Skip to main content

View Diary: "Secession by another means" Bill Moyers (223 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I would call it systemic (15+ / 0-)

    not cultural - and yes there are Democrats who aren't kosher ...but even in Civil War times there were those in the non-secession states who were opportunists and hypocrites.

    But I have to believe that few Democrats want to see this nation destroyed.

    "If you're in a coalition and you're comfortable, you know it's not a broad enough coalition." Dr. Bernice Johnson Reagon

    by Denise Oliver Velez on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 03:47:54 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, that's probably a better word for it. (4+ / 0-)

      I would think even the worst Democrats would not believe that destroying the nation would be self-serving.

      On the right wing, there's a cottage industry in asserting that self-immolation is not only self-serving, but absolutely altruistic.

    •  I think it is interesting to note the migration of (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pelagicray

      tyranni from the old southern democratic party that ruled the South and Congress for more than a century until LBJ signed the civil rights and voting rights of the late 1960's. At that point the tyranni in the South began to switch to the Republican Party and today, Abraham Lincoln could not get the presidential nomination of that party. He believed that "all men are created equal." The Republican party does not believe that, and neither did the old southern democratic party. So, the parties reflect the natures of the men who control them.

      This migration of personality types, rooted as it is in certain populations that have remained constant over generations, is clearly genetic in nature.

      Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

      by hestal on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 05:24:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Migration of tyranni (0+ / 0-)

        hasn't exactly been smooth, since I can't help recalling that those post-Johnson battlers against civil rights apparently went pretty strongly for Carter, and something like half of them for Clinton. Even Obama picked up NC, FL and VA. So, maybe this story has a few holes in it, and maybe, just maybe, there were a few other things in the mix, among them the Vietnam War (largely a Democratic enterprise) and its aftermath, including the widespread impression (artfully downplayed these days) of a disdainful anti-patriotism in the New Left.

        •  Naah, all one has to do is look at the (0+ / 0-)

          racist pandering by Nixon, Reagan, Bush the Elder, and Bush the Lesser. They knew who to attract and they knew how to do it. Racism sparked the switch of tyranni from the old southern Democratic Party to the new Republican Party. In fact racism is the cause of the split of the Democratic Party in the 19th century as well as the split in the Baptist religion which gave us the Southern Baptist Convention.

          Human nature does not change, and racism is a very big part of the nature of many human beings. It will ever be so.

          Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

          by hestal on Sun Oct 13, 2013 at 05:02:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nonsense. (0+ / 0-)

            Just as one of many counts against this foolish claim—check out what states Nixon carried and by what margins and then come back and tell us that this was due to racism, let alone southern.

            •  You are, again, dead wrong. (0+ / 0-)

              Here is part of what wikipedia had to say about the "Southern Strategy."

              In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a Republican Party strategy of gaining political support for certain candidates in the Southern United States by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3][4][5]
              Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery before the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (triggering theDixiecrats), the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation.
              The strategy was first adopted under future Republican President Richard Nixon and Republican Senator Barry Goldwater[6][7] in the late 1960s.[8] The strategy was successful in winning 5 formerly Confederate states in both the 1964 and 1968 presidential elections. It contributed to the electoral realignment of some Southern states to the Republican Party, but at the expense of losing more than 90 percent of black voters to the Democratic Party. As the twentieth century came to a close, the Republican Party began trying to appeal again to black voters, though with little success.[8]
              In 2005, Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman acknowledged the Southern strategy and formally apologized to the NAACP for ignoring the black vote in the previous century.[9]
              My part in our dialogue is now ended.

              Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

              by hestal on Sun Oct 13, 2013 at 06:06:23 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And if Wikipedia were authoritative (0+ / 0-)

                you might be right. Sadly, it is not. Among other questionable parts of the article is the basic assertion of the existence of this supposed deliberate thing called the Southern strategy.

                Now, if you have a document of the Republican party and/or its operatives describing the conscious adoption of such a strategy, that would be a different matter, and I would be extremely interested to see it. But no such document exists, and the books and articles, some of which I have examined (my academic background and degrees are in political science, although today I mostly teach political theory), generally predicate the existence of such a strategy on poorly thought-out inferences, not demonstration. Certainly the Mehlman reference offers no such proof, as Mehlman did not, in fact, acknowledge any Southern strategy to the NAACP, but merely apologized that, ''Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization..." That's not the same thing as a stated strategy, or even a Southern one.

                But in reality, to begin with, white migration out of the Democratic party really began in the 20s (not after 1964), the presumed polarization and changeover to the Republican party doesn't begin to explain why Southern states go back and forth on party election results, doesn't explain why virtually none of the southern Democrats who voted for the '64 Civil Right Bill were turned out of office, and, as I originally asked (and you do not answer), doesn't explain things like Nixon's election statistics. That's just for a start.

                So, you are wise to claim that your part in the dialogue is ended, it never having really begun.

                •  One more comment on the Wikipedia article- (0+ / 0-)

                  I thought Goldwater won only two states altogether in the 1964 election.  I'm thinking that they were Mississippi and Alabama.  Am I wrong on that, or is the citation that

                  The strategy was successful in winning 5 formerly Confederate states in both the 1964 and 1968 presidential elections.
                  in error?
    •  Humans Are Not Evolved for Systems As Large (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hestal, flavor411, Nisi Prius

      as nation states.

      The political and economic debates we conduct have struck me all my life by the fact that they are scrupulously framed in the context of groups of people no larger than family and tribe. Almost none of the ideas we debate in these terms function in large society the way they do in our mainstream debates.

      It may be that given our state of evolution, mostly only extreme types such as fascists or sociopaths are likely to achieve leadership in these systems that are so vastly beyond the ken of our common sense.

      We may need to rename the Peter Principle as The Homo Sapiens principle.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 05:57:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (155)
  • Community (70)
  • Elections (36)
  • Media (34)
  • Law (31)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (31)
  • Civil Rights (30)
  • Environment (30)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Culture (29)
  • Barack Obama (25)
  • Science (25)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Labor (23)
  • Republicans (23)
  • Economy (21)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Health Care (19)
  • Marriage Equality (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site