Discussion: National Review Writer Tries To Set Record Straight On Jim Crow, Glosses Over Magazine's Support Of Jim Crow

Discussion for article #225432

Ah the National Review…where lazy, pseudo-intellectuals regurgitate their wingnut talking points as if it were actual intellectualism.


That was, what, before I was born- and I was born just after Nixon left office! So, quite frankly, I don’t care. I know the Democratic Party USE to support Jim Crow laws. The problem for the Conservatives is that the Republicans support those laws TODAY!


William F. Buckley Jr. is dead since 2008. Just saying.


Another “real racists” article in a right-wing rag? Well just knock me over with a feather.


Fair enough. In the mid-20th century, on average it was Republicans who were more supportive of birth control and abortion rights than were Democrats. Prescott Bush, Nancy Kassenbaum, a whole slew of New England republicans, etc. Not to mention Goldwater. Planned Parenthood has strong GOP ties if you go back before the 1980s.

When will John Fund admit that he supports the party of abortion? Ted Cruz or Rick Santorum can wave the bloody flag, but they know they, not Democrats, are the true heirs of Margaret Sanger. Real pro-life voters have no choice but to support Hillary in 2016.


This is not a news piece but a propaganda hit.


I don’t know of a single Democrat who’s trying to “brush it under the carpet.” They all acknowledge it openly. Unlike Republicans, we don’t try to rewrite our own party’s history. It’s a fact that a century ago, the Republican party was generally more progressive on equal rights for black Americans than the Democratic Party was back then. Woodrow Wilson was a vile, racist prick; Theodore Roosevelt was not, or at least not to the same extent; he hosted Booker T. Washington at a private dinner in the White House, and was excoriated by southern racist Democrats for doing so.

What they DO point out is that the Democrats who supported Jim Crow have had no influence on the civil rights positions the party has taken since the late 1960s, and that the Democratic Party as an organization has been officially, in every presidential platform since at least 1964, a staunch supporter of civil rights.

That these numbskulls at National Review and other wingnut pubs are thinking they’re going to change the minds of anybody in any sizeable number is an indication of how completely out of touch with contemporary reality they are.

The number of African Americans or Hispanics who are going to swallow this argument and therefore vote Republican is so small as to be irrelevant. Any white person so ignorant as to buy it isn’t going to vote Democratic anyhow.

It’s essentially a desperate attempt by conservatives to cover up the open and virulent racial hostility of the GOP base and more than a few of its politicians at the local, state, and national level that’s on display every day TODAY.


Not all Republicans are racists but most racists are Republican.


hmmmm the national review a money loseing republicon institution since day one

1 Like

I can’t think of any practical way this argument helps their side. It has this weird, spiteful flavor to it, and reminds me of the things people say about lovers who dumped them. You have to contrive bad things to say about them, and it sounds it.


The thing to keep in mind is that this “the Democrats are the real racists” nonsense has been a conservative talking point for quite a long time (I’ve been hearing it since at least 2003).

But leave it to the National Review to treat some conspiracy theory that “Dems don’t want you to know about” as a legitimate, intellectual argument. That the Democratic party of 50 years ago is representative of the Democratic party of today. And that modern day Republicans are representative of the party of Lincoln.


Gawd. I had never read that Buckley quote before.

What a disgusting human being.


Let’s be clear here, both political parties have unclean hands when it comes to racism and discrimination, it’s part of the DNA that makes up the United States. 12 US President’s owned SLAVES, and 8 owned SLAVES while serving as President of the United States. Do we need to discuss the fact that SLAVES helped to build the US Capitol building and the White House?


Interesting—but it makes sense, it’s that pure Rove thing of saying up is down and black is white.

1 Like

This might be the most ridiculous article ever written. Yes - it is true the Dems were once the party of Jim Crow and the Rs were once the party of Lincoln and generally progressive on Civil Rights not to mention supporters of a fairly activist govt that helped build railroads, land grant colleges, etc. A 100 yrs ago I probably would have been a Republican. However it has been over half a century since the Rs have been progressive on Civil Rights. This was before I was even born so why does it matter today.

The fact is today’s R party is a predominantly white and reactionary party while the Dems are a more tolerant, diverse party. It is what it is.


Yeah, Democrats like Jesse Helms supported Jim Crow until the Democratic Party stopped supporting Jim Crow…what did Helms do after that, again?? NR?? Oh, yeah. He joined the GOP.


And of course most African Americans who read NR know nothing of history, as to be swayed by such a lazy argument. I see a major vote shift within the black community…NOT

1 Like

“Intellectual” laziness at its finest!

Conveniently Ignoring History That Doesn’t Fit The Narrative Since 1955.


Not all Democrats,either. HHH would be pissed.