12
   

Monitoring Biden and other Contemporary Events

 
 
hightor
 
  5  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2022 03:28 am
Quote:
This week, news broke that as a guest on the right-wing Real America’s Voice media network in 2020, Republican candidate for Michigan governor Tudor Dixon said that the Democrats have planned for decades to topple the United States because they have not gotten over losing the Civil War. According to Dixon, Democrats don’t want anyone to know that white Republicans freed the slaves, and are deliberately strangling “true history.”

Dixon’s was a pure white power rant, but she was amplifying a theme we hear a lot these days: that Democrats were the party of enslavement, Republicans pushed emancipation, and thus the whole idea that Republican policies today are bad for Black Americans is disinformation.

In reality, the parties have switched sides since the 1850s. The shift happened in the 1960s, and it happened over the issue of race. Rather than focusing on party names, it makes more sense to follow two opposed strands of thought, equality and hierarchy, as the constants.

By the 1850s it was indeed primarily Democrats who backed slavery. Elite southern enslavers gradually took over first the Democratic Party, then the southern states, and finally the U.S. government. When it looked in 1854 as if they would take over the entire nation by spreading slavery to the West—thus overwhelming the free states with new slave states—northerners organized to stand against what they called the “Slave Power.”

In the mid-1850s, northerners gradually came together as a new political party. They called themselves “Republicans,” in part to recall Jefferson’s political party, which was also called the Republican party, even though Jefferson by then was claimed by the Democrats.

The meaning of political names changes.

The new Republican Party first stood only for opposing the Slave Power, but by 1859, Lincoln had given it a new ideology: it would stand behind ordinary Americans, rather than the wealthy enslavers, using the government to provide access to resources, rather than simply protecting the wealthy. And that would mean keeping slavery limited to the American South.

Prevented from imposing their will on the U.S. majority, southern Democrats split from their northern Democratic compatriots and tried to start a new nation based on racial slavery. They launched the Civil War.

At first, most Republicans didn’t care much about enslaved Americans, but by 1863 the war had made them come around to the idea that the freedom of Black Americans was crucial to the success of the United States. At Gettysburg in 1863, Lincoln reinforced the principles of the Declaration of Independence and dedicated the nation to a “new birth of freedom.” In 1865 the Republican Congress passed and sent off to the states for ratification the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, ending enslavement except as punishment for crime (we really need to fix that, by the way).

After the war, as southern Democrats organized to reinstate white supremacy in their states, Republicans in 1868 added the Fourteenth Amendment, giving the federal government power to guarantee that states could not deny equal rights to American citizens, and then in 1870 the Fifteenth Amendment, guaranteeing Black men the right to vote. They also established the Department of Justice to defend those rights. But by 1871, white Republicans were backing away from federal protection of Black Americans.

Democrats continued to push white supremacy until 1879, when former Confederates took over Congress and threatened to destroy the government unless the federal government got out of southern affairs altogether (it’s a myth that the army left the South in 1877). Voters turned so vehemently against the former Confederates trying to impose their will on the nation’s majority that national Democrats began to shift away from their southern base, which dominated the southern states. In 1884 they ran New Yorker Grover Cleveland for office and won.

For the next fifty years, both national parties would waffle on race, trying mostly to ignore it.

But World War II changed the equation.

Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt had begun to offer some economic protections to Black Americans with the 1930s New Deal, but Black soldiers coming home from the war demanded true equality. The blinding of Black veteran Isaac Woodard in 1946 by South Carolina law enforcement officers woke Democratic president Harry S. Truman up to the need for equal protection of the laws.

Unable to get civil rights laws through Congress, Truman worked to desegregate federal contracting and military installations. Immediately, racist southern Democrats, led by South Carolina senator Strom Thurmond, broke away from their own president to form their own short-lived “Dixiecrat” party backing racial segregation.

Then, in 1954, Republican Dwight Eisenhower put Earl Warren, the former Republican governor of California, at the head of the Supreme Court. It promptly used the Fourteenth Amendment to declare the segregation of public schools unconstitutional in the Brown v. Board of Education decision. It seemed both parties had come around to supporting racial equality.

