This is a placeholder text
Group text
by MaggieMae on 03 September 2009 - 21:09
.
by MVF on 03 September 2009 - 22:09
I almost always agree with Sueincc, but I am not sure I agree with her that both parties have in actuality contributed to civil rights, although I agree that they have officially done so!
The party of Lincoln is now in the Democratic camp, and what I would call the "followers" of Lincoln have been largely responsible for civil rights progress.
The switch took place in phases, historically. Lincoln's Republican Party (from 1860-1932) was really The Northern Anglican Party PLUS African Americans (who were kept from voting, so they didn't matter in electoral politics. Electoral maps reflect the North-South division very clearly.) The exception was New York, which was heavily Irish-American, and later Italian-American and other Catholics -- who were as a matter of principle opposed to the dominant English protestant majority and, as a consequence, often aligned with southern interests (against blacks, sadly). Catholics had been essentially driven out the public schools in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, so Catholics of all ethnicities tended to vote as a bloc. The need to win NY swung the presidential races in the direction of Southern sympathizers -- Republicans called doughfaces -- or, when that didn't work -- to a Democratic candidate (eg, Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson). Wilson backfired on the Irish as he proved very anti-Ireland.
In 1932, Hoover (who was passively watching the Great Depression with the bad advice of his Neoclassical Economists) faced off against a New Yorker (of Dutch descent) -- FDR. Although FDR was wealthy and Harvard (very Republican society!) he was a non-Anglican NYer with some ideas for change. FDR began the process of moving Northerners outside of NY out of the Republican Party and into a larger Democratic party. Under FDR, the Democrats were now a combination of the old Southern White + NY party PLUS the Catholic Party PLUS the Jewish Party. The Republicans retained the Northern English PLUS African Americans (still loyal to Lincoln, and not aligned with southern whites).
That was the first phase of the transition.
This continued until 1960. Even JFK won by capturing NY, MA, IL, and THE SOUTH. When civil rights leaders saw in him the commitment to justice, they appealed to him. He knew that to give up the Southern White vote (loyal to the Dems since Jefferson!) could kill his re-election and his party, but he eventually announced his commitment to Civil Rights. He was killed and Johnson, a Texan, presided over the Civil Rights Act of 1964. At the time, Johnson announced correctly that he had lost the South for the Dems.
At that point the switch was complete. What used to be the old Democratic party before 1932, was now the new Republican party. What used to be the old Republican party before 1932, was now the Democratic party. The few exceptions were: the New Dems held onto NY with the rest of the North -- but gave up, now and then, Maine, NH and Vermont.
So by 1964, the Dems had become the party of the North and the GOP had the south. Goldwater ONLY took the South in 1964 (first time Georgia ever voted Republican). NY + the North would have made the Dems formidable, but the growing West (not coast) became GOP.
My long winded point is that the party of Lincoln, in the GOP (1860-1932), in both parties, but mostly Republican (1932-1960), and then in the Democratic party (1964-) has been responsible for pretty much all advancements in racial justice.
The party of Lincoln is now in the Democratic camp, and what I would call the "followers" of Lincoln have been largely responsible for civil rights progress.
The switch took place in phases, historically. Lincoln's Republican Party (from 1860-1932) was really The Northern Anglican Party PLUS African Americans (who were kept from voting, so they didn't matter in electoral politics. Electoral maps reflect the North-South division very clearly.) The exception was New York, which was heavily Irish-American, and later Italian-American and other Catholics -- who were as a matter of principle opposed to the dominant English protestant majority and, as a consequence, often aligned with southern interests (against blacks, sadly). Catholics had been essentially driven out the public schools in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, so Catholics of all ethnicities tended to vote as a bloc. The need to win NY swung the presidential races in the direction of Southern sympathizers -- Republicans called doughfaces -- or, when that didn't work -- to a Democratic candidate (eg, Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson). Wilson backfired on the Irish as he proved very anti-Ireland.
In 1932, Hoover (who was passively watching the Great Depression with the bad advice of his Neoclassical Economists) faced off against a New Yorker (of Dutch descent) -- FDR. Although FDR was wealthy and Harvard (very Republican society!) he was a non-Anglican NYer with some ideas for change. FDR began the process of moving Northerners outside of NY out of the Republican Party and into a larger Democratic party. Under FDR, the Democrats were now a combination of the old Southern White + NY party PLUS the Catholic Party PLUS the Jewish Party. The Republicans retained the Northern English PLUS African Americans (still loyal to Lincoln, and not aligned with southern whites).
That was the first phase of the transition.
This continued until 1960. Even JFK won by capturing NY, MA, IL, and THE SOUTH. When civil rights leaders saw in him the commitment to justice, they appealed to him. He knew that to give up the Southern White vote (loyal to the Dems since Jefferson!) could kill his re-election and his party, but he eventually announced his commitment to Civil Rights. He was killed and Johnson, a Texan, presided over the Civil Rights Act of 1964. At the time, Johnson announced correctly that he had lost the South for the Dems.
At that point the switch was complete. What used to be the old Democratic party before 1932, was now the new Republican party. What used to be the old Republican party before 1932, was now the Democratic party. The few exceptions were: the New Dems held onto NY with the rest of the North -- but gave up, now and then, Maine, NH and Vermont.
So by 1964, the Dems had become the party of the North and the GOP had the south. Goldwater ONLY took the South in 1964 (first time Georgia ever voted Republican). NY + the North would have made the Dems formidable, but the growing West (not coast) became GOP.
My long winded point is that the party of Lincoln, in the GOP (1860-1932), in both parties, but mostly Republican (1932-1960), and then in the Democratic party (1964-) has been responsible for pretty much all advancements in racial justice.
by judron55 on 03 September 2009 - 22:09
I am astounded by the stupidity. Bucko, MVF, and my girl sue....I commend you! Dems are for blacks....what utter stupidity!
ron
ron
by MVF on 03 September 2009 - 22:09
So, Maggie, you agree with me that the AG needs to be independently elected. Great.
by MVF on 03 September 2009 - 22:09
I do not believe that Holder gets "marching orders." Nothing like Ashcroft, then Gonzales. But I am nonetheless open minded enough to realize that the abuse is built-in, and the GOP is not the only party capable of abusing this power.
We need an independently elected AG in this country who will prosecute ALL crimes -- White House on down. Right now, we have Nixon, and then Bush (through Cheney) claiming that "if the president does it, it is not illegal." Enforcing this insanity through owning the OLC and the AG. Completely in violation of the spirit and the letter of the Constitution.
We need an independently elected AG in this country who will prosecute ALL crimes -- White House on down. Right now, we have Nixon, and then Bush (through Cheney) claiming that "if the president does it, it is not illegal." Enforcing this insanity through owning the OLC and the AG. Completely in violation of the spirit and the letter of the Constitution.
by MaggieMae on 03 September 2009 - 22:09
Yes, the AG should be completely Independent. MVF -- you need to "rethink" that "marching orders" issue regarding Holder. Also, MVF, what do you think about the Czars (I believe 34 now)? Obama sures seems to know -- or perhaps it is Axelrod or Emmanuel -- all the "tricks" and how to circumvent Congressional hearings.
by MVF on 03 September 2009 - 22:09
Has Obama actually named them Czars? I think the appointment of experts (one of whom is an old friend of mine -- he is a fantastic guy) is a good thing, but I certainly don't like the label. I am also reserving judgment on Obama's skill with the legislature; so far, he seems to care too much for what the right thinks of him (not a problem for Bush wrt the left).
by MaggieMae on 03 September 2009 - 22:09
What is Green Czar Van Jones' expertise? He is very radical / a 9-11 truther -- but that is no surprise.
by BabyEagle4U on 03 September 2009 - 22:09
* "Obama taught constitutional law at the U of Chicago and according to any objective criteria appears to have a deep and abiding understanding of and respect for the Constitution. He even angered leftists by his nomination of comparably centrist judge (Sotomayor) who moved the Supreme Court demonstrably to the RIGHT." *
LOL
LOL
by MaggieMae on 03 September 2009 - 23:09
.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top