Since 1964 Democrats have gotten at least 85% of the Black vote so how's that working out?
Debate Rounds (5)
Democrats understand they have the Black vote in the bag so there is no need to actually address the poverty in the Black community. They spend their lives race bating, telling you how the GOP is racist and holding you back, blah blah blah but when Democrats win the elections, they do nothing for Black people. This is done purely to secure the Black vote. Every election is the same and they keep getting away with it. UNBELIEVABLE!
I don't know about you, but if some party used me for 51 years, I would try something else.
My opponent has not stated his case particularly clearly, so allow me to enumerate his main points:
1. Since 1964, African Americans largely vote for Democratic candidates.
2. African Americans support Democrats who promise to "lift [African Americans] out of poverty."
3. Elected Democrats have failed to "actually address the poverty" in African-American communities.
4. This failure by elected Democrats is cynical - they "use" the African-American vote while "doing nothing" for them.
Before I address each point in turn, I must note that this entire line of reasoning is racist to its core. My opponent assumes that African Americans are too stupid, gullible, or ignorant of history to recognize and pursue their own political self-interest. That Republicans seem to think that such racist condescension should actually be part of their pitch is as good an illustration as any for the present disparity in party support. African Americans are at least as well-informed, reasonable, intelligent and strategic in casting their ballots as any other American. Since 1948, these strategic political decisions have led to a rational preference for the Democratic Party.
I take great personal pride in belonging to the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, whose founder, Hubert Humphrey, did as much as any one person to advance civil rights within the Democratic Party. The implicit charge leveled by my opponent is that men like Humphrey cared nothing for African American welfare beyond the next election. If true, that would mean that civil rights heroes and trailblazers like John Lewis, Aaron Henry, Shirley Chisholm, John Conyers would be morally and politically bankrupt. The argument would be defamatory were it not so brazenly ignorant.
My opponent's argument is not merely incorrect, then, but immoral and worthy of contempt - and a vigorous refutation.
On to individual points:
1. African-American support for Democratic candidates is indeed very high.  There have been two large jumps in the Democratic share of the African-American vote. 1964 corresponds to the passage of the Civil Rights Act under LBJ.  But the first significant jump was in 1948, after Truman desegregated the military.  At the 1948 DNC, Hubert Humphrey introduced the first civil rights plank to a major party platform since Reconstruction, and called on the Convention to "get out of the shadow of states' rights and to walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights."   In protest, southern Democrats led by Strom Thurmond abandoned the convention. Thurmond ran for president under the "States Rights Party" banner, and became a Republican in 1964.  Prior to 1948, African Americans were roughly split between the two parties. In 1948, for the first time, more African Americans identified as Democrats than Republicans. 
2. African-American support for Democratic candidates is not primarily based on economics, but on that most American of ideals, personal liberty. After the Civil War, African Americans were universally Republican - the party of Lincoln had secured the tangible benefits of emancipation and was duly rewarded. This shifted when Hayes abandoned Reconstruction in 1876. African Americans were rapidly disenfranchised under Jim Crow regimes instituted by southern Democrats. 
The Democratic Party's increased share of the African-Americans has been accompanied by the delivery of tangible political advances to secure greater freedom for African Americans - military desegregation (1948), support for civil rights (1948), the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Thus, the Democratic Party has secured the tangible benefits of the right to full participation in the political and economic life of the nation to African American voters.
The GOP has abandoned its traditional support for civil rights. Although the Civil Rights Act only passed with overwhelming Republican support, the 1964 Goldwater nomination fundamentally changed the GOP from a coalition party of moderate, business-minded northeasterners to a party premised on exploiting the rift formed between white southerners and the Democratic Party due to the Civil Rights Act. In 1964, the deep south, for the first time, threw its support behind a Republican.  In 1968, Nixon's campaign strategist Kevin Phillips devised the "southern strategy" to openly appeal to "Wallace Democrats" who opposed civil rights.  Reagan doubled-down on the racist appeals, kicking off his campaign in tiny Philadelphia, Mississippi - known only as the site of the Mississippi Burning murders of three civil rights workers - to endorse "states rights" and declare that the Voting Rights Act was "humiliating to the South."  