But white supremacists in the South responded to desegregation by attacking their Black neighbors. So in 1957, with a bipartisan vote, Congress passed a civil rights act to protect Black voting. Thurmond launched the longest filibuster in U.S. history to try to stop it.

Republicans who hated the government’s postwar regulation of business saw an opening to get the Dixiecrat contingent on their side. In 1960, The Conscience of a Conservative, published under the name of Arizona senator Barry Goldwater, called for getting rid of the business regulation and social safety laws passed since 1933, and claimed that the Supreme Court’s protection of civil rights was unconstitutional.

When Democrat John F. Kennedy took office in 1961, he gave a rousing inaugural address promising to bring freedom to the world but, afraid of alienating southern Democrats, didn’t mention race at home. World War II veteran James Meredith promptly decided to test just how committed to human rights Kennedy actually was. Meredith sued for admission to the University of Mississippi, and when the courts ruled the state had to admit him in 1962, Kennedy had to choose between the northern wing of his party that supported civil rights, and the southern racists. Pushed by his brother and attorney general Robert, Kennedy backed Meredith’s registration with federal troops.

Republicans already mad at business regulation now worked to pick up the white supremacists who had backed the Dixiecrats and who, by 1964, were attacking Black Americans and their white allies as they tried to enroll Black voters. In 1964, Republicans ran Goldwater for president on a platform calling for slashing federal power and empowering the states to run their affairs as they wished. Goldwater lost the election, but Strom Thurmond publicly switched parties, and Republicans picked up the five states of the Deep South (as well as Arizona) for the first time since Reconstruction.

Democrats, meanwhile, went all in on racial equality. Kennedy had come around to calling for civil rights legislation, and after his assassination, his successor, Lyndon Baines Johnson, pushed hard first for the Civil Rights Act of 1964—which Congress passed while FBI agents were searching for three murdered civil rights workers in Mississippi—and then, after law enforcement officers in Selma, Alabama, attacked voting rights advocates as they crossed a bridge named for a grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The Democrats had become the party of equality. But the votes for the civil rights laws had been bipartisan, and it was not at all clear that the Republicans wouldn’t also back civil rights. After all, Goldwater had gotten shellacked when he made common cause with white supremacists.

But in 1968, Republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon knew he had a hard fight ahead of him. He figured he needed to pick up the old Dixiecrats, who were now politically homeless. He went to Thurmond with a quiet promise not to use the federal government to protect Black rights in the South in exchange for his support. This “Southern strategy” worked. Thurmond publicly backed Nixon.

From then on, white supremacists made up a key part of the Republicans’ base, and the party increasingly pushed on old racial themes—Ronald Reagan’s welfare queen, for example, or George H.W. Bush’s “Willie Horton” ad, or the trope of “makers” and “takers”—to keep them on board.

The parties had switched positions over equality and hierarchy. Since 1964, Republicans have always won the majority of the nation’s white vote, while Democrats rely on Black voters, especially Black women.

And that is the actual true history of how it happened that a Republican candidate for office, representing a party that once defended civil rights, made white power rants on public media.

hcr
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2022 04:41 am
@hightor,
hcr wrote:
This week, news broke that as a guest on the right-wing Real America's Voice media network in 2020, Republican candidate for Michigan governor Tudor Dixon said that the Democrats have planned for decades to topple the United States because they have not gotten over losing the Civil War. According to Dixon, Democrats don't want anyone to know that white Republicans freed the slaves, and are deliberately strangling "true history."

Dixon's was a pure white power rant, but she was amplifying a theme we hear a lot these days: that Democrats were the party of enslavement, Republicans pushed emancipation, and thus the whole idea that Republican policies today are bad for Black Americans is disinformation.

It's hard to see how blaming the Democrats for slavery is a white power rant. But the Democrats illegally blocked the mainstream Republican candidate from running, so if some kind of Republican hardliner ends up elected as our governor, the Democrats did that to themselves.
izzythepush
 
  4  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2022 05:11 am
@oralloy,
The list of things you don't see is bigger than all the presidential libraries put together.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2022 05:50 am
@izzythepush,
The things on that list have one thing in common with each other. They are all fictional things that don't actually exist.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2022 05:55 am
@oralloy,
You admit to having no imagination or foresight.

