the beginning of the parties switching platforms on race.
    The South and the KKK has been republican for decades now.

    1. Eric M. Wallace, PhD Eric M. Wallace, PhD says:

      So Michael how did Carter, Clinton and Obama win the South? Your answer is too simplistic. The South has more issues than race. If you would read some of my other comments you’d understand this. You guys who repeat the democrat talking points don’t ever take the time to think it through. You act as if the South is trapped in the 1950s and only cares about race. There are a number of issues that the South wrestles with and these days most of them are economic not racial. The South has had a Black mayor in Atlanta for decades and Indian American Governor of Louisiana and South Carolina. And again if your argument is valid than Carter, Clinton and Obama have to be racist because they won the South.

      1. Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, this morning will tell the NAACP national convention in Milwaukee that it was “wrong.”

        “By the ’70s and into the ’80s and ’90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out,” Mehlman says in his prepared text. “Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.”

        You have republicans admitting the southern strategy.
        You can take their word or not but that is the word of the GOP.

        Why do you think the KKK is republican as well? not only them but all the white supremacits like Jared Taylor and ALT Right groups.

        And Atlanta is a big city, conservative republicans have a hard time getting big cities.

        1. Eric M. Wallace, PhD Eric M. Wallace, PhD says:

          Ken Mehlman was a fool. He was wrong to admit something he had not researched. Have you polled the KKK to see who they vote for? Because I never said the KKK was Republican. You need evidence to make that claim. But answer me this why would the GOP take on the failed policies of the Dixiecrats? It makes no sense. The Dixiecrates lost. Racial politics changed in the South. Again you have to explain why Carter, Clinton and Obama won the South if the South is so racist. You have no ground to stand on. Politics is more complicated today than it was 50 years ago. And Just because Mehlman made a statement and apologized doesn’t make it so. It was probably easier for him to apologize than to set the record straight because no matter what I argue or facts I bring to the table people like you won’t listen anyway. By the way Pat Buchannan, one of the architects of the Southern strategy denies any racial bias in their campaign.

          1. The KKK has hundreds of chapters around the country, stilll more in the South, still have rallies, many with the confederate flag, little diffences in the klan chapters, but all have the same mantra, a White Christian America. They are against liberals, gays, muslims, diversity, multiculturalism, affirmative action.
            When Obama was elected, reporst came that white supremacy groups like the klan got more members. White nationalist sites got record hits.
            The KKK endorsed republicans Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.
            In the 1920’s when the KKK was at their peak at millions of members, they had members in both parties, and had republican politicians who were kkk in Colorado and Indiana.
            The KKK being republican today is not a debate, zero, zilch, nada. Many klan chapters came out with support for trump.
            Other White nationalist came out supporting trump, like Jared Taylor a known white supremacists, Spencer from the ALT Right groups saying America is a white country.
            All these white supremacists don’t like America being multiculturalism, they want white America.
            You can also look up the KKK sites recruitment, you have to be white christian to join, and the KKK in north carolina had a parade to celebrate trump’s election win.

          2. Eric M. Wallace, PhD Eric M. Wallace, PhD says:

            Even for the sake of argument if I accept your information. It doesn’t make the GOP racist. It means that the White racist feel they have more in common with the GOP than the Dems. Neither party is condoning racial hatred. In the same vein they aren’t Christian because they call themselves Christian nor are they Republican because you call them Republican. One does not take on all the characteristics of the people who may support them. I’m against affirmative action, liberalism, gay rights, diversity and multiculturalism, whatever that means. Does that make me a racist or a klan member?
            You are right about Indiana. The GOP in that state was taken over by the Klan. But that organization broke from the national organization which was Democrat. The GOP is no longer controlled by the Klan in Indiana. As a matter of fact the national party has no real ties to the Klan. They are feel to vote as they choose. But to say that the GOP is the party of the klan is misleading at best. The GOP didn’t start the Klan like the Democrats nor do they promote the klan’s ideology like the democrats did.

