For John, BLUF: HIstory is a natural resource, to be exploited, like coal. Nothing to see here; just move along.
From the InstaPundit we have this little blurb:
CONFEDERACY: The New Democratic Talking Point. It’s said of the Austrians that they do their best to convince the world that Hitler was a German and Beethoven was an Austrian. Likewise, the Dems would like you to believe that Jefferson Davis was a Republican, and Abraham Lincoln a Democrat.And why, in Virginia, is US Route 1 known as the Jeff Davis Highway?
Some Republican Governor should fix that.
In the mean time, maybe the Jeff Davis Republican/Abe Lincoln Democrat meme is just just a trial balloon for 2016.
Regards — Cliff
12 comments:
Ok, I'll bite.
About that Lincoln thing? Anyone born in the 2nd half of the 20th century is too young to remember when the Democrats were the party of segregation, Jim Crow and the KKK, and when Republicans stood up for the common man. (Ike was the very last). In the mid 60's LBJ pushed the button (signed the paper) that pushed all those racist southern used-to-be D's into the Republican party, where they've happily resided ever since, working to oppose almost every reasonable accommodation attempted to resolve the staggering inequities suffered by people of color in this country, and they've never looked back. And this bizarre obfuscation proves it.
Lincoln? His Republican party and today's Republican party bear no meaningful resemblance. It's a fair criticism to say that Republicans today have resolved to, in so many cases, defend the indefensible, as did Democrats in the 1860's and for a century after that. And it's a fair claim so say that today's Democrats have built their platform (we're not talking about their profound hypocrisy here, just their platform) around the sorts of things that Lincoln did over 150 years ago.
This whole thing just sounds like sour grapes that the spin machine and talking points writers over on the right didn't think of it first. Because, and this is an extremely important point, the Republicans INVENTED the whole spin/talking points game, and to this point, have played it far better than the Democrats.
Sauce for the goose, as they say.
Which is not to excuse the Democrats in the least for all the hypocrisy, evil and wrong that they have done, and do each and every day these days. (It still amazes me that Robert Byrd was never held to account for his days as an "Exalted Cyclops" or whatever his KKK rank was). But on this one, the D's get the whinging rights because, on this one, the Republicans actually are worse. Strom Thurmond jumped parties in '64 and became a Republican prince. Today Michele Bachmann would have us believe that Huma Abedin is an Al Qaeda operative, and Newt Gingrich wants all the poor black kids to be cleaning toilets. (And don't try whining that Newt never used the word "black", because those comments are crystal clear).
The slur ("neo-racist") is sticky because the Republicans do so much to make it so. It's pretty hard to feel sorry when it does.
Kad
A certain lack of nuance here. Without Republican Senators there would not have been LBJ's 1964 Civil Rights Act. Period. I think "W's" Grandfather voter for the Act. You aren't calling out "W" and Jeb as racists, are you?
Storm Thurmon didn't go Republican because he liked the way they voted in 1964 or because they were the majority, but because he was unhappy with LBJ.
By the way, Senator Thurmon was a pretty independent character. He enlisted for WWII and at the age of 41 1/2 he landed in Normandy in a glider assault (OVERLORD). In about 1925 he fathered a daughter (Essie Mae Washington-Williams) with the family Black maid, and put his daughter through college and gave her financial support. At a time when a lot of people didn't go to college. Did he fail to recognize her? Of course. She was his illegitimate child—race aside.
Still, I wouldn't have voted for him.
Republicans are trying to push the color-blind idea. Do you think Cruz of Texas or Rubio of Florida are racist? How about Jindal or Haley? The only sitting Black Senator is from the South and he is a …?
The Tea Parties perhaps? I don't think so. I have been to local Tea Party meetings. Racism isn't part of the agenda. Been to a meeting?
I think the Democrat Party effort to tar Republicans as Racist is pernicious and evil.
Regards — Cliff
You repeat my exact point. Strom went Republican because of LBJ.
Pre 1964, the world was backwards. Democrat meant George Wallace. Republican meant Eisenhower. Pre 1964, the Bushes and other Republicans supported things that Republicans today, including the Bushes, now hold up as "anti American" and oppose vehemently.
Post 1964, Goldwater began to define things in a much uglier way for the Republicans, and against Americans of color and/or immigrant background. Nixon's "Southern Strategy" finished the job. THAT is the point.
You can't push "color blind" if every action screams that you're the party of wealth and entitlement. The collective memory (I was born in 1960 and the first Republican I really got to know was RMN) is far too clear to pretend otherwise. It took LBJ and the Civil Rights Act to clean up a lot of Democrat ugliness. Heck, '64 rehabilitated Robert Byrd. It's going to take an awful lot more than "I know we were bad to you for a long time, but now we're going to ignore you instead so you should like us" to remove the stain.
Think about it--the guy who filibustered in vehement opposition to the Civil Rights Act was rehabilitated in the eyes of people of color simply because he belonged to the same party as the guy who pushed through the legislation. Marco Rubio suffers the same "guilt by association" thing, only instead of LBJ, Rubio belongs to the party of Bachmann and Gingrich, and see the examples above for just the tip of their misogynist, anti-people-of-color and anti lower class vitriol.
If Marco wants a fair hearing, he has to run those types of people out the way LBJ ran them out of the Democrat party in '64.
