Historically, History, Politics

Politics of Race, part 2 – Historical Perspective of Republicans and Democrats

After 360,000 Union soldiers died in winning the Civil War, under the leadership of the first Republican President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, the country was finally poised to pass legislation regarding the abolition of slavery.  This was accomplished with the ratifying of the 13th Amendment with 100% Republican support against a large majority of Democrats opposing it.

Upon Lincoln’s assassination, Democrat Andrew Johnson assumed the Presidency.  Republicans passed the 1866 Civil Rights Act conferring citizenship to all persons born in the United States, without regard to race, color, or previous condition.  President Johnson vetoed the bill and stated, “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men. ”  The 14th Amendment granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, which included former slaves recently freed at that time. It also forbade states from denying any person “life, liberty or property, without due process of law” or to “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”.  The 14th Amendment was voted against by 100% of Democrats in both the House and the Senate.  Where as 100% of Republicans voted for it in the House, and 94% for it in the Senate.

In 1870, the 15th Amendment was passed by Republicans granting blacks the right to vote against 100% opposition of Democrats in the House.  All three of these Amendments were passed even though the Ku Klux Klan had been attempting to intimidate voters through terrorists tactics.  White congressman James Hinds, a Republican, was murdered by the KKK in Arkansas as he was there attempting to teach newly freed blacks of their rights.  During this same time, Tunis Campbell and 24 other black Georgia State Senators were expelled by a Democrat majority until reinstated by a Republican controlled Congress.

In 1912, Democrat Woodrow Wilson brought Jim Crow to Washington.  He was elected when many blacks voted for him after he had stated in a letter to a black church official, “Should I become President of the United States they may count upon me for absolute fair dealing for everything by which I could assist in advancing their interests of the race.”  This marked the first significant year of 100 years and counting of Democrats lying to blacks to pursue a racist political agenda.

In 1940, the Republican platform called for the integration of American armed forces, but for the duration of his presidency, Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt refused to order it and continued the tradition of segregation in the Federal Government.  FDR also appointed former KKK member and fellow Democrat to the Supreme Court, Hugo Black.

In 1948, the Democrat party had started to somewhat relent on segregation and other civil rights issues.  This led to many leaving the party to join the States Rights Democratic Party.  These members who left are referred to as the Dixiecrats (as opposed to Dixiecans had they been Republicans).  Curiously, the only one you ever hear about is the one Democrat who 18 years later became a Republican, Strom Thurmond.  The fact that all the others were and remained Democrats through the entirety of their political life is buried.   The media, our public schools, and the Democrats misinform the public and attempt to insinuate that the Democrats who bolted from the Democrat party joined the Republican party.  That is categorically false and easily reputed by looking at the facts.  Here is a list of Senators affiliated with the racist Dixiecrat movement:

  • (D)VA Harry F. Byrd, 1933-1965
  • (D)VA A. Willis Robertson, 1946-1966
  • (D)MS John C. Stennis, 1947-1989
  • (D)MS James O. Eastland, 1941-1941, 1943-1978
  • (D)LA Allen J. Ellender, 1937-1972
  • (D)LA Russell B. Long, 1948-1987
  • (D)OK Thomas Pryor Gore, 1906-1921, 1931-1937
  • (D)AL J. Lister Hill, 1938-1969
  • (D)AL John J. Sparkman, 1946-1979
  • (D)FL Spessard Holland, 1946-1971
  • (D)FL George Smathers, 1951-1969
  • (D)SC Olin D. Johnston, 1945-1965
  • (D,R)SC Strom Thurmond, 1954-1956, 1956-2003
  • (D)AR John McClellan, 1943-1977
  • (D)GA Richard B. Russell, Jr., 1933-1971
  • (D)GA Herman E. Talmadge, 1957-1981
  • (D)TN Herbert S. Walters, 1963-1964

Democrat’s racism continued through the 1950s, although the party was continuing to divide on civil rights issues.  Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 with 92% of Republicans supporting the bill and only 54% of Democrats voting for it.  The Democrats attempted to filibuster the bill from coming to a vote.  Voting against the ’57 Civil Rights Act was one John F. Kennedy.  Lyndon B. Johnson had a spotless record of voting against all former attempts at Civil Rights legislation, but his political ambitions persuaded him to change his mind on the issue.  Johnson’s explanation of why he supported the 1957 Act:

“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”

Then in the ’60s, Bull Connor, member of the Democrat National Committee and the KKK, best known for allowing fire hoses and police dogs to be unleashed on black protestors, arrested Martin Luther King, Jr.  One interesting fact about King is that he was a Republican.  Although John & Robert Kennedy had approved wire tapping of King during those years, JFK did make the phone call to get King released from jail.   Then with Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson as president, the final version of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was written by a Republican and passed congress with almost 90% Republican approval and against almost 30% Democrat opposition.  This means every civil rights legislation passed in the United States from the Civil War to this point in time were written by Republicans.  Some Democrats again attempted to filibuster the vote for the 1964 Act, but failed.