            BTW I’m sure you’d agree that most socialist vote the democrat party. Does that make the democrats all socialist? That’s why your argument about Klansman being all republican is inconsequential. Your are trying to use the supposed voting habits of one group to impugn the integrity of the GOP. You seem to forget that the GOP is also supported by evangelicals who would have nothing to do with the klan. Does that mean that all the GOP are evangelical? Hardly.

            So how many dixiecrats became Republicans? https://youtu.be/bdJsPsU55PM

          3. You like to twist words, I never said the GOP is racist or the klan party, I’m saying the klan members are republican, right along with all the white nationalist like Jared Taylor who goes on public for decades talking about white identidty, Neo confederates, neo nazis, and ALT Right groups praising trump, all these white supremacy groups are republican.
            So you can say that for the sake of argument, it’s not an argument, it’s a fact, but if you think any of those white supremacy groups would vote for Obama and the clintons, and liberals who wanted to legalize every single illegal immigrant, and import 100 times more muslims refugees than Obama brought, than that is your right to believe that.
            And no you’re not a klan member, but the klan sure did have a parade when trump won.
            The GOP believes in hierarchy, and are against diversity and multiculturalism.
            And to answer you questions about the South won by Carter who was a centrist (like bill clinton), he was the first deep southern state president to win the election in some time, he related to the southerners with being a southern christian, and the GOP was falling apart with gerald ford, and watergate.
            The parties did not switch over night, but it did happen.
            Why do you think the Southern whites don’t vote democrat like their ancestors did? why do they praise jefferson davis, but not Abraham Lincoln who they call a tyrant.
            The GOP made a mistake with nominating Barry Goldwater, because it split the GOP even more, with even other GOP politicians like Rockafeller who said would be a mistake.

          4. Eric M. Wallace, PhD Eric M. Wallace, PhD says:

            The parties didn’t switch. The GOP has never been for segregation. You need to read my piece on the Southern Strategy. The Republican party never adopted racist policies. While the democrats did. That’s fact. Do racist vote republican? I’m sure some do and some vote the Democrat party. The Parties are no longer fight over civil rights. That battle is more about the role of government which is what Goldwater was upset about with the 1964 civil rights act. HE felt it went too far. That is not racism. it was a principled stand against big government. Rockefeller was a moderate and either way would have split the party. So yes Rockefeller would not be in favor of a Goldwater presidency. So that’s not saying much.
            You are entitled to your beliefs but not your own facts. The national party has never come out in favor of racist policies like the Democrats. To be clear neither party can keep racist people from running as Republican or Democrat. IN Illinois all you have to do is get enough signatures and you can run. The party doesn’t even need to endorse you. SO it’s not the endorsements but the policy stances one takes. Have a great evening!

          5. After everything you still in denial? the South and the KKK is republican, the northern states are more democrat. It’s the opposite of the 1860’s civil war times.
            Those democrats you speak of that were racists were not liberal, you understand that?
            They were confederate southerners conservative states rights, the South has been pleading for states rights since the foundation of this country.
            Trent Lott spoke on December 5, 2002, at the 100th birthday party of Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, a long-time conservative leader. Thurmond had run for President of the United States in 1948 on the Dixiecrat (or States’ Rights) ticket. Lott said: “When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either.”
            Why do you have southern republicans praising southern democrats like strom thurmond and jefferson davis, which trent lott did.
            The confederate flag is flow by republicans in the South who call Lincoln a tyrant.
            Why do you have republicans in the South who are stripping away from the 1965 voting rights act?
            Georgia republican defending the kkk making a lot of people straighten up
            Mississippi republican Karl Oliver saying people who bring down confederate monuments should be lynched
            Jon Hubbard Arkansas defending slavery and the “southern cause”
            Fox news right wing calling Abraham Lincoln a tyrant
            This is the mainstream of white southern confederates, they put their loyalty to the South confederacy, not Abraham Lincoln Union.

