Skip to main content

Once upon a time, Democrats were the party of slavery, states' rights, secession and nullification. After the Civil War and Reconstruction, the solid Democratic South sought the "Redemption" of the former Confederate states with the reestablishment of white supremacy through violence and voter suppression. For a hundred years, the architects and enforcers of Jim Crow poll taxes and literacy tests, lynchings and cross-burnings, Klan rallies and White Citizens Councils, and segregation and separate-but-equal primarily called the Democratic Party their home.

But that was all before the Great Trade.

During the height of the civil rights movement in the middle of the 20th Century, the Republican and Democratic parties were transformed by the greatest swap of political philosophies, personalities and constituencies in modern history. The integration of the American military in 1948, the end of state-mandated separate but equal schooling with Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act in 1965 upended both parties. The Democrats' slow but steady embrace of the civil rights movement and the GOP's response with its Southern Strategy literally changed the complexion of both parties.

Thanks to the Great Trade, Democrats became the party of civil rights and liberty for all, while the GOP became the bastion of backlash. Republicans acquired states' rights, secession and nullification in exchange for Democratic ownership of the general welfare, due process and equal protection in a more perfect Union. Democrats got John Lewis and Martin Luther King, Jr.; the GOP got Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond. Over time, the Party of FDR, JFK and LBJ got New England and the new West, while the solid South went to the Party of Lincoln. As a result of the Great Trade, it is now the Democrats who carry on the legacy of Abraham Lincoln's "new birth of freedom" and the Great Emancipator himself.

But once again, Republicans are trying to whitewash their shameful present by instead pointing fingers at the Democrats' shameful past. Led by former Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese and former Ohio secretary of state Ken Blackwell, the right-wing American Civil Rights Union (ACRU) unveiled its version of "The Truth about Jim Crow." Noting that "Democrats were in complete control of the South during the entire Jim Crow era, from 1877 through 1965," ACRU crowed:

The public should come away understanding the three most important facts about Jim Crow: Jim Crow was Dehumanizing; Jim Crow was Deadly; and Jim Crow was Democratic.
The National Review's John Fund was quick to regurgitate the conservative talking point. Fund, who for years has waged a crusade against mythical voter fraud in order to sell the GOP's draconian voter suppression schemes across the nation, this week wrote that he was "Setting the Record Straight on Jim Crow":
But the political enforcement of Jim Crow was entirely in Democratic hands. The Ku Klux Klan functioned as the paramilitary wing of the Democratic party, and it was used to drive Republicans out of the South after the Civil War. Before he took up the cause of civil rights as president, Lyndon Johnson acting as Senate majority leader blocked the GOP's 1956 civil-rights bill, and gutted Eisenhower's 1957 Civil Rights Act. Democratic senators filibustered the GOP's 1960 Civil Rights Act.
"Is it fair," Fund snidely asks before answering himself, "to remind people of the awful historical antecedents that can lurk within a political party?"

Of course, it's fair. But fairness also requires acknowledging to readers (as Fund's allies at the ACRU did not) that history did not end in 1965. By then, as we'll see below, the great trade was well underway and the exodus of virulently racist southern conservatives from the Democratic Party was greeted with open arms by the GOP.

Recall that in less than five years between 1961 and 1965, America witnessed the Freedom Riders and Freedom Summer, the March on Washington and the Kennedy administration's intervention to integrate the all-white University of Alabama. On June 11, 1963, President Kennedy used a nationally televised address to explain the essence of the civil rights struggle to the American people:

We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution.

The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated. If an American, because his skin is dark, cannot eat lunch in a restaurant open to the public, if he cannot send his children to the best public school available, if he cannot vote for the public officials who represent him, if, in short, he cannot enjoy the full and free life which all of us want, then who among us would be content to have the color of his skin changed and stand in his place? Who among us would then be content with the counsels of patience and delay?

After Kennedy's assassination, President Lyndon Johnson used the outpouring of grief and the growing support for the civil movement to ensure the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Civil Rights Act.

To be sure, on civil rights national Democratic leaders had followed and not led. But among their voters in the South and the white working class, Democrats would pay a steep price for their belated championing of equality and social justice. LBJ knew this at the time, lamenting before the ink was dry on the Civil Rights Act in 1964:

"There goes the South for a generation."
As it has turned out, it has been two generations. While the nation's rapidly changing demographics now give Democrats some hope for the future in Florida, North Carolina and Texas, the South has been a Republican fortress ever since Johnson left the Oval Office.

In just eight years, LBJ's 1964 landslide victory with 61 percent of the vote was completely reversed. In 1972, Richard Nixon won 60 percent of the popular vote and a staggering 520 electoral votes. "In the eight years in between," Richard Perlstein wrote in Nixonland, "the battle lines that define our culture and politics were forged in blood and fire." As Perlstein summed up the story behind the dynamic at work:

It is the voter who, in 1964, pulled the lever for the Democrat for president because to do anything else, at least that particular Tuesday in November, seemed to court civilizational chaos, and who, eight years later, pulled the lever for the Republican for exactly the same reason.
Even before candidate and President Nixon started executing Kevin Phillip's "Southern Strategy," Tricky Dick was already putting his formula of backlash politics to work in the 1966 midterms. Decades before the Tea Party and Fox News, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck warned about New Black Panthers, birth certificates, death panels and FEMA concentration camps from  the nation's first African-American president (one they deemed a "racist" and an "angry black man" who "hates white people"), Richard Nixon hit the trail after the Watts Riots of 1965:
He was campaigning in traditionally Republican districts where a Democratic congressman had won in 1964 on Lyndon Johnson's coattails, but was likely to be swept out in the conservative backlash.

For instance, Iowa's first district. A five-term Republican, Fred Schwengel, was running to recover the seat he'd lost to a young political science professor from the Bronx named John Schmidhauser. One day, Representative Schmidhauser appeared at a Farm Bureau meeting, prepared for a grilling on the Democrats' agricultural policies. The questions, though, were all on rumors that Chicago's Negro rioters were about to engulf Iowa in waves, traveling, for some reason, "on motorcycles." The liberal political science professor was as vulnerable as a sapling ... Now that farmers were afraid that Martin Luther King would send Negro biker gangs to rape their children, the Republican restoration seemed inevitable.

In 1970, Nixon's henchman Kevin Phillips explained how it would all come to pass.
"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."
And to be sure, Phillips' "Negrophobes" and their elected enablers began making the Republican Party their home. Like his home state of Texas, Governor John Connally, the same man wounded in JFK's limousine in Dallas, switched parties, served as Nixon's Treasury Secretary and ran for the 1980 GOP presidential nomination. After the passage of the Civil Rights Act, others swapped blue for red as well. Before North Carolina's Jesse Helms switched over, South Carolina Senator and former Dixiecrat presidential nominee Strom Thurmond bolted over the Civil Rights Act. Thurmond's most famous contribution to America's national discourse came in 1948:
''All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, into our schools, our churches and our places of recreation and amusement."
(During his presidency, George W. Bush would eulogize Jesse Helms as "an unwavering champion of those struggling for liberty" and praised the late Strom Thurmond for "the tremendous love he had for his constituents.")

In 1972, a young Trent Lott similarly jumped ship. Thirty years later, Mississippi GOP Senator Lott praised Thurmond on the occasion of his 100th birthday:

"I want to say this about my state: when Strom Thurmond ran for President, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."
The Council of Conservative Citizens, the successor to the dreaded White Citizens' Councils of Jim Crow days, couldn't agree more. Which is why Haley Barbour, who campaigned for governor of Mississippi wearing a lapel pin of the state's Confederate flag he vowed to maintain, was a fixture at the CCC's events. Lott, too, was a speaker in 1992 at an event of the Council of Conservative Citizens. Among its offerings in seething racial hatred is a "Wanted" poster of Abraham Lincoln. Lott also offered his rebel yell in the virulently neo-Confederate Southern Partisan, where in 1984 he called the Civil War "the War of Northern Aggression." (Former Missouri Senator and Bush Attorney General John Ashcroft went a step further, praising Southern Partisan for "defending Southern patriots like Lee, Jackson and Davis" and adding "We've all got to stand up and speak in this respect or else we'll be taught that these people were giving their lives, subscribing their sacred fortunes and their honor to some perverted agenda.")

To complete that conversion, candidate Ronald Reagan traveled to Philadelphia, Mississippi to kick-off his 1980 presidential campaign. There, where civil rights workers James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner were slaughtered in 1964, Reagan declared "I believe in states' rights." Reagan, who had denounced the so-called "welfare queen," the "strapping young buck" and declared the 1965 Voting Rights Act "humiliated the South," soon had more company among Southern conservatives in Republican ranks. In 1983, Texan Phil Gramm joined the GOP. Eleven years later, Alabama's Richard Shelby followed suit. It's no wonder that casual race-baiting long-discredited notions like states' rights, secession, and nullification are now standard fare on today's Republican menu.

Of course, the parade of Democratic official turned Republican matches the transformation of the two parties' core constituencies. If (as Chris Bowers suggests) LBJ's signature on the Civil Rights Act 50 years ago represents the actual "moment Democrats lost the white working class vote," political scientist Elisabeth Jacobs showed this was an overwhelmingly Southern transformation.

On average, Democratic presidential candidates prospects with self-identified white working class voters have diminished somewhat over time. (See Figure 4.) Yet, the downward trend in Democratic presidential vote choice between 1956 and 2008 is concentrated amongst the Southern white working class. (See Figure 5.) White working class presidential party vote choice for non-Southerners is remarkably stable over time; if anything, the period between 1984 and 2008 has been one of improvement for the Democrats amongst this group. The opposite is true in the South. Prior to the 1960s rights revolutions (including, most notably for the South, the major upheavals of the Civil Rights Movement), a strong majority of the Southern white working class voted for Democratic candidates. Southern white working class voting appears to have settled into a basic equilibrium with Reagan's 1984 election, with the notable exception of an uptick for Clinton's first election in 1992, and again for Obama's 2008 election gambit.

