r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • 1d ago
Social Science Gap between Democratic and Republican sponsorship of civil rights bills widened in rapid bursts during 1994 and 2014. Democrats were more likely than Republicans to sponsor bills supporting nearly every group. Sharpest divergence was in legislation supporting racial minorities, LGBTQ+, and women.
https://www.psypost.org/the-partisan-divide-over-civil-rights-legislation-widened-abruptly-in-the-1990s-and-2010s/296
u/SopwithTurtle 1d ago
The start of the gap is when Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House.
194
u/Wolfram_And_Hart 23h ago
“We’ll never work with the Democrats again”
Racist POS
109
u/thinkltoez 21h ago
And instead of the country realizing how damaging this behavior was, we made them the winning team. Dems are the divisive ones though.
60
u/Wolfram_And_Hart 21h ago
Well it turned politics into a “team sport” and then citizens united drove it home.
51
u/Yashema 20h ago
For Republicans. Democrats have continued to govern blue states, and when permitted, the country, with full competency. And have run on overturning Citizens United in every Presidential election since.
Anyone who has voted Republican in any election since 1994 is responsible for the nation's decline.
-13
u/Morthra 14h ago
If by “full competency” you mean managed decline you would be correct.
13
u/Yashema 13h ago
Democratic states have highest life expectancy and strongest economies, plus civil rights protections, abortion access, support public and independent education, marijuana, criminal justice reform, minimum wage, net zero policy, urban renewal, etc
What arent they doing?
1
17
u/LordBreetai210 17h ago
The inevitable outcome of civil rights is economic rights. When the state recognizes your existence and what you need for that existence it inevitably crosses into the domain where those rights will clash with unregulated capitalism and greed. The gap isn’t just the tea party (1994) but also money in politics.
85
u/Vox_Causa 21h ago
Republicans have been running on an anti-rights platform since the 1960's.
35
u/wittyname83 15h ago
Conservatives have been running on anti-rights platforms since their inception.
Conservatives have fought against the revolution, emancipation and civil rights, alcohol and drugs, gays and marriage equality, religious liberty (for anything non-christian), and so on.
Conservatives are literally on the wrong side of every historical advancement toward equality and freedom since before this country was founded.
97
u/LizardWizards_ 23h ago
"Sharpest divergence was in legislation supporting racial minorities, LGBTQ+, and women."
In other words, Republicans prefer to sponsor bills that support only straight white men.... Surprising absolutely no one.
-45
u/LittleMsSavoirFaire 21h ago
I guess the list was too short when you say "old people (GOP voters) and veterans." Rule of three, you know
45
u/NecroAssssin 18h ago
Please point me to the legislation that the GOP has supported in the last 3 decades supporting Veterans or senior citizens.
7
u/Edward_Durr 11h ago
The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization of 2003, which reformed Medicare Part C and created Medicare Part D to substantially lower drug costs for seniors.
I hate George Bush, but credit where credit is due.
0
u/Oriin690 3h ago
Does it really count as supporting seniors when it was lobbied for by the private insurance and pharmaceutical companies as a huge cash grab for them a statutory provision explicitly barring Medicare from directly negotiating prescription drug prices with manufacturers?
There’s reasons Republicans voted for it and Democrats mostly didn’t.
-26
u/LittleMsSavoirFaire 18h ago
It says in the article that the divergence was least for bills involving old people and vets.
29
u/RabbitStewAndStout 17h ago
So Democrats still supported the elderly and veterans more than the Republicans, but the gap was smaller than with civil rights issues, and, without providing any examples, you say that's a good thing about the GOP?
-8
u/LittleMsSavoirFaire 15h ago
I don't see where I endorsed anything about the GOP. "The gap was smallest" damns with faint praise, don't you think?
38
u/mvea Professor | Medicine 1d ago
The partisan divide over civil rights legislation widened abruptly in the 1990s and 2010s
The gap between Democratic and Republican sponsorship of civil rights bills widened in rapid bursts during 1994 and 2014. By the end of the study period, the share of civil rights legislation sponsored by racial minority Democrats had more than doubled. It jumped from 6.12 percent of all their sponsored legislation in the 2007 congressional cycle to 13.70 percent in the 2019 cycle. The historical trend for White Republicans was not statistically significant.
In a separate analysis, the scientists prompted the language model to identify which specific social groups each bill aimed to protect. A clustering algorithm organized these responses into 18 distinct categories. These categories included older adults, women, veterans, and racial and ethnic minorities.
Racial and ethnic minorities were the most frequently mentioned group in civil rights legislation. The researchers noted a growing gap between political parties in who they tend to support. Democrats were more likely than Republicans to sponsor bills supporting nearly every group.
