This is an interesting article that will be affirmed by those on the left who base most of their disagreement with the republican party on their policy stances that deny rights to many. Likewise it will be immediately disregarded by those leaning right who simply like arguing defense or think it cant be that bad. However I would ask you to read it and go into it with an open mind despite the rather divisive article title.
The piece revolves around the concept of the southern block of states that vote reliably republican based off of their white vote primarily. It is very well written in my opinion and pulls somewhat empirical data although it is survey or poll based.
Is the Republican Party Racist?
It depends on race-baiting tactics and the votes of former Confederate states.
It does make an interesting point that without that reliable southern block no modern republican would find and hold a major national office.
This was the key evidence I found compelling in the argument that without race baiting there is no republican national presence.Looked at another way, as things stand, there would be no presidential "race" at the moment if it weren't for those ex-confederate states—even if they split their votes. Mitt Romney would have little or no chance of winning and might as well quit the race now. Nor would the GOP have much chance of re-taking the Senate or even winning the House again. They would be dead as a political party if not for the legacy of racism. I think that's a fact. Do you think it's "he said/she said"?
So I can almost predict the results and from which players on the board. But I found it an interesting read. So weigh in if you so wish.Schaller builds this conclusion on one of the most impressive papers in recent political science, "Old Times There Are Not Forgotten: Race and Partisan Realignment in the Contemporary South," by Nicholas Valentino and David Sears. Running regressions on a massive data set of ideological opinions, Sears and Valentino demonstrate with precision that for example, a white Southern man who calls himself a "conservative," controlling for racial attitudes, is no less likely to chance a vote for a Democratic presidential candidate than a Northerner who calls himself a conservative. Likewise, a pro-life or hawkish Southern white man is no less likely—again controlling for racial attitudes—than a pro-life or hawkish Northerner to vote for the Democrat. But, on the other hand, when the relevant identifier is anti-black answers to survey questions (such as whether one agrees "If blacks would only try harder they could be just as well off as whites," or choosing whether blacks are "lazy" or "hardworking"), an untoward result jumps out: white Southerners are twice as likely than white Northerners to refuse to vote for the Democratic presidential candidate. Schaller writes: "Despite the best efforts of Republican spinmeisters … the partisan impact of racial attitudes in the South is stronger today than in the past."