...The defection of the white South from the Democratic Party plays a central role in driving the overarching story of white working class politics. As Bartels succinctly summarizes: "Democratic presidential vote share has declined by almost 20 percentage points among [S]outhern whites without college degrees. Among non-[S]outhern whites without college degrees, it has declined by one percentage point. That's it. Fourteen elections, 52 years, one percentage point." The same basic relationship holds across all income groups of non-college educated whites: a 20-point-gap between the South and the rest of the country. This is Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy come to life, not a widespread national defection of white working class voters from the Democratic Party. Case in point: in 2008, Obama won 54 percent of whites with incomes under $50,000 outside of the South, while he secured just 35 percent of this group in the South.

But this and other pictures of "the rise of the Southern GOP since the Civil Rights Act" have flip-side. While Republicans have enjoyed a solid and growing edge among white voters over in recent decades, Democrats are running up ever larger margins among minority populations which are growing much faster. African-Americans consistently vote for Democratic presidential candidates by 90 percent or more. And after narrowing the gap among Hispanic voters to 53 to 44 percent for President Bush's reelection, Republicans got clobbered in 2012 by 71 to 27 percent. These two charts from Chris Cillizza and Ezra Klein tell the grim tale for the GOP:
That's why RNC chairman Reince Priebus ordered a post-mortem after Mitt Romney's defeat in 2012. And it's also why, among other steps, the Republicans plan a "$10 million outreach effort to include hiring national political directors for Hispanic, Asian-Pacific and African American voters and elevating minorities within the party."

But none of that will matter if voters grasp the GOP's transparent insincerity. After all, House Republicans have blocked comprehensive immigration reform. GOP leaders like Paul Ryan continue to traffic in dog-whistle language like "makers and takers" and lazy "inner city men" who are transforming "the safety net into a hammock." And rather than reach out to minority voters, Republicans in states across the country have instead advanced a wave of harsh voter identification laws and other vote suppressing efforts designed to keep those very groups from the ballot box, all despite numerous studies confirming that voter fraud is virtually nonexistent.

That's why the likes of John Fund and his Republican allies engineering the GOP's 21st Century voter-suppression campaign badly need a sleight of hand. Apparently, they believe they've found it by reminding Americans that once upon a time Democrats were the party of racists and Jim Crow. But no one should be misled. As Jamelle Bouie explained, "If black voters reject Republicans, it's not because they've been fooled by Democrats, but because they've been alienated by 50 years of revanchist right-wing populism."

Which is exactly right. The Great Trade commenced 50 years ago.  The GOP got the racism, xenophobia and dog-whistle politics from the dark side of America's past. In exchange, Democrats got King and Lincoln, human dignity and social equality, and the claim to highest ideals from the nation's founding documents for the future of all Americans.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  it began before that (22+ / 0-)

    Teddy Roosevelt and the Bull Moose Party started it in 1912, by splitting the Republican Party. Woodrow Wilson's win gave the progressive faction of the Dem party power, while the progressive faction within the Republican Party left to join the Bull Moose, then moved on to the Dem Party. Thereby leaving the Dems as the new pro-reform party and the GOP as the new pro-business party.

    But you are correct in that the Dixiecrats were still a remnant of the time when the Dem party was the anti-reform pro-business (and pro-racist) party and the Goppers were the progressive anti-racist pro-reform party, and it was the civil rights movement and Nixon's response to it that swept the Dixiecrats out of the Dem Party.

    In the end, reality always wins.

    by Lenny Flank on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 08:37:13 AM PDT

    •  William Howard Taft (9+ / 0-)

      Taft is the architect of the modern Republican party and the modern Supreme Court as well. With the progressive wing split, Taft was able to sweep in and engineer the beginnings of the conservative dominance. It took 70 years, culminating with the ascension of Reagan, who himself took advantage of both the groundwork started by Nixon, and Nixon's ultimate implosion, that resulted in killing off the remaining liberals in the GOP ( Yes, Nixon was a Liberal Republican), but it all started with Taft.
      Taft is probably one of the most influential people to be president, but yet his influence has little to do with his actual presidency, which looks middling on its surface.

      •  Jackie Robinson is another whom we picked up (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Subterranean, fenway49

        in the Great Swap. He was a Rockefeller Republican, and thought that Nixon had a better record on Civil Rights than Kennedy, so he was invited to the Republican National Convention then and again in 1964. In his biography, I Never Had It Made, he wrote

        That convention was one of the most unforgettable and frightening experiences of my life. The hatred I saw was unique to me because it was hatred directed against a white man. It embodied a revulsion for all he stood for, including his enlightened attitude towards black people.

        A new breed of Republicans had taken over the GOP. As I watched this steamroller operation in San Francisco, I had a better understanding of how it must have felt to be a Jew in Hitler's Germany.

        Jackie Robinson A Republican Hero, Say Republicans

        He then confronted Goldwater head on about the racism of his campaign, which included Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat campaign manager, Harry Dent, Sr.

        I admit freely that I think, live, and breathe black first and foremost. That is one of the reasons I was so committed to the governor and so opposed to Senator Barry Goldwater. Early in 1964 I wrote a Speaking Out piece for The Saturday Evening Post. A Barry Goldwater victory would insure that the GOP would be completely the white man's party. What happened at San Francisco when Senator Goldwater became the Republican standard-bearer confirmed my prediction.
        See also

        Michael Gerson Concern Trolls the GOP Tea Party's Opposition to Civil Rights

        Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

        by Mokurai on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 05:21:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The Populists are the part of US history (6+ / 0-)

      that is most often ignored, but which is, imho, one of the most important. And in that sense, you're wrong: the Great Trade did not begin in 1912, but in the 1896 election, in which the Populists made the fatal mistake of abandoning their Greenback (ie, anti-hard money) economic principles in order to nominate and endorse a Presidential candidate, William Jennings Bryan.

      In the South, the Populist nomination of Bryan meant that the Populists in the South had to abandon their alliances with the anti-establishment local parties of the South, which were the Republicans, and make new alliances with the Jim Crow establishment  local parties, which were the Democrats. Most Populists in the South refused to this, with the result that the Populist movement was basically destroyed by the break between the Populists in the South, from the direction the national party had taken in aligning with Bryan.

      In the North and West, the Populist nomination of Bryan meant that Populists there, in order to defend Bryan's policy on monetary silver, had to abandon what turned out to be the bedrock strength of the Populist movement, which was its opposition to any and all control of the money supply by private bankers - whether that money supply be based on gold or silver, or even fiat currency. The Populist linchpin was the absolute opposition to a monetary system organized for private gain rather than the general welfare. Bryan's policy of expanding the money supply to include silver as well as gold simply ignored this vital issue of private gain versus general welfare. And, as most hard-core old Populists warned, the inclusion of silver only benefited the mine owners of the west, and the eastern bankers who mouthed support for a gold only money supply, but provided the financing for the silver companies of the west.

      Before the 1896 election, the US political system was not entirely dominated by a two-party system. The Populists and others, such as the socialists, were able to, and did, hold about a fifth to a quarter of the House and even the Senate, with similar strength at the state level. After 1896, it largely became a two-party system, setting the stage for a Great Trade because there was only either the Democratic or Republican parties to place your hopes with. What remained of possible third parties was ruthlessly destroyed by the anti-German hysteria whipped up during World War One, and the anti-Bolshevik hysteria of the 1920s.

      If the mistake of the Populists in 1896 was to engage in the Presidential contest, the corollary was the mistake of not focusing solely on the races for Congress and the state legislatures and governorships. That this focus was still a viable strategy is proven by what the Non-Partisan League did in North Dakota in the 19-teens and the spill over effects in Minnesota (ie, the Farmer-Labor Party), which continued to draw the sharp distinction of economic and financial policies organized to achieve the general welfare rather than just private gain. I think we face a similar situation today: we are not going to get economic and financial policies organized to achieve the general welfare with Hillary Clinton or any other possible candidate for President, so we need to ignore completely the Presidential contest, and do what we can in Congressional and state election races.

      A conservative is a scab for the oligarchy.

      by NBBooks on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 09:33:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Of course the one area (3+ / 0-)

      Where Wilson was not progressive was in race relations, and we are still paying for the unraveling of (fairly small) advances made under Teddy and of other progress.

    •  Lenny, a historian with facts is much appreciated. (0+ / 0-)
  •  Were it not for VietNam, Johnson would be (26+ / 0-)

    considered the true continuation of Roosevelt.  Viet Nam ruined America.  We were making so much progress and then . . .

    I'm still proud of him, even though I was part of the anti war movement, and I can't forgive that grievous error.

    Truly great men and women . . . wow.  Always so complex.  Simultaneously brilliant and blind, insightful and stubborn.

    A drowning man can not learn to swim. -- Chris Lonsdale

    by Rikon Snow on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 08:37:43 AM PDT

    •  The difference between 1964 and 1972 (25+ / 0-)

      ... had to do with the Democratic party's embrace of the military-industrial complex, and the price the party paid for the folly of Vietnam.  The Democratic party was torn apart by that war, even more than the country was.  

      The Southern Strategy was not an inevitable success.  I think the two factors that made it successful were both due to LBJ's errors.  Vietnam was the first, but the second was just as important.

      The War on Poverty was a targeted program for the poors, not a broad effort to renew and expand the building of the middle class that was the legacy of the New Deal and the economic flattening caused by WW2.  Johnson should have focused on broadening prosperity for all, including Southern whites who were often poor themselves, but saw Johnson's programs focused on urban minority populations.  If Johnson had taken this broader view, I think Nixon's efforts would have had a much more uphill course.  They might have been successful anyway, because racism is so powerful in the South.  But FDR gave Southern whites a different enemy, the Rich, and if Johnson had done that he might have mitigated the effects of racism.

      I stand with triv33. Shame on her attackers.

      by Dallasdoc on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 08:52:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Poor people are poor people ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nautical Knots

        and it shouldn't make any difference if you''re black in Detroit or white in Appalachia, but it does.

        "A mind is a terrible thing to waste," is very true. But it is also true for poor whites as well.

      •  I don't think that the Vietnam War as avoidable. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bluenick, AllTheWayWithLBJ85, bryduck

        That blighted potato field was sown by Truman, Eisenhower, and JFK. I don't see any plausible scenario in which the war could've been avoided short of Johnson risking and surviving impeachment. Not after nearly 20 years of communist hysteria and 60+ years of the United States turning a blind eye to its burgeoning imperialist.