The modern GOP supports rolling back African American enfranchisement. Note the recent gutting of the Voting Rights Act by GOP-appointed Supreme Court justices , GOP opposition to reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act , support for Voter ID laws targeted at minority Democratic voters , voter caging by conservative groups  ... the list simply goes on and on.
Our right to vote and select our own representatives is an essential part of preserving our freedoms. Simply put, the GOP threatens that right as exercised by African-Americans, while the Democratic Party seeks to preserve it. That alone justifies Democratic votes by African Americans - what American would willingly support a party that seeks to strip one's right to vote?
3. Even if African-Americans solely voted their pocketbooks - and not their essential civil liberties - their support for the Democratic Party would be rational. Republicans speak out of both sides of their mouth on this issue. My opponent contends that the Democratic Party has done "nothing" for African Americans - but when African Americans vote for Democrats, Republicans accuse them of being bought with "free stuff." 
The Democratic Party has not solved the problem of systemic African-American poverty. But it has long pursued policies designed to raise people out of poverty and reduce material deprivation. To the extent that the African American population is disproportionately poor - the direct result of intentional wealth-destroying racist policies assented to by both parties over the years  - these anti-poverty programs provide proportionately greater benefit. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are best known, but SNAP, the EITC, COBRA, SCHIP, TANF, and most recently, the ACA, are all critical poverty-reduction measures heralded by the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has also long championed affirmative action to increase educational and work opportunities for minorities.
4. The Democratic Party is the locus of African American political power. To suggest that this participation in politics by African Americans themselves is borne of cynical motives to "use" African American votes is an insult to the leaders and citizens who take up the levers of power within the Party to make things better for their own communities. The Democratic Party is not a white institution, as my opponent's argument implies - it is a diverse coalition to which African Americans are integral, currently led by an African American president.
African Americans know that both political parties have pursued white-supremacist policies and that both Democrats and Republicans can be racist. African Americans are well aware of the Democratic Party's shameful history of Jim Crow. The alliance will last only as long as the Democratic Party remains responsive to the needs of African American voters. For the last 50 years, the Democratic Party has been the instrument through which African Americans control their political destiny. The historical reasons for this are manifest and rational. My opponent is dead wrong - and yes, racist - to think that African Americans are unable to vote with their eyes wide open.
Endnotes in comments
I never once said African Americans are too stupid, gullible, or ignorant of history to recognize and pursue their own political self-interest. I said the Democrat party has used African Americans as pawns in their election strategy for decades and it has worked great fro Democrat politicians. It has worked terribly for African Americans.
Democrats use Race bating as a tool to scare Americans into believing that the GOP is racist. This is a complete lie of course but speaks to how low Democrats are willing to go to keep the African American vote. We have dead police officers today because of the hideous race bating from Democrats. Were it not for the Liberal media supporting every lie from the Left, I believe many more Black people would be moving up into the middle class.
What do Black people hear from Democrats? They are told that the white rich man is holding them back, that they will never get a chance at that job no matter how hard they work. Tell me what kind of message it is to any group of people. If you were a Black teenager, would you work hard and stay in school if you are constantly told you are a victim to the White Repubican and it matters not how hard you work?
These new age Liberal Democrts are taking race relations back to the 60's with riots in the streets, executions of police officers, etc. It's truly sickening when a Party stirs up racial tensions to garner votes. IT'S DESPICBLE!
My opponent has apparently adopted the strategy of simply repeating himself. With one sole exception, discussed below, my opponent has not added anything new of substance to his argument, nor has he responded to any of the substance of the thorough, well-supported argument I constructed in Round 1. My opponent insists that I have failed to "address the simple point of his argument," when to the contrary I addressed each of his points individually and thoroughly. I will leave it to the reading comprehension of the audience to determine which of us has bothered to read his opponent's argument and respond thoughtfully.
My opponent does not seem to understand how my argument above contradicts his reasoning. Very well - in this round, I will endeavor to make it abundantly, bluntly clear how each of my opponent's points are unsupported, false, and defamatory, with reference to my earlier arguments to illustrate how the points I raised above defeat my opponent's bald assertions.
