Cheney, for certain values of “far right.” From the Nixon Admin on he fought for an unaccountable, unitary-executive Imperial Presidency. And also for . . . well, see post #56.
Seems to me the effect would be to prevent the abundance of former sharecroppers in the job market from driving down the market-wage. It does not (alone) make it any harder for them to find jobs than for whites to find jobs; it just makes the jobs worth having when they do find them.
Allowing untempered capitalism to become the state religion.
It was much, much less tempered back in the 19th century.
If you mean he knew that politics is the art of the possible, then yes. He went as far as he could to end slavery, but it was a stepwise process, and he had the parallel goal of reuniting the country. That required “letting 'em up easy” *after *the goal of ending slavery had been achieved.
You seem unfamiliar with the party’s origins. It was founded around the purpose of fighting, and eventually eliminating, slavery. The “ideologues” (a loaded word in any circumstance, and inappropriate now that we have settled the matter morally as well as politically) did not “capture” the party, they founded it and *were *it.
The first actually illustrates ITR’s point, as that fellow is no longer a Republican politician - once his essay came to light, the party rescinded their endorsement.
The second (who is one of four candidates in a primary, and has never been elected to anything), going off that article, is a crackpot, but doesn’t seem to oppose the rights of blacks to vote, serve on a jury, or marry interracially.
The county party rescinded its endorsement. The New York State Republican Party apparently didn’t.
It’s still on his website, but I find references to the state party withdrawing it:
I did see that History Commons thing but I couldn’t find anything that was actually from the state party.
The New York State Republican Party website returns 0 hits for “Jim Russell”, and I haven’t found a press release or anything like that.
I did find this Salon piece with direct quotes from a state GOP official:
…which also implies that the decision to drop Russell or not would be made by the county, and not state, party.
Based on all the sources available, it’s pretty clear that Russell lost local and state party support. The only evidence that he enjoyed the state party’s endorsement is that he didn’t remove that item from his website; against that we have statements by a party official, the finding of a Fair Campaign Practices Committee, and the fact that Russell sued a state party official for defaming his character.
Fair enough. The point still stands, though; Russell is a “Republican politician” who opposes miscegenation.
In the technical sense that Russell was a Republican who opposed miscegenation, sure. Note the ‘was’, he’s is no longer a Republican politician.
In the larger sense that I believe ITR was trying to convey - that such views are unacceptable to today’s Republican Party - the point does not stand, because Russell was booted from the party days after his views became known. That’s as near as makes no difference to “no Republican politician today…opposes the right of blacks to vote, serve on a jury, or marry interracially”.
IMHO, at least.
It may be clearest to think of the basic divide in American politics, right from independence, as being big government / urban vs. small government / rural, Hamilton vs. Jefferson if you’re so inclined (the Louisiana Purchase notwithstanding). That was the basic fault line between the Whigs and the Democrats, and it resumed after the war. The war and the run-up to it was only a temporary realignment caused by the immediacy of resolving the slavery problem. Lincoln’s Republicans were essentially a temporary alliance of factions of the former parties. The institution only became permanent because there was no remaining Whig party to re-form the old big government / urban interests around, the “cotton Whigs” having thrown in with the Copperhead Democrats, the “conscience Whigs” controlling the Republicans, and the Know-Nothings having little left to fight for.
Since the war, the switch of the former anti-slavery party to having its base in the region, and culture, that supported slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, black voting right suppression, and institutional of unequal economic opportunities … er, excuse me, “states’ rights” … (and excuse me again, I put that in the past tense, didn’t I?) can be seen as reactions to the stepwise and equally total switch of the Democrats from standing for those things to opposing them. The Southern Strategy certainly was an example.
To add details to that explanation:
The Republicans were hated in the South after the Civil War for obvious reasons, so the Democrats dominated there (the origin of the term “Solid South,” as in solidly Democratic). As a result, the Democratic primary became the de facto election in Southern states, because no Republican could win in November.
When the civil rights movement finally let blacks vote in large numbers in the South, they voted in the Democratic primaries like everyone else. That caused Democratic candidates to become more liberal. That in turn drove many conservative whites to seek alternatives in the GOP, and the dominance (and conservatism) of the Democratic Party in the South finally ended. That was a significant driver of the flip-flop.
Sometimes people who don’t understand this history in full who find out I’m a Democrat will attack me, trying to associate me with the racist past of the Democrats. They’ll say things like “back in the 50s and 60s, the Democrats fought civil rights.” I respond by saying, “Sure, and back in the 50s and 60s, I would probably have been a Republican. But now it’s 2013.”
For essentially the entire rest of the 19th century, the reminder on Election Day was “Vote the way you fought”.