        •  So true! (0+ / 0-)
          That blighted potato field was sown by Truman, Eisenhower, and JFK. I don't see any plausible scenario in which the war could've been avoided short of Johnson risking and surviving impeachment. Not after nearly 20 years of communist hysteria and 60+ years of the United States turning a blind eye to its burgeoning imperialist.
          Thank you, maltheopia! I completely agree with you. We can't forget the Domino Theory, which was still supported then. Of course, it wasn't accurate, but to me it seems that LBJ didn't really have much of a choice re Vietnam.

          Their cause must be our cause too. Because it's not just Negroes, but really it's all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice. And we shall overcome. -- Lyndon B. Johnson

          by AllTheWayWithLBJ85 on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 08:19:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Much easier (25+ / 0-)

    It is much easier to think of them as the Southern Conservatives, and the Northern Liberals. Sure, they've traded party names, but not their ways.

    The Southern Conservatives 150 years ago refused to compromise, and 600,000 Americans died here in America. 50 years ago, the Southern Conservatives refused to compromise, and the National Guard had to be called out.

    Today, the Southern Conservatives still refuse to compromise, and are still trying to suppress minority voting. They haven't changed.

    •  Where is the home of gun toting conservatism? (9+ / 0-)

      The south, Yesterday, today, and look for it tomorrow. Voter suppression, refusal to compromise, racism, religious bigotry income inequality, are features of the South, not bugs.

      Arguing that you can admit Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and millions of other racist dixiecrats into the republican party and then claim they left their criminal history and racism in the Democratic Party, and became Lincoln Lovers, is the biggest repug lie of my lifetime. Bigger than climate change denial?  

      Nixon's Southern Strategy and Reagan's announcement for the presidency in Philadelphia Mississippi, along with his embrace of America's meanest organized religious bigots, are a pretty big 'tells' when it comes to which party is home to America's modern racists and bigots.

      •  There were & pare plenty of racists in the North (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        4mygirls, devtob, OCLefty

        I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

        by a2nite on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 09:40:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I would say that there has been a southification (5+ / 0-)

          of the white working class all thru the rust belt North.

          I have biked from Pittsburgh to DC twice on the bike trail that follows the old railroad line and the Ohio and Baltimore Canal. One ride was just before the 2008 election. After leaving Pittsburgh I didn't see an Obama campaign sign until I got to Harpers Ferry.

          In my old hometown at the corner of the oldest graveyard, there is a trailer that must be 60 years old. On a visit to see the home folks, I saw a pick up with a confederate flag fluttering from the bed. And this less than a 100 yards from where northern Civil War vets are buried including my Grandmothers Grandfather. I thought about ripping it  from the rig, but I figured if a redneck shit had a stars and bars the size of a beach blanket, he probably had a few guns and a pit bull too.

          The Underground railroad had a station in our town and people did not think flying  the Southern rag was very polite, but all along the border between the lower northern states and the south, it seems a lot more southern in attitude then when I was growing up.

          •  Part of the problem, it seems to me ... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bluenick

            is that the Democrats have abandoned the rural poor. Lots of rural poor out there, and the Demos need to put more effort into getting them on our side.

            •  All thru the rust belt many former prosperous (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              OCLefty, fenway49

              white workers did live in rural areas and drove 20 or more miles to get to the mill or factory. It wasn't unusual where I lived for factory workers to also have a small farm. Now the factories and farms are gone. But there are lots underemployed inner city kids and grownups with lots of underemployed white kids and grownups in the countryside. And big town or small town its all run down and worn out.

              I wish the Democrats would come up with an economic program to help us all, a living and a future for everybody.

               

        •  & are, the Confederacy is back; it infests all (5+ / 0-)

          50 states.

          I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

          by a2nite on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 11:05:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Most everywhere, actually. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Grabber by the Heel

        Lots of gun toting conservatives in the Mountain West, the South West and California.

    •  yes, simple solutions (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      devtob, OCLefty

      It is easier to believe that white people are hard working, black people steal what they have, and hispanics are all criminals who are in the country illegally and will be happy to murder anyone who gets in their way.

      These beliefs are why Vermont is free to sell guns to anyone that likely end up all over the country and are responsible for uncounted deaths. This is why Ohio and Wisconsin now lead the battle to suppress votes.  This is why there is almost no effort for democrats to win the south.

      The reality is that things can change.  As time goes on what is right and wrong change.  At one time a divorce was difficult without some infidelity, and evangelicals were very staunch on this point, but then things changed and they elected Ronald Reagan.  In 2000 is seemed McCain had changed, and he was many Independents choice for president, but that change was not lasting.

      There is always something shameful that was done in the past.  As long as we acknowledge the shameful activity and make an effort to make the future better, I don't think we need to feel shame all the time.

      For instance, if Christians would stop trying to marginalize and advocate violence for groups they do not like, then something like the Southern Baptist origins in hate could be left in the past. But they continue the bad behavior so it is not.  Likewise democrats still tried to justify the exclusion of certain americans based on observable differences, then this stuff would also still be pertinent.  But they don't so it isn't.

      She was a fool, and so am I, and so is anyone who thinks he sees what God is doing. -Kurt Vonnegut Life is serious but we don't have to be - me

      by lowt on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 10:31:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Your claim that nothing is being done in the South (0+ / 0-)

        turns out not to be the case. From Moral Mondays in North Carolina to Battleground Texas there are projects to GOTV all of the unregistered potential Democratic voters, and show the hand-sitters why their votes would matter if they went to the polls together. Some states are harder, and will take longer, but they will all tip away from racism, bigotry, misogyny, and other Republican fears and hatreds.

        We will be discussing how that will come about in my new Diary series, Grokking Republicans, starting tomorrow in the Readers and Book Lovers group with a discussion of our book list and the themes to be covered. We begin with Cognitive Dissonance, or how to believe six impossible Republican lies before—never mind breakfast—getting out of bed! Later we will get to The Evolution of Cooperation, by Robert Axelrod, and other hopeful evidence-based works that show us a path forward.

        Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

        by Mokurai on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 05:39:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  It's especially true to educate young people (12+ / 0-)

    about this history. I think the GOP's effort is aimed at folks younger than 25 who may not know their history very well.

    -1.63/ -1.49 "Speaking truth to power" (with snark of course)! Follow on Twitter @dopper0189

    by dopper0189 on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 08:50:37 AM PDT

    •  I'm significantly older than 25 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      richardvjohnson

      and I did not know this history very well.

      This is a fabulous diary that connects many pieces that I had been wondering about ...

      If a small minority of people is now stealthily ruling what was previously a democratic country, and "the people" don't seem to realize it, should anyone bother to tell them?

      by Older and Wiser Now on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 12:44:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Parts missing (5+ / 0-)

    The analysis here seems incomplete, as it skirts almost entirely the Vietnam war, the protest movement, and the so-called counter-culture. The unpopular war was largely the product of 2 Democratic administrations, and Nixon promised to end it. At the same time, the Democrats (the party of McGovern and McCarthy) were seen by Southerners as the party closest to those unpatriotic, anti-military protesters and hippies—very much against the grain of Southern patriotic values. All this was also a strong driver toward the Republican party.

    •  Your Analysis Is Incomplete (3+ / 0-)

      The diarist explains that there has been a bargain.  A trade of constituencies.

      The Democrats gained New England, the urban east coast and the New West.

      Why?

      You seem to imply that New England, the urban east coast and New West liked the Vietnam war, yet are unpatriotic anti-military hippies.

      Is that likely?

      •  What I said/what you read (0+ / 0-)

        I did not claim a complete analysis, only that the one in the diary was missing at least one important component; there are others. I did claim that the South has a particular tradition of patriotism—vocal, in-your-face, patriotism, and also of military service. In the South, these things operated against the Democratic party. For an illustration of the sentiments involved, I'd suggest screening Easy Rider and thinking whether or not you might have been able to set it convincingly  in New England.

        Last but not least, the diary was looking to explain what changed in the South, not why the Dems gained electoral strength elsewhere. You seem to want to suggest that the very same cause(s) that sparked a change in the South toward the Republicans operated elsewhere to move voters toward Democrats. That's a very big 'maybe,' but, offhand, I see no reason to think that this is the case. Certainly the hypothesis would need a detailed defense.

        •  It's all of a piece (0+ / 0-)

          Racist people who were uber-patriotic and pro-U.S. military (except when pretending the U.S. Constitution didn't exist and fighting a war against the U.S. military) used to be in the Democratic Party. Now, for all the reasons you and the diarist mentioned, they're in the Republican Party. It's hypocritical for the Republican right to try to hang this heritage on today's Democratic Party while pretending that shift, the "Great Trade," never happened. The end. I didn't think the diarist was being categorical on the causes of the shift, just the fact of the shift.

          “Republicans...think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people... And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.” Harry S. Truman

          by fenway49 on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 01:25:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Post hoc (0+ / 0-)

            You are taking as your premise that which the diary was attempting to demonstrate, i.e., that racism is the unique cause. This is tautological and, in addition, there are coherent analyses of voting results from 1952 forward (when, prior to Brown, 4 southern states switched from the Democrats to help elect Eisenhower) that make it clear that the diarist's analysis is a very limited view of the political history. It is not, in fact, all of a piece.

            •  Nobody's trying to establish propter hoc (0+ / 0-)

              Where is the mention of cause? The discussion is of effect: that people who would say the "Democrats" are the party of Southern segregationists ignore the fact that nearly all such people are now in the Republican Party.

              The Southern states went Democratic for president pretty much monolithically for 80 years following the Civil War. Major exceptions were the Harding landslide of 1920 (pathetic even to write that) and the anti-Catholic 1928 election. Starting with Truman's desegregation of the military and Humphrey's speech in 1948, a few states moved away from the Democrats. Eisenhower took four southern states as did Nixon in 1960. Then came 1964 and the dam pretty much broke.

              I don't think the key takeaway from the diary is that every racist white Southerner voted Democratic prior to 1964 and none did thereafter. The point is that today's Democratic Party doesn't contain those elements.

              “Republicans...think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people... And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.” Harry S. Truman

              by fenway49 on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 07:38:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I think you are correct (0+ / 0-)

                at least to the following extent—the segregationists after the civil war could not vote for the party of Lincoln, and they got a very corrupt bargain from the Democrats. From the late 60s onward, many southern Democrats became upset by the ways in which the national Democrats' civil rights legislation was upheld by troops at gunpoint and by the much-hated busing regime. As an eventual result, those who were upset largely left the Democratic party (especially after the failure of the Wallace candidacies).

