TW: Bartlett brings out a quote from one of his books to counter Harry Reid's comparison of the Civil Rights Act passage to the current health reform process. Comments like Reid's are not particularly useful since they are easily countered with passages like below. But while Bartlett's point about Republican participation in the Civil Rights Act is accurate, it's accuracy holds only relative to the electoral composition as of 1965.
The Civil Rights Act itself was a primary (although not exclusive) catalyst for the fracturing of the Democratic party whereby almost all of those inclined to vote against things like the Act migrated in ever more rapid fashion to the Republican party. Yes relics like Byrd exist but then he is over 90 years old. When his genre have died or retired they have not been replaced within the Democratic party. The transition did not happen overnight it has taken decades but it is now nearly complete.
So while Bartlett's quotes are literally true, the more important lesson is what happened after the passage of the Act. Not only are the old Southern Dems nearly extinct, those Republicans of 1965 who voted for the Act are a nearly extinct species in today's Republican party.
Bartlett failed to mention the wing of the Republican party which also voted against the Act, the Goldwater wing the direct forebears to the Reaganites of the 1980's and the W. Bushies of the 00's. Combine those blocs with today's tea bagging, Palin worshipping base of the Republican party, who would have had nothing to do with the Act in 1965 just as today it viscerally opposes efforts to legitimize gay marriage and rails against any perceived "government" intervention which was a prime argument of those Southern Dems in 1965 (and for decades prior) to the Civil Rights Act, and voila you have today's Republican party. Little wonder any moderation in opposition to any moderate to progressive legislation is considered a vice by the Republicans.
This stratification of the parties where the odd alliance within the Democratic party of the old Southern bloc and the Yankee liberals no longer holds. Whilst the Rockefeller Republican social liberals no longer align with old line Midwestern conservatives has greatly altered electoral equations and made comparisons to pre-1965 party alignments and bi-partisanship efforts largely irrelevant.
From Bruce Bartlett:
"The enormous desire to memorialize the senseless murder of John F. Kennedy, plus Johnson’s determination to demonstrate his power and purge his own racist past by getting a substantive civil rights bill through the Senate, proved a formidable combination...[but the bill was filibustered anyway] people like Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, whose individual filibuster of the 1964 civil rights bill is the second longest in history..Only a true believer would ever undertake such a futile effort.
Even so, one final element was essential to passage of the civil rights bill—the strong support of Republicans. Although Democrats had a historically large majority in the House of Representatives with 259 members to 176 Republicans, almost as many Republicans voted for the civil rights bill as Democrats. The final vote was 290 for the bill and 130 against. Of the “yea” votes, 152 were Democrats and 138 were Republicans. Of the “nay” votes, three-fourths were Democrats. In short, the bill could not have passed without Republican support. As Time Magazine observed, “In one of the most lopsidedly Democratic Houses since the days of F.D.R., Republicans were vital to the passage of a bill for which the Democratic administration means to take full political credit this year.”
A similar story is told in the Senate...Of those voting “nay,” 80 percent were Democrats, including Robert C. Byrd and former Vice President Al Gore’s father, who was then a senator from Tennessee...Close observers of the Senate deliberations recognized that the Republican leader, Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen of Illinois, had done yeoman work in responding to the objections of individual Republicans and holding almost all of them together in support of the bill. “More than any other single individual,” the New York Times acknowledged, “he was responsible for getting the civil rights bill through the Senate.”
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1300/who-opposed-civil-rights-act-1964
Showing posts with label southern republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label southern republicans. Show all posts
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Friday, July 31, 2009
When the Fringe Rules
(from Research 2000)
TW: Democracy depends upon a well-informed populace. The "birther" movement is not about birth certificates of that I have no doubt.
Monday, March 30, 2009
High Stakes Poker With the Automakers
TW: I suspect this week's drama with the automakers is merely another inning in the on-going fandango with the automaker bondholders (the bondholders hold tens of billions of notes on the automakers, they must take significant haircuts if the automakers are to have viable recovery plans, the stocks are toast except for casino playing traders). Below Smith outlines the downside of the hardball Obama is playing this week. While at a certain level the bigwigs being held to the fire is enjoyable, the risks are considerable. Ultimately I strongly doubt Obama wants any of the Big Three in Chapter 11, naturally the bondholders know this hence the need for the game of chicken. The southern Republicans may relish the world auto industry losing American based manufacturers, I am not convinced the rest of the American public is ready for that step.
From Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism:
"It would be better if we were wrong, but we are of the school that putting the big automakers into bankruptcy, despite its attractions (being able to restructure debt and dealer networks; the UAW contracts are far less significant economically than the media makes them out to be) misses out on one crucial element: you don't have a business if you don't have customers. And a GM bankruptcy would be a protracted affair. Even if consumers believe the company will make it, what about their local dealer? If they worry they might have to schlepp to get their car serviced, is it worth it?
In typical backwards American deal and contract focused thinking, the officialdom has not spent enough time assessing the single most important issue: how would customers react? If GM and Chrysler were to lose as many as 20% of sales they'd otherwise get as a result of a bankruptcy filing, that it is a very big change in outcomes. And the drop could be considerably higher than that.
I worry that this punitive move will wind up being Lehman redux. Recall that bailout disgust was running high post Bear and Fannie and Freddie, and Someone Had to Suffer to show the Administration was made of real men. Now since no one even dares bitch slap a bank (the bonus stuff is mere Punch and Judy), all the hostility is channeled at Big Auto. And the danger is going into overkill literally, not just figuratively, to make up for being too easy on the financiers. And if GM or Chrysler were to be liquidated, the knock-on effects would be grim. They are important to quite a few parts suppliers. If those suppliers fail, it threatens the viability of the foreign transplants."
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/03/auto-company-plans-rejected-by-task.html
From Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism:
"It would be better if we were wrong, but we are of the school that putting the big automakers into bankruptcy, despite its attractions (being able to restructure debt and dealer networks; the UAW contracts are far less significant economically than the media makes them out to be) misses out on one crucial element: you don't have a business if you don't have customers. And a GM bankruptcy would be a protracted affair. Even if consumers believe the company will make it, what about their local dealer? If they worry they might have to schlepp to get their car serviced, is it worth it?
In typical backwards American deal and contract focused thinking, the officialdom has not spent enough time assessing the single most important issue: how would customers react? If GM and Chrysler were to lose as many as 20% of sales they'd otherwise get as a result of a bankruptcy filing, that it is a very big change in outcomes. And the drop could be considerably higher than that.
I worry that this punitive move will wind up being Lehman redux. Recall that bailout disgust was running high post Bear and Fannie and Freddie, and Someone Had to Suffer to show the Administration was made of real men. Now since no one even dares bitch slap a bank (the bonus stuff is mere Punch and Judy), all the hostility is channeled at Big Auto. And the danger is going into overkill literally, not just figuratively, to make up for being too easy on the financiers. And if GM or Chrysler were to be liquidated, the knock-on effects would be grim. They are important to quite a few parts suppliers. If those suppliers fail, it threatens the viability of the foreign transplants."
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/03/auto-company-plans-rejected-by-task.html
Monday, January 5, 2009
A Systemic Republican Failure
TW: This is a fairly harsh piece by Krugman. Can't say that I disagree with it though. Few of us willingly except blame for our failures, the Republicans certainly are not, until and unless they do they will flounder. Somehow I cannot see Monsieurs Limbaugh and Hannity leading the way towards self-reflection.
From Paul Krugman at NYT:
"...most of the whining takes the form of claims that the Bush administration’s failure was simply a matter of bad luck — either the bad luck of President Bush himself, who just happened to have disasters happen on his watch, or the bad luck of the G.O.P., which just happened to send the wrong man to the White House.
The fault, however, lies not in Republicans’ stars but in themselves. Forty years ago the G.O.P. decided, in effect, to make itself the party of racial backlash. And everything that has happened in recent years, from the choice of Mr. Bush as the party’s champion, to the Bush administration’s pervasive incompetence, to the party’s shrinking base, is a consequence of that decision.
If the Bush administration became a byword for policy bungles, for government by the unqualified, well, it was just following the advice of leading conservative think tanks: after the 2000 election the Heritage Foundation specifically urged the new team to “make appointments based on loyalty first and expertise second.”
Contempt for expertise, in turn, rested on contempt for government in general. “Government is not the solution to our problem,” declared Ronald Reagan. “Government is the problem.” So why worry about governing well?