>if a Party promised for more than 50 years that they would get an entire race of people out of poverty
My opponent opens his second round argument with a falsehood. The Democratic Party has never promised to get an entire race of people out of poverty. When has anyone ever observed this? This is simply a lie.
Now, both parties employ rhetoric about expanding opportunities, giving people the means to succeed, to have a higher quality of life -- and every voter has to decide which party is better at delivering. But just as the Republican Party doesn't promise that its economic policies will make everyone rich, the Democratic Party doesn't promise to make everyone not poor.
To illustrate with a specific example, President Johnson almost certainly articulated the most strident anti-poverty rhetoric of any Democratic politician in the last 50 years. Johnson acknowledged the racial dimension to poverty in America - "many Americans live on the outskirts of hope--some because of their poverty, and some because of their color, and all too many because of both." But even he didn't promise to end poverty - he promised to fight a "war on poverty" with the aim of "not only to relieve the symptom of poverty, but to cure it and, above all, to prevent it."  But one does not - one cannot - promise to win a war; only to fight it well.
>and never did a thing other than keeping them tied to welfare
Says who? As it turns out, President Johnson's War on Poverty has been a resounding success, with a particularly sharp reduction in poverty among African Americans.    Between 1960 and 1980, the number of African American families in the middle class doubled. 
The Democratic Party has long pursued a set of policies aimed at reducing poverty and raising the standard of living for all Americans. Whether one thinks those policies are effective, or the best possible anti-poverty agenda, is a topic for legitimate political disagreement. Democrats have these disagreements within the Party all the time. But it is deeply unfair to accuse the Democratic Party of doing "nothing."
>I would try another party just to see if they could do better. It would be very hard to do worse.
Even if Democratic policies had failed to enhance the economic well-being of African Americans - and again, they've succeeded - I can think of one particular way to "do worse," by supporting a political party dominated since 1980 by a conservative wing that philosophically opposes, to this day , the Civil Rights Act, and which actively seeks to disenfranchise African Americans through rollback of the Voting Rights Act. 
As noted above, African Americans began to vote for Democrats disproportionately in two phases: 1948 and 1964. These two seismic shifts had nothing to do with economics. Both were based on the substantive progress on civil rights for African Americans delivered by the Democratic Party, and which the Republican Party devalues.
> I never once said African Americans are too stupid, gullible, or ignorant of history to recognize and pursue their own political self-interest. I said the Democrat[ic] party has used African Americans as pawns in their election strategy for decades and it has worked great [for] Democrat[ic] politicians.
These two sentences are contradictory. No, my opponent didn't literally say the words "stupid," "gullible" or "ignorant" -- he simply paints a portrait of all African Americans being easily duped by flim flam men for more than fifty years. Maybe, as Barnum said, you can fool some of the people all of the time -- but if your argument is that you can fool all African Americans all of the time, then you've just made a very racist argument. My opponent, no doubt, would deny that he is a racist, and would likely say with sincere belief that he holds no ill will to anyone based on race. But unconscious racism is still racism, and the fact remains that my opponent has doubled-down on an argument that relies entirely on a racist infantilization of African American voters. And what is a racist, if not in word and deed?
> Democrats use Race ba[i]ting as a tool to scare Americans into believing that the GOP is racist
Believe it or not, Democrats are not the arbiter of who is and is not racist. I would respectfully submit that this is a calculus that people of color are perfectly capable of making on their own.
Let me illustrate with an analogy that I suspect my opponent can relate to. Many white evangelical Christians believe that the Democratic Party is anti-Christian. This sounds absurd to most Democrats - most Democrats are Christian! But, white evangelical Christians vote for the GOP overwhelmingly. Surely, the objective political analyst must think that despite the number of Democrats that are sincere Christians, that there is some meaningful failure to speak to the concerns of many white evangelicals. Despite the slander my opponent slings, as a general rule its not as though the GOP has brainwashed white evangelicals - as if that were even possible - into believing lies about what Democrats believe and the policies they pursue.
African Americans can hear what GOP politicians believe, they can see what goals GOP politicians pursue, and when they do they run as far and they run fast as they can away from them. What should that tell you? If the Republican Party has trouble attracting African American voters, it's because the GOP doesn't give a fig about African-American priorities.