Frankly Kad, your commentary is valid in the context of the times you reference, but I suggest that politics is not static, nor are the partisan issues that brand party philosophy, thus identity. You speak of Rubio having to chase Bachmann or Gingrich out of the Rep tent and I suggest that is a pointless, if not totally erroneous posit. There is much about Rubio that is distasteful and at the very least, disingenuous. He panders to his perceived support. They all do.
I would further suggest that the vitriol directed at Bachmann, Gingrich, Palin, Cruz, et al is quite likely without any credible basis. Rather, it is largely a grand fabrication of many disjointed pieces removed from context and actually recontextualized to present a damming appearance.
Frankly, there is nothing in the Dem party that is any more pristine or admirable.
When Lincoln was President, the Republicans WERE what the Dems are today. That flipped around the turn of the century, and I would suggest, has subtly flipped in the past few decades.
HOWEVER, the end state for both of today's domineering parties bears no resemblance to the characteristics of their respective parentage. If anything, both parties have been so corrupted by avarice of their membership and hatred for one another that they have in fact become almost indistinguishable, save a few outliers....among the many out and out LIARS.
What the country needs....among many things....is a new set of political parties......a fresh look and start. The Tea Party was an effort to achieve that...in part. I suppose the Chicago Democrat party is the Democrat response to the Tea Party.
The REAL problem is that instead of a clear, polarizing platform that attracts supporters in sufficient numbers to matter, we have instead almost total chaos. Splinter groups by the hundreds are symptomatic of the distaste of Americans for the political status quo....one in which the people speak....clearly....and the media and the Federal government pursue their own reality. Witness the mess in Syria today. We have NO interest or business being there. And yet....the MSM is salivating at the probability that Obama will do something...encouraging him to do so.
And the people say "NO!!!"
I am not sure I fully buy into Neal's turn of the last century line. President Woodrow Wilson was bringing segregation to the Nation's Capital in 1912 and there was that bombing out in Oklahoma in anticipation of the bombing in Philly of the Move Folks, maybe in anticipation of Waco.
And, the real change in the Democrat party came in 1972, when the Progressives chased off not just the remnants of the Dixiecrats, but the Moderates as well.
So, just to be clear, is Kad saying the Mass Republican Party is racist, or just saying that they associate with bad people? And the Lowell Republican City Committee is racist?
Regards — Cliff
We're talking about a meme here, not people, and I'm saying that the "Republicans are racist" meme is based in political reality, and caused by prominent and visible Republican Party members having said and done some pretty reprehensible things regarding race and economic policy. Observing the '64 Civil Rights Act watershed moment for the Democrats, it wasn't Robert Byrd saying he was "rehabilitated" or whatever, but LBJ doing something of substance that precipitated the political sea change. Republicans are going to have to DO something if they want to escape being tarred with the broad brush of their associations.
So, in that sense, I'm saying that Republicans in general, Massachusetts Republicans more specifically, and Lowell Republicans more specifically too, all bear responsibility for propping up the things said by Bachmann, Gingrich, et al via their party membership.
As for Neal's observations of the grand hypocrisy and moral corruption within the Democrat party, we could start plenty of other posts about the "soft on terror" meme, and all the other sorts of canards thrown out there by the Republicans over the years that have stuck and done damage at the polls. (Mr. Horton went by "William", for example). These as well are based in acts of commission and omission by the Democrats, and their actions to rush us into war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and possibly soon to be Egypt and Syria, are the realpolitik answers to those slurs. Short observation is that we're all losing by all of this.
As for Neal's entirely ridiculous suggestion that criticism of Bachmann, Gingrich, Palin, et al has been without credible basis, I hardly know what to say other than, Neal, you need to get out more. These people say and do some of the most idiotic and disgusting and ignorant things, and coverage of that in the media is fair and entirely deserved. (Or shall I meet you, Neal, up in Concord, NH, for next year's Patriots Day celebration?)
In the zest to simply my commentary thus avoiding sleep inducement in the reader, I failed to make my point clear. However, this short article DOES make my point. WHY DID THE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS SWITCH PLATFORMS?
Kad.....almost ANYONE....even you....can have your comments dissected and certain elements presented in an entirely different context...pro or con. It is modern day's slick way of "creating" truth. I can't think of a public official...especially one of the political class....who don't utter some of the dumbest, most idiotic things. If they are "in favor" they generally get away with it. It they are an outsider, they are screwed. My point was....is.....if you don't like someone...you can easily brand them with their own words. Actually, among the many outlandish things Newt has said are many brilliant statements as well. Many of us are...well....imperfect and thus quite fallible...and thus...vulnerable.
BTW...I would not encourage nor vote for Palin, Michelle, or Newt. I think we must have someone better.....somewhere....as yet to be discovered....maybe.....if there is still time......but they will likely have to be fluent in Mandarin
Neal, the switch between Lincoln and Roosevelt is discussed in your link as being one between small and large government, and I think the points are fairly taken. However, I would also observe, given the Dixiecrats and other copious evidence including the malodorous Mr. Byrd, that the pivot on the subject of race did not take place until LBJ.
Most heartily agree on the race date......Some say it was Texas guilt that drove LBJ to get behind racial equality in a final way.
And now so many in so many quarters are doing their best to proclaim differences among the people...and blame others for those differences....seems we'll never get beyond being Sneetches (Seuss)
Post a Comment