          6. Eric M. Wallace, PhD Eric M. Wallace, PhD says:

            First of all you make to many sweeping generalizations about Republicans. Neither the South or the North are stagnant. People move around and even change their positions politically. SO being from the South does not make one racist or Republican. Second, history has shown that depending on the person running for president Democrats have won Southern states, as I mentioned Carter, Clinton and a few by Obama. And Republicans have won the Northern states. Reagan beat Mondale and won every state except Minnesota. Did that mean that everyone became a racist? There are other issues besides race that cause people to vote for a particular candidate. The South has many issues among one is economics. Third, you seem to be conflating conservatism with racism. You can be liberal and a racist. Just look at FDR, LBJ and especially Woodrow Wilson who desegregated Washington D.C. Wilson was a progressive. Terms like liberal, conservative and progressive have to do with policy stances and the role of government not racial attitudes. The Republican party is mixed with conservatives and moderates. So you can’t paint them with broad paint strokes. The only difference is that Democrats had in the platform segregationists policies while the GOP never has. You can be against tearing down confederate monuments and not be for slavery. SOutherners can be against the civil war and still be against slavery. Just like Northerners can vote for a REpublican like Reagan and Southerners for a Democrat like Clinton. The voting rights act is not an issue because there is nothing in the voting rights act that has anything to do with voting that has to be reauthorized. The reauthorization has to do with a hand full of Southern states that if they make any changes to their voting procedures need to have “preclearance” by the Attorney General. This section 5 which needs reauthorization, and many feel is unnecessary today. Failing to reauthorize the voting rights act would not rescind voting for Black people, which is generally what you hear in the black community. It’s a red herring to get people all emotional about nothing. Lastly, Lott was being kind to Strom Thurmond as he was retiring. Kind words for an old man who had switched his position on a number of issues. As Democrat George Wallace apologized for his stance on segregation. SO how many dixiecrats became Republicans? What racist planks did the GOP have on their political platforms?

          7. Google lee atwater on the southern strategy.
            Why do you think the representives of Mississippi and Alabama left the 1948 democrat national convention cause Truman wanted to end segregation in the military.
            The KKK had a parade when trump won, don’t forget that.

          8. Eric M. Wallace, PhD Eric M. Wallace, PhD says:

            I f the Republican party was so racist than why didn’t the representatives of Mississippi and Alabama join the Republican party? Because the GOP had always be against slavery, segregation and racism. There was never a reason for the parties to switch. What happen is that the racist either died off in the South or they switch for other reasons such as economics, foreign policy or whatever.

            Just because the KKK had a parade for Trump doesn’t mean that Trump is in agreement with their stances on race. I can see them being in agreement with illegal immigration. But so are a lot of other law abiding Americans who are not racist. There are Republican homosexuals. It doesn’t mean that they agree with everything Trump stands for. Your argument is too simplistic. It doesn’t take into account other factor that may have people support you. Again, Ronald Reagan won the entire country except Minnesota. Does that mean everyone except in Minnesota became a Republican? Of course not but clearly they liked him more than MOndale.

            With regards to Atwater, it’s convenient that people put words in his mouth while he is not here to defend himself. And the audio they have of him is only a short snippet of the whole interview. Those who are still alive repudiate the idea that the southern strategy was a move to bring on the racist South. It was a strategy to bring grow the party and find other issues the South could be passionate about besides race. Racism didn’t help the Democrats or the Dixiecrats so why would anyone think that racist politics would help the GOP? It makes no sense for a party founded on antislavery ideas would leave that foundation to pick the losing policies of the Dixiecrats. Neither party appeals to racist ideas anymore. The democrats left it sometime ago and the GOP never had it, except in pockets like Indiana for a short while. You can believe what you want but the facts don’t support you. I suggest you read some of the parties platforms in the past. If you find any racist policies offered by the GOP let me know. Until then you have nothing on which to stand. It’s all Urban legend.