One prominent Republican who voted against the legislation was Barry Goldwater, but he was a long proponent of civil rights and had voted in favor for all previous forms of the bill, but as a libertarian Republican, he was strictly opposed to the infringement on private property rights that some parts of the bill was to do.  Goldwater’s vote and Strom Thurmond switching from the Democrats to the Republicans is what is used as proof for the myth that the parties switched places.  Twenty-one Democrat Senators voted against the ’64 Act.  Thurmond was the only one who became a Republican.  One man switching parties can not undo over 150 years of historical fact that Republicans have always been the party of freedom.  Notably, William Fulbright (D) voted against the bill and was the mentor of Bill Clinton.  Al Gore Sr. (D) also voted against the bill.  Frantz Kebreua of StolenHistory.org has done a fantastic job of researching this topic.

Some in Democratic circles attempt to draw racism as being due to geography with references to the “deep south”.  Migration trends over the years show this to be a false argument.  From 1975 to 2007, the southern states lost 13 million people who migrated from their states to other regions.  However, during that same time period, they saw an influx from the other regions to the tune of 19.7 million people.  Not to mention the fact that since 1950, the population of the United States has more than doubled, increasing by over 150 million people.  Claims that geography holds some residual power over one’s stance on race is ridiculous.

The next Democratic lie is the “Southern Strategy” myth that they push citing Richard Nixon courted disenfranchised racist voters of the Democratic Party in the 1968 election.  Republicans had been making inroads in the south prior to that and the south was trending Republican for years, just as America was trending towards freedom and equality for years and dragging the Democratic Party with it.  In 1952, President Dwight Eisenhower (R) won three southern states, and won five in 1956.  In addition, Eisenhower won the popular vote in the souther states and narrowly missed winning a sixth state, North Carolina, that would have carried a majority of the southern states.  Nixon picked up North Carolina 12 years later to continue the trend that had been around for two decades.

The truth is simple.  The Democratic Party has long attempted to use government power to reduce individual liberty, whether from the state or federal level, while the Republican Party has long been on the side of freedom.  Knowledge is power.  The truth sets us free.

Advertisements

Discussion

40 thoughts on “Politics of Race, part 2 – Historical Perspective of Republicans and Democrats

  1. This is a great post, and especially appropro given some of the recent internet memes’ about how the Democrats/Libs have “always” been proponents of equal/civil rights. Yeah, sure, right up until you choose to exert those rights in a manner they don’t deem “appropriate.” Then you’re an Uncle Tom.

    Great stuff. I’ve added you to my Blogroll, FWIW.

    Keep up the good work!

    ~TG

    Posted by tankergrunt | March 6, 2012, 5:50 am
    • TG,

      Thank you for stopping by and for your kind comments. I’ll assume by your moniker that you are (or were) in the military, so I sincerely thank you for your service.

      Best regards,

      G

      Posted by G | March 6, 2012, 8:43 am
  2. excellent post. The blind bumper sticker sloganeering of the progressive movement amazingly has gotten people to believe out right lies. The fact that they look up proudly to racial and social tyrants like Woodrow Wilson who essentially created an American Gestapo should be a warning to people. But I guess believing pretty words and platitudes is easier than actual research.

    Posted by White Male Oppressor | March 8, 2012, 6:06 pm
  3. I’m going to make a comments, because there are some different points I have.

    This country has to move beyond the issue of race, because it’s far less important than socio-economics.

    I thought conservative, tea partiers didn’t believe that government was the answer; but here you are telling me that the problem of race in America was solved by government.