Where did this hostility to government come from? In 1981 Lee Atwater, the famed Republican political consultant, explained the evolution of the G.O.P.’s “Southern strategy,” which originally focused on opposition to the Voting Rights Act but eventually took a more coded form: “You’re getting so abstract now you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites.” In other words, government is the problem because it takes your money and gives it to Those People.
Oh, and the racial element isn’t all that abstract, even now: Chip Saltsman, currently a candidate for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee, sent committee members a CD including a song titled “Barack the Magic Negro” — and according to some reports, the controversy over his action has actually helped his chances.
So the reign of George W. Bush, the first true Southern Republican president since Reconstruction, was the culmination of a long process. And despite the claims of some on the right that Mr. Bush betrayed conservatism, the truth is that he faithfully carried out both his party’s divisive tactics — long before Sarah Palin, Mr. Bush declared that he visited his ranch to “stay in touch with real Americans” — and its governing philosophy.
That’s why the soon-to-be-gone administration’s failure is bigger than Mr. Bush himself: it represents the end of the line for a political strategy that dominated the scene for more than a generation.
The reality of this strategy’s collapse has not, I believe, fully sunk in with some observers. Thus, some commentators warning President-elect Barack Obama against bold action have held up Bill Clinton’s political failures in his first two years as a cautionary tale.
But America in 1993 was a very different country — not just a country that had yet to see what happens when conservatives control all three branches of government, but also a country in which Democratic control of Congress depended on the votes of Southern conservatives. Today, Republicans have taken away almost all those Southern votes — and lost the rest of the country. It was a grand ride for a while, but in the end the Southern strategy led the G.O.P. into a cul-de-sac.
Mr. Obama therefore has room to be bold. If Republicans try a 1993-style strategy of attacking him for promoting big government, they’ll learn two things: not only has the financial crisis discredited their economic theories, the racial subtext of anti-government rhetoric doesn’t play the way it used to.
Will the Republicans eventually stage a comeback? Yes, of course. But barring some huge missteps by Mr. Obama, that will not happen until they stop whining and look at what really went wrong. And when they do, they will discover that they need to get in touch with the real “real America,” a country that is more diverse, more tolerant, and more demanding of effective government than is dreamt of in their political philosophy."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/02/opinion/02krugman.html?_r=2&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
From Paul Krugman at NYT:
"...most of the whining takes the form of claims that the Bush administration’s failure was simply a matter of bad luck — either the bad luck of President Bush himself, who just happened to have disasters happen on his watch, or the bad luck of the G.O.P., which just happened to send the wrong man to the White House.
The fault, however, lies not in Republicans’ stars but in themselves. Forty years ago the G.O.P. decided, in effect, to make itself the party of racial backlash. And everything that has happened in recent years, from the choice of Mr. Bush as the party’s champion, to the Bush administration’s pervasive incompetence, to the party’s shrinking base, is a consequence of that decision.
If the Bush administration became a byword for policy bungles, for government by the unqualified, well, it was just following the advice of leading conservative think tanks: after the 2000 election the Heritage Foundation specifically urged the new team to “make appointments based on loyalty first and expertise second.”
Contempt for expertise, in turn, rested on contempt for government in general. “Government is not the solution to our problem,” declared Ronald Reagan. “Government is the problem.” So why worry about governing well?
Where did this hostility to government come from? In 1981 Lee Atwater, the famed Republican political consultant, explained the evolution of the G.O.P.’s “Southern strategy,” which originally focused on opposition to the Voting Rights Act but eventually took a more coded form: “You’re getting so abstract now you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites.” In other words, government is the problem because it takes your money and gives it to Those People.
Oh, and the racial element isn’t all that abstract, even now: Chip Saltsman, currently a candidate for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee, sent committee members a CD including a song titled “Barack the Magic Negro” — and according to some reports, the controversy over his action has actually helped his chances.
So the reign of George W. Bush, the first true Southern Republican president since Reconstruction, was the culmination of a long process. And despite the claims of some on the right that Mr. Bush betrayed conservatism, the truth is that he faithfully carried out both his party’s divisive tactics — long before Sarah Palin, Mr. Bush declared that he visited his ranch to “stay in touch with real Americans” — and its governing philosophy.