          9. My answer is “simplistic” because it’s really a no brainer, but people like you are in denial. Hey like I said, the klan, Jared Taylor white nationalist, Richard Spencer, all the white supremacy groups are in joy trump won, and all the racists confederate flag holders in the South are happy. I’m not siding with white supremacy, you might be, but not me.
            Reagan won the democrat vote, why do you think they’re called the Reagan democrats.
            The civil rights is more of a region issue, the north vs south, the northern states has always been more progressed and pro civil rights than the South.
            And it showed when the southern states were the last to legalize gay marriage.
            Ask Colin Powell how racists the republican party is.
            Why do you have southern state republicans celebrating confederate holidays, and not Abraham Lincoln, cause they call him a tyrant.
            And the GOP with Goldwater opposing the 1964 civil rights act and the 1965 voting rights act attracted the southern racists.
            The SOuth and the KKK is republican, the northern states are democrat, opposite of 1860’s civil war times.
            Yesterday’s southern confederates are today’s southern republicans, but hey, I’m in reality, you can believe what you want.

          10. Gilbert Van Buskirk says:

            There was an obvious political realignment that occurred. You had almost 150 defections from the Democratic Party from 1960 – 1980. Reagan was one such defection. Trent Lott was another. One reason was from the perceived overreach from CRA64. They tried to equate Civil Rights with communism. The fact that many of those Southern states are having their Voter ID laws struck down on racial grounds proves that the institutional racism is emanating from the GOP in the modern era.

            Trent Lott (Republican) – 2002

            “When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either.”

        2. John says:

          After reading through all the comments here, it’s pretty clear you don’t understand the principals republicans stand for. The reason the alt right sides with republicans over democrats is that the identity politics, multiculturalism and “diversity” have all proven themselves to be anti-white. Today’s democrats hate Western culture, white people, and they hate America. It that simple, but most here will try to make rational arguments that just end up failing because history is hard to unravel. It is clear you do no understand that republicans have always stood for equality under the law, and primarily neutral/colorblind laws. The fact that they get called racist over and over by ignorant people is one of the biggest political injustices of the modern era.

          1. Loren Jones says:

            Multiculturalism would not be multiculturalism if it was “anti-white.” White in America is a culture. It is an amagalm of the European, Slavic, and Nordic cultures that came to America and benefited from, and perpetuated, the prevailing anti-black attitudes of the day to become white. Bacon’s Rebellion was squashed by offering Europeans a way out of indentured servitude and into being overseers of enslaved Africans, as free white people.

            The problem you and others like you have with multiculturalism is that it does not center or elevate whiteness above all other ethnicities. That bothers those who are accustomed to being the center of the universe.

            The mere fact that racist Republicans of today are for STATE’S RIGHTS, like the racist Democrats of yesterday is proof of the switch.

            You should not feel insulted by being called a racist when you exhibit it, or apologize for racism everyday. Using racial slurs or burning crosses are not the only manifestations of racism. Peddling racial stereotypes to inform public policy that disadvantages non-whites, romanticizing or deifying confederate traitors, eschewing multiculturalism because of the loss of social status that comes with it, are all ways that racists reveal their inner selves. Own it and move on.

  8. Eric M. Wallace, PhD Eric M. Wallace, PhD says:

    1. Dave says:


      Please explain your opinion regarding Goldwater, Republicans, and the “Southern Strategy,” Doctor.

      1. Eric M. Wallace, PhD Eric M. Wallace, PhD says:

        It must be true if it’s in Wikipedia. Really? I have refuted everything listed in your link. The video I have provided does so too.

    1. Fake news, that turned out to be a lie. His name is William Quigg he’s on twitter saying trump is for White America.https://twitter.com/cagranddragon?lang=en

      1. Eric M. Wallace, PhD Eric M. Wallace, PhD says:

        Maybe but who’s telling the lie? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Of5zBXQwYtU. Clearly someone is lying.

        1. Please check out this William Quigg twitter account, he praises trump as the hope for White America. He complains about illegal and legal migration like all white supremacists today are saying.

