let's face it, the highly religious, the ones we here have the biggest problem with, is the base of the Republican Party. given this, news of its imminent demise should thrill most Atheists. and make no mistake, barring a gargantuan shift in policies and rhetoric, they are absolutely on the path towards extinction.
it's common knowledge that the GOP is an old, white party. while not an absolute, that is an accurate enough description of the Republican Party today. two trends to keep in mind here. one, old people tend to die at a faster rate than young people. two, white people are shrinking as a percentage of the electorate. they are running out of supporters, and it's happening quicker than many thought.
take yesterday's election. President Obama won over 90% of the black vote and 70% of the latino and asian vote. Romney did well with seniors and whites overall. meanwhile, the country is getting browner. the GOP may end up becoming a whites only club, a nativist and pale collection of isolationists who choose to ignore the changing demographics of the country. worse, they may choose to keep it this way. if they choose this path, their extinction is all but guaranteed. their option would be to abandon their social issues, immigration policies, and economic austery programs and to open up their tent through real policy change.
anyone wanna bet which way they go?
for Atheists, either way is a win. if the GOP becomes irrelevant then the power of the religious right goes with it. if they truly make changes to make more people inclusive and begin to part with their religious base Atheists will celebrate. yesterday's election is better for Atheists than most people would think.
For a nominal free-thinker, you've certainly allowed yourself to be indoctrinated.
You've also got your timelines more than a bit skewed.
That '64 Act was passed in February, and the Presidential election did not occur until November, 1964.
As to those divine "Moderates" you keep referring to; in an earlier period, those Moderates enjoyed referring to themselves as "Progressives".
They are one and the same.
The Progressive thing goes back to the late 19th Century, when a gradualist form of Collectivism known as Fabian Socialism, was imported into the United States from Britain.
They adopted the euphemism because they knew that calling themselves what they actually were (Socialists) wouldn't fly with the American People.
By the 1950's and 60's, those Progressives - realizing that Conservatives were on to them - changed that euphemistic affectation to "Moderate".
As I say, we were on to them. They had no place in the Party - and yes - we started to let them know they were a lot less than welcome.
Them, along with those Birchers you referenced.
And no. The Republican Party did NOT start recruiting White Southern racists.
The KKK-types and Republicans have been blood enemies since the inception of the Republican Party in 1860, and and that has changed not at all in the intervening one hundred-fifty years.
Ever traveled the South, Tom?
If I had even a quarter for every time I've heard some Cracker-Boy say something to me like:
"Mayun, yew tawk jes' lahk a feckin' Ree-publicun!"
Do ya' think!?
Can't help but wonder how many of those showed up to Robert Byrd's funeral.
Not all White Folks in the South are racist, Tom.
In fact, the Southern States are home to a great many very reasonable people.
There were also a great many very reasonable White Northerners relocating to the South, and in the process, changing the the demographic considerably (Gotta' love those Carpet-Baggers!).
Those are the people we recruited, and this is why Tom, the South has become a Republican bastion.
You've already seen my answer as to our alliance with the Fundamentalists.
Uncomfortable marriage of convenience that it is, I understood at the time why Reagan did what he did.
It is often necessary in life, to bow to pragmatism.
Besides, the Democrat Party still holds the greater portion of those.
Mike, so much of what you wrote is opinion (some of which I agree with), invective (divine moderates!!!) or invention that I will respond to very little and ignore the rest.
You're correct in saying not all whites in the south are racist; I lived, went to school and worked in the south for eighteen years--five in the urban south, the rest in the cracker south where for three years I worked with racists.
Too many historians have written of Nixon's southern strategy for me to believe your words about the Repubs recruiting white northerners who'd moved to the south, implying that they did not recruit southerners whose ancestors had joined the Dems because the Repubs had freed their slaves.
Since I have been accused of hijacking this thread Tom, if its all the same, I'm going to move this to the thread I started yesterday.
The Dream was hijacked by some of King's followers - Jesse Jackson, etc.
Do you think the Republicans should embrace some form of comprehensive immigration reform, i.e. close the borders, reform the legal immigration process (exp - more temporary worker visas, encourage college grads in scientific disciplines from foreign countries to stay) enforce work place rules, and offer a pathway to legalization for long time immigrants that have remained crime free, serve the military, etc. ???
He also promised a "War on Poverty" that destroyed a culture of responsibility and turned out to be a long term disaster for most African-Americans.
<Soon as we can rid ourselves of those parasitic "Progressives"....>
You want to expel small-government conservatives from YOUR party?
Fifty years ago, when you were seven, Repubs were expelling moderates.
You don't strike me as an ignorant individual, which forces me to conclude that you are deliberately attempting to distort my statement.
I don't appreciate that.
Mike, ...forces you to conclude? Suddenly you are unfree?