Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

You want me to agree that historically the Democratic party was the party of slave holders, segregationists, and racists? Done. I agree. And the housing laws and rules put in place in by the FDR administration were insidious, wrong, and have had horrible, lasting consequences.

How do you feel about Lee Atwater and the Southern Strategy?

It was not a good thing to do.  But, in the "watch what we do, not what we say" category, it was Nixon's Justice Department that really desegregated Southern schools.  By 1972-ish, the South's schools were more desegregated than were the rest of the country's.  Nixon also greatly expanded "affirmative action"--an action I think was wrong, but if you're checking blocks on what party did what, you should acknowledge.

Which party championed and passed the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act, and in so doing, "lost the south for a generation?"

A higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for CRA '64.  And it is said, although Bill Moyers denies it--that LBJ further commented, "Now we'll have them n_____s voting Democrat for the next 200 years."

What is often forgotten is what happened to CRA '57 and CRA '60.  Those were Eisenhower proposals that were watered down by Senate Majority Leader LBJ and his fellow southern Democrats in the Senate, but they were nevertheless the first civil right legislation since Reconstruction.

Which party desegregated the military?

Truman started it, Eisenhower finished it.  I have seen the argument made by Ike's AG that Truman had sort of assumed that the services would comply on their own.  When Ike took office, the services were still mostly segregated.  He ended that within a year.  Eisenhower also sent the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock to protect the black students at Central H.S., thwarting future Bill Clinton mentor Gov. Orval Faubus.

Which party reacted to the 2013 Supreme Court decision invalidating Congress's continued finding of a need for pre-approval of voting law changes by instituting voting restrictions to "impose cures for problems that did not exist" which "target[ed] African Americans with almost surgical precision?" That wasn't 90 years ago, that was this decade.

Which party's leaders and spokespeople complained that President Obama was trying to give free stuff to black people?

Oh, Republicans.  It was hard to avoid that when he and Eric Holder would openly refer to "my people" when discussing various programs.

Which party's leaders consistently target Black Lives Matter protesters rather than opening up a real dialogue about how we might address centuries of harm?

Oh, Republicans.  But I'll ask you--do Democrats really want a dialogue, or do they want a monologue where non-racist whites sit down and get told what racists they are?

Now I'll give you a tougher one, because, it's an example of how difficult and nuanced the solutions to these problems can be.
Which party adopted "school choice" as a major party platform in the 1970s as a way to allow white parents to use public dollars to send their kids to segregated, private schools? How is that complicated? Because school choice, when it is used to address inequality--rather than reinforce racism--is a complicated issue. In some instances it provides real opportunity for traditionally disadvantaged groups that are not immediately available; at the same time, it often starves the remaining people--those who don't get that opportunity--of precious resources. This is a difficult issue; there is some good school choice; and there is some bad.

To address your point, yes education matters, a great deal, though education alone isn't a magic fix.

That gets to my fundamental view of these things: there is no simple solution. People who admit there is a real problem with systemic racism in this country will not immediately solve it. And well-meaning people who are trying to find solutions will make mistakes--and even good solutions will never be perfect for every situation. But it all has to start with admitting there is a problem; and part of admitting there is a problem is not blaming Black Lives Matter for highlighting the problem, but instead accepting that there is a very real, very current reason people are so angry.

I don't think that the Republicans have been fully "right" on race since the 1950s, and I think that the Trump "Republicans" are really wrong on it.  But I don't think the Democrats have been right either.  Their solutions have been to throw money and good intentions at the problem, in the process trapping many black Americans in generational poverty.  The poverty rate is today still where it was in 1966, while it had been on a downward slope since the early 1950s.
I think black people today, and in general poor people today, would be better off socially, spiritually, and economically without the War on Poverty/Great Society programs.  I am as firm in this belief as I am that the Great Depression would have ended sooner had Hoover and then FDR done nothing rather than what they did in the name of ending it.

I don't think that the Republicans have been fully "right" on race since the 1950s, and I think that the Trump "Republicans" are really wrong on it.  But I don't think the Democrats have been right either.  Their solutions have been to throw money and good intentions at the problem, in the process trapping many black Americans in generational poverty.  The poverty rate is today still where it was in 1966, while it had been on a downward slope since the early 1950s.
I think black people today, and in general poor people today, would be better off socially, spiritually, and economically without the War on Poverty/Great Society programs.  I am as firm in this belief as I am that the Great Depression would have ended sooner had Hoover and then FDR done nothing rather than what they did in the name of ending it.

What exactly is this?

I don't think that the Republicans have been fully "right" on race since the 1950s, and I think that the Trump "Republicans" are really wrong on it.  But I don't think the Democrats have been right either.  Their solutions have been to throw money and good intentions at the problem, in the process trapping many black Americans in generational poverty.  The poverty rate is today still where it was in 1966, while it had been on a downward slope since the early 1950s.
I think black people today, and in general poor people today, would be better off socially, spiritually, and economically without the War on Poverty/Great Society programs.  I am as firm in this belief as I am that the Great Depression would have ended sooner had Hoover and then FDR done nothing rather than what they did in the name of ending it.

You and I are in full agreement on this.  To me it as if the Dems want to maintain their position of power by encouraging an entitlement frame of mind

That's great, but it's not the norm throughout the country.

I should add to my answer to Kris's question, that I would plainly, unequivocally state that racism is wrong, and that our black citizens deserve equal treatment under the law, and equal treatment by our society.

That doesn't seem revolutionary, but we need leadership that says it clearly, unequivocally, and acts like it is true.

Leadership matters.

That is the message that I have been hearing from Trump. I don't know what you are listening too. 

The Democratic Party is not full of saints, and it has a terrible history of actions on race. And, yes, some of the well-intentioned programs either didn't work, or worse, had terrible consequences for black people. Clinton's crime bill is another, more recent example. (For the record, I believe it was Nixon's administration that implemented the single-parent rule for certain public benefits.)

The Republican Party is not full of demons, and it has a checkered history of actions on race that includes real, positive leadership (not just the party of Lincoln, but it's hard to ignore Lincoln in this subject). Unfortunately, during the political realignment of the last fifty years, its tent has not only accepted, but in many cases encouraged racists to join. And in the last decade it has directly targeted black voters for exclusion. (And for the record, the mainstream right would tar Nixon as a socialist in today's political environment. Finally, don't get me wrong, Nixon was a bad president.)

If we could get both parties to full-throated, unequivocal agreement that racism is bad, we could make a lot of progress. But I will not play moral equivolency games: in the current political environment, there is a reason that the white supremacists see Republicans as their allies. It's time for Republicans to swear them off, and to disavow their adherents--and to stop doing things like targeting black voters for exclusion. If Republicans hope to win black votes back, those two things might help.

So if you agree that racism is bad, agree with me: black lives matter. Solutions to our history of racism won't be easy, but let's talk about what they could look like.

So if you agree that racism is bad, agree with me: black lives matter. Solutions to our history of racism won't be easy, but let's talk about what they could look like.

Let's do it.

I know that reparations opens up a huge can of worms, but I think it's probably a better solution than the generational poverty that has been, at best, exacerbated by government welfare programs.

I thought Clinton's "end welfare as we know it" programs (of course, reached in compromise with Republicans) contained some good ideas.  The Obama administration gutted them, IIRC.  Or maybe gutted what was left of them, if the Bush 43 administration did damage to them.

The goal should be to end (as much as possible) the need for people to be on welfare.  I think most people agree on that.  The devil is in how to do it.

Milton Friedman had some good ideas about a negative income tax that Daniel P. Moynihan (as Nixon's domestic policy advisor) tried to get approved in Congress.  It got bogged down in detail with fault lying in both parties, but it would have been better than what we had and what we have now, I think.