          1. Eric M. Wallace, PhD Eric M. Wallace, PhD says:

            Michael your problem is that you assume that because the white supremacist support Trump than he must hold white supremacist policies. They are playing both parties. One day he’s for Hillary. The next he’s for Trump. Second, one does not have to be a white supremacist to support securing our borders. I’m pretty sure most white supremacist are for a strong military does that mean everyone who wants a strong military is a White Supremacist? Carter and Bill Clinton won the South and probably had white supremacist support. Reagan won every state but Minnesota. Meaning that people vote for a candidate for a number or reasons. So in Reagan’s case, since you believe Republicans are racist, did the northern states turn racist? To follow your logic that would have to be the case. There is no party for the white racist. That ended decades ago. Now they have to find a candidate or policy with whom they can find a policy they can get behind and it isn’t by itself racist but racist can support it. Some racist can support higher taxes if they think it will benefit them. The point is there in nothing in Trump’s platform that is blatantly racist. Thus your argument falls short or credulity.

          2. Eric M. Wallace, PhD Eric M. Wallace, PhD says:

            It doesn’t matter what David Duke writes or says. We know that a certain percentage of Blacks also voted for Trump. Clearly they saw something in Trump’s policies that moved them to support him. You still have not refuted my statement that people have various reasons why they support a candidate. If Carter or Clinton had klan support, and I believe they did, would it make them racist? They won the South. Is that the only place where racist live? Again Reagan won the whole nation. Did everyone become a racist? You assume that support from a group means they are in total agreement. SO they like his stance on immigration. I’m BLack and I like his stance on immigration. However I hate his stance on tariffs. But I’d take him over Hillary any day.

  9. Bill says:

    Claiming Goldwater was principles in his stance against the bill because “states rights” ignores that that is the exact excuse used by Strom Thurmond who in this apologia is not given the same credit for the sane argument. Goldwater was starting the southern strategy where the Republicans dud indeed cynically go for the bigot vote that now is a core of their base. That Thurmond switched parties and the south was the only place Goldwater got electoral votes disputes this whole article.

    1. Eric M. Wallace, PhD Eric M. Wallace, PhD says:

      What is your proof? State Rights in itself is not a bigoted idea. Goldwater supported very civil rights bill offered except 1964. SO how is he or the GOP bigoted? What policies did the GOP have or planks on their platform that give evidence of a change in policy from pro-civil rights to anti civil rights? I only see your vivid imagination. Cause white bigoted politics that the Democrats had run on for decades was fading into the dust pan of history. Why would the GOP pick up that mantle and turn their backs on decades of civil rights history? This argument is ignorant and stereotypes the South as only interested in one thing. If their were any truth to your claim then why do Carter and Clinton win the South? Why does Reagan win every state but Minnesota against Mondale? If all elections are about race why did the North and South vote for Nixon in 1972? See the election maps then try to defend your position. https://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/

  10. jevioso says:

    This is an ahistorical representation of what Goldwater did and what occurred in the Republican Party that made black people stop voting Republican in significant numbers. To put it simply, the problem was not the Republicans, the problem was the conservatives.

    First of all, most of the black leaders who disagreed with Goldwater’s stance on Civil Rights, defended him as not being a racist – he had an outstanding record on civil rights, better than many Democrats today. However, they correctly claimed, that his stance on “States Rights” as a defense, would either prolong segregation or it would enable it to survive or evolve into something, similar to how Jim Crow evolved out of Republican’s forfeiture of policies aimed at reconstruction after the civil war: this was common sense to anyone who saw the support he got from down south segregationists and klan members.

    Goldwater’s error and mistake was that being so blindsided by reducing the size and scope of the federal government, he (and modern day conservatives) never was able to develop an intellectual solution of all the underlying issues that led to segregation and how the federal government should intervene when either the states or local governments were implementing policies that came about at the expense of individual rights of minorities (or vice versa).