                But the general movement away from the Democratic party started in the 50s and cannot, I believe, be easily traced directly to racial issues, though such issues surely contributed. In particular, the integration of the armed forces (which polled badly nationally) has not to my knowledge been shown as an significant driver of voters towards Republicans. Nor am I aware of Eisenhower's use of troops in Little Rock as a significant driver of southern Republicans towards the Democrats, which by the logic of the diary ought to have been expected.

  •  And look how this change impacts GOP attitudes on (5+ / 0-)

    a variety of points.  Just a quick few:

    47% of whites in the South indicate they own a gun.

    White Southerners are more likely to claim reverse discrimination.

    Southerners more likely to be birthers or question Obama's nationality.

    Also, given the strength of White Evangelical Protestantism in the South, there are ties between religious beliefs, Republicanism and things like science (climate change, evolution), women's rights, LGBTQ rights, capital punishment, etc.

    To be free and just depends on us. Victor Hugo.

    by dizzydean on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 08:53:11 AM PDT

  •  Republican propaganda about Jim Crow, (14+ / 0-)

    the KKK, etc. being Democratic is solely designed to reassure racist white Republican voters that they have been unfairly called racist.

    Because from 1865 to 1965 their forebears were racist white Democratic voters.

    The message may work with the ever-victimized GOP base, but it won't gain them a single vote among the growing majority of nonwhites and nonracists.

    A public option for health insurance is a national priority.

    by devtob on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 08:53:37 AM PDT

  •  Party names are irrelevant. I'm a liberal. (10+ / 0-)

    I support Democrats as the more liberal party. I'd have supported Republicans in Lincoln's time. The Democrats of mid-century were two parties: Liberals and Dixiecrats. They stayed together only as long as too many liberals didn't push on civil rights. Once liberals became a majority of Democrats (see the fight over the Civil Rights Plank in the Democratic platform at the 1948 convention), the Dixiecrats walked out. Within a generation, most became Republicans. Within two, just about all.

  •  Many libs lament the end of the New Deal Coalition (8+ / 0-)

    but in a way, I'm kind of glad for the Great Trade. For all of the nostalgia leftists have for the brutal effectiveness and progress of FDR to Johnson, oftentimes a lot of the victories feel Pyrrhic when you contemplate the amount of plantation owner bootlicking that went into making these victories possible. It's also a big reason why I don't overly begrudge Pres. Clinton's own spate of Wall Street bootlicking.

    One of the things that has me most excited for the future is that the post-Obama Democratic coalition doesn't have to choose to kowtow to the proto-Brownshirts nor the neo-aristocrats in order to run as a majority party. Not to say that the Democratic Party isn't still doing the kowtowing, but the kissing up to the plutocrats is an own-goal these days. Not a Sophie's choice.

    •  I think that there is room for a neo-New Deal (5+ / 0-)

      We traded away economic and social populism to the right.  We are great at developing the programs.  We just can't communicate it.  

      I don't know the answer but I do know that our party has been captured by Banksters and other corporate criminals.  

      I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

      by DavidMS on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 09:13:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  we'll have to give up identity politics (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        OCLefty

        That's the essence of the "Great Trade" IMO - the shift from populism to identity politics.  The various demographics were just along for the ride.

        The problem is that you can't talk about "the 99%" out of one side of your mouth and then talk about feminism, gay rights, minority empowerment, and immigrants out the other side.  We've been doing that for 50 years and it's only succeeded in giving the Republicans a political tailwind built on fear and jealously that they've used to destroy everything we accomplished.  Sure, the rhetorical goal may be to connect individual group's struggles to the greater struggle for "justice" - especially for the edification and redemption of people who aren't part of those groups - but a lot of people are instead going to see you as playing favorites with indulgent rhetoric and particularistic legislation.

        Domestic politics is the continuation of civil war by other means.

        by Visceral on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 09:39:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "Identity politics" means right for others (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          maltheopia, zizi

          than cis/het white males. Cis/het white males, of course, don't consider themselves an identity, they are just the "men" referred to by the Founding Fathers -- the rightful Owners of the plantation and the chattel.

          American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

          by atana on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 10:24:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  so I'm a plantation owner now? (0+ / 0-)

            Whipping and raping because I can, huh?

            In all seriousness, you prove my point completely.  Identity politics is advocacy for the particular interests of certain groups as opposed to the common interests of human beings - which is the position you'd logically take if you really believed in the mantra "We're all the same on the inside!" - American citizens, and poor people.  The irony is that identity politics is historically the weapon used by "cis/het white males" against the groups you champion.  The problem as I see it is that the left's embrace of the bad guys' moral universe from the opposite direction doesn't weaken them; it validates them.

            You sound like a stereotype.  I figure that's because you either don't know or don't care how ignorant, exclusionary, and inflammatory your rhetoric really is to anyone - left or right - who would take it seriously and think through the implications of privileging certain interests and points of view over others and deliberately introducing structural bias into our socio-economic system.  Now I could say all the same things about plutocracy, but you would immediately switch the discussion right back to identity politics ... because only cis/het white males are rich and powerful (and better yet, all cis/het white males are partners in the oppression and exploitation - collective guilt is A-OK when we do it) and the only reason they are rich and powerful is because society is racist and sexist to the core.  Therefore the solution to plutocracy is racial and sexual revolution.  

            Well we tried racial and sexual revolution and it not only broke up the coalition that voted FDR and LBJ into power, but went on to ignite the conservative backlash that undid a lot of what the New Deal accomplished, while eventually putting the Democratic Party under the control of socially liberal but economically libertarian/conservative elites in New England and now Silicon Valley.

            Domestic politics is the continuation of civil war by other means.

            by Visceral on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 10:57:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I see. No ENDA, because that's not "common (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              maltheopia, zizi

              interests". No Civil Rights Act -- not "common interests". No rights for women -- let alone an ERA! -- because not "common interests". Goddess forbid any affirmative action, because that would step on the "common interests" of the only humans who matter -- cis/het white males.

              You do sound like a plantation owner.

              American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

              by atana on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 11:03:06 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  it's the rich who want disadvantaged groups (0+ / 0-)

                People who are deprived of education, deprived of employment, deprived of bargaining power in private spheres, deprived of political power in the public sphere, etc. all make fearful and obedient workers who won't challenge anything that gets done above them, with them, or to them.

                And it's the rich who sell structural disadvantage to working class white men with the mantra of economic competition: "You don't want women and minorities and foreigners underbidding you, do you?"  Acting to tear down and/or keep down rival groups is only logical in a fixed society where most people live on the edge of penury, which is what we have.  They want you and me fighting over our little pieces of the pie rather than teaming up and going after the rich and their big fat pieces.  But what I don't understand is how we all "get" that the rich sell white men on economic injustice so long as they get to lord it over their own "inferiors", but instead of going after the economic injustice, we focus almost exclusively on the social injustice.  We're going to take away the only thing that these men think they have out of the belief that will somehow make them more amenable rather than less.

                Race and to a somewhat lesser extent gender is a proxy for class in this country. The national myth of a classless society serves the interests of the ruling class at every turn by getting black and white, men and women, rich and poor, talking about race and gender rather than about what's really going on.  It's all about cheap labor - the desire for it and the fear of it - and without a competing framework, everyone's going to fall back on race and gender because we cannot (and in many quarters may not) talk about anything else.

                It's only gotten more complicated since the fall of the New Deal coalition has removed any constraint on plutocracy, to the point where even white men are no longer protected.  The time has never been better for a revival of class-based politics that could pull together Americans from all backgrounds and walks of life and send the RW into the wilderness for generations to come.  But so long as the left's rhetoric is 50 years out of date - harkening back to a time that many white men look back on as America's golden age of peace and plenty ... except for the barbarians at the gate - then that's never going to happen.

                Domestic politics is the continuation of civil war by other means.

                by Visceral on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 11:27:45 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The rich are the intended result of patriarchy (0+ / 0-)

                  They are a feature, not a bug.

                  American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

                  by atana on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 11:29:46 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Also, your picture of the economy is out of date (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  OCLefty, zizi

                  You are focused on "working class white men" -- as if they still trundled off to the factory each morning, with a lunch box.

                  The descendents of those men now work service sector jobs, and they depend at least as much on the income from the women in the family as from the men. "Women's issues" are workers' issues now. "Workers" are no longer defined by "white men". Electoral politics is no no longer defined by the demographics of white men. The Repubs whipping up the hatred and resentment of white men, as they have been doing since the "backlash" of "angry white men" in the '70s -- the "backlash" that gave us the Reagan Revolution.

                  Well, the Angry White Men got themselves snookered. While they were busy hating on blacks and women and gays, their Owners shipped all their jobs to China. Now they are economically powerless, and they are rapidly becoming demographically irrelevant.

                  American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

                  by atana on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 11:52:05 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Additionally, the "coalition of the ascendent" (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              zizi

              is a demographic winner at the ballot box. When you add up everybody who isn't a hate-filled cis/het white male, you have an overwhelming majority of the voters in the country.

              American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

              by atana on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 11:11:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  We tried it the other way around, it doesn't work. (0+ / 0-)

          The New Deal Coalition was meant to make all boats rise equally. And even if it did, the outcome was still unjust.

          Sure, the rhetorical goal may be to connect individual group's struggles to the greater struggle for "justice" - especially for the edification and redemption of people who aren't part of those groups - but a lot of people are instead going to see you as playing favorites with indulgent rhetoric and particularistic legislation.

          The thing is, any kind of policy change -- including doing nothing -- is going to favor one group over another. And once you do that, it's trivially easy to spin that as kissing up to one group at the expense of another.

          If you have twin children with equally good grades and behavior and one of them getting $5/week and the other one is getting $10/week, then increasing both of their allowances by $5/week is still going to favor the latter. Increasing the first by $10/week and the second by $5/week risks breeding resentment in the second one, especially if they don't see the original allocation. Hell, even if you increase both of their allowances by $100/week to reduce the relative utility bulge one or both of them are going to view it as unfair.

