After Rand Paul's comments last week about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 I thought it would be interesting to ask Republican primary voters in South Carolina, since we were polling there over the weekend, what their opinion on the bill was.
58% said they supported it, 15% said they opposed it, and 27% said they weren't sure.
I don't really know what to make of those numbers. The 58% in support of the Civil Rights Act is at least a lot higher than the 36% of Republicans we found nationally last year who believed Barack Obama was born in the United States or the 27% who think Obama genuinely won the 2008 election (rather than it was stolen by ACORN.)
Still 58% seems like a pretty low level of support to me for something as elementary as the Civil Rights Act. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
58 percent seems sort of low, but 27 percent "weren't sure," which to me indicates that a lot of people aren't familiar with the specific provisions of the law. Might it be that Republicans are hesitant to voice approval of any act of Congress, especially when they aren't sure exactly what it says?
Another disconnect between Rand Paul and the Republicans who voted for him.
In the coming months many of these Republicans will come to the realization that Rand Paul deceived them.
"Still 58% seems like a pretty low level of support to me for something as elementary as the Civil Rights Act. What do you think?"
I'm surprised its that high!
You are aware of the separatist group called "Christian Exodus"?
Who is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Exodus
If you were to ask me my thoughts, I would say that I agree with the basic premise of the bill but things like requiring certain states/ districts to get JD approval before making any changes I am not so fond of.
I would also say that alot of people just don't really think of the bill. Its not hotly debated. For people not of that generation when this bill was an issue, it is just not something that is discussed.
Most people probably don't even know what the law is about.
Brett, DOJ approval for election stuff is under the Votings Right Act of 1965, not the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
And Justice supervision is because certain states purposely worked to dilute black voting loooooong after the Voting Rights Act was enacted. For example, Alabama notoriously gerrymandered to minimize black voter influence after the 1980 census. This supervision remains necessary, we're not far removed from those days, and quite of few of the same people still exercise influence in these states.
Rand Paul was right in theory but really naive to think he could get away with rehashing Goldwater's position when it was the one thing he did that made sure he lost the 1964 election. Goldwater's objection was that using the interstate commerce clause as the rationale for allowing the federal government to regulate a business' refusal of service to anyone for what appeared to be for racial, ethnic, etc reasons would open the door for the federal government to use it as an excuse to regulate anything that it felt like doing.
Goldwater had voted for every civil rights bill up to that point and Lyndon Johnson had opposed every single one. So who got labeled as racist by the media for this one vote? Goldwater did. Rand Paul had to know that giving the media any excuse to label a Republican a racist would be jumped on, so why rehash the 1964 act? The media does not even need this much of an excuse to label a Republican a racist so this was just throwing them red meat.
The problem that libertarian leaning Republicans have is that even though they are usually correct, their positions are easily misinterpreted. They can keep their mouths shut and win or open them and lose. Goldwater's position has just been vindicated because that same interstate commerce clause is now being used to make you buy health insurance from a private company with your own money. The 1964 civil rights act set the precedent that makes this excuse work.
Rand was trying to say that no matter how much discrimination against minorities is to be abhorred, what justification you use to correct a bad thing may come back to haunt you some day in the future which it certainly has. I can say what I just did here but would never make the same argument to someone from MSNBC of all places. All they would hear was that I opposed a civil rights act even though that is not true. I opposed the constitutional basis used to justify the act and not what the act was trying to accomplish. Try explaining this in 60 seconds to a hostile reporter. Been there, tried that, and got labeled a racist.
Clearly many people don't know what is in the law. Requiring federal approval of changes to local election law is heavy-handed federal intrusion.
The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act are outdated relics of the past that serve no purpose in 21st century America. They are blunt instruments and rather intrusive means to "legislate morality", something the left FRAUDULENTLY claims to oppose, unless they get to write the laws.
As noted above (Brett), the law requires Justice Department approval of changes to local election law of only certain states or jurisdictions, a blatant violation of principles of Equal Protection Under the Law (14th Amendment) and the 9th and 10th Amendment (limiting the federal government to enumerated powers and reserving rights to the states and the people).
The Civil Rights Act/ Voting Rights Acts serve no purpose in 21st century America. There is no racism that these laws were meant to remedy. Mission accomplished. Now admit that the intrusive laws have served their temporary purpose and repeal them.
There simply is no racism in 21st Century America, except that which comes FROM THE LEFT (affirmative action, gender quotas, mandatory bussing, race-based curriculum, etc.) 20th century racism has disappeared. "Civil rights" legislation and "civil rights" agitators are now the CAUSE of discrimination, not the remedy.
Declare mission accomplished. Repeal these intrusive laws so we can get back to judging people by the content of their character, without being mandated by law to judge by identity groups.
What a waste of polling resources by PPP. This is clearly meant as a gotcha poll. The results of the SC dem primary likely voters asking the same question probably wouldn't be materially different. Probably a lot more "don't knows" since they are democrats and most likely more ignorant.
PPP, use your polling resources for actual competitive races. I haven't seen a poll on OH or MO senate races in a long time and here you are in SC asking this dumb question.
"Goldwater's objection was that using the interstate commerce clause as the rationale for allowing the federal government to regulate a business' refusal of service to anyone for what appeared to be for racial, ethnic, etc reasons would open the door for the federal government to use it as an excuse to regulate anything that it felt like doing."
As we can see from the TYRANNY that is Obamacare, Goldwater was absolutely right. The tyranny of the federal government must be challenged and rolled back, just as certainly as the tyranny of King George III needed to be challenged by the Founding Fathers.
"Goldwater had voted for every civil rights bill up to that point and Lyndon Johnson had opposed every single one."
Yes, historically Republicans have ALWAYS been the party of equal rights (and still are to this day) and Democrats have always been the party of government-enforced racism (and still are to this day).
Rand Paul has the right constitutional philosophy to make America what it should be: a land of freedom and equal rights for all.
The whole thing is just unfair - the Civil Rights Act is really a collection of laws.
So someone could be all for the removal of the forced segregation, but then be for free association instead of forced integration (of private businesses).
In other words, if, like Rand Paul, one doesn't like the section that specifies that private business owners should be coerced for not associating with certain people, but likes the rest of the bill that did away with Jim Crow (which forced segregation in even private areas), what were they supposed to say?
Again, it's the composition fallacy. You really have to drill down to each separate component, not ask people to judge an aggregate.
"The media does not even need this much of an excuse to label a Republican a racist so this was just throwing them red meat."
You're right. Republicans do plenty of other stuff that legitimately labels them as the racists they are. See Jesse Helms, Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, Strom Thurmond, and on and on and on.
"I can say what I just did here but would never make the same argument to someone from MSNBC of all places. All they would hear was that I opposed a civil rights act even though that is not true. I opposed the constitutional basis used to justify the act and not what the act was trying to accomplish. Try explaining this in 60 seconds to a hostile reporter. Been there, tried that, and got labeled a racist."
You and Rand are right that often the media and political cultures dumb down serious discussion and misconstrue people's actual positions and rationales, but I don't think what happened on MSNBC was a smear job. Rachel Maddow has had Rand on before, and he's said after the interview that she was very fair to him, which she was. She understood why he opposes at least part of the CRA (though he was certainly hemming and hawing and not being at all clear about his position), and she was not labeling him a racist. She just disagreed with the idea that businesses should be able to discriminate, and a lot of Americans disagree with that, probably a huge majority.
"Probably a lot more "don't knows" since they are democrats and most likely more ignorant."
Yeah, Republicans are sure electing a lot of real smarties. Sarah Palin, George Bush...need I go on? Meanwhile, two of the most intellectual presidents of the 20th century are Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
"Clearly many people don't know what is in the law. Requiring federal approval of changes to local election law is heavy-handed federal intrusion."
Clearly you don't know what's in the law either since we've already pointed out that that provision is in the VRA of 1965, not the CRA of 1964.
"The Civil Rights Act/ Voting Rights Acts serve no purpose in 21st century America. There is no racism that these laws were meant to remedy. Mission accomplished."
HAHA! Yes, racism was magically cured and we all live in harmony, and no elected officials in the South gerrymander to dilute the black vote anymore.
"Yes, historically Republicans have ALWAYS been the party of equal rights (and still are to this day) and Democrats have always been the party of government-enforced racism (and still are to this day)."
Oh yes, you are so correct. I mean, it wasn't the civil rights issues at all that pushed Southern Dixiecrats like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party in droves, and it wasn't the passage of the civil rights acts and Nixon's cynically, purposefully racially divisive Southern Strategy that solidified the South for Republicans for generations.
I have to saay that this was a pretty useless poll, not from a partisan standpoint, but for purely practical reasons. Why ask people who have no idea about a law that isn't debated by anybody not named Paul or Maddow. We need polls for congressional races, governors races, or ballot initiatives, not useless questions about a law that no one is going to reapeal. I want to see polls on In-8 or IA-seante before I see this stuff again!
Just to be clear, a higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil rights act than Democrats. There were more Democrats who voted against it than Republicans. Revisionist history says that this was a Democrat victory. A way to say Republicans are prejudice. One might also add that MLK and most of his family were Republicans, I wonder why?
The 17% of folks who are against the civil rights act are the fringe and don't represent the average Republican.
Rand Paul is a Libertarian not a Racist. Libertarians are for very limited Government and states making local policy. Although I don't agree with him on Civil rights (as business in the south needed pressure) I understand his viewpoint.
No, Anonymous. The Republicans have never done ANYTHING that was racist. ALL racism has come from the Democratic Party. All racism has come from the left.
Democrats have always been the party of racism; Republicans have always been the party of equal rights and equal protection under the law.
Republicans have always been right on race. Democrats have always been wrong on race.
OK, Christian Liberty, plug your ears and put on that tinfoil hat. It'll all be OK. Mommy'll feed you when you come up from the basement to face reality.
Business owners can make their own rules on their property.
CRA went too far and no longer is necessary.
H. Cheadle
Obviously neither do you. But that is typical for most racist bigots.
Post a Comment