    So which is it, is government so powerful that when Abraham Lincoln and Lyndon Johnson (D) passed their laws, suddenly everything was equal, and government has the power to revolutionize society? Or is it that government should stay out of the way for the most part and only work to protect basic rights and provide security? If it’s the 2nd one, then explain to me how 1 man signing a document could possibly have made everyone equal, since government can’t even do that.

    Posted by hemingway12 | March 9, 2012, 12:52 am
  4. You assert that Republicans have in some way been trailblazers on civil rights. What about the democratic president that championed civil rights (JFK) and the democrat who signed them into law (LBJ)? By the way, Nixon was a Republican and also the only president to resign. As was the aforementioned Andrew Johnson, the first president to be impeached. There have been great Republicans and great Democrats, and plenty of bad ones too. Parties aren’t the answer.

    This part is just about “doing your research” since your point on Democrats opposing civil rights is out of context. Most of the democrats who opposed civil rights were southern democrats, who have largely migrated to the Republican party in the last several decades. In many ways, southern democrats were the pre-cursor to Reagan Republicans, in that they tended to advocate low taxes and high spending (Reagan was a big spender, tax cutter, and the best president since FDR give or take Bill Clinton). Anyway, you can see why/how southern democrats stopped being democrats. Consider that Lyndon Johnson himself was a Democrat from Texas. How many democrats from Texas could run for president (or vice president) now? As someone raised in Texas, I can assure you that it’s none. It’s hard to compare political parties over time, since political conditions change so much.

    Posted by hemingway12 | March 9, 2012, 12:58 am
    • Actually, he said the two go hand in hand, given the fact that each day 14,000 more people lose their helath insurance.2013 is the earliest date by which both Congress and private HMO\’s can have the new policies up and running. You will need time to form new policies, to implement cost saving procedures, to change medical records, to provide new plans, to choose those new plans, so that HMO\’s can legitimately compete. For the party that says this bill will force you into government run helath care\’ you seem to be pushing for that to happen by demanding that the new helath care policies take effect immediately, without a chance for HMO\’s to change their own policies.References :

      Posted by Said | January 29, 2013, 6:37 am
  5. If you think that the Civil Rights laws of the 60s ended the issue of race in America, you are very naive. Consider that even now there are racial wars occurring all over the world. In the 90s it was a racial war in Serbia, and race was the prime reason that Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia splintered into individual countries. Similarly, China is splintered on the issue of race (Tibet, Taiwan) as is most of Western Africa. In Spain, the Basque region has been fighting for centuries for independence, and football club Athletico Bilbao will only field players born in the Basque region where they speak Catalan instead of Spanish.

    Issues of race in America are not confined to slavery and pre-civil rights oppression. They are ongoing parts of today’s society. To think that Abraham Lincoln ended slavery, or that LBJ ended race is just ignorant. Slavery and racism has been going on for thousands of years. Modern society has accomplished much, but ending slavery and racism are not among the accomplishments.

    Consider my former boss, a legal Mexican immigrant with half a mil in the bank who was pulled over while driving his friend’s new mercedes with his friend in the passenger seat. Why? Because the cops thought the car might be stolen, since it was a mexican in a mercedes. Or my graduate student friend who was pulled over in a parking lot while the police cuffed him and searched his car for no reason, except maybe because he was black in Inglewood (not the best part of town). What does any of that have to do with slavery or 1960s Civil Rights?

    So what? Easy to say when you don’t have to deal with it, and I, like you, don’t. The reality is it’s less about race than money. The poor get the shaft a good bit more than everyone else. It’s not hard to figure out why there are more non-white poor than white poor. Hint, it’s not the color of their skin.

    Posted by hemingway12 | March 9, 2012, 1:03 am
  6. Hemingway,

    The issue of race is very important because the Democrat Party consistently makes race an issue. So, if it is going to be made an issue, we need to educate everyone about the history of race in this country.

    Republicans used additional laws to clarify existing ones to ensure that all people were treated equally under the law. That is not being a proponent of big government. Republicans want everyone to be treated equally. For everyone to learn that individual liberty is best achieved through a balance of personal responsibility.

    Of course I state the Republicans were the trail blazers on civil rights because they were. If you read the article again, you will see that LBJ is given credit for signing the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I omitted the part where he was quoted as telling two Governors while on board Air Force One regarding the signing, “I’ll have those damn niggers voting democrat for the next 200 years.”