That’s why the soon-to-be-gone administration’s failure is bigger than Mr. Bush himself: it represents the end of the line for a political strategy that dominated the scene for more than a generation.
The reality of this strategy’s collapse has not, I believe, fully sunk in with some observers. Thus, some commentators warning President-elect Barack Obama against bold action have held up Bill Clinton’s political failures in his first two years as a cautionary tale.
But America in 1993 was a very different country — not just a country that had yet to see what happens when conservatives control all three branches of government, but also a country in which Democratic control of Congress depended on the votes of Southern conservatives. Today, Republicans have taken away almost all those Southern votes — and lost the rest of the country. It was a grand ride for a while, but in the end the Southern strategy led the G.O.P. into a cul-de-sac.
Mr. Obama therefore has room to be bold. If Republicans try a 1993-style strategy of attacking him for promoting big government, they’ll learn two things: not only has the financial crisis discredited their economic theories, the racial subtext of anti-government rhetoric doesn’t play the way it used to.
Will the Republicans eventually stage a comeback? Yes, of course. But barring some huge missteps by Mr. Obama, that will not happen until they stop whining and look at what really went wrong. And when they do, they will discover that they need to get in touch with the real “real America,” a country that is more diverse, more tolerant, and more demanding of effective government than is dreamt of in their political philosophy."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/02/opinion/02krugman.html?_r=2&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Friday, January 2, 2009
There Is Hope...I Think
TW: I always tell folks what keeps me sane in these times of distress is the study of history. I have never been an adherent of the "good old days". The good old days exhibited some very bad attributes including senior government officials with serious problems.
Herman Talmadge was the Democratic governor of Georgia in the 1930's. He gave serious consideration to running against FDR in 1936 with the support of numerous politicos. His segment of the Democratic party has migrated to the Republicans (granted with enlightment relative to some issues).
From "The Politics Of Upheaval" by Arthur Schlesinger:
"The only way to make an honest government is to keep it poor. You can't help the people by giving them something. You weaken their soul and their heart, and dry up their muscles...
What you need in New York [City] is not LaGuardia [then mayor of NYC] but Mussolini. A little castor oil would go a long ways toward starting the wheels of industry goin' again...
[FDR was] that cripple in the White House...
No niggah's as good as a white man, because the niggah's only a few shawt year-ahs from cannibalism."
Herman Talmadge Democratic governor of Georgia from 1935
Herman Talmadge was the Democratic governor of Georgia in the 1930's. He gave serious consideration to running against FDR in 1936 with the support of numerous politicos. His segment of the Democratic party has migrated to the Republicans (granted with enlightment relative to some issues).
From "The Politics Of Upheaval" by Arthur Schlesinger:
"The only way to make an honest government is to keep it poor. You can't help the people by giving them something. You weaken their soul and their heart, and dry up their muscles...
What you need in New York [City] is not LaGuardia [then mayor of NYC] but Mussolini. A little castor oil would go a long ways toward starting the wheels of industry goin' again...
[FDR was] that cripple in the White House...
No niggah's as good as a white man, because the niggah's only a few shawt year-ahs from cannibalism."
Herman Talmadge Democratic governor of Georgia from 1935
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Southern Republican Ideologues Drive the Agenda For Their Party
TW: Obama appointed a moderate Republican, Ray Lahood, as Transportation Secretary. David Broder explores the likely irony of Lahood confronting obstructionist mainly Southern Republican Congressmen who will likely fight the Obama stimulus plans tooth and nail. Broder also addresses the growing Southernization of the Republican Party.
From Broder at WaPo:
"...As transportation secretary, LaHood will be at the center of the road and bridge construction projects Obama plans to make the highlight of his almost trillion-dollar stimulus program. All the signs are that the stimulus spending will be opposed by congressional Republicans, whose shrunken ranks are increasingly dominated by right-wing Southerners who care not what their stance does to harm the party's national image. The spectacle of LaHood facing off in congressional testimony against those naysayers will dramatize a split that is crippling the GOP.
The danger became apparent as far back as 2007. With Bush weakened by the Iraq war, Hurricane Katrina and the midterm election losses of 2006, a Southern-led revolt killed his immigration reform bill. Junior senators such as Jim DeMint of South Carolina directed the rebellion, and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, unable to stem the insurgency, joined it.
