undefined
Listings of definitions and characteristics of fascism I see here describe only obvious techniques in use. Symptoms. Our problem (Cause) seems to me to be government operating under the influence powerful corporate sponsors. Now, try again please.
Lemur866, how do you feel about the classification of many European political parties as “neo-fascist”. Like the British National Party, Nieuwe Nationale Party, Vlaams Blok. Of course, it’s easier to tag a specific party’s platform than general social trends.
I’ve been thinking about this all day, and Lemur866 has a point. If we want parallels, the one that works is right under our nose: LBJ.
Yes, he was progressive on domestic issues. He was also an unscrupulous, power-hungry bastid who finished the job of sinking us into Vietnam, countenanced the infamous Pheonix Program, the 60’s version of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, complete with torture, and tried to combine the guns of Vietnam with the butter of a domestic anti-poverty program as grandiose and stupidly unrealistic as Dubya’s current plans to “privatize” Social Security by engaging in 2 trillion dollars of guvmint borrowing. To describe it is to realize how stupid it is.
We have our own example of Dubya right here at home, and the fool is repeating every single mistake LBJ made. That they’re both from Texas is, one hopes, a coincidence. I’ve never pointed this out to my brother, who lives there, because I do want to talk to him again.
Anyway, whether this era of idiocy will be followed by a Great Inflation, as LBJ’s was, or something different, like maybe a Great Depression, is the only thing left to see.
The die is cast. The only question hanging is the flavor of the disaster we’ll experience as a consequence of the policies of this profligate, power-hungry, war-mongering ass.
[hair]
LBJ took the IRT
Down to 4th Street, USA!
When he got there,
What did he see?
The youth of America
On LSD!
[/hair]
I think the comparison is a good one with LBJ, but as much as we liberals like him, I wonder if FDR is a better one. Here is a man who massively expanded government with the New Deal, threatened to stack the courts to get his way, oppressed citizens based on race, and of course militarized the country and restricted civil rights. Now, I’m not saying that these were the wrong decisions, and the US needed to go down that road to survive. But not all of the decisions were good one, and he is remembered most unfavorably for the bad ones.
For the New Yorkers of a certain age, there’s this one:
(to be sung to the tune of Frere Jacques):
*Marijuana, marijuana,
LSD, LSD.
Rockefeller makes it.
Mayor Lindsay takes it.
Why can’t we, why can’t we?
*
There’s also the question of which rationalization will be used to blame it on the Dems. I vote for the ‘obstructionism’ excuse. The Dems’ obstructionism kept W from being able to prevent the upcoming fiscal disaster.
Well, yes, but that’s going to be a tough one to prove given that they control both houses of Congress and the White House now. As a link I posted up above pointed out, they could, for instance, end the whole ‘extraordinary rendition’ thing on their own if they so chose, right now, without having to wait for the Dems to beat up on them on that issue. That they aren’t doing so is damning evidence that they are just fine with torture. As are their supporters, from whom, as you can see just by looking at this thread, they are getting exactly zero pressure on this issue.
I think you’re saying to-mah-to, I’m saying to-may-to. The way you stated your argument- in my opinion- was that Southerners voted for Democrats because Democrats were the racist party, and then once Republicans became the racist party, Southerners switched over; the way you state it indicates that following the racist party was the reason people switched parties.
The way I’m stating it is that when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed, the Democrats were no longer the party of racism and segregation, and therefore Southerners no longer felt bound to only be Democrats because Democrats supported segregation- Southerners were then free to vote for either party based upon what their main issue was. I will certainly admit that some Southerners voted post 1964 for whichever party they thought was anti-Civil Rights, and therefore voted Republican; but I assert that there are enough naturally conservative voters in the South that the strength of the Republican Party in the South cannot be explain by racism alone. The fact that the South was once entirely Democratic can be explained by racism and segregation.
Again, as I said: prior to the Civil Rights Act, there were plenty of Southerners who would have been completely at home in the anti-union, anti-Communist, anti-tax, law and order Republican Party, but who refused to voted for a party that opposed segregation. Once the Democratic Party shifted enough that segregation was broken in 1964, that impetus to stay loyal Democrats was completely removed, and people could vote along more natural lines and on other issues.
I am not stating that Republican opposition to certain civil rights platforms (affirmative action, busing, etc.) was not a factor at all, nor am I stating that no Republicans ran on overtly or covertly racist platforms. What I do take issue with is the assumption that A) the South post 1970 is inherently more racist than the rest of the country and that B) the fact that the Republicans do better and better in the South with each election is proof that the Republican Party has become/is becoming more racist.
It’s fairly conclusive proof that for all practical purposes, the Republican Party IS racist. To what degree, hard to say … certainly to a MUCH greater degree than the Democrats.