    This issue and problem was pretty clear as day at the time, even to uneducated black people. The conservative movement didn’t figure it out then and still hasn’t figured it out now, and thus has come to think that the primary reasons why black people support democrats is due either to brainwashing or laziness…forgetting that Goldwater’s and the Conservative movement’s philosophy in practical terms, was the equivalent of the North winning the Civil War and never attempting reconstruction in the South, on the grounds that simply saying, “You can’t have slaves no more”…would suffice in changing the political and economic structures that had allowed slavery to occur in the first place.

    Conservatives, especially black conservatives, rather than being attack dogs for people in the conservative movement, should be the ones helping conservatives overall figure out their error and shortsightedness during the civil rights movement, and should be helping them to integrate the insights and experiences of black people in the U.S and elsewhere. to establish a better understanding of what “Limited Government” as opposed to merely small government or state’s rights is – as well as better expanding their understanding of human nature as opposed to just a pure and isolated Western Culture. But alas, they are often too many times trying to play the role of critic to the Dems and liberal, who in comparison offer poor solutions to race problems, but at the very least have something to offer.

    1. A Henri says:

      This is a wonderful insight. The author’s account here conveniently wraps up its history lesson just before Strom Thermond’s outraged departure from the GOP, leading a majority egress of white Southern voters to the Republican Party on the basis of opposition to Civil Rights.
      The subsequent elections of 1968 and 1972 exploited Goldwater’s woeful and unintended “states rights” success in the South by using oblique-but-racially-charged issues as a wedge in order to appeal to white southern voters. Nixon’s Chief of Staff H.R. Haldemann wrote in his diary that Nixon “emphasized that you have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognized this while not appearing to.” Thus, the GOP enacted series of political tactics meant to signal the promise of racial oppression to white voters. Lee Atwater, chairman of the RNC and advisor to Ronald Reagan and H.W. Bush, once said in an interview that

      “You start out in 1954 by saying, “N*****, n*****, n***** —” By 1968 you can’t say “n***** ” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N*****, n*****.”

      So while the Republicans were the party of Lincoln, they certainly have not remained the champions of Civil Rights that they once were. In fact, history since 1968, where this author’s story ends, indicated that it has deliberately and consistently been otherwise.

      1. Eric M. Wallace, PhD Eric M. Wallace, PhD says:

        Your analysis has no basis in fact. The Republicans never became the party of racist. Why do you think the Dixiecrats went back to the Democrat party? The racist movement in politics was dead. It failed. Why would anyone pick up the failings of the Dixiecrats as part of their platform? Only about three of four Dixiecrats moved to the GOP. The remainder return to the Democrats.

        The quote you have is a snippet from an interview with a former GOP operative. I can’t remember his name at the moment, but it is convenient that the whole conversation is not released especially since he is deceased. I believe if the full were interview released you’d find out that he is talking about how the politics of race was changing in the South so that Democrats were changing their tactics. Because the GOP never did say, Nigger, Nigger. That can only be applied to the Democratic party and the KKK branch of the party. Nice try but no one is that ignorant to believe that the GOP left their legacy of civil rights to now project the losing proposition of racial discrimination.

        1. Joe says:

          After years we see you’re still in denial. David Duke and the klan can tell you to your face they’re trump supporters and you still would be in denial.
          The quote is from Lee Atwater a republican who said those words.

          1. Eric M. Wallace, PhD Eric M. Wallace, PhD says:

            Joe, You’re the one in denial. Have you ever looked at an electoral map for the last 5-10 presidential elections? Reagan won every state except one against Walter Mondale. How do you explain that? Did all the northern states who voted Republican become racist? People vote for various reasons, most of which affect their pocketbook. Given the crazy socialist in the Democrat party, there are a lot of reasons for people to vote the Republican party.

            But do your research here https://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/ Look at the various maps for presidential elections and then come back an explain how race is the determining factor. Again you guys are the ones in denial because you blame racism for everything. I think the maps show something different except for when the Dixiecrats left the Democrat party. There may be racist in the GOP as there are racist in the Democrat party. However today most policies are about economics, not race.