The price was paid in the 2008 presidential campaign. Despite his personal credentials as a sponsor of comprehensive immigration reform, John McCain was caught in the backlash of anti-GOP voting by Hispanics. It contributed to his loss of Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Florida and other states...
The Southern domination of the congressional Republican Party has become more complete with each and every election. This year, Republicans suffered a net loss of two Senate and three House seats in the South, but they lost five Senate seats and 18 House seats in other sections. No Republican House members are left in New England, and they have become ever scarcer in New York and Pennsylvania and across the Midwest..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/26/AR2008122601129.html
From Broder at WaPo:
"...As transportation secretary, LaHood will be at the center of the road and bridge construction projects Obama plans to make the highlight of his almost trillion-dollar stimulus program. All the signs are that the stimulus spending will be opposed by congressional Republicans, whose shrunken ranks are increasingly dominated by right-wing Southerners who care not what their stance does to harm the party's national image. The spectacle of LaHood facing off in congressional testimony against those naysayers will dramatize a split that is crippling the GOP.
The danger became apparent as far back as 2007. With Bush weakened by the Iraq war, Hurricane Katrina and the midterm election losses of 2006, a Southern-led revolt killed his immigration reform bill. Junior senators such as Jim DeMint of South Carolina directed the rebellion, and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, unable to stem the insurgency, joined it.
The price was paid in the 2008 presidential campaign. Despite his personal credentials as a sponsor of comprehensive immigration reform, John McCain was caught in the backlash of anti-GOP voting by Hispanics. It contributed to his loss of Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Florida and other states...
The Southern domination of the congressional Republican Party has become more complete with each and every election. This year, Republicans suffered a net loss of two Senate and three House seats in the South, but they lost five Senate seats and 18 House seats in other sections. No Republican House members are left in New England, and they have become ever scarcer in New York and Pennsylvania and across the Midwest..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/26/AR2008122601129.html
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Those Southern Socialists (aka Republicans)
TW: Hypocrisy is such a delicious political trait. Southern states have provided over $2.3 billion in state subsidies attracting foreign car firms to their states. The foreign automaker model is not complicated, use young workers (without legacy retiree costs) and state subsidies to compete effectively with U.S. automakers. Have management decisions contributed? Presumably. Are they solely or even majority responsible for the foreign company success? Not likely.
From Washington Independent:
"To hear Southern Republicans tell the story, the financial burdens facing Detroit’s automakers are self-made troubles to be settled by the laws of Adam-Smith capitalism.
“We don’t think it is the role of government to intervene,” Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) told the Fox Business Network last week. “We need to let the market and the laws work the way they are already in place.”
Yet this argument — that the government has no business interfering in free markets — ignores an increasingly frequent tradition among Southern states, which have fronted billions in local taxpayer dollars in the past two decades to attract foreign auto plants
Supporters of these deals contend that the economic activity spurred by the arrival of the automakers is worth the up-front costs. Yet some experts say that, considering the ever-growing size of the incentive packages, there’s little evidence to support that claim.
“It’s exceedingly difficult to determine whether the returns warrant the original incentives,” said Matthew N. Murray, executive director of the University of Tennessee’s Center for Business and Economic Research. “It’s just hard to show that it’s going to produce enough tax revenue.”
http://washingtonindependent.com/22236/cars
From Washington Independent:
"To hear Southern Republicans tell the story, the financial burdens facing Detroit’s automakers are self-made troubles to be settled by the laws of Adam-Smith capitalism.
“We don’t think it is the role of government to intervene,” Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) told the Fox Business Network last week. “We need to let the market and the laws work the way they are already in place.”
Yet this argument — that the government has no business interfering in free markets — ignores an increasingly frequent tradition among Southern states, which have fronted billions in local taxpayer dollars in the past two decades to attract foreign auto plants
Supporters of these deals contend that the economic activity spurred by the arrival of the automakers is worth the up-front costs. Yet some experts say that, considering the ever-growing size of the incentive packages, there’s little evidence to support that claim.
“It’s exceedingly difficult to determine whether the returns warrant the original incentives,” said Matthew N. Murray, executive director of the University of Tennessee’s Center for Business and Economic Research. “It’s just hard to show that it’s going to produce enough tax revenue.”
http://washingtonindependent.com/22236/cars
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Automaker Bailout BS!!