The only issue I have with this is that – the way I’m reading it – your implication is that the Republicans opposed segregation, etc. from the get-go. That (pre-civil rights) support for the Democratic party was based on racism, since some/many/most Southerners voted Democrat, contrary to their other values, until the Democrats no longer supported such racist policies. Not being familiar with the times in question (pre-1960s), beyond commonly known items like Orval Faubus’ shameful decree (yes, I had to look up his name and no, I didn’t know he was a Democrat), I’d like to know what Republicans of the time came out in support of civil rights. If they, as a party, came out openly in support of civil rights, I’ll consider myself corrected (and more educated than I was before) and thank you for it.
I’m sorry that you got that impression; I think neither. Again, I was focussing on the social movement taking place in the mid to late 1960s.
It would be fairer to say that the Republicans have a good lock on the white racist demographic in the southern states.
Ooo, now you did it; this is going to rapidly devolve. I’m going to have to ask for something (citations, references, even an explanation) as to the “conclusive proof” of which you speak.
From the 1956 platform
There’s actually a whole plank about civil rights in the '56 platform, but here are excerpts
From the '52 platform…again, another whole plank:
For that matter, in '48:
Here’s the 1960 platform, with an even more extensive civil rights plank:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex=R1960
For that matter, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported pretty overwhelmingly by Republicans (138 yea-34 nay in the House, 27 yea-6 nay in the Senate)
I had no idea, and I thank everyone who set me straight.
Considering the Republican Party of today has no qualms about planting fake reporters in the White House Press Corps or sending out government-paid propaganda videos in the guise of “news reports,” I don’t think they’d have any problems shoveling more bushit to the public blaming the Democrats for their next mess.
A pity we aren’t in 1964 any more.
snicker It took a gay man to set you straight.
I wonder what changed within the Republican Party that went from “We concur in the conclusion of the Supreme Court that its decision directing school desegregation should be accomplished with “all deliberate speed” locally through Federal District Courts.” to shouting “Activist Judge!” whenever there is a case that expands civil rights now. I wonder how “One of the basic principles of this Republic is the equality of all individuals in their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” has changed to “We strongly support President Bush’s call for a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage, and we believe that neither federal nor state judges nor bureaucrats should force states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage.”
Yes and no.
Pre-1964 support for the Democrats in the South was based entirely upon the Civil War and the Reconstruction afterwards. The Republicans made the chant in the North- and rightly- “Not every Democrat was a rebel, but every rebel was a Democrat!” The Republicans were the abolition party prior to the Civil War, and neither Lincoln nor Fremont (the two Republicans no run nationally pre-1861) were not even listed on the ballot in many Southern states due to their abolitionist leanings.
Following the Civil War, the South went through Reconstruction: it was treated as a conquered military zone, and Republican appointees ran it. While some areas were generally treated fairly, this was during the intensely corrupt Grant administration, and Republican Reconstruction officials got a reputation as corrupt know-it-alls from up North who came down to the South with their belongings packed in carpet bags (i.e., “carperbaggers”) and ran things their own way with no recourse for locals. Most grieving to many was the fact that many of the Republicans “elected” as “representatives” to Congress from the South during Reconstruction were African-Americans, usually former slaves. This gave rise to the Ku Klux Klan and its ideology of freeing the good white race from evil black overlords. ( :rolleyes: )
In 1876, the Presidential election was disputed due to fradulent results (or, specifically, multiple results, but I’m not going to dissect the whole election right here) from two states. Eventually, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes was selected as the winner, but he made promises to Democrats as a peace offering that Reconstruction would be ended. It was, and the new governments of the Southern states immediately instituted poll taxes to stop African-Americans from voting. With that part of the electorate gone, and with overwhelming resentment towards the Republicans for the trials and tribulations they had put the South through (some real, some imagined), and with the Republicans making vague noises about civil rights and respecting blacks, it basically become impossible to run as a Republican in the South.
The reason I point this out- you make the assumption that Southerners voting for Democrats were voting “contrary to other interests” when voting for Democrats. This is not the case. Because there was simply no effective Republican Party in the South from 1876 to 1964, any person running for office whose political leanings would be considered “Republican” would still run as a Democrat. Rather than settling matters in the regular election between a Republican and a Democrat, most real elections in the South would be the primaries, where conservative Democrats (i.e., Republicans) would run against liberal/progressive Democrats.
Now, it is true that at times Southerners would vote for Democratic Presidential candidates in contrast to their interests- Truman and Kennedy were no friends to segregationists, and yet they still won Southern states in their election campaigns. But note that in both of those cases, a third party “pro-segregation” candidate received several electoral votes in protest from the South (Strom Thurmond in 1948, Harry Byrd of Virginia in 1960). The other three Democratic Presidents during this period either made no mention whatsoever of civil rights (Cleveland), were active segregationists (Wilson), or talked a very good civil rights line while doing absolutely nothing about it and assuring Southern politicians that they didn’t really mean it (FDR).
But the point I’m making is that it wasn’t that Southerners voted against their interests. It was that the Democratic party in the South, for all intents and purposes, acted as both parties. And much of the Democratic leadership in the Senate and House came from the South (Only three Democratic Speakers of the House from 1876 to 1989 came from outside of the South and the border states. And note how much of House and Senate Leadership during that period came from the South and border states.) as a way of ensuring that the more conservative Democrats got some say in the party and what got passed rather than forcing them to work with Republicans.
Republicans in support of civil rights:
It was the Republican Congress that passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution.
1872 Republican Party Platform: “Complete liberty and exact equality in the enjoyment of all civil, political, and public rights should be established and effectually maintained throughout the Union, by efficient and appropriate State and Federal legislation. Neither the law nor its administration should admit any discrimination in respect of citizens by reason of race, creed, color, or previous condition of servitude.”
1908 Republican Party Platform: “The Republican party has been for more than fifty years the consistent friend of the American Negro. It gave him freedom and citizenship. It wrote into the organic law the declarations that proclaim his civil and political rights, and it believes to-day that his noteworthy progress in intelligence, industry and good citizenship has earned the respect and encouragement of the nation. We demand equal justice for all men, without regard to race or color; we declare once more, and without reservation, for the enforcement in letter and spirit of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments to the Constitution which were designed for the protection and advancement of the negro, and we condemn all devices that have for their real aim his disfranchisement for reasons of color alone, as unfair, un-American and repugnant to the Supreme law of the land.”
1948: Republican Party Platform: “We are opposed to the idea of racial segregation in the armed services of the United States.”
1952: Republican Party Platform: “We condemn bigots who inject class, racial and religious prejudice into public and political matters. Bigotry is un-American and a danger to the Republic… We believe that it is the primary responsibility of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions, and this power, reserved to the states, is essential to the maintenance of our Federal Republic. However, we believe that the Federal Government should take supplemental action within its constitutional jurisdiction to oppose discrimination against race, religion or national origin. We will prove our good faith by…Federal action toward the elimination of poll taxes as a prerequisite to voting… Appropriate action to end segregation in the District of Columbia.”
1956 Republican Party Platform: “In the area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction, more progress has been made in this field under the present Republican Administration than in any similar period in the last 80 years… Segregation has been ended in the District of Columbia Government and in the District public facilities including public schools, restaurants, theaters and playgrounds. The Eisenhower Administration has eliminated discrimination in all federal employment… Segregation in the active Armed Forces of the United States has been ended. For the first time in our history there is no segregation in veterans’ hospitals and among civilians on naval bases. This is an impressive record. We pledge ourselves to continued progress in this field.”
Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican, was the first President to allow an African American (Booker T. Washington) to spend the night at the White House.
Every single African-American elected to Congress until 1935 was a Republican.
“In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 % of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 % of the votes.” (from: this cite)
Earl Warren, who wrote the anti-segregation decision in Brown v. Board of Education, had been the Republican governor of California, Republican candidate for Vice-President in 1948, and had been appointed by Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower.
The 1960 Civil Rights Act was introduced by Republican Senator Everett Dirkson. Dirkson worked tirelessly to get a Civil Rights Bill passed in 1964, stating his goals were “first, to get a bill; second, to get an acceptable bill; third, to get a workable bill; and, finally, to get an equitable bill.” Dirksen said on June 10, 1964: “There are many reasons why cloture should be invoked and a good civil rights measure enacted. It is said that on the night he died, Victor Hugo wrote in his diary substantially this sentiment, ‘Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come.’ The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied.” He later stated “I am involved in mankind, and whatever the skin, we are all included in mankind.”
Nelson Rockefeller, governor of New York and Presidential candidate in 1964: “I’m… concerned that no serious effort has been made by the Democratic administration in Washington to redeem its promise of 1960 that federal civil rights legislation would be, and I quote, “a first order of business,”… I want to see an America in which people of all races and religions live together under law and order, with mutual respect for each other and with equal opportunity for all, made a reality.”
In the House, Republicans favored the 1964 Civil Rights Act 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152 to 96. I can’t find a Senate breakdown on party lines, but 6 Republicans and 21 Democrats voted against it there.
See http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html and
http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_histmats_civilrights64text.htm
That’s just a quick search. Let me know if you want more.
[shakes his fist angrily at those whose Google skills are quicker than his]
Two reasons: First, the rise of the Goldwater wing in the Republican Party. Goldwater was one of the few Republican Senators to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964, though he stated he did it because he felt it was an abhorrent intervention of the federal government in state matters, and that libertarian streak to some degree has been strengthened within the party by the success of Reagan and Gingrich.
Second, the question of whose ox is getting gored. It was easy for Republicans in the 1950’s to favor anything that advanced civil rights, as Democrats were left looking like the racists. Nowadays, many Republicans draw their support from the Religious Right, and expansion of homosexual civil liberties is seen as an imminent danger by the Religious Right.