> We have dead police officers today because of the hideous race ba[i]ting from Democrats
Like what, exactly? This is simply slander.
> They are told that the white rich man is holding them back, that they will never get a chance at that job no matter how hard they work.
By whom? When? No Democratic politician has ever uttered such a thing. This is false witness.
> These new age Liberal Democr[a]ts are taking race relations back to the 60's with riots in the streets, executions of police officers, etc.
What? I'll address this in depth in the next round, I think, because it deserves its own lengthy, multipronged response. For now, suffice to say that the racial tensions that have simmered all year have nothing to do with partisan politics. And there are a lot more dead African Americans murdered by cops than the other way around.
Again, endnotes in comments due to space restrictions.
This is what Liberals do, they will research all kinds of biased studies to somehow show that up is down. Who needs to read all the words over history from people with agendas.
All one has to do is look at history and see the results of what a Party has claimed they would do, and what they actully have done. All the words in the world will never refute the obvious.
For any thinking adult to not be able to see and admit how the Democrat party race bates every singlle election, then I will not waste my time denating that kind of ignorance.
My opponent has accused me of "using semantics" and "biased studies" to discredit his position - though he admits to not actually reading any of the sources I've provided, and has not offered any facts of his own. I have cited to objectively verifiable facts that my opponent refuses to acknowledge, because to acknowledge reality would collapse his own biased worldview. He states that his position is "obvious," but has still never articulated any of the history that he claims supports his position. He dismisses my argument as so much nonsense from "people with agendas," while obliviously assuming that his position is somehow agenda-free. Ultimately, I leave to the reader to judge which of us has supported his position and engaged substantively on the merits of his opponent's argument - and which of us has wasted the other's time and good faith efforts to engage on the topic.
Since my opponent has declined to make any new arguments - or, apparently, to bother reading mine, I extend all arguments forward. Should my opponent wish to add anything meritorious to this conversation, I will gladly respond. Otherwise I will make a concluding statement at the end of Round 5.
How about the Trayvon Martin case where the Liberal media senstionalized it for months and months. How about the constant senstionalized stories when it is any White on Black shootings, etc.
Now tell me how many times you see a sensationalized news story about a Black man killing a White man or a Black police officer killing a white man. Almost never! Why do you suppose tht is? Do you ever see any sensationalized stories of the thousands of Black on Black killings? OBVIOUSLY it is because the Left has an agenda to constantly push their agenda of race bating and garnering the Black vote, constantly fanning the flames of so called racism no matter the evidence of the events.
I need no biased stories to prove my points, I live in the real world where the evidence is all around us. OPEN your eyes if you are truly so ignorant to what's going on in this nation.
I wish I had limited the amount of words of our arguments to a few million because I hate the thought of your closing remarks :) If I were a juror and you were giving your closing argument, I would scream guilty as charged half way through just to end the pain :)
My opponent has moved far afield from the original debate topic - which concerned the relationship between systemic African American poverty and the African American vote - to focus on police and vigilante murders of African Americans which have been the dominant focus of racial politics over the last year or so. This is a completely different conversation from the one my opponent began. My opponent seems to have completely abandoned the thread of argument relating to poverty. Because he has not substantively answered any of the arguments or evidence I set forth rebutting his original position, the judges should consider his arguments conceded.
My opponent has demonstrated his immunity to facts, his willingness to spout venomous accusations without any regard for whether or not they are true, and his refusal to consider any source that does not already agree with his predetermined conclusions. In this he does discredit to himself, to his political convictions, and to the Republican Party - which contains many thoughtful, reasonable, and honest people who are tainted in the minds of many voters by their association with those of my opponent's ilk.
My opponent has complained about the length of my posts; I trust that this response was sufficiently pithy to hold his limited attention span. He can stop reading now, if he'd like, because for the rest of this round I intend to discuss facts, which are not his forte. But I will not leave his arguments, such as they are, about the victims of police and vigilante violence unanswered.