TW: Have been remiss on posting re the automaker bailout for no other reason than there is so much flying around relative to the bailout that I have not been able to pin myself down to fairly absorb it enough to have a perspective. But thanks to the inimitable Larry Kudlow, I have finally found a nugget to highlight.
I am increasingly agnostic on whether bankruptcy or some sort of government intervention is the better route. There are many arguments on both sides, most of them bad and one ends up picking the least bad one. But I will leave that small issue until later (if I get around to it).
There is now a cabal of mainly Southern Republican Senators blocking the current iteration of the intervention. These Senators clearly have an agenda beyond this particular intervention. Some have big foreign car interests in their states (i.e. Shelby AL, Corker TN etc.), some have visions of leading a Republican small government revival (i.e. Coburn OK etc.). Most of them have an axe to grind with unions generally. All Senators have their own parochial interests so I begrudge the first group no more than I would those Dem and Repub MI, OH, WI Senators pushing for the intervention. The latter group of small government patriots concern me as they are ideologues and ideologues can get you into some deep holes, but again that is for a diffferent post.
This post is about intellectual dishonesty. The Republicans are pinning the blame for the failure of the latest intervention on the UAW.
"...In truth, the UAW is to blame...Average compensation for the Detroit little three is $72.31. Toyota's average wage is $47.60, Honda's is $42.05, and Nissan's is $41.97, for an average of $44.20. So Corker's idea was to bring that $72 a lot closer to that $44."
--Kudlow via the conservative Real Clear Politics site
I am increasingly agnostic on whether bankruptcy or some sort of government intervention is the better route. There are many arguments on both sides, most of them bad and one ends up picking the least bad one. But I will leave that small issue until later (if I get around to it).
There is now a cabal of mainly Southern Republican Senators blocking the current iteration of the intervention. These Senators clearly have an agenda beyond this particular intervention. Some have big foreign car interests in their states (i.e. Shelby AL, Corker TN etc.), some have visions of leading a Republican small government revival (i.e. Coburn OK etc.). Most of them have an axe to grind with unions generally. All Senators have their own parochial interests so I begrudge the first group no more than I would those Dem and Repub MI, OH, WI Senators pushing for the intervention. The latter group of small government patriots concern me as they are ideologues and ideologues can get you into some deep holes, but again that is for a diffferent post.
This post is about intellectual dishonesty. The Republicans are pinning the blame for the failure of the latest intervention on the UAW.
"...In truth, the UAW is to blame...Average compensation for the Detroit little three is $72.31. Toyota's average wage is $47.60, Honda's is $42.05, and Nissan's is $41.97, for an average of $44.20. So Corker's idea was to bring that $72 a lot closer to that $44."
--Kudlow via the conservative Real Clear Politics site
We posted on this last month(http://treylaura.blogspot.com/2008/11/gm-et-al-what-to-do-part-6.html). The $70+/hr figure is an average reflecting the salary and benefits of not only current GM/Ford workers but the retiree costs at those firms as well. There is a gap between current compensation of the domestic autoworkers but the gap is small and rapidly decreasing (despite the fact that most of the foreign owned auto companies are located in lower cost areas, but again a separate topic).
A guy like Kudlow knows this but attempts to perpetuate a stereotype to further his right-wing agenda. That is intellectual dishonesty. I hate intellectual dishonesty. More posts to come.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/12/whos_losing_the_us_car_busines.html
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
The Decline Of the South: About Time!!
TW: Few folks realize how powerful the Southern states have been in American politics. Going all the way back to the founding of the country, the South has played a pivotal role in everything from the design of the original constitution to civil rights to foreign policy. As Drum outlines, this role has for now at least come to a crashing halt. As a child of the South, I view this as one of the better developments ever in American politics. The South for centuries has pulled the United States further right than it would have otherwise been.
Folks forget that the Democratic party pre-1968 was really two parties, a reactionary one based in the South and a progressive one based in the North. The "FDR" Democratic majorities in Congress which lasted for fifty years were similarly hollow. Read a JFK biography, his problems in Congress had to do with his own Southern Democrats rather than the Republicans. With the passing of the Civil Rights Act in 1965, a process which had started post WWII whereby the South reactionaries migrated to the Republican party came to a head. Nixon in '68 put together the first Republican coalition using Southern votes and the Republicans proceeded to win 7 of the next 10 presidential elections with the South as its core. All 3 Democratic victories were by Southerners running to the middle.