          •  The New Deal Coalition intentionally and (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            zizi

            systematically omitted Blacks, at the insistence of Southern White Democrats. For example, no agricultural or domestic workers qualified for Social Security. This continued after WW II, when Blacks were systematically excluded from GI Bill benefits in Southern states, and the FHA systematized redlining in residential mortgage lending, and imposed it on the entire financial industry.

            We have not finished undoing those disasters. Hence Ta-Nehisi Coates talks about the need to study the need for Reparations for such systematic plunder of Black wealth and opportunity. We also need to examine the plunder of poor White wealth that went on at the same time, and continues today.

            Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

            by Mokurai on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 05:54:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Forget Womans Rights, Gay Rights, etc (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Visceral

          Concentrate on Human Rights .Last time I looked Women, Gays, Black and Whites were all Human and due respectful treatment.

          Identity Politics sounds like All Animals are Equal, but some Animals more Equal than Others to many people (about 48% if the polls are right). It's about time to change these peoples minds.

          •  A distinction without a difference in America. (0+ / 0-)

            There were (are?) more than a few people in this country who view human rights as nothing more than backdoor identity politics.

            If you recommend increasing two equally qualified and able workers' sub-poverty paystubs from 80/day and 55/day to 140/day, there are more than a few people earning 80/day who will think that you're showing favoritism to the 55/day guy and will resent your efforts.

            And if you don't believe that this analogy describes the state of America from 1968 to, well, now then explain to me why you think that the Southern Strategy worked.

            •  Jesus talked about that (0+ / 0-)
              For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard. And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, And said unto them; Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way. Again he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did likewise. And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle, and saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle? They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive. So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first. And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny. But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny. And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house, Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day. But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good? So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.
                 — Matthew 20:1–16, King James Version

              Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

              by Mokurai on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 06:05:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Does not compute (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          zizi

          The 99% is made up of women, minorities, immigrants, the young, the old, LGBTs, the poor, unions, those unable to unionize, the hard-pressed middle class—all distinguished by not being plutocrats. We do have to be careful of the prosperous 1%-wannabes and hanges-on, but talking to our entire coalition is talking out of the middle of your mouth, not one side or the other, and certainly not both.

          Indulgent rhetoric and particularistic legislation
          is a Republican framing. Where did you get that from?

          Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

          by Mokurai on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 05:48:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  This is a gross oversimplification (10+ / 0-)

    Yes, this happened, but its a gross oversimplification on the role of the political parties historically - and, frankly, buys into the Republican argument trying to hang Democrats on their past.

    Because while Republicans were the "party of Lincoln" and civil rights, they have also always been the party of the corporation, the railroads, the industrialists.  A good number of Republicans in 1860 were against the South more because they feared the economic power of a slave-labor powered industrialized South.  

    The Republican party has never been in favor of the "little guy" economically.  The reason poor whites found a home with Democrats is because the Democrats fought for their economic interests.  Its why its so puzzling why poor whites flock to the Republican party which routinely goes against their economic interest.

    William Jennings Bryant - the Dems two-time Presidential standard-bearer, racial politics aside, would find a home with Occupy Wall Street today  -

    The man who is employed for wages is as much a business man as his employer; the attorney in a country town is as much a business man as the corporation counsel in a great metropolis; the merchant at the cross-roads store is as much a business man as the merchant of New York; the farmer who goes forth in the morning and toils all day, who begins in spring and toils all summer, and who by the application of brain and muscle to the natural resources of the country creates wealth, is as much a business man as the man who goes upon the Board of Trade and bets upon the price of grain; the miners who go down a thousand feet into the earth, or climb two thousand feet upon the cliffs, and bring forth from their hiding places the precious metals to be poured into the channels of trade are as much business men as the few financial magnates who, in a back room, corner the money of the world. We come to speak of this broader class of business men.
    This while running against William McKinley, whose economic policies would make Dick Cheney blush.

    So we have to remember that while the Democrats have a shameful history w/Jim Crow, there was a long history of progressive economics.

    My point is if the GOP insists on reminding Dems of their shameful past, we should make sure to remind people that this same GOP was also fighting child labor laws and standing up for the robber barons (yes, Teddy Roosevelt was the exception).
     

    •  Thank you. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chitown Kev, richardvjohnson

      The "great trade" involved racism, true, but before the issue came to the fore the Liberal Party of Jefferson (he would be a Democrat today) fought the big money party of Hamilton to a standstill - and the power of that liberal party, the one that demanded the Bill of Rights before it would sign onto the Constitution, was largely in the South.

      Simply put, racism has perverted our politics, and made the Dems the bad guy around the time of the Civil War.

      "If there are no dogs in heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." - Will Rogers

      by Kentucky DeanDemocrat on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 11:07:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Jefferson couldn't agree with himself (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Theodore J Pickle

        on what his politics were, especially on slavery. He was one of the first to propose Nullification, and was extremely hot on States Rights in general. He was sure that buying Louisiana was unconstitutional, but went ahead anyway.

        It is much too facile to suppose for him a choice that he is not here to make, depending on 200 years of historical development that he knew nothing of.

        Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

        by Mokurai on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 06:12:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Here's the thing (0+ / 0-)

      I agree with you that, at least after Lincoln himself was gone, the Republican Party always was the party of the elite business interests. But waving the bloody shirt and a stiff dose of nativism sure got it a lot of rural northern votes from people who weren't necessarily benefiting in the 1865-1932 period.

      The Dems didn't always have a history of progressive economics. The national party in the late 1800s was dominated by the its "Bourbon" faction, most notably Grover Cleveland, who was as tight with Wall Street and big business as any Republican of those days. It was a time reminiscent of our own, when neither party could really be counted on to take a stand against Wall Street.

      “Republicans...think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people... And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.” Harry S. Truman

      by fenway49 on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 01:32:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's obvious to those who were there, but... (10+ / 0-)

    ...as these events recede into the past, the more they need to be discussed with young people who are new to politics.

    The GOP's "Party of Lincoln" crap doesn't fool anyone who was paying attention in their high school U.S. history class, but many were not. It underscores the Pubs' various campaigns of "false equivalency" - and new voters are attracted to FE, because they think it will shield them from being screamed at by rabid talk-radio addicts.

    I think the "one generation" turned into "two" (and "three) because the GOP skillfully transformed the resentment of those who "lost" the Civil Rights struggle into a generalized hostility toward "big government". This hostility transferred from parents to children, who have only a dim idea of the racism that fuels it.

    That's how we got the unholy alliance between Wall Street and working class conservatives.

    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing
    he was never reasoned into” - Jonathan Swift

    by jjohnjj on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 09:06:18 AM PDT

  •  Massachusetts remained with liberalism. (3+ / 0-)

    If you look at the history of our Governor and Legislature you will notice that we flipped from being reliably Republican to reliably Democratic (with exceptions on both sides of course) at roughly the same time this diary refers to.

    Slightly off topic, but regarding MA's party allegiances, the 1854 election resulted in the Know-Nothings of all people running the table.  That party took the entire US House delegation (one of whom, Nathaniel Banks, was elected Speaker), the entire State Senate, the entire Governor's Council, all the statewide offices, and all but three State House seats.  Yes, backlash against the recent influx of Irish immigrants had something to do with it, but it was also that the party outflanked both major parties on abolition because they had less to lose.  One contribution of the Know-Nothings that progressives now defend, albeit for different reasons, is a constitutional amendment prohibiting vouchers for religious (ie Catholic at the time) schools.  I have long had the fantasy that for just one cycle the Democrats beat the Know-Nothing feat of near unanimity, but that means there would be as there already are a fair amount of conservadems.  When people complain that we need to be two-party state my answer is that philosophically there are two parties, but they both call themselves Democrats.

    •  Ain't this the truth (0+ / 0-)
      I have long had the fantasy that for just one cycle the Democrats beat the Know-Nothing feat of near unanimity, but that means there would be as there already are a fair amount of conservadems.  When people complain that we need to be two-party state my answer is that philosophically there are two parties, but they both call themselves Democrats.
      It burns me to see horrific things done by the likes of Tom Finneran (e.g. probation scandals) hung on the "Democrats." Massachusetts has too big a tent in the Democratic Party. I'd rather see the GOP win some more seats (we'd still have a 2/3 majority in each house) and say goodbye to some of the conservative "Democratic" detritus.

      “Republicans...think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people... And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.” Harry S. Truman

      by fenway49 on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 01:35:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm sorry but I don't see any greatness (6+ / 0-)

    in the GOP beyond Lincoln, Grant or T. Roosevelt. They made themselves into the party of big money (sold out black people in the south) & then they found a way to create a coalition with white supremacists & RW extremist evangelicals in the 1970s.

    Not surprising that they're stuck.

    I excluded Eisenhower because he gave us Nixon.

    I'm liberal regardless of which party calls itself what.

    I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

    by a2nite on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 09:07:12 AM PDT

  •  2050 can't get here soon enough. (4+ / 0-)


    ODS results in Obama's amazing ability to humiliate his biggest critics, on the right and the left.

    by NoFortunateSon on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 09:08:12 AM PDT

  •  Use descriptors, not labels (6+ / 0-)

    The issue of whether it was Democrats or Republicans who are the REAL racists, because Democrats once supported Jim Crow while Republicans ended slavery, goes away if you just throw away the labels (Democrat, Republican) and use the descriptors conservative and liberal.

    It was always the conservatives who were for slavery, for Jim Crow, against civil rights laws, etc., regardless of what label or party they attached to themselves. It was always the liberals who were against those things.

    Therefore, anyone who willingly calls himself conservative inherits that legacy, no matter whether he claims to be a member of the Republican Party or Constitutional Party or whatever.

    •  American conservatism supported the King of (4+ / 0-)

      England during the Revolution. Poor bastards have no good history. The alliance of New York financial interests and Southern Planter culture is also an ancient and enduring American feature. New York was a Tory city during the revolution and the Colonies largest and most active population of Tories were in the South.

      During the Civil War the mayor of New York openly discussed leaving the Union along with the slave states. Lincoln said, "I don't think we'll let the front door set up housekeeping by itself."

      Capital, worker exploitation and franchise suppression, income and political inequality, have been pals in our homeland since before we were a country.