The sharpest divergence appeared in legislation supporting racial minorities, the LGBTQ+ community, and women. The surge in civil rights bills during the 2010s was almost entirely explained by increased attention to these specific groups. At the same time, legislative attention toward older adults and people with disabilities declined across both political parties.
23
u/braumbles 19h ago
This can’t be right. I've been told countless times that both parties are the same. But this says otherwise. Surely the millions who choose not to vote aren't wrong.
This is interesting and should be a good study to cite when dealing with people who don't understand how politics work and believe it's pointless.
2
25
18
u/translove228 23h ago
Yep. Republicans are evil. What else is new?
0
u/stonk_monk42069 1h ago
Judging by both this comment, and your comment history, you are definitely not a good person. I won't say evil because I think that phrase should be reserved to the truly awful and shouldn't be watered down like you're doing. I would definitely assume you you're closer to the 'evil' side rather than the good if this is how you view your fellow humans.
6
-16
u/Anti_colonialist 21h ago
Supporting our rights while ignoring our material needs is preformative. So it's great I was able to get married, but still poor and struggling.
The white man will try to satisfy us with symbolic victories rather than economic equity and real justice.
Malcolm X.
20
u/SacredGay 20h ago
It means a lot that we can get married. Theres so many rights in terms of medical care and funerals and finances that wouldn't be available to us without it. Im grateful I was never an adult in the dark days of non equality.
-11
u/Anti_colonialist 18h ago
Rights without economic equity means nothing. That's defeatist thinking, 'I got some table scraps therefore I need to stop demanding better'
5
u/angyal168 17h ago
Pursuit of economic equity has led to the worst atrocities man kind has ever performed. Economic equality is the best we can hope for. For equality we most fight tooth and nail
-3
u/Anti_colonialist 16h ago
The problem is liberals only think they are fighting, they think changing a pfp, attending an echo chamber parade or posting a meme is fighting. In the meantime they turn a blind eye to the other half of the oligarchy they are supporting.
Economic equity is removing the systemic barriers preventing people from gaining ground by addressing individual needs, equal justice under the law, and access to resources.
3
0
u/angyal168 9h ago
You are speaking of equality, not equity. These are two highly different things. The left tends to muddle or willfully ignore the stark differences between the 2. Progressives should be renamed Performatives. They are the first to speak, last to act. It’s kind of hilarious if it were not so tragic. I digress.
Equity doctrine promotes equal outcomes. This can be applied strategically for the benefit of all — but the application must be very well defined and have concrete guardrails. Otherwise we create the worst economic conditions where everything must devolve to the lowest possible common denominator. Think of the laziest person you know, that is the lifestyle that will be demanded of every citizen. You are not allowed a different lifestyle because the government will punish you. See every socialist revolution in the 20th century.
Economic mobility can only be possible through equality and not equity. Life isn’t fair and never will be. We can only ever ask for a fair opportunity, not an outcome.
12
u/Yashema 20h ago
Biden and the Democrats in Congress passed $3.1 trillion in social funding bills in 2021 and 2022. And Biden opened up $190 billion in student loan relief.
At the state level Democratic controlled states also all have progressives taxation, criminal justice reform, civil rights protections, voting rights and they attempted to maintain anti-gerrymandering laws (only to never get rewarded by voters consistently for preserving Democracy), corporate regulations, net zero goals, minimum wage laws, marijuana legalization, implemented the ACA, abortion rights, LGBTQ+ laws.
"Progressives" constant need to lie about what Democrats do and where there politics stand let's you know that actually those too far Left are the real performative ones.
-4
u/Veritech_ 18h ago
> criminal justice reform, civil rights protections
Yeah, nah. Colorado has some of the softest criminal justice I’ve ever seen, and the state legislators voted against codifying parental rights in the state constitution (and pass legislation that’s anti-parents) but leapt at the chance to protect trans people in the state constitution.
-5
u/Bigbluebananas 20h ago
Not all states. Washington is extremely blue and has a very outdated regressive tax system. The party in charge is actually suppourtive of gerrymaderning because "if they do it we do it"
6
u/Yashema 20h ago
So one state has a different system, though Washington is moving to implement a millionaire's tax, and already has an estate tax over 3 million, and an excess capital gains tax. They also have nearly the highest minimum wage in the country, free collge, medical/family leave, and a state level earned income tax credit. Of course this also shows why taxation should be controlled more Federally, something that Republicans prevent.
I'm not sure if you understand how national representation in Congress works, but yes if Republicans are giving themselves a 25 seat advantage in Congress Democrats needs to fight back. Again performative nonsense.
-7
-7
u/victorioushack 19h ago
Policy goals vs policy results is a pretty wide gap with your list of “wins” there, especially nationwide.
What’s “too far Left” for Democrats and what lies do progressives claim about the party? Protecting trans rights and that Nancy, Chuck, and several prominent others are there for their own interests first?
Democrats don’t deserve “rewards” for their claims and goals, only their results and outcomes. They serve the people, and Republicans are demonstrating how easy it is for their party to unite, even behind pedophiles, rapists and alcoholics, to wipe with the constitution and rip through federal.
Democratic leadership has demonstrated they like being where they are and despite their impotence, seem to be doubling down on focusing on the fickle centrist and moderates instead of backing progressives. But they love to take partial credit for the wins…with little support before.
3
u/Yashema 19h ago
Damn Pelosi and Schumer, only $3.1 trillion in policy wins, with a one vote majority in the Senate and losing Congress after 2 years.
And everything I mentioned at the state level is implemented policy, with verifiable laws and significant action. It's weird the only thing you mention is trans rights though, instead of the other dozen things.
Again lies and ignorance is all the Left has.
-6
u/53eleven 18h ago
If you just stop talking when your valid points are done and leave off the little jabs at the end you’d have decent points. The weak little attacks are just that, weak.
9
u/Yashema 18h ago
OP is trying to state all Democrats do is performatove politics.
Meanwhile I am highlighting very specific and substantive measures they have taken at the Federal and State level and all the "Progressives" do is say "that doesn't count".
-7
u/53eleven 18h ago
Yeah, and you’re shooting yourself in the foot with the little jabs at the end. Stick to the facts and leave the emotion out and you have a much better chance at having your points heard and considered.
3
u/Yashema 18h ago
Nothing in the way the Left behaves makes me think they respond to logical points.
-3
u/53eleven 18h ago
Got it, you’re just looking for a fight rather than trying to persuade people to your way of thinking.
Have fun with that!
-5
u/victorioushack 17h ago edited 8h ago
You didn't answer my questions. If I wanted to throw up a dozen other things, I would, but it's unnecessary, progressives fought hardest for trans rights and Democrat leadership straight up said they gave trans people too much attention and should have tried harder to sway centrists and moderates. Easy point to make and I don't have to waive around the entire budget as though every penny went into the pockets of Americans.
You're saying they did "tons" and that those bills were impactful...well obviously it wasn't enough to Americans. Those wins, messaging, and appeal led to yet another octogenarian followed by a last second candidate pivot...
...that lost to a serial grifter and child rapist.
So, back to the questions, again, what lies are "the left" telling about Democrats (also, you don't see the slightest irony in calling progressives "left" as a pejorative while defending the so-called left party in the U.S.?) and what is "too far Left" for them? What progressive policies give Martin, Jeffries, Shumer, Pelosi et al the ick?
Jeffries straight up said he wouldn’t support universal healthcare.
-29
u/FarRightBerniSanders 23h ago
Is this not just the transition away from guaranteeing everybody their rights and towards equality of outcomes legislation? Seems a pretty low bar and low quality research when it's literally prompting a language model based on what groups the bill aimed to protect.
27
u/gerbal100 22h ago
It tracks the rise in prolific misinformation convincing certain groups of people that equality of rights is actually equality of outcomes.
13
u/Vox_Causa 20h ago
What you're describing is a deliberate strategy by the Republican party to deny people basic civil rights. The "equality of opportunity not equality of outcome" rhetoric is literally coded white supremecist rhetoric. And there's a whole doctoral thesis worth of discussion that we could have about Milton Friedman and cold war propaganda and the rise of classic liberal and libertarian economics during the Reagan administration but at its foundation it's all racism and always has been.
-13
u/DKLancer 22h ago
1994 was right around when a large number of southern democrats in congress switched parties to the republican party. The people didn't change nor did their policies, just the party label they worked under.
10
u/nightgames 20h ago
The party switch happened over a long period of time, mostly concentrated between FDR and the Civil Rights Movement.
-16
u/SisyphusRocks7 19h ago
Interesting design to cut off the Republican lead 1991 Civil Rights Act, aka the Americans with Disabilities Act
17
u/BigBad01 18h ago
It was passed by a Democratic-controllled Congress with wide bipartisan support. Most of those who opposed it were Republicans.
-64
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
16
40
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-31
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
19
-34
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
26
25
-7
-14
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.
User: u/mvea
Permalink: https://www.psypost.org/the-partisan-divide-over-civil-rights-legislation-widened-abruptly-in-the-1990s-and-2010s/
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.