Well done, it's a first step towards acceptance.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2022 05:59 am
@izzythepush,
That is incorrect. I admit to having low creativity.
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2022 06:23 am
Trump’s 2017 tax cuts helped set stage for today’s inflation. Doubling down will make things worse.

The claim of irresponsible Republicans that they would do a better job than Democrats of containing inflation is just not believable.

Quote:
What are you going to believe: Republicans’ claims about inflation or the party’s record?

As right-wing politicians around the country holler about inflation, they conveniently ignore the long-term impact of former President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax cuts. Trump’s cuts, geared to help the wealthy, bloated the federal budget deficit, which left the government less leeway when it needed it to rescue the economy from COVID-19.

Now, some Republicans want to extend parts of Trump’s tax cuts that are scheduled to sunset over the next three years and add new ones. That, in the judgment of many economists, could help drive up inflation and make rich people richer while everyone else takes it on the chin.

To pay for the tax cuts, Republicans are talking about cutting Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid, limiting aid to Ukraine and raising drug prices.

Such a deal. Don’t like it? You are out of step with today’s Republican Party.

Back when the Trump tax cuts were being debated, economists warned the cuts could eventually lead to out-of-control inflation. And, economists said, the cuts would force the government to borrow to deal with emergencies. In 2021, ProPublica reported the national debt rose by almost $7.8 trillion during Trump’s time in office. That didn’t help the government’s ability to borrow. Ouch.

Back in 2017, no one knew the COVID-19 pandemic would strike. But it did, along with a war in Ukraine. More emergencies are inevitable. That’s why it was smart that President Joe Biden in August signed a minimum corporate tax of 15% into law. If that’s repealed, as some Republicans want, it would allow many corporations to return to paying 0%.

In September, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said he wants to give businesses more tax breaks while reducing the tax rate paid by the highest-earning taxpayers to 37% from 39.6%. That’s a gift to the wealthy at the expense of people who live paycheck to paycheck, and is wrong-headed.

To confront inflation, corporate profits — which are the highest in decades — should be the target, not working people. Higher corporate profits reportedly account for more than half of today’s price increases.

Inflation is pernicious. Those who remember the double-digit inflation of the 1970s recall how it devastated people on fixed incomes and reduced the real wages of workers.

Carefully timed and thoughtfully directed tax cuts can in theory boost the economy enough to pay for themselves. But too often in recent years, ill-advised cuts have led to more government borrowing. They have driven up the government deficit. Republicans have laid out no credible plan now to bring down inflation.

When tax cuts pump more money into the economy, it increases demand, which drives up prices, makes inflation worse and prompts the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates to combat inflation. Under the Republican plan, some working people will get modest tax cuts, but they will pay for them with higher prices and interest. They also will pay through those cuts to Social Security and Medicare, programs into which they have long paid.

Politically, refusing to cut taxes might put Democrats on the spot. If they don’t go along, Republicans can use the issue in the 2024 elections. But if Democrats cave, that won’t help the economy. Biden might find himself in another session of brinkmanship if Republicans refuse to raise the federal borrowing cap, as they have in the past, to get their way.

Democrats aren’t always particularly responsible at budgeting time. But they have often been better fiscal stewards than their opposition.

The claim of irresponsible Republicans that they would do a better job than Democrats of containing inflation is just not believable. So far, they have shown no interest in doing so, just as they have proved time and again they don’t care about the national debt when they hold the reins of power.

cst
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2022 06:42 am
@bobsal u1553115,
bobsal u1553115 wrote:

Quote:
That is not what I said.


So then, what IS it that makes him a leftist?



I don’t know one conservative that lists themselves as Green Party voters or associates with liberal friends or that lives in a nudist commune.

snood
 
  4  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2022 07:22 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

That is incorrect. I admit to having low creativity.


But the problem is that original thought and creativity use the same dendrites and synapses.

Actually, you’ve inadvertently explained a lot with this post.

0 Replies
 
Rebelofnj
 
  4  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2022 07:23 am
@Lash,
The Republican Party have been known use the Green Party to siphon votes from Democrats, so it is not outside the realm of possibility that right wing conspiracy theorists and talking heads would appeal to those dissatisfied with the Democratic Party (i.e. The Green Party, independents).

So to reiterate, the suspect, regardless of his own personal politics, was just another person radicalized by the far right.
Lash
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2022 07:24 am
@bobsal u1553115,
bobsal u1553115 wrote:

Quote:
That is not what I said.


So then, what IS it that makes him a leftist?


But, mostly the reports.

Excerpt:

Blog posts that are being investigated in connection with DePape describe someone with sprawling and contradictory views, multiple senior law enforcement officials familiar with the case told NBC News. The posts take aspects of liberal anti-establishment ideas to more recent posts that espouse positions typically associated with far-right extremism, the sources said.
_________________

As I said.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/29/what-we-know-about-david-depape-the-man-accused-in-the-pelosi-home-invasion-attack.html?mibextid=zRt4xZ
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2022 07:25 am
@Rebelofnj,
Possibly, in more recent times.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  5  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2022 08:02 am
@Lash,
Quote:
I don’t know one conservative that lists themselves as Green Party voters or associates with liberal friends or that lives in a nudist commune
.
Earlier, bobsal provided links demonstrating the engagement of conservatives in nudism. Arch conservative William F Buckley and liberal economist JK Galbraith remained lifelong friends, not to mention the famous friendship between Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. As pointed out to you earlier by hightor, the attacker's support for the Green Party was years ago.

But currently and in the more recent past, the fellow's posts on social media include:
- anti-semitism
- pro-Trump commentary
- forwarding of QAnon conspiracy theories
- promotion of Mike Lindell's stolen election falsehoods
- allegations that the pandemic was an attempt by global elites to bring about a new world order.

As we all understand, your game here is to ceaselessly attack the left, the Democratic Party and all high profile Dems while almost never forwarding criticism of Republicans, the GOP or modern conservatism.

Your cover story, since Bernie Sanders ran for the presidency, is that you are a Progressive, a true representative of core or ideal leftist beliefs and values (even while now suggesting that Bernie himself is a failed and feckless progressive).

The only positive thing I can say about you and your attempts to foster divisiveness is that you are totally transparent.
snood
 
  2  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2022 08:08 am
@blatham,
Quote:
The only positive thing I can say about you and your attempts to foster divisiveness is that you are totally transparent.


Look at you! The doe-eyed optimist - always “glass half full” with you, isn’t it?!😂
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2022 08:09 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:


Quote:
I don’t know one conservative that lists themselves as Green Party voters or associates with liberal friends or that lives in a nudist commune
.
Earlier, bobsal provided links demonstrating the engagement of conservatives in nudism. Arch conservative William F Buckley and liberal economist JK Galbraith remained lifelong friends, not to mention the famous friendship between Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. As pointed out to you earlier by hightor, the attacker's support for the Green Party was years ago.

But currently and in the more recent past, the fellow's posts on social media include:
- anti-semitism
- pro-Trump commentary
- forwarding of QAnon conspiracy theories
- promotion of Mike Lindell's stolen election falsehoods
- allegations that the pandemic was an attempt by global elites to bring about a new world order.

As we all understand, your game here is to ceaselessly attack the left, the Democratic Party and all high profile Dems while almost never forwarding criticism of Republicans, the GOP or modern conservatism.

Your cover story, since Bernie Sanders ran for the presidency, is that you are a Progressive, a true representative of core or ideal leftist beliefs and values (even while now suggesting that Bernie himself is a failed and feckless progressive).

The only positive thing I can say about you and your attempts to foster divisiveness is that you are totally transparent.


Excellent analysis. You hit several nails directly on their heads here.

Thanks.
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2022 08:27 am
Quote:
Autocrats and those who wish to join their ranks know that polarization is rarely enough to get people to commit unprecedented acts. To encourage political violence and exceptional measures — harming Pelosi or Capitol rioters chanting that they wanted to hang then-Vice President Mike Pence — you need to get people to feel like they are facing an existential threat. Survivalism goes beyond the “us or them in power” of polarization to a state of “it’s us or them, and only one of us will survive the encounter.” Its extreme rhetoric deliberately evokes fear and dread at losing something irreplaceable, at the obliteration of America.

Yes, polarization is on the rise around the world, thanks to disaffection with liberal democracy, rising economic inequality and social media’s exposure of billions to disinformation. But when illiberal politicians and their media allies move to destroy democracy, the creation of enemies and the fomenting of hostility enter a different phase. Political opponents are depicted as existential threats who must be stopped by any means possible.

One typical move, as practiced by Russian President Vladimir Putin, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and other authoritarians, is to designate pro-democracy nongovernmental organizations, investigative journalists and opposition politicians as “terrorists.” Another is to demonize those who hold different opinions about politics. With polarization, you move further apart but can still “agree to disagree.” That’s not an option in the survivalist universe. A political opponent becomes an enemy who threatens your freedoms and way of life. As dialogue disappears, violence becomes more likely.

In the U.S., Jan. 6 further radicalized the Republican Party and broke taboos about the use of violence against police and lawmakers. Trump’s speech was part of a concerted effort to make armed insurrection seem not just acceptable, but also patriotic — a way to save the country from the massive fraud he claimed without evidence was perpetrated by Joe Biden. The propaganda worked: A survey by the American Enterprise Institute conducted a month after the attack on the Capitol found that 39% of Republicans agreed that “if elected leaders will not protect America, the people must do it themselves, even if it requires violent actions.”

Keeping people in a state of fear and agitation about losing everything is essential to strongman strategy.

Survivalism is also central to many Republican messaging campaigns around immigration and the dire consequences of demographic change. The “great replacement” conspiracy theory, which holds that white people will be extinguished in terms of birth and status in a minority-majority state, is now a mainstream belief among Republican lawmakers and media figures. Tucker Carlson, host of Fox News’ highest-rated show, has featured it in more than 400 episodes.

Survivalist fears related to population trends also motivate prominent Republicans. Conservative Political Action Conference Chairman Matt Schlapp, while hosting a conference that had a keynote address by Hungary’s authoritarian leader, Viktor Orbán, hailed the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade as a solution to America’s “population problem” — the argument being that abortion bans mean more white births. Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill., called the same ruling “a historic victory for white life.”

That “us or them” mindset can encourage actions like the May 14 mass shooting in Buffalo, New York, in which a white gunman who fatally shot 10 Black people intended to kill as many of “them” as possible. Similar motivations were cited in mass shootings in Pittsburgh in 2018 and El Paso, Texas, in 2019 (as well as shootings in Norway and New Zealand).

Polarization may earn headlines, but it does not in itself prompt a turn to action. An NBC News poll that tells us “70% agree with the statement that America is so polarized that it can no longer solve major issues facing the country” stops short of spelling out what may come next.

Keeping people in a state of fear and agitation about losing everything is essential to strongman strategy. It prepares the masses to accept violence as a means of solving problems — from elections that don’t go well for their party to living with a changing democratic reality. Where survivalism takes root, political violence can follow.
Ruth Ben-Ghiat
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2022 08:33 am
@snood,
Quote:
always “glass half full” with you, isn’t it?!

I've found it an agreeable and productive approach to living, quite useful in many sorts of situations. And I seem to get on well with others who take the same approach. For example, women who find worth in a half full vagina.
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2022 08:36 am
@blatham,
Quote:
As we all understand, your game here is to ceaselessly attack the left, the Democratic Party and all high profile Dems while almost never forwarding criticism of Republicans, the GOP or modern conservatism.

Your cover story, since Bernie Sanders ran for the presidency, is that you are a Progressive, a true representative of core or ideal leftist beliefs and values (even while now suggesting that Bernie himself is a failed and feckless progressive).

The only positive thing I can say about you and your attempts to foster divisiveness is that you are totally transparent.



This should be added to her 'about me' page.
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2022 08:36 am
@blatham,
Priceless, buddy, priceless.
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2022 08:36 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Excellent analysis. You hit several nails directly on their heads here.

Thanks.

I miss ya, chum.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 12/24/2024 at 11:15:16