    •  moral and immoral (2+ / 0-)

      work even better than conservative and liberal

      Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
      Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights to talk about grief.

      by TrueBlueMajority on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 11:02:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Would you have been a Dem or Republican in 1896? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fox Ringo, Kentucky DeanDemocrat

    Is the question -  

    McKinley or Bryant?

    •  McKinley (0+ / 0-)

      was an economic populist but he was also a proto-evangelical prohibitionist nut job.

      28 ~ AZ-01 ~ Flagstaff, Arizona

      by Fox Ringo on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 09:21:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Doh I meant Bryan. sorry. nt (0+ / 0-)

        28 ~ AZ-01 ~ Flagstaff, Arizona

        by Fox Ringo on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 09:22:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  To be fair, McKinley was also against war with (0+ / 0-)

        Spain. At least he was reluctant.

      •  Mckinley was Mid Western rural farm gentry. He (0+ / 0-)

        shared the mistrust of banks and railroads that farmers in the Great Lake's Region learned when the Mississippi was closed to them during the Civil War. And yet railroads, oil, and steel were making Ohio rich. Wall St capitalists had money and political power in excess of their numbers as they do now, but they didn't have both parties kissing their asses. McKinley, Roosevelt, and Taft all seemed to enjoy having the nations capital increased but didn't think much of capitalists or their behavior.

    •  Bryan, no question. (0+ / 0-)

      His religion is what led him to care for the poor and to repudiate the Big Money party.  McKinley was owned by Mark Hanna and the rest of the Republican Machine which was in turn owned by the Rich.  Gilded Age, anyone? How can this even be a question on a liberal blog?

      "If there are no dogs in heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." - Will Rogers

      by Kentucky DeanDemocrat on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 11:13:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Republican. The Democratic Party was astoundingly (0+ / 0-)

      corrupt between Reconstruction and the New Deal. Not to say that the Republican Party wasn't corrupt, because holy shit the Gilded Age, but Boss Tweed was only the tip of the iceberg.

      •  Republicans had machines just as bad (0+ / 0-)

        Just a small sample:

        -New York State, not city (Platt)
        -Cincinnati
        -Philadelphia
        -Pennsylvania statewide (Penrose)
        -Downstate Illinois

        The Democratic machines just got more press, because they were the party of urban immigrants and there was plenty of bias among WASPs against them. And Reconstruction? Not nearly half as "corrupt" as rumored and didn't go near far enough to complete the job.

        “Republicans...think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people... And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.” Harry S. Truman

        by fenway49 on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 01:39:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  if they left b/c of race, then why are we (0+ / 0-)

    trying to win them back with race?  It's at once funny and frightening to hear the way liberal Democrats talk about race relations because in many ways it does seem like just a different spin on what the Republicans have been telling Southern whites and poor whites in general for the last 50 years: "Blacks and browns are going to be everywhere, they're going to have the power, they're going to change the country and all its people down to their very souls, and collectively guilty white people have a moral duty to help make it happen!"  Liberal fingers always wagging, liberal voices always judging and condemning, other liberal voices always preaching the same old "Turn the world upside-down!" radicalism, only now wrapped in vapid ecumenical and therapeutic rhetoric, liberal hands open to everyone everywhere except "us here", etc.  How on earth could you expect the villain of our story to be won over with even more of everything that motivated him to become the villain in the first place?

    The New Deal coalition was built on class politics: economic populism, genuine job creation, the construction of a floor on standards of living, and protecting the integrity and productivity of market capitalism by reigning in its self-destructive excesses.  Everyone - white and black, poor and middle class (and even many rich people), Christian and not, straight and gay, etc. - stands to benefit from those policies.  And the New Deal succeeded where Communism failed because again it had forsaken radical, paradigm-shifting revolution - trading one top-down system where people were reduced to anonymous, interchangeable, and disposable units of production and consumption for another top-down system where people were reduced to anonymous, interchangeable, and disposable units of production and consumption - in favor of securing the people in their persons and properties.  The New Deal created freedom; it did not destroy it.

    The right has always run on identity politics - race, sex, religion, nationalism, etc. - but in the Sixties, the left signed up for identity politics too.  We took the very positions that had always been attributed to us.

    Domestic politics is the continuation of civil war by other means.

    by Visceral on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 09:19:02 AM PDT

    •  The right runs on *hating* different others (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite

      the left on rights for all.

      American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

      by atana on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 10:52:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That is the foundational falsehood of the NDC. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chitown Kev, Patango

      The New Deal coalition was built on class politics: economic populism, genuine job creation, the construction of a floor on standards of living, and protecting the integrity and productivity of market capitalism by reigning in its self-destructive excesses.  Everyone - white and black, poor and middle class (and even many rich people), Christian and not, straight and gay, etc. - stands to benefit from those policies.

      No. Not at all. We can talk all day about whether parts of the New Deal were specifically constructed to exclude racial minorities (most notably the WPA and Social Security) but you know what the biggest evidence was that it was based on elided racial supremacy? The poverty statistics of racial minorities, especially blacks.

    •  Hold it! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      maltheopia, a2nite, Patango
      Everyone - white and black, poor and middle class (and even many rich people), Christian and not, straight and gay, etc. - stands to benefit from those policies.
      that would be true now. But when the New deal was enacted many blacks were excluded from those benefits because of Dixiecrat racism.  
      •  so if it'd work now, then why aren't we doing it? (0+ / 0-)

        You know what, I could buy the argument for identity politics back then - "Women and minorities want the American Dream too!" - but what I don't understand is why we talk like it's still the Sixties.  Hell, we talk like it's always going to be the Sixties.

        If decades of social progress have indeed gotten us to the point where we can make a switch back to class-based politics, confident of holding onto the New Left's educated/female/minority/countercultural base while getting back a big chunk of the Old Left's working class white base, then why the hell aren't we?

        Domestic politics is the continuation of civil war by other means.

        by Visceral on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 11:44:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Because the educated/female/nonwhite/LGBT (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          zizi

          demographic is larger than the cis/het low education white male demographic. And is growing. It's more important for us to strengthen our demographically burgeoning coalition -- the Obama Coalition -- than to try to pry loose racist gun nuts and religious freaks.

          American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

          by atana on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 12:17:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  who said anything about gun nuts & fundies? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            a2nite, Patango

            There you go again with your stereotypes.

            I'm talking about low to moderate income working people who happen not to fall into one or more of your preferred demographics.

            Domestic politics is the continuation of civil war by other means.

            by Visceral on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 12:32:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's what Rev. Dr. William Barber talked about (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Patango

              at Netroots Nation. These aren't White or Black issues, or male or female or LGBT issues, or Republican or Democratic issues, these are moral issues.

              I'm glad I didn't miss it: Transcript of The Rev. Dr. William Barber at NN14

              Then he walks the walk, recruiting North Carolina Whites damaged by the Republican agenda there, most remarkably a Republican Mayor demanding Medicaid expansion, and residents of a former sundown town in the hills that ran off all of its Blacks in the 1920s and has never recovered.

              Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

              by Mokurai on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 06:22:40 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  That depends on what you mean and (0+ / 0-)

          who you're talking about.

          If you mean ditch the identity politics and focus only on class issues, then No. Hell no.
          There have been gains in women's rights, LGTBQ rights and even minority rights, but they're all fragile and all under attack. We cannot abandon them. As long as we don't it'll be called identity politics and be used against us with part of the old working class white male base.

          If you mean just add more class based politics, then it depends on who you're talking about. The part of "We" that's grassroots and that's largely represented here has always been focused on class issues as well as identity - unions, minimum wage, retirement, even healthcare is essentially a class issue. If you're talking professional politicians, while they're still better on such issues than Republicans, the answers are clear and not pretty. They're scared of communist/socialist accusations and far too often they've been bought off by big money.

          The Empire never ended.

          by thejeff on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 02:55:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  In fact, much of the problem (4+ / 0-)

        In the urban north and its inner suburbs come from race-related housing policies implemented under the New Deal. It's hard to say how much was FDR and his inner circle, and how much was just to please the Southern Dems, but ...

        •  and let's not even talk (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Patango, maltheopia, libera nos

          about the GI Bill which few blacks qualified for then.

          All of these things were factors in the post war economic boom.

          For white people, that is.

          (Personally, I don't think that FDR could have gotten a lot of this stuff passed through the heavily-Dixiecrat Senate Committee's of that time if those provisions that largely excluded blacks had not been included, FWIW)

          •  By the same token (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            maltheopia, libera nos, mallyroyal

            It does get sort of sickening when progressives hold up FDR as a paragon that Obama should follow.

            In fact, it getting so much done piecemeal, he is kind of following FDR (although I would say that the economic situation was more of a crisis then than now).

            •  Dream on (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bryduck
              In fact, it getting so much done piecemeal, he is kind of following FDR
              Piecemeal?

              The New Deal, with all its many flaws, was a full-frontal assault on how the U.S. economy worked. And, if you look at any income and wealth distribution graphs, it got results. The FDR years represented a paradigm shift that ended a Gilded Age that had lasted for 60 years. The share of national income going to the bottom 90% rose from 50% to almost 70% and stayed there for decades - until Reagan. The share going to the top 1% went from almost 25% to as low as 9% - until Reagan.

              When I see statistics suggesting that the restoration of the Gilded Age that began under Reagan is seriously reversing (rather than accelerating) due to anything that's happened under Obama, that's when I'll put Obama in the same economic category as FDR.

              “Republicans...think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people... And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.” Harry S. Truman

              by fenway49 on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 01:47:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I did say (0+ / 0-)

                "kind of"

                And for white folks the New probably does represent exactly what you said.

                For most black folks The New Deal didn't represent that for quite awhile (although on the civil rights from FDR did some good things).

                and please do NOT forget the enormous majorities that FDR  enjoyed in Congress, without which nothing could have been done.

                •  It benefited everyone (0+ / 0-)

                  The New Deal was far from perfect for black people, but the WWII manufacturing jobs gave plenty of black men opportunities they never would have had. Black incomes went up in the same trajectory as white incomes until the dawn of the new right-wing era in the 1970s.

                  I didn't forget that FDR had huge Democratic majorities, but many of those Democrats were Southern. Hence the deals with the devil. They ditched him to make common cause with the GOP in the last years of his presidency.

                  Obama had a pretty good majority himself but managed to blow the moment by not taking on the banks and asking for too small a stimulus.

                  “Republicans...think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people... And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.” Harry S. Truman

                  by fenway49 on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 03:14:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yeah (0+ / 0-)

                    and then black people were cheated out of wealth due to redlining and things of that nature.

                    it's more than looking at sheer dollars or the trajectories...you also have to talk about what black folks were able to do with that wealth as opposed to white people.

                    Look, I'm no big Obama supporter when it comes to many issues (including the stimulus) but exactly what do you think that he was able to get done...hell, he barely got health care past. (and I'm no big FDR knocker, either)

                    and anyway, that judgment won't be rendered now but 20 years hence

  •  Picking at a tiny nit (0+ / 0-)

    All the biographical information I can find online referencing John Schmidhauser lists the confused anomaly of his being from  "Bronx, Queens County, New York."

    The Bronx and Queens County are not now, and were not in 1922 when Schmidhauser was born, the same thing. The Bronx was established as Bronx County in 1914 when it was carved out of New York County (Manhattan). Queens County, established in 1683, is one of the original counties of New York.

    Does anyone out there know the real story of Schmidhauser's origins?

    We can't think our way into a better way of living. We have to live our way into a better way of thinking. Claude AnShin Thomas

    by DaNang65 on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 09:19:52 AM PDT

    •  Looked him up (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DaNang65

      John Schmidhauser's from the South Bronx, as in Bronx County. His dad (son of Swiss immigrants) was living in Melrose, on E. 155th, in 1910 and a few blocks from there in 1918, when he registered for the WWI draft, and 1920. John was born in 1922 and they lived in the same neighborhood, at 155th and Melrose, in the 1930 census. No Queens to be found.

      “Republicans...think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people... And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.” Harry S. Truman

      by fenway49 on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 02:00:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fenway49

        Sounds like you're pretty familiar with the Bronx, especially for having that screen name.

        That's not a part of the Bronx I'm personally familiar with. I was born at 188th and Valentine Ave. and grew up at the corner of Tremont and Castle Hill Aves., so Melrose was out of my neck of the woods.

        We can't think our way into a better way of living. We have to live our way into a better way of thinking. Claude AnShin Thomas

        by DaNang65 on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 07:50:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I was actually born in Brooklyn (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DaNang65

          to a Brooklyn mother and a Boston father. I lived in NYC for over 20 years as a kid and an adult. My old coworker lived in your neck of the woods on Pierce Av.

          “Republicans...think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people... And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.” Harry S. Truman

          by fenway49 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 11:13:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Small world! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fenway49

            My h.s. & later girlfriend lived on Lurting Ave. between Sackett and Pierce. That's certainly my old neck of the woods!

            We can't think our way into a better way of living. We have to live our way into a better way of thinking. Claude AnShin Thomas

            by DaNang65 on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 04:11:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Jury Summons - supresses the vote? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fox Ringo, Patango

     I have received (and honored by responding to, and not  shredding) 4 jury summons in less than 10 years. I believe that I could have saved myself a great deal of time and lost earnings by simply not registering to vote.
      For sure, the so-called "randomness" of the juror summons process needs to be back tested.
      I believe that voter registration needs to be outlawed as a means of making a list of potential jurors, so that registering to vote is no longer a threat to one's income and time.
      (Incidentally I have yet to come across a corporation performing their civic duty by participating as a juror - which corporations should do if they have the same rights (and therefore responsibilities) as individuals.

    •  California uses DMV lists. (0+ / 0-)

      California uses DMV lists.

      •  Jury lists in California. (0+ / 0-)

        ..and voter registration. It came up the previous time I went to court. The question as to whether a computer was used so that you could not have your name in the "hat" twice (both as a voter and from being on the DMV list) was dodged as we were all suddenly dismissed due to a postponement
        Of course a computer should not be used for making "random" choices. Better to use a big hat!

  •  I'd say the Great Trade began with the New Deal (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    devtob, rhauenstein, pademocrat

    and was finalized by the Civil Rights Act and Republican de facto repudiation of their political and moral heritage in order to take over the South.

    FDR was hesitant to make more than occasional forays into the civil rights arena (and, ofr course, there was the Japanese-American internment) but Eleanor was, from beginning to end, a beacon for minority rights.

    •  FDR didn't do much for black people because he (6+ / 0-)

      needed the white power brokers in the South.

      He sold us out like every other POTUS in the name of white male supremacy.

      I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

      by a2nite on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 09:36:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Eleanor began to set Democratic Liberals to (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TrueBlueMajority

        the task of supporting and fighting for Civil Rights. She deserves as much credit for integrating the U.S. Armed Forces in 1948 as Truman does.

        Roosevelt himself recognized that the Democratic party could never be a truly Liberal party as long as it had to drag around the boat anchor of white southern racism and race violence. He actually was sounding out New York Liberal republicans about forming a new Liberal political party and leaving the dixierats  to fend for themselves. Lack of Liberal republican enthusiasm for the plan and Roosevelt's death put a period to this idea.

        What if?  

      •  This is again why I don't buy into the hagiography (0+ / 0-)

        of FDR -- especially with many of the same crowd denouncing Clinton and Obama as sell-outs. Like, I can't even imagine a bigger sell-out than the original Social Security plan. In terms of selling the least fortunate out, bugaboos like Glass-Stegall and NAFTA aren't even in the same league as the NIRA.

        I don't know about you, but I'd rather lick the shoe shine from a Wall Street trader's footwear than the bloody bootheel of a bigoted sheriff.

        •  Do we have to choose? Lincoln did what he could do (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Subterranean

          when he could do it and he made it pretty clear that if he could have saved the union without freeing a single slave, that's what he would have done. But as the arc of history bent to justice so did he. So did FDR. And both were swept up in conflict and events that resemble mythic battles of the gods. And both choose a greater good for the country's and the world's future over narrow elite interests. In some cases by choice but others because circumstance forced them to.

          Billy's accomplishments in finance, trade, and social welfare were all reactionary. Clinton is as responsible for the 2008 crash as Bush. He blew kisses at workers and the middle class while blowing Wall ST dizzy.

          Obama? Maybe if he had thrown some more sugar to the Liberals who but the most energy in getting him elected, he'd have a Dem Congress and a better presidency and legacy.

          Obama supporters got a president. Hillary supporters got jobs in Obamas administration and these Wall St Clintonites don't give a shit about Liberal Democrats or anything they want.

          •  This is what I don't get. (0+ / 0-)

            Clinton, despite his numerous defeats, successfully being our last line of defense from the literal height of the Nixon-Reagan coalition makes him a Wall-Street fellating sell-out.

            But FDR's victories were hard-fought and oftentimes Pyrrhic but should still be celebrated for getting us the best deal we should get.

            I'm sorry, the only way you could hold this viewpoint was if you think that more unabashed liberalism during the Clinton years would've been a bigger electoral winner. Either that, or you're saying that a poker player holding a full house is inherently a better player than one holding two 4's.

            •  What FDR did was brand new in America. Clintons (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Subterranean

              neo-liberal economics were straight out of the fliver and flapper era. He and Blair finished what Reagan and Thatcher started and in my opinion that is nothing to be proud of.

              The only innovative thing about Bill's financial and economic disasters was how he helped boost the power of corporations to nations by orders of magnitude.

              What single Liberal accomplishment did he achieve accept unpaid family leave?  

              •  "What FDR did was brand new in America." (0+ / 0-)

                And he did that because he was holding the political equivalent of full house and was also lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time. If FDR had come to power in 1928 or 1984 or 1996 I don't think that he'd do much better than Bill Clinton. Hell, I think that he'd in fact do slightly worse considering that he made two major unforced errors in his first 8 years that Clinton (or any other Democratic President) hadn't met. Similarly, I don't see any post-20th century Democratic President that's not Wilson or maybe JFK doing much better or worse than FDR if they were magically transplanted into FDR's role.

                Lest I remind you, FDR to some degree believed in balanced budgets, gold standards, regressive taxation, and keeping industries from being nationalized or hierarchically evolved.

                •  I think we can agree you like Clinton and I don't. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Subterranean

                  You think Clinton was a victim of repug opposition and I think he like Obama and his team in 2010,  put their voters to sleep by failing to toss some meat to the base. A base that would have then got out other votes in the mid terms of 1994 and 2010.

                  Clinton was able to pass an agenda slightly more conservative than he liked, but one he was happy to pass. Obama's CoS Rahmbo, I believe, thought he was going to be able party like it was 1994, but the repugs had other plans and this time around were willing to pass nothing rather than have a Dem share the gratitude of their Wall St masters. Hence Social Security saved.

                  I understand conservative Dems fucked the works too. Obama may have done more of what the country needed with more help form his party. Still he staffed his admin with all of Clinton's disastrous economic goons. So how different would this presidency be if he had a loyal opposition and not a mob of lunatics and race haters?

                  For me the Clinton verdict is in. And guilty as charged.

                •  Ya know what I'm leaving out the Clinton NW (0+ / 0-)

                  Forest plan. A plan that promoted lower levels but smarter logging. Protected watersheds, streams, and wildlife, as it retrained and put out of work loggers, fisherman, and resource agency personnel  back to work. And it looked for ways to make valued added products close to forests. Lots of other good ideas grew out of Plan as well. It was big thinking and had lots of good ideas and intentions.

                  If the Plan had gotten ten or fifteen more years it would have made some real difference in Northwest Communities, forests, and watersheds.

                  I correct myself. As Shakespeare said, If man were constant he'd be perfect".

  •  The "trade" was consummated in August 1980 (4+ / 0-)

    When Ronald Reagan officially endorsed 'states rights' at a speech in Philadelphia MS. The Saint literally said that the federal government had no role in finding the killers of those planted bombs in churches and school houses.

    And with that speech, the GOOPERs bought the White House for 12 consecutive years. To bloat our deficits, to provide the seed capital for Osama bin Laden, to trade arms for the release of hostages.

    Most importantly, the Saint ended nearly 120 years of positive federal involvement in the US economy (from railroads to the telegraph to airlines to computers) by saying the 'government was the problem'

    All Americans continue to pay price for that trade. We have all become Mississippi.

  •  Jon Perr, don't waste time with fundies (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    or the national review.  (See Morgan Pillsbury, Melissa Pillsbury scandal for background)

    The fundies are part and parcel of the John Birch Society and the infamous Joseph McCarthy, imho.

  •  "Reagan's 1984 election, with the (4+ / 0-)

    notable exception of an uptick for Clinton's first election in 1992, and again for Obama's 2008 election gambit."

    "gambit: a planned series of moves at the beginning of a game of chess

    : something done or said in order to gain an advantage or to produce a desired result"

    Why is it "Reagan's election," "Clinton's election" but "Obama's election gambit."  Reagan and Clinton had no team, advisers, no election strategy, etc, and were just spontaneously elected on merit, whereas the black guy had to manipulate his way into office somehow?  Why was that word used only for Obama?

    •  Because he ALWAYS has to be disrespected (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      anon004, atana, maltheopia

      I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

      by a2nite on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 10:14:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  the idea of a certain illegitimacy (0+ / 0-)

      continues to be pervasive for some on both sides of the aisle because there those who view President Obama as being the recipient of skullduggery that disenfranchised his white opposition in the last two presidential campaigns and made his election possible...and some of those remain democrats/liberals/progressives...

      Fear doesn't just breed incomprehension. It also breeds a spiteful, resentful hate of anyone and everyone who is in any way different from you.

      by awesumtenor on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 11:04:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wow, I had no idea that other than (0+ / 0-)

        in the right-wing-nut universe, anyone believed he wasn't fairly elected.  Especially when one considers what happened in the two elections prior to 2008.

        Where were these groups of whites disenfranchised by Obama and his minions?  And why haven't we heard from them?

        •  Clearly you have forgotten (0+ / 0-)

          the 2008 Democratic primaries...

          Fear doesn't just breed incomprehension. It also breeds a spiteful, resentful hate of anyone and everyone who is in any way different from you.

          by awesumtenor on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 11:30:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Still don't get it (0+ / 0-)

             I followed 2008 primaries and I have no recollection of legitimacy denial in the primary.  Clinton campaigned used  standard he is not ready, he is too young, he is outsider campaign against Obama.  They tied to minimize his accomplishments and belittle his policy, but I never saw birtherism, foreignness, not real American in Clinton campaign.  

            •  Geraldine Ferraro (0+ / 0-)

              And Harriet Christian were not the only ones on the left in that particular canoe...

              Fear doesn't just breed incomprehension. It also breeds a spiteful, resentful hate of anyone and everyone who is in any way different from you.

              by awesumtenor on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 07:26:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  The pundit's narrative leading (0+ / 0-)

              ...up to the 2008 Democratic Convention was that Obama was selected by party leadership rather than elected by democratic primary voters; Hillary Clinton made a number of birther statements about no one's needing to ask for her birth certificate, etc.

              Your not recalling them notwithstanding, there were more than rumblings about the POTUS' not being legit whether we are talking birther shit or the idea that the primary was rigged from the outset and Pres. Obama was the DNC's puppet selected to prevent Hillary Clinton from being the nominee.

              Fear doesn't just breed incomprehension. It also breeds a spiteful, resentful hate of anyone and everyone who is in any way different from you.

              by awesumtenor on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 07:35:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  You mean the PUMAs? (0+ / 0-)

            Yeah, I see your point, kinda.  As I recall, that had to do with the fact that when it came to delegate count, even though the press kept calling for Hilliary to concede, she wasn't that far behind. I think that built resentment such that Hilliary's supporters really didn't want to concede when the time came.  Obama simply had a campaign organization that was head and shoulders above Hilliary's, and McCain's and Romney's, too.  All three used the old style top-down, money mostly from big donors, limited use of technology etc. for their campaigns.  The Community Organizer and his staff simply brought a newer, much more effective game.  People who lose to a strategy that was never used before tend to want to question its legitimacy because they never saw it coming.

      •  Well it worked for evil W nt (0+ / 0-)

        I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

        by a2nite on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 12:45:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  As usual... (0+ / 0-)

    in the absence of a a truly inclusive, forward-thinking platform, desperate to attract votes, (not to be confused with addressing voter's needs), [today's] republicans yet again rehash and attempt to put a spin of the past that suits their needs, distorts facts.
    The "Party Of Lincoln" meme has long been debunked....
    The only people who still use it, believe it, are the very ones who have one foot on the proverbial political banana peel, and the other....

    "These 'Yet To Be' United States" --James Baldwin--

    by kevinbr38 on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 10:11:49 AM PDT

  •  sadly, this will do nothing to explain (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    atana

     
    the fact that over 98% of black voters cast their vote for Barack Obama, and that minority votes are not in the least impressed with the racists voter suppression methods of the GOP.  If this is some sort of gambit to convince anyone other than themselves, then they are far more deluded than even I imagined.

    "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

    by louisev on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 10:36:09 AM PDT

  •  Although a much smarter group don't forget Asia... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chitown Kev

    Although a much smarter group don't forget Asians a d the myriad other groups (Middle Easterners etc.). Also voting very Democeo.

  •  And this is why (0+ / 0-)

    education should be about more than learning job skills.  Although nobody who was awake during fifth grade history would believe this crap anyway.

    "ACRU"?  Seriously?

    A media that reports issues fairly and intelligently, and that holds power accountable, is an inherently liberal institution.

    by Dinclusin on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 12:08:05 PM PDT

  •  It's Simple (0+ / 0-)

    It's actually very simple.  Jim Crow wasn't left or right, it was southern.  Just look at a map.

    •  The 'othering' and discrimination from Jim Crow (0+ / 0-)

      is quintessentially right-wing.

      Sure, the specific manifestation of this id in America -- discrimination of blacks -- is Southern. But arbitrarily hierarchical domination is the raison d'etre of right-wing and specifically conservative politics. Right-wingers may disagree on the structure and specifics of the hierarchy as in do what degrees certain races and ethnicities and creeds and classes should be allowed to exist at different levels, but without exception they believe that some hierarchy should be in place and it should dominate the lower rungs as they see fit.

    •  ...thanks for the comment... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Patango
      Welcome to Daily Kos. If you have any questions about how to participate here, you can learn more at the Community Guidelines, the Knowledge Base, and the Site Resource Diaries. Diaries labeled "Open Thread" are also great places to ask. We look forward to your contributions.

      ~~ from the DK Partners & Mentors Team.

      Ignorance is bliss only for the ignorant. The rest of us must suffer the consequences. -7.38; -3.44

      by paradise50 on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 03:31:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Another point for the GOP (0+ / 0-)

    who want to try and rewrite history

    Diary

    But the political enforcement of Jim Crow was entirely in Democratic hands.
    Indiana Republican Party 1920's Wiki
    Unlike the first Ku Klux Klan that rose in the South during the Reconstruction era to terrorize newly freed slaves and their white Republican allies, this new Klan that started in Georgia in 1915 was highly nativist organization that hid its racism in the cloak of family values and patriotism. Staunchly anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic, antisemitic, and of course prejudiced against African Americans, the new Klan spread into Indiana in the 1920s under the Grand Dragon D.C. Stephenson.[8] The second KKK was almost exclusively Republican in Midwestern states like Indiana as well as northern and western states like Maine and Colorado, although the KKK remained exclusively Democratic in the South. Under Stephenson's leadership, the Klan flourished in Indiana and took over both the Governor's Office and much Republican Party in the General Assembly.[9] With over two-hundred and fifty thousand white males (approximately forty-percent of Indiana's population) paying their Klan dues in Indiana, Stephenson amassed a fortune estimated from two to five million dollars.[10] More than half of the Indiana legislature elected in 1924 were KKK members,
    This is when the film " Birth of a Nation" came out , and you see all those old black and white pictures of klan parades on Washington DC

    Virginia born dixiecrat president Woodrow Wilson screened that film in the white house  

    Beer Drinkers & Hell Raisers

    by Patango on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 02:15:28 PM PDT

  •  So what's more important to voters RIGHT NOW: (0+ / 0-)

    Where the parties stood 50-150 years ago, or where they stand today?

  •  THANK YOU -- this is an important diary (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Patango, Subterranean, fenway49

    I'm a native Mississippian.  Although I moved away from the state, most of my family is still there and I maintain close contact with them, visiting often.

    Whenever  one of my rightwing friends starts in with the "Ku Klux Klan was Democrats, Jim Crow was Democrats, etc., etc., etc.," my reply is EXACTLY as you say -- "History did not stop in 1965."

    The GOP in today's South is made up of the same people who were Jim Crow Democrats.  They changed party allegiance in response to: (1) LBJ's civil rights and voting rights bills; (2) Nixon's Southern Strategy; and (3) Reagan's Southern Strategy.

    Reagan?  Yes, Reagan.  Here's a little something that no one ever points out.

    Reagan was born and reared in Middle America -- Illinois; middle class upbringing, church-affiliated college.  

    Reagan went to California to seek and find his fortune.

    In 1980, when he was nominated as the GOP Presidential candidate, he had to make his first speech as the candidate.  Where did he make that first speech?

    Did he go back home to Illinois and celebrate his God-Mother-apple pie roots?

    Or, did he go to California to celebrate the Land of Opportunity?

    NEITHER.

    Reagan's first speech as the GOP Presidential candidate was at PHILADELPHIA, MISSISSIPPI -- the site of one of the most heinous murders of the Civil Rights era.  And there he proclaimed to a shrieking, screaming, foot-stomping, all-white crowd "I support State's Rights."  He was telling the South that he would do nothing to enforce civil rights or voting rights legislation.

    Read more about it:

    --Reagan's Neshoba County speech

    -- Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman

  •  Thank you for the history. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Patango, pademocrat, fenway49

    Please be reminded that in the 1948 Democratic Party Convention, Hubert Humphrey made a speech urging his Party to place the Civil Rights plank in the Democratic platform thus angering the Southern Democratic wing who bolted the Party and became the Dixiecrats.

    Barry Goldwater who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the Party's nominee for Prez.

    David Duke was a Republican representative in the Louisiana State House.

    Do they really think we are that dumb??????

  •  I'm not sure how many Black voters don't already (0+ / 0-)

    know the history of slavery and through to 1965 and beyond.

    As a group they know who is more likely to be their friend and who is more likely to be their foe.

    The ACRU, Rand Paul and others who are trying to "educate the Black" about their past are really not talking to Blacks, they are talking to moderate Whites and relatively new citizens who do not know the history, in order to try to pull a few votes.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site