Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Why Republicans Rip the Voting Rights Act

By Earl Ofari Hutchinson, New America Media. Posted June 28, 2006.


By stalling in renewal of the hugely important civil rights legislation, the GOP is throwing a bone to conservative Southern whites.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Earl Ofari Hutchinson

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

In 1980 Ronald Reagan told biographer Laurence Barrett that the 1965 Voting Rights Act was "humiliating to the South." The carefully handpicked, emotionally charged words from then GOP Republican presidential candidate aimed to tap into the fury of white Southerners over civil rights, and, of course, garner their votes. Two years later, then Assistant Attorney General John Roberts (now Supreme Court justice) sent a tidal wave of memos imploring President Reagan to reject a 25-year extension of the act. A hesitant Reagan approved the extension anyway.

Reagan did not want to buck Democrats and civil rights leaders who still had clout in Congress and favorable public sentiment. The last thing Reagan wanted was to be tagged a bigot and an enemy of voting rights. But candidate Reagan's soothing words to the South, and Robert's stern opposition, were huge signals that many Republicans were at best ambivalent, and at worst, openly hostile to the act.

That hasn't changed. President Bush has twice said that he would sign legislation that extends the 1965 Voting Rights Act when it expires in 2007, and nearly every Republican senator and representative publicly swore they'd back extension. Yet, all it took to derail House approval was a loud complaint from a handful of Republican representatives who said that bilingual ballots should be dumped and that the act unfairly punishes Southern states for voter discrimination. That may also be enough to derail a vote in the Senate on the act. Before the Republicans objected, the Senate Judiciary Committee had scheduled a vote on extension of the act the last week of June. Voting rights supporters considered the vote a slam-dunk, but not now.

The delay was probably inevitable, not because Bush and Republicans want to kill voting rights, as many civil rights leaders and black Democrats claim, but because it's smart, partisan politics to stall. The clumsy effort to tie renewal to English-only sentiment was a cover. The real aim of Republicans is to appease conservative white voters in the South, just as candidate Reagan did.

Republicans took their cue from the old Southern Dixiecrats. For decades, they screamed that the act was unlawful federal intrusion and violated states rights. But racist Democrats weren't the biggest obstacle to the act's initial passage. House Republicans were. Gerald Ford, who was then Republican minority leader, proposed four provisions that would have weakened the bill. One preposterous Republican gambit would have eliminated a provision requiring the federal courts to approve all voting rights laws passed by Southern states.

With President Lyndon Johnson pounding away, and the stench of tear gas still in the nation's nostrils from the 1965 attack by Alabama state police on civil rights marchers at Selma, Republican House leaders relented and scrapped the watered-down provisions. But that didn't end the fight to protect voting rights. Republican Presidents Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Reagan and Bush Sr. carefully crafted and fine-tuned the Republicans' Southern strategy. The goal was to win elections by doing and saying as little as possible about civil rights, while openly and subtly pandering to Southern white fears of black political domination.

The loss of one or more states to the Democrats in the 2006 midterm election and 2008 presidential election would spell political disaster for the GOP. The key, as every Republican president since Nixon has known, is to maintain near-solid backing from white Southern males.

They have been the staunchest Republican loyalists. Bush grabbed more than 60 percent of the white male vote nationally in 2004. In the South, he got more than 70 percent of their vote. Without the South's unyielding backing in 2000, Democratic Presidential contender Al Gore would have easily won the White House, and the Florida vote debacle would have been a meaningless sideshow. In 2004, Bush swept Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in every one of the states of the Old Confederacy and three out of four of the border states. That insured another Bush White House.

Bush, top Republicans and even the GOP obstructionists who temporarily derail the act's extension don't want to roll back the clock to the Jim Crow days when the South concocted a vast array of literacy tests, poll taxes, informal voting codes and whites-only primaries to boot blacks en masse out of the voting booths. But more than a few Republicans do want to send the message that they'll fight any threat to Republican rule in the South, even if that means messing around with the Voting Rights Act.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is the author of "The Crisis in Black and Black" (Middle Passage Press). The Hutchinson Report Blog is now online at Earl Ofari Hutchinson.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Humiliating my ass!
Posted by: Fang-Face Dreamweaver on Jun 28, 2006 4:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of a surety the ultra-right and ultra-conservative slave-mongers of the American south feel humiliated; they have certainly been humbled in being made to live in a society that treats them as equal to "niggers". I can well imagine that such a situation would be intolerable for those who believe that only white, anglo-saxon, protestant males are fully human, and all others, including even white, anglo-saxon, protestan females, are only subhuman. Having been treated as a subhuman animal, MLK certainly understood the injustice of a system where the minority was disfranchised:

Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging dark of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross-county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you no forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness" then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.
--Martin Luther King Jr, Letter from a Birmingham Jail, 16 Apr 1963


I have no doubt that the Voting Rights Act is seen as intolerabe simply because it forces a level playing field. Still and all, nobody is lynching honkeys and ofays the way they used to lynch niggers. If the slave-mongers and supremacists get their way, however, you can count on blacks being lynched and segregated again. Neither evolution or devolution ever simply stop and remain static at any given point.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Greedy
Posted by: rsaxto on Jun 28, 2006 4:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Greedy Republicans only want the rich and other conservatives to be able to vote so they use every dirty trick imaginable to disenfranchise everyone else. It's the criminal fringe of the rich doing everything they can to dictate the laws and procedures. It is not free and fair elections, it's criminal manipulation of election outcomes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Black folks and the GOP
Posted by: fred_53_99 on Jun 28, 2006 4:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This why so many black folks have a problem with the GOP. A party that welcomes dixiecrats has no place for black folks except as possible tokens/flunkies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Black folks and the GOP Posted by: ALANHESTER
The Fix Is In, Folks!
Posted by: Tom Degan on Jun 28, 2006 4:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Brother! These clowns are so transparent it's embarrassing. Here's what's gonna happen: Bush will not sign the voting rights extention in 2007. The most criminal administration since the invention of dirt will stall any kind of signing until after the 2008 general election (and maybe well beyond that). That way, they'll LEGALLY and overtly be able to do on a grand scale what they did in 2000 in Florida and 2004 in Ohio.

This is how they'll do it: They will claim that the liberals are trying to include illegal immigrants into the mix. "These damn New York Jew lawyers want to give the vote to every wetback and A-Rab that comes a'struttin' across our sacred border! Is that the kind of America you want"? Of course there will be a handful of foolish extremists on the left who will oblige the right by demanding just that! It's very important to remember that the right-wing does not have a corner on the market with respect to stupidity. It just seems that way. It's pure evil that the right has a patent on. Try not to forget that.

That's how they'll be able to keep the voting rights act from being on the books when the ballots are cast in 2008. That's what they're planning right at this very minute. Count on it.

We've got to make sure they they fail.

Pray for peace.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
http://toomdegan.blogspot.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Fix Is In, Folks! Posted by: knocko
Can we let them secede this time?
Posted by: medstudgeek on Jun 28, 2006 5:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Can we let them secede this time? Posted by: dissidentpoet
» I'll whistle Dixie Posted by: knocko
The Nixon Strategy: a lifetime ago
Posted by: AdamSelene40 on Jun 28, 2006 7:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No question about it ... Richard Nixon stole the Democratic Party's Southern racists and Ronald Reagan got the Northern ones.

But the Republican Party's distaste for voters of color isn't the old-style white supremicist Southern Revanchist racism-for-its-own-sake. What we'ere dealing with now is the simple, cold, observation: "African Americans vote Democratic 4-1." Why they do, and whether they should is not really the point; "supressing the URBAN Black vote" is a winning strategy for Republican campaigns.

At the same time, mobilizing the rural and exurban 'churched' vote, without regard to race, is a winning strategy as well.

Now, the fact is, a lot of these people are NOT racist themselves, but their parents and grandparents WERE, so this is an embarassing topic. They feel THEY have moved on, and so don't like being reminded of 'how things were.'

Democrats keep bringing up the Bad Old Days ... Republicans are willing to let bygones be bygones.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't see why the voting rights act matters
Posted by: specialcowboy on Jun 28, 2006 7:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I mean if anyones votes were actually being counted it would be one thing. But it's pretty obvious given the Gerrymandering ("Redistricting") and the use of advanced eco-friendly (e.g. no papertrails) touch screen voting machines. That noone's vote is being counted. Hell the Carter Center won't touch our elections with a ten foot pole. So I think before we worry about one piece of legislation we should check out the whole system. Don't worry if your car is missing a steering wheel if the engine is gone too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» the most vulnerable lose first Posted by: dissidentpoet
Thank you for looking beyond the rhetoric to the political bread and butter
Posted by: Sojourner on Jun 28, 2006 9:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are currently struggling with the need for the Demos to put together a majority coalition without the Dixiecrats.

The GOP and the racists belong together. The Demos were always hamstrung by the once solid South. Good riddance. Except the GOP plus racists are a demon.

Now that we have the American diseases all in one place, of course they have power. The nay-sayers who only know what they are against are birds of a feather.

Our only hope is that the pain we now endure will have a payoff (the sooner, the better) that will allow progressives to come together. The unwillingness of progressive perfection-mongers (my issue, first; me, first; I'm right; you're wrong) to work together contributes to our pain also.

I confess, I do not yet see light at the end of the tunnel. It's still grubbing in the dark of the mines. At least it is honest work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

incomprehensible
Posted by: bonzi on Jun 28, 2006 3:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is beyond belief that in the country that labels itself as democracy, indeed the birthplace of it, the most basic right like that to vote can elicit any discussion, let alone effort to subvert it. The farce that were the last two presidential elections (I did not follow earlier ones) would bring diplomatic sanctions to, say, any Europen country were it to happen in it. More importantly, usurpes would be right to expect a violent end. But not so in "the land of the free".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: incomprehensible Posted by: ALANHESTER
And not just that...
Posted by: Gtrpicker on Jun 30, 2006 4:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The whole illegal immigration stink up is the exact same thing, only in this instance they are exploiting the dumb redneck's fear of Mexicans, as well as African-Americans.
It is amazing to me that the entire country is still held political hostage by the assholes who lost the Civil War. I say we retroactively let them win and have their own little third world country, consisting of the Deep South. Then we can get on with progressing into the 21st century.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

don't just blame the south
Posted by: dissidentpoet on Jul 2, 2006 9:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i grew up in New Jersey, and i was stunned at a young age to realize that the Mason Dixon line passed through the state. i thought only the deep south had that kind of issue.

then, as i got older and dealt with racism face to face, every day, and in the economics and culture of the state, i saw over and over how little difference there can be between "the deep south" and anywhere else. as malcolm x used to say, if you're below the canadian border, you in the south. i remember reading a study in the late eighties that said that more than 85% of black students in jersey go to high schools that are more than 85% black. have you complared an 85% black school in jersey to a 85% white school? it will sicken you.

whether it's housing, unemployment, police brutality, drug war, AIDS, i have felt little difference in the actions of the north and the assumed ideas of the south. i can think of quite a few areas and regions that would do anything they could to take all rights, including voting, away from folks of color all throughout the north. it feels better to blame the south, but it's a dream, i think. it also keeps people off the hook: if we are not the evil ones or the bad place, we don't have to be as vigilant in defending the rights of people of color and the poor. we don't have to notice the neighborhoods that "they" are kept out of, or kept in, or the ways that the drug war targets "them." we are better than the south.

for anyone who doesn't believe me, all i can do is suggest that you read richard wright's autobiography, Black Boy. get the unedited version. he wrote it in two parts, the first part about growing up in the south the second about the racism he experienced when he made it to the north. of course, when orignally published (in the north), they cut out the second part, because t was easier to accept that the south was evil, and that the north was different.

all of this is to say that we need to protect voting rights all across this country. thinking that it is solely a southern problem is frightening to me: it leaves a whole lot of people unprotected, and a whole lot of @ssholes unobserved. thinking we would be better off without the south is dangerous as well. unless you have some serious time, money, and space to devote to a monumental underground railroad, i don't think we should even joke about it. to me, it's far too scary a thought to make jokes about.

if there is no voting rights act, how long do you think former inmates anywhere in the US would have before they couldn't vote? immigrants, legal or otherwise? people who couldn't pay a poll tax? be honest: do you honestly think that your home state, wherever it is, wouldn't at least have people TRYING to do all these things? wouldn't it be better to spend our time on NEW things, rather than having to re-fight battles we thought we'd won?

this is a big deal to me. it honestly scares me more than any other legislation this administration has done/refused to do.

because it is the ultimate signal that they are taking their gloves off and are ready for a serious, "civil" war type fight.

are we?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: South of the Canadian Border Posted by: billfaster
» RE: don't just blame the south Posted by: billfaster
Civil Rights Act of 1965
Posted by: drappleby on Jul 4, 2006 4:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A few questions for all of you concerning the Civil Rights Act of 1965: Which political party had a higher percentage vote FOR the Act in the House and the Senate, the Republicans or the Democrats? Which party filibustered the Act, Republicans or Democrats? Which party was formed to end slavery? Which party formed the KKK and the Jim Crow rules? Did Senator Gore filibuster the Civil Rights Act? regards, robin

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

voting rights act is gone with the wind.
Posted by: knocko on Jul 5, 2006 10:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the voting rights act simply makes old liberals and black politicians feel good. every few years they can trumpet that they have saved voting rights that otherwise would vanish for black people. the real voting issue for blacks is that they don't vote in large enough numbers, that they cluster in allblack areas that allow conservatives to take most congressional seats in nonblack areas. blacks are poorly informed about public affairs, do not read the news or newsmagazines in great enough proportion, and rely on myths going back to the 1800's to make decisions about a nation that is globalized. And people in Japan dont give a fig about King, Blacks or black "youth" other than the latest hiphop hero.

what discrimination has been proved. white conservatives don't care about the black vote because blacks dont vote or they vote for black candidates in a few concentrated districts that conservatives want blacks to stay in and away from majority white districts.

aboltion of the voting rights act would force blacks to integrate and take part in politics that is more than increasing funding for nonfunctional schools or affirmative action programs that have failed and for the most part are illegal anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Could we get back to that secession idea again?
Posted by: Gulliver on Jul 5, 2006 5:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a resident of California, I'd sooner we secede than the South. Maybe take western Oregon and Washington along for the ride. Sorry, you guys in the northeast are going to have to shift for yourselves, but something like the United States of Canada would be an alternative I could support. The only downside is that we'd have stupid warlike neighbors, but you can't have everything.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]