My opponent complains that the Trayvon Martin case was "senstionalized" [sic] by the "liberal media." What was there about the story to sensationalize? Trayvon Martin was an unarmed, skinny 17-year-old gunned down in the street by a vigilante who has since been arrested twice for domestic violence and aggravated assault.  George Zimmerman was acquitted of murder under Florida's Stand Your Ground law, even as Marissa Alexander, a black vicitim of domestic violence, had the same defense rejected.  Until white teenagers are being gunned down by vigilantes, there's not really a media double-standard here - just the legal double standard of who in fact gets to stand their ground and go free after.
As for the deaths of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Eric Harris, Anthony Robinson, Walter Scott, John Crawford, Rumain Brisbon, Tamir Rice, Akai Gurley, Johnnie Kamahi Warren, Federico Pereira, Jordan Baker, Robert Ethan Saylor, Reggie Doucet, Michael Anglin Jr., Raheim Brown, Victor Steen, Tarika Wilson and her infant son Sincere, Raymond Allen, Kajieme Powell, Ezell Ford, Victor White, Yvette Smith, Jonathan Ferrell, just to name a few offhand examples: All of these people have three things in common - they were people of color, unarmed, and killed by police. In some of these cases, the officers have been charged and convicted of criminal homicide, but not in most. Some of the victims are minors. Some of the victims were undeniably innocent of wrongdoing, others were guilty of minor offenses. None of their deaths were justifiable. And seriously, this is a small sample. Name any date on the calendar, I'll find you unarmed people of color who have been shot to death by police. That people of color have noticed this pattern is unsurprising - as is the willful ignorance of it among whites.
The recent death of Walter Scott is an illustrative example. He was shot eight times in the back as he fled an officer; the officer casually lied that he shot Scott after a struggle for his taser, and then planted the taser on the body. He's been charged with murder, but only because a bystander unobtrusively filmed the shooting. 
The fact is, young African American men are 21 times more likely to be shot to death by police than their white cohorts.  Reporting on this fact isn't race-baiting - it's simply acknowledging reality. Police violence is exercised in a racist manner; this is both an objective reality and a massive problem badly needing correction.
None of this has a single thing, by the way, to do with political parties, or with the original argument - which is petty in scale when compared to the loss of life discussed herein. The communities angry about these killings aren't protesting to elect Democrats. They are protesting for immediate change within their communities about how police - and society at large - devalue the lives of people of color. It is incumbent on all people of goodwill to address racism in their lives - in themselves, and in those they come across - but the largest share of the burden by far must fall on the morally culpable. When white people refuse to engage in this conversation, they are perpetuating and participating in racism and white supremacy.
Were it not for Fox news we would never have heard of the three Black men who raped an unconscious girl during spring break. The rest of the liberal media were shamed into finally giving it a mention. That stroy does not play well when you are trying to race bate.
If you think I'm the only person tuning out your novels, then wow!
My opponent did not answer any of my arguments, because as it turns out, he was not actually interested in that question. Since the initial round, he's been all over the map. Welfare! Race-baiting! Dead police officers! Criminals! Al Sharpton! Liberal Media! It's like scanning through right wing AM radio - disjointed, angry, irrational, and with very strong feelings about how African Americans ought to be behaving themselves.
My opponent has demonstrated that he is uninterested in dialogue - he rejects any source, any line of reasoning that does not conform to what he already believes. Anyone who disagrees with my opponent he calls a liar or a fool. My opponent has not engaged in debate, he's merely shouted and ranted, as if the louder his proclamations the greater his authority.
I have taken care to provide a detailed analysis of the original topic of this debate, while my opponent has provided none. For that reason, I ask you to vote Con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: In summery of the debate "Your so called opponent stopped reading after your first paragraph." Pro's inability to read, crippled his ability to give coherent responses to the point where he seemed to just be mocking non-democrats; while never once trying to show the claimed 85% black vote, and often outright lying about details. Con on the other hand was well composed, very thoughtful, well researched... This is a no contest debate. CONDUCT: pro wanting to spam words instead of debating, was counter balanced by con's abuse of the character limit (sources in comments). SOURCES: the only round with sources that can be considered is R4, while I want to give con credit for these, even he admits it was only in response to things off topic: "my opponent has moved far afield from the original debate topic."
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.