          2. Tanner Jones says:

            Listen I am tired of being called a racist, a fascist, and a homophone. I supported and voted for Obama twice it was only until President Trump ran that I became a Republican. I am also a white southern Christian which I guess is ironic. I did hate Obama, I respected the fact that he was President but the way he talked about police officers and the increasing tensions between conservatives and liberals I figured Trump is kinda of chemo for both parties, for the American people, and for myself. So please feel free to call me a racist because I can tell you I have received threats because of who I voted for. And by reading this article and doing research I count only four people who ‘switched’ parties and it was not uncommon to do so. In the 1960s Black America was tired of being oppressed and I respect everyone in government and not who helped America become the most racially diverse Republic in history. And those four Democrats were all from South Carolina of Storm Thurman, Albert Watson, and Floyd Spence who all said what if we help Johnson win and make the Republicans look like they shut the door on Civil Rights for Black Americans and other minorities that the future historians,educators, and media outlets will contunie this narrative. Of the South, Republicans, Conservatives, Chirstians, Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan, Trump are all racist! And coming from a White Southern who supported Obama I hope you tell me again I am racist.

  11. A.L says:

    Yeah, what bullshit is this article. ‘What blacks gained from civil rights legislation and government largess, they lost in individual liberty and fidelity… become more dependent on government programs…’ Like how could you possibly link those two together? How would EXPANDING their Civil Rights – meaning protections in voting, employment, housing and discrimination infringe on their ‘liberty’? How? ‘Fidelity’? What the fuck

    1. Eric M. Wallace, PhD Eric M. Wallace, PhD says:

      The context was the advent of “the great society programs.” What was gained through civil rights legislation was lost through government programs–The Great Society of LBJ. Thanks for pointing this out. That sentence was poorly written.

      1. Joe says:

        Are you going to respond to Ronald Reagan calling black African men the word monkeys on a tape from 1971 with Richard Nixon laughing?

        1. Eric M. Wallace, PhD Eric M. Wallace, PhD says:

          I never said that people are perfect. Are you going to defend every white democrat who used racial slurs? To be honest, everyone has had racist thoughts or comments in private. It’s a part of being human and fallen. Stop pretending that the Dems. became angels after the Civil rights era. There are racist in both parties. The difference is that our platform has never supported racism or discrimination. As a party, our history is pro-liberty, smaller government and low taxes. None of these have any racial element to them. On the other hand, the Dems are fixated on race. Black equals poor. Black equals victim. Blacks can’t get photo ID’s. We need help getting into college. We need help buying a house. These sound like racist ideas to me. Black people and people, in general, will only find success as individuals, not as a race of people. Only 25% of Blacks are under the poverty line yet we act as though 51% were. Inequalities today are not the same as inequities in the 1950s. Opportunity abounds today, we just need to take advantage of it and stop obsessing over whether someone likes us or not. Racism will never go away but we have done a good job of in acting a great price when it raises its ugly head. Two continue to give blind support to the Dems leaves you no room for negotiation. I contend if you can forgive the Democrats for their blatantly racist history you should be able to overlook some of the few racist individuals who have been in the GOP. I can only imagine what the Clintons says in the privacy of their own home.

          1. Joe says:

            Lol You’re still in denial.
            Your idol reagan is a racist, it proves that he was, while you guys kept saying no, and still in denial.

          2. Eric M. Wallace, PhD Eric M. Wallace, PhD says:

            I guess you’ll tell me that all the “progressive” Democrats who confessed to wearing Black Face are not racists? Racist doesn’t belong to one party or ideology. That’s where you guys are blind. You can be a progressive and a racist. You can be liberal and racist. And yes you can be a conservative and racist. How you feel or act on racial issues is separate from how you see the role of Government. SO you are the one in denial. Racists are all in the democrat party. They just hide it better than conservatives. But it affects all parties and all people groups.

Leave a Reply

Facebook Comments (80)

Disqus Comments (0)

%d bloggers like this: