Unz评论•另类媒体选择$
美国主流媒体大都排除了有趣,重要和有争议的观点
 博客浏览帕特·布坎南(Pat Buchanan)档案
尼克松的“南方战略”和自由派的谎言
通过电子邮件将此页面发送给其他人

 记住我的信息



=>

书签 全部切换总目录添加到图书馆从图书馆中删除 • B
显示评论下一个新评论下一个新回复了解更多
回复同意/不同意/等等 更多... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
同意不同意谢谢LOL轮唱
这些按钮可将您的公开协议,异议,感谢,LOL或巨魔与所选注释一起注册。 仅对最近使用“记住我的信息”复选框保存姓名和电子邮件的频繁评论者可用,并且在任何八个小时的时间内也只能使用三次。
忽略评论者 关注评论者
搜寻文字 区分大小写  确切的词  包括评论
列表 书签

“自美国总统尼克松(Richard M. Nixon)实行分裂性的“南方战略”以来,这是白人首次被派往共和党,黑人被派往民主党。。。。

这样,美国政治历史上的一大谎言变成了陈词滥调-理查德·尼克松(Richard Nixon)利用种族主义政治从争取英雄权利争取民权的民主党手中抢夺了南方。

简单地浏览一下布鲁斯·巴特利特 (Bruce Bartlett) 的“种族错误:民主党埋葬的过去”可能会更好地启发我们。

泰迪·罗斯福(Teddy Roosevelt)邀请布克·T·华盛顿(Booker T. Washington)吃饭时,伍德罗·威尔逊(Woodrow Wilson)重新分离了美国政府,并在他的白宫放映了亲科兰电影《民族的诞生》。

当南方黑人没有投票权时,威尔逊和罗斯福六次竞选旧邦联的所有 11 个州。 被剥夺权利的黑人似乎并没有打扰这些最伟大的自由主义偶像。

作为副总统,FDR选择了得克萨斯州的“仙人掌杰克”加纳(Cactus Jack)Garner,他在征收人头税方面起着重要作用,以阻止黑人投票。

在罗斯福最高法院的任命中,有雨果·布莱克(Hugo Black),他是克兰斯曼人,他声称罗斯福1937年给他起名时就知道这一点,而且罗斯福告诉他,他在乔治亚州的“一些最好的朋友”就是克兰斯曼人。

作为一名律师,布莱克的伟大成就在于,一名男子枪杀了主持其女儿与波多黎各人的婚姻的天主教神父。

1941年,罗斯福将南卡罗来纳州参议员“吉米”·伯恩斯(Jimmy)Byrnes任命为最高法院法官。 伯恩斯(Byrnes)在1935年和1938年领导了诽谤者,杀死了反私刑法案,认为私刑是“控制南部黑人的必要条件”。

罗斯福拒绝支持 1938 年的反私刑法。

“这是一个白人的国家,将永远是一个白人的国家,”吉米说。 哈里杜鲁门支付 10 美元加入三K党,然后退出,任命伯恩斯为国务卿,将他置于总统职位的第一顺位,因为哈里当时没有副总统

在上世纪50年代和60年代的民权斗争中,州长Orval Faubus使用国民警卫队将黑人学生拒之门外。 州长罗斯·巴内特 (Ross Barnett) 拒绝让詹姆斯·梅雷迪思 (James Meredith) 进入奥莱小姐。州长乔治·华莱士 (George Wallace) 站在阿拉巴马大学的门口,阻止两名黑人学生进入。

三位州长都是民主党人。 所有人的行动都符合1956年的“迪克西宣言”,该宣言由19名参议员,所有民主党人和80名民主党议员签署。

宣言的签署者之一是 1952 年阿德莱 (Adlai) 的史蒂文森 (Stevenson) 的副总统候选人,阿拉巴马州参议员约翰·斯帕克曼 (John Sparkman),该宣言呼吁大规模抵制布朗决定废除公立学校种族隔离的决定。

尽管被艾森豪威尔击败,阿德莱还是横扫南方,赢得了卡罗莱纳州、乔治亚州、阿拉巴马州、密西西比州、路易斯安那州和阿肯色州。

您是否认为那些南方人认为阿德莱比斯大林的艾克要坚强? 还是他们认为阿德莱会维持南方的种族隔离主义者和北方的自由主义者的邪恶联盟,使民主党在1932年至1952年之间进行统治?

民主党是“干草叉本”蒂尔曼和 KKK 的奴隶制、分裂国家和种族隔离党。 “公牛”康纳是来自阿拉巴马州的民主党全国委员会委员,他在伯明翰的黑人示威者身上放过狗。

尼克松呢?

1956 年,作为副总统的尼克松前往哈莱姆区宣布:“美国无法承受种族隔离的代价。” 第二年,尼克松收到金博士的私人信件,感谢他帮助说服参议院通过 1957 年的民权法案。

尼克松支持1964年,1965年和1968年的民权法案。

在 1966 年的竞选活动中,正如我在 8 月 XNUMX 日的新书“最伟大的复出:理查德尼克松如何从失败中崛起以创造新的多数种族不公的结果。”

尼克松在 66 年呼吁种族隔离主义候选人,并呼吁 LBJ、休伯特·汉弗莱 (Hubert Humphrey) 和鲍比·肯尼迪 (Bobby Kennedy) 与他一起否定他们。 没有一个。 休伯特搂着莱斯特·马多克斯,称他为“优秀的民主党人”。 他们也是——优秀的民主党人。

阿德莱(Adlai)选择Sparkman时,尼克松选择了梅洛·迪克森(Mason Dixon)线以南的第一位州长Spiro Agnew颁布了住房开放法。

在尼克松总统任期内,民权执法预算增加了 800%。 被任命为联邦办公室的黑人人数创纪录。 成立了少数民族企业办公室。 SBA 对少数族裔的贷款猛增了 1,000%。 对黑人大学的援助翻了一番。

尼克松赢得南方不是因为他在民权问题上同意他们——他从来没有同意——而是因为他认同南方的爱国价值观及其对自由主义伪善的反感。

约翰逊卸任后,10% 的南方学校取消了种族隔离。 当尼克松离开时,这个数字是 70%。
理查德尼克松废除了南方学校的种族隔离,这在今天的公立学校是学不到的。

历史是一揽子商定的谎言。

帕特里克·J·布坎南(Patrick J. Buchanan)是新书《最伟大的复出:理查德·尼克松如何从失败中崛起,创造新的多数派》的作者。

版权所有2014 Creators.com。

 
• 类别: 发展史, 思想 •标签: 公民权利, 理查德·尼克松 
隐藏20条评论发表评论
忽略评论者...跟随Endorsed Only
修剪评论?
    []
  1. Sean 说:

    It certainly is difficult to see where Nixon moved on a issue in the way that is the innuendo would lead one to believe. Yet ‘strategy’ clearly implies some action beyond armchair theorizing ; there would have to have been at least promises of concessions for whites in the south. The Republican party in Chicago is an admittedly extreme example, but when Republican Big Bill Thompson narrowly won in 1927 he got 93 % of the black vote. ( Of course he had Capone’s men bombing the polling stations in his opponents strongest wards and killing umpteen voters, few of whom were black I suspect.) But the point is Thompson lost non black votes he thought he could count on, like Italians. Anyway, a deliberate strategy of drawing on a particular ethnic group’s support, is unstable, and provides a windfall for opponents. And all there is left to do then is cry foul, or ‘strategy’ .

  2. “Richard Nixon desegregated the Southern schools, something you won’t learn in today’s public schools.”

    Sadly, Buchannan has decided to play the “no, you’re the racist not me!” game. What a shame. In any case, racially diverse schools are pretty much segregated in the present. Anyone who doubts this is welcome to go to a Southern lunch room at any diverse school.

    • 回复: @Joe
    , @Anonymous
  3. Truthster 说:

    Intersesting piece.
    Nixon was the last “liberal” president. He breathed the spirit that grew out of the 1930s and he ran smack into the cultural revolution of the 60s which changed him as it did everyone at the time.
    He was also author of Detente and the Opening to China, the latter being the right thing although perhaps done for the wrong reason, an obsession of the US with the USSR.

  4. Rich 说:

    I’m beginning to wonder if living in Washington DC makes people delusional. Of course Nixon used a “Southern Strategy”. Of course whites in the south were against desegregation, so were whites in the north. When the Democrats decided to become the party of minorities, blacks in particular, both southern and northern Whites turned to the Republicans. This is one of the main reasons Reagan was elected in 1980. I don’t think it’s that whites are crazed “racists”, I think that most white people just want to be able to live with their own kind in peace. They don’t want judges or used car salesman politicians forcing them to change their traditions.

  5. Joe 说:
    @Truth Teller

    Unlike the fully integrated progressive schools of LA and San Francisco, Detroit and Chicago, Baltimore and DC, …

  6. Priss Factor [又名“安德烈·奥斯特罗夫·莱塔尼亚” 说:

    Nixon was playing it both ways.

    He was trying to neutralize the Liberals by appropriating their causes AND trying to win over the South by attacking the Democrats for the race problem.

    All those ‘bad racist’ Democrats mentioned by Buchanan later went over to the Republican Party. They certainly got the message of the Southern Strategy.

    Clinton also played it both ways too. He served the interests of the ‘free trade’ globalist elites but also played the populist card to make himself appear the champion of the working man against corporate America and greedy Republicans.
    He also locked up many blacks in prison(and instituted a strategy that would prioritize homo causes over black ones) to make streets safer to win back the white middle class vote(that had been turned off by increase of black violence in the 70s and 80s) but also played the role of the ‘first black president’.

    Besides, it’s funny that Buchanan should honor the Civil Rights record of Nixon when he himself was bitterly opposed to many of the Civil Rights legislation that Johnson and Nixon signed.

    If white folks had any sense, they would have taken note of the fact that blacks are stronger, meaner, and more psychopathic than the white race. They would have used Jack Johnson as the posterboy of the threat posed by blacks on the white race, and they would have pushed for policies offering blacks both reparation and separation so that blacks can live in their own nation and whites can live in their own. That way, blacks would no longer have to worry about white ‘racism’, and whites would no longer have to worry about black ‘animalism’.

    But instead, vain white males went into the ‘great white hope’ mode and missed a golden opportunity to push for racial separation.

    Who cares about ‘civil rights’ when racial integration undermines the Racial Rights of white folks to live in safety, security, and stability? When too many blacks move into any white neighborhoods, there’s going to be more crime and violence, and the racial violence will be overwhelmingly black on white since blacks are stronger, meaner, and more aggressive.

    Also, even in cases where blacks aren’t violent, white males will lose out to black males since white women will be hot with jungle fever and see black males as the racial-sexual superior to dweeby white males. What kind of white father wants his son to grow up to be seen as a dorky dweeby by white girls who go off with Negroes? How is one race being sexually conquered by another race a form of racial equality? It means blacks taking on the features of the masculine race and whites taking on the features of the feminine race, i.e. blacks are tougher and more manly than whites, so it’s only racially right that black males should take white females while white guys are reduced to benchwarming white boys who are forced to swallow their pride under PC.

    White people are so stupid.

  7. Sean 说:

    There is not a single instance of Nixon or anyone speaking for him even implying he would oppose civil rights, or much less doing anything against civil rights legislation. Indeed, once in power he actively brought in affirmative action. It is massively stretching words to say Nixon or the Republicans pursued a ‘strategy’ of taking white votes away from Democrats in the South . A strategy involves more than just noticing you are going to get a windfall for some reason unconnected with anything you have done or said you would do.

    Barry Goldwater did oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964,; and the net effect was to not to increase his support nationally, which makes it likely the reservoir of potential extra support that could be tapped by a strategy of appealing to white southerners by attacking civil rights for blacks would have came at an extremely high cost had Nixon tried to use it. Whatever his motivation, the fact is Nixon did not try a ‘southern strategy’, and Goldwater’s example suggests the strategy simply did not exist as an option for anyone who wanted to win the country.

  8. Dave37 说:

    In my experience in Alabama, most of the Southern Democrats seem to go over to Republicans, which were more in keeping with the Southern Democrats opinions, starting with Goldwater in 64. Of course this was fueled by Democratic positions that were unpopular in the south of the time.

  9. mcs_in_ny 说:

    Since when did Nixon “win the South”? In 1968, Wallace won most of the “deep South” states. Humphrey won Texas. Nixon won Virginia and the Carolinas. The 1972 election was an anomaly as the Democrats nominated an abysmal candidate in McGovern and Wallace barely survived an assassination attempt that spring. Had Wallace managed to be on the ballot, either as a Democrat or Independent, he likely would have won most of the Southern states again. And in 1976, Carter swept the South against Nixon’s hand-picked successor.

    So unless Arthur Bremer was part of Nixon’s “Southern strategy”, I venture to say that strategy, if it existed at all, was a failure. The Democrats lost the South when they abandoned their populist roots in pursuit of identity politics.

  10. enderby 说:

    I greatly admire Mr. Buchanan and donated to his 3 presidential campaigns, went to see him speak, got my book signed, etc. I will buy his new book about his years with Nixon.

    I understand that the MSM liberal fairy tales about how Nixon was a far-right race baiter must have greatly irritated Buchanan (and apparently still do).

    However, at this late date the battle is not worth fighting. After 50 years of the ludicrous “civil rights” scam Blacks and Whites are still not equal. The problem is not mythical White racism, either. The achievement gap is the result of an aptitude gap. Whitey is supposed to perpetually wear sackcloth and ashes, lash himself and moan to the world about what a monster he is while paying ever higher taxes – to be paid to oppressed “people of color”.

    The formerly United States of America is rapidly becoming a White minority disaster area owing to the federal government’s insane policy of massive, relentless non-White immigration.

    So Nixon capitulated to the establishment on race issues and got no credit for playing ball. We would have been better off if he went the full Wallace and stood up for the people instead of kising the butts of an ungrateful self appointed elite.

  11. Agree with the commenters. The makers of public opinion decide & declare who is the racist. There is no objective accounting of intentions, effects or qualified statements. Playing the “truly the Democrats are the Real racists here” game may be fun in a debate club kinda way, but simply has no traction in the public mind and is something they’ve been inoculated against.

    Points of view that most folks haven’t heard will always be more effective than trying to overturn ones they’ve been taught since childhood. Right now the most obvious one to me is “Of course White Folks have their own set of interests and you’d expect them to work towards those, why shouldn’t they?” You’ll get some gasp and sputter hysterics, but when you reject the premise that we have some obligation to share the nations we’ve built, what’s left for them to twist?

  12. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:
    @Truth Teller

    Much as I generally admire Pat Buchanan, I cringe to see him cheering along with this current fad. Yes, Republicans freed the slaves (that is, transferred them from the custody of Ole Massa to that of Uncle Sam, where most remain to this day). Yes, Republicans were generally sweeter to blacks than Democrats (because they didn’t have to deal with them much) and the KKK baddies were all Democrats (except, errm, for the ones who opposed Al Smith’s Catholicism, Catholicism being the main target of the revived Klan in its 20s heyday, though not today and not in its original 1867 incarnation). The takeaway for me is that the Republican party has a dreadful history and should be put out of its misery.

  13. Gordo 说:

    “Richard Nixon desegregated the Southern schools,”

    And this was a good thing for White people?

    NO is the answer in case you are in any doubt.

  14. Corvinus 说:

    “Woodrow Wilson re-segregated the U.S. government and had the pro-Klan film “Birth of a Nation” screened in his White House.”



    Woodrow Wilson, as a southern conservative when it came to racial matters, was simply abiding by the law of the land (Plessy v. Ferguson) as chief executive.

    “Wilson and FDR carried all 11 states of the Old Confederacy all six times they ran.”

    Because their progressive reforms helped to strengthen the southern economy.

    “FDR chose “Cactus Jack” Garner of Texas who played a major role in imposing a poll tax to keep blacks from voting.”

    Common practice for Republicans and Democrats during this time frame to nominate/install/appoint individuals of this type.

    “Among FDR’s Supreme Court appointments was Hugo Black…”



    And Buchanan doesn’t have relatives, friends, associates, etc. who have skeletons in their closet? Hypocrite.

    “In 1941, FDR named South Carolina Sen. “Jimmy” Byrnes to the Supreme Court.”



    Demonstrates that FDR wanted the best legal mind for the Supreme Court regardless of Byrnes’ past “transgressions”.

    “FDR refused to back the 1938 anti-lynching law.”



    Because southern conservatives clearly stated they would not support any New Deal legislation down the pike if FDR stood his ground on this issue. You would assume Buchanan as a historian would recall this simple fact.

    “All three governors were Democrats.”



    CONSERVATIVE Democrats who were dedicated to maintain the racial status quo.

    “Adlai swept the Deep South, winning both Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Arkansas.”

    Because Stevenson made it clear that he had their “interests” in mind when it came to racial matters.

    And, from Lee Atwater himself…”You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘nigger, nigger, nigger’. By 1968 you can’t say ‘nigger’ – 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.”

    “The Democratic Party was the party of slavery, secession and segregation.”



    Democrats in the South who advocated those concepts, yes. Conservative? Indeed. The politicians who championed these causes sought to maintain the status quo, i.e. keep things how they were.

    Not your finest hour, Mr. Buchanan.

  15. Dutch Boy 说:

    Nixon and later Reagan made a stab at securing the support of Southern whites and the Northern white working class but the Republicans have never made it stick. They are too cozy with big business and its anti-organized labor, pro-outsourcing and pro-diversity ideology to secure the support of both groups permanently (which is their only chance to avoid political demise).

  16. Sean 说:

    Idle Spectator, Adlai Stevenson gave no such impression he got the nomination because he was ” acceptable to labor and urban machines—so a coalition of southern, urban, and labor leaders fell in behind his candidacy in Chicago.” Stevenson was only moderate on civil rights compared to Kefauver, who was a thoroughgoing liberal on civil rights, his one sin was to want to allow “cross-examination of black complainants in voting rights cases”.

    So the Dixiecrats had no real traction in the Democrats. As for the southern strategy ” Goldwater campaigned in part on States’ rights, and he had voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, one of only six Republican senators to have done so.” and he got trounced.

    Lets look at the rest of what Attwater said ” 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. […] But Reagan did not have to do a southern strategy for two reasons. Number one, race was not a dominant issue. And number two, the mainstream issues in this campaign had been, quote, southern issues since way back in the sixties. So Reagan goes out and campaigns on the issues of economics and of national defense. The whole campaign was devoid of any kind of racism, any kind of reference. And I’ll tell you another thing you all need to think about, that even surprised me, is the lack of interest, really, the lack of knowledge right now in the South among white voters about the Voting Rights Act.=

  17. Corvinus 说:

    “Adlai Stevenson gave no such impression…”

    When your backed by Strom Thurmond, the impression was decidedly clear–Stevenson was considered more sympathetic to the maintenance of Jim Crow.

    “So the Dixiecrats had no real traction in the Democrats…”

    They repeatedly made the point during the JFK and LBJ Administrations that any effort by the federal government to politically attack segregation would result in their refusal to support domestic legislation. Only when the Democrats gained control of the House and Senate in 1964, with more northern Democrats than southern Democrats, were Great Society programs enacted.

    “Goldwater campaigned in part on States’ rights…”

    It’s called the launching pad. He set in motion a strategy that exists today.

    “The whole campaign was devoid of any kind of racism, any kind of reference.”

    The reference was hidden, a “nod and a wink”. Reagan didn’t need a southern strategy, it was already firmly entrenched through the “abstract”.

    Not your finest hour, either!

  18. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:

    Had the north and south agreed to a gradual, peaceful emancipation of black agricultural and domestic workers with compensation to the property owners (as most other nations were able to do) AND pushed for the humanitarian repatriation of the Africans back to Africa, we might have avoided the entire race disaster that is now seems to be America’s inescapable fate.

    Lincoln has a lot to answer for.

    Americans rejected the modernizing British monarchy and the quite sensible Anglo-aristocratic Republic that followed and foolishly opted for democracy which predictably morphed into the current giant oppressive (and increasingly lawless) leftist federal hydra backed by (increasngly lawless) banking oligarchs.

    Well done Americans.

  19. Corvinus 说:

    “Had the north and south agreed to a gradual, peaceful emancipation of black agricultural and domestic workers with compensation to the property owners **(as most other nations were able to do)**......“

    Please cite your source**.

    You also forget that there were thousands of free blacks, both North and South, who had achieved status and/or accumulated property. The building trades in Charleston, SC, for example, were dominated by blacks. Why should they “bought out” or “compelled to leave”? They had the liberty to remain here where they were born, not go back to some foreign land.

    “Lincoln has a lot to answer for.”

    Actually, the North and South had a lot to answer for, since they failed to heed your “advice”.

    “Americans rejected the modernizing British monarchy…”

    No, they correctly rejected Parliament’s outright refusal to honor their well-earned liberties and forged a new nation. Well done, Americans!

    “the quite sensible Anglo-aristocratic Republic that followed…”

    Spoken like a lobsterback! You must be British. My condolences.

    “foolishly opted for democracy which predictably morphed into the current giant oppressive (and increasingly lawless) leftist federal hydra backed by (increasngly lawless) banking oligarchs.”

    Please enlighten us with specific reasons as to how you are qualified to make this (wild) generalization.

    • 回复: @Sean
  20. Sean 说:
    @Corvinus

    “No, they correctly rejected Parliament’s outright refusal to honor their well-earned liberties and forged a new nation. Well done, Americans!”

    It think it is increasingly believed by academic historians that the 13 colonies rose against what they saw as a papist plot: religious liberty for Catholics under the 魁北克法案

当前评论者
说:

发表评论-对超过两周的文章发表评论,将在质量和语气上进行更严格的判断


 记得 我的信息为什么?
 电子邮件回复我的评论
$
提交的评论已被许可给 Unz评论 并可以由后者自行决定在其他地方重新发布
在翻译模式下禁用评论
通过RSS订阅此评论主题 通过RSS订阅所有Pat Buchanan的评论