The Republican Party post 9/11 has become dominated by reactionaries. Leaving the Republican Party in the Northeast decimated, as the old Rockefeller wing of the party has migrated en masse to the Democrats (there are now ZERO Republican reps in the House from New England). Previously the South had aligned with either a Democratic or Republican bloc sufficiently strong to create a majority, no longer. Eventually the Republican Party will moderate to create a new majority but in the mean time the Democrats will be working around the edges of the South (e.g. VA, NC etc.) to push that day as far into the future as possible.
From Kevin Drum:
"...As of January 20th, however, the Democratic Party will control the American political agenda once again. But Southerners are still Republicans, which means that their political influence will be nearly nonexistent.
In other words, for the first time since Reconstruction, the South will be almost completely shut out of national power. There are still a few liberal Southerners who belong to the Democratic Party, of course, but the reactionary, traditionalist South is, for the time being, nearly powerless. They will not control anything, their caucus is a discredited rump, and their influence will be negligible. There is no reason to fear them or to care what they think. Their power to filibuster, itself guttering and only barely alive following the 2008 election, will be all they have left.
This is the first time this will be true in well over a century. So say it again: The South will have essentially no influence over the course of American politics for the next eight years. We live in momentous times."
Folks forget that the Democratic party pre-1968 was really two parties, a reactionary one based in the South and a progressive one based in the North. The "FDR" Democratic majorities in Congress which lasted for fifty years were similarly hollow. Read a JFK biography, his problems in Congress had to do with his own Southern Democrats rather than the Republicans. With the passing of the Civil Rights Act in 1965, a process which had started post WWII whereby the South reactionaries migrated to the Republican party came to a head. Nixon in '68 put together the first Republican coalition using Southern votes and the Republicans proceeded to win 7 of the next 10 presidential elections with the South as its core. All 3 Democratic victories were by Southerners running to the middle.
The Republican Party post 9/11 has become dominated by reactionaries. Leaving the Republican Party in the Northeast decimated, as the old Rockefeller wing of the party has migrated en masse to the Democrats (there are now ZERO Republican reps in the House from New England). Previously the South had aligned with either a Democratic or Republican bloc sufficiently strong to create a majority, no longer. Eventually the Republican Party will moderate to create a new majority but in the mean time the Democrats will be working around the edges of the South (e.g. VA, NC etc.) to push that day as far into the future as possible.
From Kevin Drum:
"...As of January 20th, however, the Democratic Party will control the American political agenda once again. But Southerners are still Republicans, which means that their political influence will be nearly nonexistent.
In other words, for the first time since Reconstruction, the South will be almost completely shut out of national power. There are still a few liberal Southerners who belong to the Democratic Party, of course, but the reactionary, traditionalist South is, for the time being, nearly powerless. They will not control anything, their caucus is a discredited rump, and their influence will be negligible. There is no reason to fear them or to care what they think. Their power to filibuster, itself guttering and only barely alive following the 2008 election, will be all they have left.
This is the first time this will be true in well over a century. So say it again: The South will have essentially no influence over the course of American politics for the next eight years. We live in momentous times."
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Torture (a topic we used to not talk about in civilized company)
Definition of Torture from Websters:
"the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure"
From Pew Research:
"A new poll released Sept. 11 finds that nearly 57% of white Southern evangelicals believe torture is justified...The findings of this poll, which did not define torture, compared to a Pew Research Center poll from February that found that 48 percent of the general public think torture can be justified...Researchers also found that 65 percent of white Southern evangelicals support McCain, 14 percent support Obama and 21 percent remain undecided
http://pewforum.org/news/rss.php?NewsID=16465
"the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure"
From Pew Research:
"A new poll released Sept. 11 finds that nearly 57% of white Southern evangelicals believe torture is justified...The findings of this poll, which did not define torture, compared to a Pew Research Center poll from February that found that 48 percent of the general public think torture can be justified...Researchers also found that 65 percent of white Southern evangelicals support McCain, 14 percent support Obama and 21 percent remain undecided
http://pewforum.org/news/rss.php?NewsID=16465
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)