    As mentioned previously, slavery as we knew it, as a deep part of the world culture and legal, has been ended. I’ll be speaking of this more in a future article how the founding of this country brought this form of slavery to an end. I covered the myth that Civil Rights legislation somehow led to a mass exodus of Democrats becoming Republicans, but it simply is not true.

    This article is about the history of Republicans and Democrats regarding race in America. Not Serbia or elsewhere. Thanks for stopping by.

    G

    Posted by G | March 9, 2012, 8:56 am
    • the people are ilnerasingcy dependent on the government for handouts and the government needs to spend more. Then all of the sudden this guys says the government needs to cut spending to not aid the people?! WTF? This guy also said there is a demand problem in USA. Well duh! How could the americans keep spending if most don’t have any savings and rely on borrowing and debt. This guy lived in a cave the past few years?!

      Posted by Oshinuga | January 27, 2013, 9:16 pm
  7. There have been great Rs and great Ds. One party will not save us, and if you think 1 party is the answer, then you’re not talking about democracy and freedom anymore. The USSR had 1 party. China has 1 party. The United States could do with more parties, rather than less.

    1. Slavery and civil rights law is not the history of race. It’s part of it, but not the biggest part. There are also some pretty bad metrics related to poverty, upward mobility, and race that give some credence to the idea that “all men (people) are created equal” still doesn’t exist in the US. I agree with your general premise that race shouldn’t motivate policy in a pure sense. Addressing issues of poverty and insuring civil rights addresses the necessary issues of race. It’s also important to note that some pretty atrocious stuff happened. Like, the US government actually did test syphilis on black people without their consent while denying them treatment…for 40 years including after Civil Rights was passed. I don’t see that anywhere in your history.

    2. To conceive of slavery era or even 60s era political parties in terms of today’s parties is sloppy. Abraham Lincoln was a republican, yes. He was against states rights, for a strong federal government, and primarily supported by upper east coast elites. Sound republican to you? The southern democrats you criticize were similar to Reagan era republicans. You can’t make a statement about parties and race based on the Civil War or 60s southern democrats.

    Posted by hemingway12 | March 10, 2012, 6:38 am
  8. You are correct that there have been great Republicans and Democrats. And I’ll add that there have been bad Republicans and Democrats. And there have been times that the bad of each have done good things, and times that the good of each have done bad things.

    I do not want a one party system. I think that a continuous civil discourse is essential to our future growth.

    Lincoln understood our Federalism in the sense of our country being one Nation. “Four score and seven years ago, our fathers created a new Nation…” Those who believed in the State Rights doctrine were opposed to those who believed in the State Sovereignty doctrine (those who seceded from the Union) and naturally fell on the side of the preserving of the Union.

    Lincoln epitomized what it is to be Republican when he said, “…there is not of necessity any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. Many independent men everywhere in these States a few years back in their lives were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty; none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost.”

    Posted by G | March 10, 2012, 10:48 pm
  9. I checked out the link and it talks in generalities and attempts to draw parallels on ambiguous claims. One can draw a variety of conclusions based on the statistics cited, most likely reaching differing ones depending on one’s belief system.

    I agree there is a division on ideas in this country. I believe most people are socially moderate and fiscally conservative, but those who believe in socialism are currently winning the propaganda war. Fortunately, those who believe in freedom and capitalism still have the advantage of ideas and facts, so I expect that to win out in the end. The key is to allow freedom of choice in education. Once our youth are able to receive a quality education and learn about what our country is truly about, our country and the world will be saved.

    Posted by G | March 11, 2012, 4:21 pm
    • As to the idea that there is an ongoing war of ideas between socialism and freedom… I think this view is far more damaging than either the liberal or conservative agenda.To think one side has a monopoly on the truth is more dangerous than anything, and it’s exactly this kind of thinking that has brought us to this place teetering on the brink of disaster. For someone who believes in freedom so much, you seem keen to shut out a plurality (and sometimes majority) of opinion that you don’t like from the decision-making process. America needs to seek out solutions that incorporate ideas from both sides of the party line (as well as ideas outside the party process) and to care more about good policy than ideological prerogatives. If that’s “socialist” so be it, but it is more aptly called obvious.

      [blockquote]Red state-blue state differences in areas like high school graduation, infant mortality, income, credit ratings and more, reflect to a significant degree a large socio-economically lagging black population in red states. Red states don’t deserve a free pass. Every state has an obligation to make life better for all of its citzens, and red states have done a much poorer job of this task than blue states.[/blockquote]

      The article also notes that the largest per-capita black populations tend to be in southern red states.This is the aspect of the issue of race that you wholeheartedly neglect. The fact is that civil rights legislation did not end discrimination, nor did it appreciably improve the quality of life for minorities. We can probably agree that race is not the ONLY reason for this; but to think race wasn’t a reason at all disregards common sense and the basic history of the south.

      You still never explain how freedom of choice solves the problem of too few good schools. Giving people the choice of what school they want to goto is useless if good schools are unable to accommodate the majority of students who want to go there (which is already the case). Furthermore, the large-scale busing of students into “foreign” school districts denies parents the ability to have a say in school curriculum, since curriculum is decided by geography, not enrollment. The goal of the education system isn’t to make it possible for students to find a good school somewhere in their greater geographic area … it’s to make schools in every district good. While it might be impossible to achieve, it’s definitely impossible by incentivizing (mostly suburban) families to abandon their school and subsequently decrease funding. The net result is a handful of good schools that can only serve a small part of the population, and thus will be especially likely to be attended by mostly upper class students. I guess we don’t do enough for the rich already, so maybe you’re right about vouchers.

      Posted by hemingway12 | March 17, 2012, 5:42 pm
  10. Our electoral and political system was designed in an effort to protect us from a tyranny of the majority.

    Citizens on both sides of the political landscape have far more in common than we take the time to realize.

    Too often, studies focus on correlations that are way off the mark. Instead, there needs to be a focus on causations. Correlations are easier to push forward with political agendas, so that is what we receive. We need to focus on individuals and not politically contrived special interest groups along some demographic line. We need to focus on individual liberty through personal responsibility.

    Freedom of choice in school education is simple. It is basic economics. Once you end the government’s monopoly on education funding, competition enters into the market. If you have one good school and one bad school in a geographical area, and there is a demand for a better education than the bad school is providing, and a larger demand than the good school is able to accommodate, then the market incentivizes a new school to enter into that market. Local schools competing for students and the money those students bring can address the challenges of accessing the school, either through transportation or boarding.

    Posted by G | March 18, 2012, 10:48 am
  11. This is amazing stuff, and I will study it in detail. Thank you, G.

    Posted by leavergirl | November 3, 2012, 5:10 pm
  12. Please do LeaveGirl. You’re open-mindedness inspires me. 🙂

    Posted by G | November 3, 2012, 6:46 pm
  13. So G, here is a question. I’ve heard it said many times that the black voters in the south were until fairly recently resolutely Democrats. Am I confused?

    Posted by leavergirl | November 5, 2012, 11:50 am
    • Actually, in the late 1800s into the early 1900s, blacks were resolutely Republicans. Frederick Douglass, slave turned statesman, had said: “I am a Republican, a black, dyed in the wool Republican, and I never intend to belong to any other party than the party of freedom and progress.”

      Parts of the Democratic Party started seeking out the black vote in the 1900s. Woodrow Wilson courted and won a decent portion of it in 1912, but when he failed to follow through on his promises, he lost the black vote four years later. Over subsequent elections, though, the Democratic Party started to incrementally increase their share of the black vote. It was after FDR was first elected that significant progress was made into the black community for the Democratic Party. It was not simply the New Deal and that some of the benefits were given to a traditionally poor community, but the Black Cabinet which was introduced as well. The cabinet had no official capacity, but it showed the black community that their voices were heard inside the highest levels of government.

      During the civil rights movement of the ’60s, it was very symbolic to the black community when JFK made the phone call to help get Martin Luther King Jr. released from jail. Then when the ’64 Civil Rights Act was passed, there was a Democrat holding the office of the presidency. These factors in conjunction with the narratives pushed by our liberal leaning schools and liberal leaning medias help perpetuate what we see today.

      The irony is, what the Democratic Party correctly argued in the early 1900s is precisely what Republicans argue today. It does not serve the black community well to have their vote taken for granted by one party, and not seen as possible to earn by the other.

      Posted by G | November 5, 2012, 6:54 pm
  14. Ah. Well. I am glad this info is coming out. You know what I think kinda stands against the Republicans being seen in a good light by people who are against racism? They are seen as mean in general. (Except toward the rich.)

    I wonder if you have any information on the progressives, and how they figure in this whole story. Progressives today posture as the bringers of all light and good, but my info points that at their dawn in the 20s and 30s, many leaned in the direction of fascism and totalitarian solutions. And were admirers of Mussolini. But I have no idea of their stand on the race issue, and how it evolved. I think that they are the loud voice behind the Democratic party which says “we are the antiracists” that color people’s perceptions nowadays.

    Posted by leavergirl | November 7, 2012, 12:36 pm
    • The main stream media does a disservice to the American people by creating a false narrative to the Republican Party. When speaking about the two parties during elections, they consistently refer to demographics and the Republicans relying on “old white men”. And the challenges the party faces with the “browning of America”. This false narrative is a subtle way of driving the uninformed voters towards the Democratic Party. The Republican Party does appeal to everyone. If you ever listen to a minority Republican speak, it is quickly apparent why.

      Early progressivism was an important part of the development of the USA. Many progressives were called Populists and were abundant in the late 1800s and early 1900s speaking up for labor and labor’s right to unionize. This was an important issue at the time, and that Republicans should support. Public sector unions should not be able to unionize, but private sectors should. A union is the last thing any well-run business wants, so a company has an incentive to treat their workers well and prevent a union from coming in. Populists tied themselves to the Democratic Party and the term Populists died away. Their Progressive influence was important to American development, as can be seen where their influence affected Republicans, such as the very successful and very moderate Republican, Teddy Roosevelt.

      Progressives worked against the abuses in capitalism, but were not advocating socialism. At least, not at first. They worked to involve government in solving many of the obstacles that were brought about by the industrial revolution. Women’s suffrage was part of this evolution of America. This movement was too, however, a moral crusade and was part of the alcohol abolitionist movement. As to be expected, movements often take on a life of their own as more people join the movement, but bring additional influences with them into the movement. Such as today’s Evangelicals supporting the Fiscal Libertarian Tea Party Movement.

      The progressive movement continued to grow the influence of Government. When Democrat Woodrow Wilson became President, people felt that the banking system would be in better hands with the government and Wilson helped in having the Federal Reserve Banking system created in 1913. I’ll bet many of today’s Democrats didn’t know that.

      Then during the Great Depression, socialism and communism truly entered the fray. Socialists and Communists were prevalent from the 1930s to the 1950s in America. At times they referred to themselves as liberals or progressives, and as the labels of Socialists and Communists continued to gather a stigma to them, the terms liberals and progressives were used instead. This has continued through today.

      Knowledge is power. The truth sets us free.

      Posted by G | November 8, 2012, 10:09 am
      • Thank you, G. I am right now too upset to comment. If anyone would like to go to bethechange2012.wordpress.com and comment on the ugliness that’s happening there, it might be a good thing. I detest both parties pretty equally myself, as tools of Big Money, but the hypocritical stance of the progressives who are now gloating over their “victory” and smearing their fellow R citizens while at the same time mouthing slogans about “tolerance” has finally stuck in my craw and is choking me with despair this morning.

        Posted by leavergirl | November 8, 2012, 11:09 am
  15. Well, then. It seems that progressives are very eager to slam intolerance… until they come to their own favorite intolerances, which are enjoyed to the full! Ugh. Like smearing Republicans.

    I read that Wilson regretted having created the Fed. Which is a private institution… but I think they very much wanted people to be fooled that it was part of government. I guess it worked well enough, until recently, eh?

    Yes, I have seen the persistent references to the “old white men” too. But overall, to shift the topic a bit, I think it’s a mistake for the tea partiers to affiliate with the GOP. The original tea party was a nonpartisan effort. It would, I think, do a lot more good that way. I myself hold a lot of sympathy with the tea party (though not with liars and aggrandizers like M. Bachmann).

    Posted by leavergirl | November 10, 2012, 7:43 pm
    • I had this conversation last night with a very good liberal friend of mine over drinks at a nice Irish bar off of Times Square. I’ve often argued that the Tea Party needs to throw all the establishment Republicans out of office to get the party back to the ideals that made it the party of freedom in this country. The Tea Party has made great progress, but they’ve been demagogued and misrepresented creating a perception that they are something other than what they are. I may be convinced that the Tea Party needs to leave the Republican Party and go to the Libertarian Party. By the way… did you see that it is very possible that Obama won the election through voter fraud? Many districts reporting over 100% voter turnout. Over 100%? Scary stuff. If the media doesn’t cover it aggressively, then I know our country is most likely already done regardless of what the Tea Party does.

      Posted by G | November 11, 2012, 11:25 am
      • I would drink to that too! Voter fraud is a done deal, unfortunately. With the machines that leave no paper trail?! Both parties cheat. You know, if you went the libertarian way, lots more people would support you, for sure! A great idea. It was interesting to see that the Libertarians finally had a realistic and excellent candidate this time around. It could be just the right opportunity at the right time.

        Another possibility is to craft another way to do politics, and bypass the icky “2 parties – same money bag” system altogether.

        Posted by leavergirl | November 11, 2012, 12:24 pm
  16. Kunstler’s done another vitriolic rant against the South. Nothing new. But this is what he claims: “Since a Democratic president and congress passed the civil rights legislation of 1964-5, the traditionally Democratic “solid South” revolted almost overnight and eventually turned solidly Republican.”

    Any truth to this, G?

    Posted by leavergirl | November 12, 2012, 11:10 am
    • No, very untrue. Strom Thurmond later switched to the Republican Party, but of the 22 Democratic Senators who voted against the ’64 CRA, he was the only one to switch parties. Artur Davis recently left the Democratic Party for the Republican Party, so by their logic, that means all blacks bolted the Democratic Party in 2012 and rejoined the Republican Party.

      The sad part of this is I think many of the people who spread this false information simply believe it to be true. Our education system and media structure are corrupt and we all suffer for it. We rarely debate the true issues facing our country, things we probably all largely agree on. The debate focuses on calling Republicans racists and forcing Republicans to spend their entire time defending against lies and smears. How does that serve us, We the People?

      Posted by G | November 12, 2012, 11:57 am
      • True, that. It doesn’t serve us at all. But how many people are out there comparing notes across the divide? “Oh I’d get tainted by THEM” seems to be the ethos. Or it’s more fun to heap ugliness on the “nazis” and “morons” of your choice than to behave like responsible citizens. Bah, humbug.

        Posted by leavergirl | November 12, 2012, 12:57 pm
      • Would you say that in the sense that Southern white voters turned away from the Democratic party post ’64, Kunstler has some truth in it, or is that fabricated too?

        Posted by leavergirl | November 12, 2012, 5:06 pm
        • Southern white voters or former democrat voters? I’m sure the newer generation of white voters probably did identify with the Republican Party more than the older Democrat voters. It had been trending that way already for about 20 years. Just as the younger people in both parties nowadays are for gay marriage in much greater numbers than the older members of their respective parties. New generations of people change from previous generations and see the world differently. I’m sure many young white voters could easily identify with Barry Goldwater’s ideas of individual liberty, including strong personal property rights and were drawn to the Republican Party.

          Posted by G | November 13, 2012, 10:42 am
        • Sounds like gulps of Koolaid to me. The private seotcr doesn’t hold back spending because of a weak economy, they weaken the economy by not investing. You’re believing their propaganda. They manipulate the system they put in place. If we’d end the illegal wars instead of placating the huge war contractors the DOD, we’d have enough $ to spend on important things like jobs. People and corporations have didn’t priorities. We want jobs healthcare, they want anything that makes THEM $.

          Posted by Raquel | January 27, 2013, 8:25 pm
          • Whoa, you misunderstand me. I sporupt fiscal conservatism as much or more than I sporupt cultural conservatism, its just that our party hasn’t been living up to it’s historic rhetoric. I WANT smaller government, and I WANT less intrusive government, but I don’t want government interfering in the culture wars like it has been doing for the last 60 years. (thank you ACLU) Our side DESERVED to Lose the last two elections, (because of our insane spending) however the country didn’t deserve to get replacements which were worse than the one’s they kicked out. In any case, we are quibbling over details. In my mind the Fourth branch of Government is the one we need to repair first, then the other three will be straightened out easily. David

            Posted by Jaylen | December 16, 2013, 8:30 am
  17. G, I just read A Nation of Deadbeats, tracing the financial history of the US, and what he says about the parties confirms your assertions here. It was the Democrats, for example, who pushed blacks from power (such as they managed to get right after the Civil War) and instituted apartheid.

    Posted by leavergirl | January 30, 2013, 11:07 am

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Pingback: Sorting Through the Politics of Labeling « Land of the Tea - June 8, 2012

Join the discussion....

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 27 other followers

Land of the Tea

%d bloggers like this: