I have no great fondness for Congress Critter Marjorie Taylor Greene who could use a lot more brain and a lot less mouth, but the idea of the parties having switched always rouses my ire.
One political party for over a century and a half has routinely used appeals based on race to win elections. The other party, throughout its history, has stood for civil rights for all Americans and denied that government policy should be based on racial discrimination. The first party is the Democrat Party and the second party is the Republican party. To get around this simple fact of American political history, some Democrats, especially in election years when the polls are against them, routinely attempt to portray Republicans as racists, in an Alice in Wonderland inversion of the truth. A hilarious example of this mendacious and bold faced attempt to rewrite history is on display at Politico in an article entitled Race and the Modern GOP. This recycles the claim of an evil Republican strategy to appeal to white racists in the South who switched en masse to become Republicans.
The problem with this is that it is a liberal fable. It didn’t happen that way. The first breach in the solid South was by Eisenhower who ran on a platform of vigorous support for Civil Rights for blacks. Segregationists retained complete control of the Democrat parties in the South and enjoyed electoral success throughout the period in question. The South changing to Republican had to do with the rise of the cultural issues, an influx of northern Republicans following wide spread use of air conditioning and the rapid economic development of the South, and the anti-military hysteria and isolationism that seized control of the Democrats in the wake of Vietnam.
Paul Zummo had an excellent post on this subject back in 2018 :
Democrats have always been ready to use race-baiting as part of their election strategies. Only the colors have shifted, not the underlying principle that government may treat Americans differently on the basis of race.
The consistent theme of the Democrat party is using government power to discriminate among Americans based on race and the reliance of the Democrats on blatant racial appeals as a result of this policy. The segregationists of a half century ago in the South, George Wallace, Orville Faubus, Lester Maddox, Bull Connor, J. William Fulbright, et al as a group were fairly typical Democrats, and in their use of racial appeals for political purposes they were part of a long and dishonorable Democrat tradition that continues to this day.
The Republican party platform of 1856, with its emphasis on constitutional rights for all citizens, set forth one of the great themes of the Republican party from that year to this:
This Convention of Delegates, assembled in pursuance of a call addressed to the people of the United States, without regard to past political differences or divisions, who are opposed to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise; to the policy of the present Administration; to the extension of Slavery into Free Territory; in favor of the admission of Kansas as a Free State; of restoring the action of the Federal Government to the principles of Washington and Jefferson; and for the purpose of presenting candidates for the offices of President and Vice-President, do resolve as follows:
Resolved: That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence, and embodied in the Federal Constitution are essential to the preservation of our Republican institutions, and that the Federal Constitution, the rights of the States, and the union of the States, must and shall be preserved.
Resolved: That, with our Republican fathers, we hold it to be a self-evident truth, that all men are endowed with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that the primary object and ulterior design of our Federal Government were to secure these rights to all persons under its exclusive jurisdiction; that, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our National Territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery in the Territories of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein. That we deny the authority of Congress, of a Territorial Legislation, of any individual, or association of individuals, to give legal existence to Slavery in any Territory of the United States, while the present Constitution shall be maintained.
Resolved: That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign powers over the Territories of the United States for their government; and that in the exercise of this power, it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism–Polygamy, and Slavery.
Resolved: That while the Constitution of the United States was ordained and established by the people, in order to “form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty,” and contain ample provision for the protection of the life, liberty, and property of every citizen, the dearest Constitutional rights of the people of Kansas have been fraudulently and violently taken from them.
Their Territory has been invaded by an armed force;
Spurious and pretended legislative, judicial, and executive officers have been set over them, by whose usurped authority, sustained by the military power of the government, tyrannical and unconstitutional laws have been enacted and enforced;
The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been infringed.
Test oaths of an extraordinary and entangling nature have been imposed as a condition of exercising the right of suffrage and holding office.
The right of an accused person to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury has been denied;
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, has been violated;
They have been deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of law;
That the freedom of speech and of the press has been abridged;
The right to choose their representatives has been made of no effect;
Murders, robberies, and arsons have been instigated and encouraged, and the offenders have been allowed to go unpunished;
That all these things have been done with the knowledge, sanction, and procurement of the present National Administration; and that for this high crime against the Constitution, the Union, and humanity, we arraign that Administration, the President, his advisers, agents, supporters, apologists, and accessories, either before or after the fact, before the country and before the world; and that it is our fixed purpose to bring the actual perpetrators of these atrocious outrages and their accomplices to a sure and condign punishment thereafter.
Resolved, That Kansas should be immediately admitted as a state of this Union, with her present Free Constitution, as at once the most effectual way of securing to her citizens the enjoyment of the rights and privileges to which they are entitled, and of ending the civil strife now raging in her territory.
Resolved, That the highwayman’s plea, that “might makes right,” embodied in the Ostend Circular, was in every respect unworthy of American diplomacy, and would bring shame and dishonor upon any Government or people that gave it their sanction.
Resolved, That a railroad to the Pacific Ocean by the most central and practicable route is imperatively demanded by the interests of the whole country, and that the Federal Government ought to render immediate and efficient aid in its construction, and as an auxiliary thereto, to the immediate construction of an emigrant road on the line of the railroad.
Resolved, That appropriations by Congress for the improvement of rivers and harbors, of a national character, required for the accommodation and security of our existing commerce, are authorized by the Constitution, and justified by the obligation of the Government to protect the lives and property of its citizens.
Resolved, That we invite the affiliation and cooperation of the men of all parties, however differing from us in other respects, in support of the principles herein declared; and believing that the spirit of our institutions as well as the Constitution of our country, guarantees liberty of conscience and equality of rights among citizens, we oppose all legislation impairing their security.
You could put that to a vote at any Republican convention and it would be approved overwhelmingly, especially the tone of its fervent bedrock belief in the Constitutional rights of all the American people.
Don I would hazard a guess Marjorie Taylor Green is as smart as at least half of the members of congress and unlike most gutless, feckless republicans she has the courage of her convictions. We need more Taylor Greens and less elite school graduates who are professional politicians who never worked in the real world. So put me down as a admirer and supporter of Taylor Green.
“An influx of northern Republicans following wide spread use of air conditioning and the rapid economic development of the South”
That’s interesting, since it seems to be virtually an article of faith in the conservative blogosphere that interstate migration consists solely or primarily of liberal Democrat “locusts” who inevitably flip every red state they invade to blue.
Don I would hazard a guess Marjorie Taylor Green is as smart as at least half of the members of congress
Most members of Congress aren’t very smart but Green abuses the privilege. Her only skill is self promotion, usually by endorsing idiotic conspiracy theories.
That’s interesting, since it seems to be virtually an article of faith in the conservative blogosphere that interstate migration consists solely or primarily of liberal Democrat “locusts” who inevitably flip every red state they invade to blue.
Intra state immigration varies over time usually dependent on how states are doing economically. Currently the blue state urban exodus is gathering steam. I think the immigrants to Red States tend to be a mixed bag politically. Small business men and women are going to vote differently from academics no matter their immigration status.
I appreciate her willingness to be outre. Very few members of Congress are making a stink about the behavior of the DC judiciary et al in re the 6 January detainees.
Reps Marjorie Taylor Greene and Louis Gomert with staff are the only two Congressional members who have been to visit the DC Jail. I recently listened to transcripts of their visit/inspection of the jail and interviews of the Jan 6th incarcerated. There are numerous violations of their civil rights. The hygiene of the spaces are disgusting. People forget or are unaware that these individuals have NOT as yet been charged with crimes though they are treated the same with the same schedules as dangerous criminals 23 hours in the cell -1hour out in, and 22-2 . Similar to solitary confinement. One prisoner has what appears to be gangrene on a forearm and thumb. No medical attention. Nada. Unless one is vaxxed no Communion, calls to/ from family, lawyers.
The Deputy Warden is a vile, foul mouthed, female racist. She wants white men erased from the earth.
Don’t be put off by Rep Greene’s strong Georgia accent. She loves her country, countrymen and God. Greene has more on the ball than the braying, egotistical, dim witted Congresswoman from Queens.
Greene has more on the ball than the braying, egotistical, dim witted Congresswoman from Queens
That is a low bar indeed CAM. However, you are quite right that Green deserves praise for highlighting the ill treatment of the January 6 prisoners. Would that Trump would do the same and would begin raising funds for their legal defense.
Most members of Congress aren’t very smart
Last I checked, a majority of the U.S. Senate had been admitted to the bar at one point.
Last I checked, a majority of the U.S. Senate had been admitted to the bar at one point.
Yes Art, but I am sure that most of them have done something requiring intelligence in their life. 🙂
“Would that Trump would do the same and would begin raising funds for their legal defense.“
I wonder why he hasn’t even publicly spoken about it, at least.
I assume the whole thing is an embarrassment for him, the culmination of a series of miscalculations and losses. It was his single weakest moment as president, and one that even his closest allies are willing to criticize. He thinks it’s better for his image if he keeps things vague about how badly he was treated. Also, I’m sure he doesn’t care about them.
I assume the whole thing is an embarrassment for him, the culmination of a series of miscalculations and losses. It was his single weakest moment as president, and one that even his closest allies are willing to criticize. He thinks it’s better for his image if he keeps things vague about how badly he was treated.
None of this makes any sense.
Because outside the CCP-controlled Congress and junta, the CCP operatives with bylines, the CCP agents with tenure [they spent the 1960’s and 1970’s taking-over 600 university admin. buildings, etc. – Sound familiar?], et al the whole INSURRECTION thing is a major buzz kill.
This mishigos is what you get when they impose a president and a Senate by mail.
Just a reminder that both Lincoln and Eisenhower had an approach to the South in common. Neither wanted to disrupt the region but both found that circumstances dictated an approach that both wanted to avoid. Both insisted that the law and constitution be followed regardless of their personal preferences. The issue of secession and its manifestation in slavery was settled in a Civil War. The matter of equal rights and its manifestation in segregation was settled in the courts, with an assist from federal law enforcement. The country did not only not disintegrate but became stronger after both challenges though it took some time. We now have one political party that wants to re-segregate under the guise of “equity” and there is little doubt that issue will also be settled in the courts.
I assume the whole thing is an embarrassment for him
I am making an assumption here, but it’s based on his prior actions as well as his lack of response that Greg noted.
the culmination of a series of miscalculations and losses
This is self-explanatory. Trump lost before the election in terms of preparation, he lost during the election by a failure of organization, he lost after the election in his legal efforts, he lost the electoral votes on January 6th, and he left office looking like a sore loser. It’s hard to call any of those things good calculations or successes. As I said, I’m making assumptions about his personality, but he seems to put such regard into being thought a winner that this series of losses must embarrass him.
It was his single weakest moment as president
He looked unprepared and out of control. His reacted late, after others called for him to do so, and his “go home, we love you, you’re very special” statement made Carter look like Putin in its impotence.
and one that even his closest allies are willing to criticize
That’s a factual statement.
He thinks it’s better for his image if he keeps things vague about how badly he was treated
He’s certainly acting that way, complaining in general terms but avoiding talking about the specific events of January 6th. He must realize that reminders of that day make him look bad.
Also, I’m sure he doesn’t care about them”
I note that you didn’t mention this statement as not making sense, so I guess we agree on this point.
The matter of equal rights and its manifestation in segregation was settled in the courts, with an assist from federal law enforcement. The country did not only not disintegrate but became stronger after both challenges though it took some time. We now have one political party that wants to re-segregate under the guise of “equity” and there is little doubt that issue will also be settled in the courts.
Not with you at all.
A1. Removing caste regulations in the military and the civil service and instituting impartial recruitment and promotion procedures was beneficial.
A2. You can argue that public utilities owned by shareholders, being monopolies, should be compelled by law to adopt a system of examinations for recruitment and promotion. You can argue that in industries where labor cartels were the order of the day, a set of impartial procedures for recruitment and promotion imposed by law would be beneficial.
A3. When you’re talking about ordinary employers and employees, its permissible to insist by law certain rubrics be followed in such transactions so that the nature of the transaction is transparent to the employee – people are paid in cash, not scrip; people are paid every two weeks if hourly, every month if salaried, and within five business days if casual; people are given due notice of changes in compensation; compensation rates are set so there is a regular rate and a set of overtime rates; the employer is liable for errors in calculating with-holding; employers carry workman’s compensation insurance; employer’s must offer paid holiday and sick time; employer’s are liable if they retaliate against an employer who avails himself of franchises granted according to law.
A4. An aspect of the foregoing is insisting on health and safety baselines.
A5. What is unjust and imprudent is interfering in an employer’s recruitment, retention, and promotion policies and also interfering in employee discipline except when offenses analogous to those in the penal code are being committed.
B1. Declaring restrictive covenants on real estate unenforceable was beneficial.
B2. Limiting state intervention in real estate markets to building codes and (mildly permissive) municipal land use plans would have been beneficial, but it was never implemented. (The 20% down, 30 yr mortgage financed by a deposits-and-loans institution was an agreeable innovation; the federal government sticking around for decades in the secondary mortgage market, providing mortgage insurance, promoting ‘slum clearance’, and promoting public housing was not).
B3. ‘Open housing’ laws applicable to private actors were unjust and imprudent, especially where rent control and / or highly restrictive policies in re real-estate development were in force.
C1. Dismantling parallel school systems was beneficial.
C2. Impartial formulae for provisioning schools would have been, but it was only ever implemented with the left hand.
C3. The fixation on ‘racial balance’ and manufacturing social engineering schemes to please federal judges was quite injurious. In an unregulated market for housing, there’s a great deal of racial and ethnic clustering. That does not require great inter-ethnic hostility; some mild preferences over who you’d prefer to have as a neighbor will result in ethnic clotting as people in the ordinary course of their lives move from one location to another. That’s a fairly benign way of reducing social conflict; where it turns vicious is when local thugs target particular families. You want to reduce the population of bricks being tossed through windows, shipping eleven-year-olds to unfamiliar neighborhoods to attend school is unclear on the concept.
C4. Antedating and co-incident with Judge Garrity’s scamming around was a catastrophic decline in the willingness and ability of inner-city school administrators to maintain order. Some of this unwillingness was driven by the addle-pated racial attitudes of teachers’ college graduates. I have among my in-laws a woman who was an elementary schoolteacher in Richmond from 1973-77.
C5. And of course, you had the imposition of racial preference schemes in recruitment of students and employees in higher education, something that violated black letter law, something imposed against public opinion, and something practiced in public institutions.
D1. It was beneficial to dismantle the intimidation and chicanery practiced to prevent blacks from enrolling as voters. It was beneficial to debar odd contrivances designed to prevent blacks from being elected to public office (e.g. requiring county commissioners win concurrent majorities of district and at-large constituencies).
D2. What wasn’t beneficial was judicially-imposed racial gerrymandering, which distorted the black political culture terribly. This was conjoined to witless exactitude in the population of constituencies (while not enumerating the actual citizen population in any constituency), which in turn made impossible the adoption of bullet-point procedures for drawing constituencies which would have radically restricted the scope for gerrymandering in general.
E1. You can certainly argue that services provided by public corporations, services provided by natural monopolies, and services provided in contexts where certain parties were vulnerable to being left stranded or the number of providers was so few that cartels were a possibility. That’s mass transit, postal services, inter-city transportation, and food, fuel, and lodgings in remote areas.
E2. It’s also beneficial to remove caste regulations imposed by state law.
E3. It gets to be abusive when you’re compelling merchants in competitive enterprises to do business with people with whom they’d rather not.
Edward Koch had a story about meeting Joseph Rauh at a cocktail party in Georgetown in 1971. They were introduced by a mutual acquaintance who knew that Koch was agitating against the nascent affirmative action programs. Koch’s description of Rauh was thus, “almost Churchillian” (“we will fight you in the streets, we will fight you in the cities”). A catch phrase favored by Ruah was ‘equal competition of unequals is inherently unequal’. Rauh had only an instrumental interest in efforts to put an end to contrived harassment of the black population. For him, it was always a social engineering scheme. That scheme incorporated empowering lawyers to second-guess everyone else’s discretionary decisions and manufacturing patron-client relationships between blacks and leftoid lawyers, blacks and leftoid teachers, blacks and leftoid social workers.
And you can see the problems. Blacks in their mundane lives have their own agendas and their own fish to fry. They also have, as a collective, some peculiar problems (some of which can be addressed by the government using conventional tools, some not). Blacks are not putty in the hands of wankers like Joseph Rauh. Over more than 50 years, this has been demonstrated by the warp and woof of urban life. So, the reaction of the grandchildren of Joseph Rauh, now in charge of every significant sector of the economy, is to make wage-earning whites a scapegoat.
We’d have been better off if the patron-client relations had never been built, and blacks nationwide permitted (as they were in New York in 1945) to navigate the matrix of the larger society as best they could.
Aer Deco: While I appreciate you reading my comment, I was not expecting a rambling and extensive non-reply to my rather brief point on two somewhat parallel events. A lot of what you say has some foundation in fact but most can simply be addressed as a failure of America to fully live up to its original promise of a largely classical liberal society of small government and maximum freedom. Again, I appreciate your observations and concerns and I’m sure you will continue to express them in other forums.
I was not expecting a rambling and extensive non-reply to my rather brief point on two somewhat parallel events
It wasn’t a non-reply. I’m taking exception to your whole characterization of the latter set of events, details provided.
And the problem in regard to ‘equal rights’ was that the police and the courts were not trustworthy. The courts still are not trustworthy.
How do you plan to make them trustworthy?
How do you plan to make them trustworthy?
I’m gonna wave my magic wand and say ‘abracadabra;.