The utter irrelevance of "more Republicans than Democrats voted for the CRA"
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:17:35 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  The utter irrelevance of "more Republicans than Democrats voted for the CRA"
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: The utter irrelevance of "more Republicans than Democrats voted for the CRA"  (Read 1337 times)
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: April 25, 2016, 10:21:10 PM »

Goldwater voted against the most important civil rights legislation in American history. If he did not do this out of racism, then he did it for political gain. Either way it makes him terrible. The sins of Lyndon Johnson do not exonerate Barry Goldwater.

He voted against it because he swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, and the Supreme Court had (at that time) already ruled that the 14th Amendment didn't apply to private discrimination. It had absolutely nothing to do with opportunism or racism, he was just an ideologue who did not want to violate the Constitution he swore to protect.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: April 26, 2016, 06:21:44 AM »

The opening up of the South to the GOP began in the 1950's and formed a continous trend through the 2000s, when the transition was finally completed. It was largely driven by generational and demographic change as most things usually are.

The movement of Northerners into the South, the growth of a middle class base in the Suburbs and a younger generation no longer as wetted to refighting the Civil War and faced with two nominally pro-civil Rights Parties, began to vote their economic interests, which moved them into line with similar demographics elsewhere in the country, as in voting Republican. This created a situation where the big metros were heavily Republican like Dallas, Charlotte, Tampa and the rural areas were heavily Democratic.

It has long been my theory that the generation of Southern kids born just before, during and just after the Civil War was the most militantly racist generation this country has ever seen. They would have grown up with their homes wrecked, and their region destroyed by warfare. To which, they blamed solely on the Yankee Republicans and the Blacks.  It was this generation that led the push to deprive blacks of the vote and you can see with Watson and others how as they became more and more the larger generation, the politicians in the late 19th and early 20th century shifted more and more racist and Segregationist. Since the Civil War wiped out a large percentage of the previous generation, this meant that the post war kids would have reached a majority of the white population much sooner as a result. Theodore Bilbo (1865-1946) was member of this generation, symbolizes their general attitude. 

It was this generation the overthrew the Bourbons in much of the South and help to power the Democrats and their shift towards embracing Progressivism (think Woodrow Wilson). By the New Deal they would have been dying off, but their impact was substantial and formed the basis for that as well. By the 1950's their presence was gone and therefore Greatest and Silent Generation kids, who were too young to have the rantings and ravings of the Civil War generation present, would thus be more open to voting for the Party of business, than their Lost Generation parents who would have been disowned by their own CW generation parents if they dared vote those Yankee Republicans. As World War II Vets, they adored Ike, who was the perfect GOP candidate to coax Middle Class Southerners of the Greatest and Silent generations out of their Democratic shell.
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,952
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: April 26, 2016, 02:30:01 PM »

Unless you're fine with calling their racism strictly conservative (which I'm simply not, so we can chalk this conversation up as pointless), then I'm not seein' it.  Compared to Northern Whites (where the blue laws originated, where prohibition was huge), they weren't markedly more conservative.  They certainly weren't more "conservative" on economic issues.

Eh, I'd disagree.  Outside of that New Deal Window, the South has always been fairly right-wing economically.  It is true that the South send economic leftists to Congress during that time (and some Populists earlier), but those often did not reflect the actual view of Southerners themselves, which I'd posit is best reflected at the state governance level.

The evidence at the state level shows that even during the New Deal, the South had more conservative policy positions at a state level:
http://news.mit.edu/2015/map-history-us-state-politics-1202

Plus, think of who the Dems nominated in the late 1800's besides the admittedly liberal WJB:  Grover Cleveland, Horatio Seymour, Winfield Hancock, Samuel Tilden, etc.  Most of them were more right-wing than their opponents, I'd argue; if not, then you certainly couldn't call them left-wing by any stretch of the imagination.
Logged
Clark Kent
ClarkKent
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,480
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: April 26, 2016, 02:31:51 PM »

All four of them (Cleveland, Seymour, Hancock, and Tilden) were Northerners from New York.
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,952
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: April 26, 2016, 03:12:31 PM »
« Edited: April 26, 2016, 03:14:07 PM by MW Representative RFayette »

All four of them (Cleveland, Seymour, Hancock, and Tilden) were Northerners from New York.

But they were all overwhelmingly voted for by the South.  The South was completely shut out of contention as far as Presidential candidates went all the way up until Wilson, who was considered at least somewhat Southern (raised in the South, but then became professor at Princeton).

That being said, I think the state-level policy data is more illuminative concerning my point.  People voting for state legislators seemed to definitely want small government and local control, and most "progressive" movements were slower-going in the South than other parts of the country, such as prison reform and child labor reform.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: April 26, 2016, 04:43:06 PM »

Okay, then you're operating under the assumption that small government and local control is inherently conservative, another premise I wholeheartedly reject.  It's that kind of thinking that places Hamilton to the left of Jefferson, completely ignoring motive and totally focusing on method.  Arguing that increased infrastructure spending like the transcontinental railroad will only help elite business types at the expense of the people IS NOT in the same vein as arguing increased public funding for roads in 21st Century America is excessive spending.  That's just one example of how a small or big government METHOD can be attractive to opposing groups depending on the circumstances, another being how the business community of the 1800s pushed protectionism while the business community of today pushes free trade - they're opposite "policies" pushed for the exact same reason/motive.
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,952
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: April 26, 2016, 04:51:36 PM »
« Edited: April 26, 2016, 04:59:13 PM by MW Representative RFayette »

Okay, then you're operating under the assumption that small government and local control is inherently conservative, another premise I wholeheartedly reject.  It's that kind of thinking that places Hamilton to the left of Jefferson, completely ignoring motive and totally focusing on method.  Arguing that increased infrastructure spending like the transcontinental railroad will only help elite business types at the expense of the people IS NOT in the same vein as arguing increased public funding for roads in 21st Century America is excessive spending.  That's just one example of how a small or big government METHOD can be attractive to opposing groups depending on the circumstances, another being how the business community of the 1800s pushed protectionism while the business community of today pushes free trade - they're opposite "policies" pushed for the exact same reason/motive.

Fair enough, but I think that MIT's operational definition of conservative for the purpose of that study was still considered conservative in the 1930's.  Also, your definition of conservative = what the business community wants doesn't always hold up either.  Business interests tend to be for more public investment in infrastructure (look at US Chamber of Commerce) and often (see WalMart) increases in the federal minimum wage.  Eminent domain is another example where conservative orthodoxy differs from business interests, along with a myriad of social issues.  I tend to prefer the definition of conservative as preserving traditions and reverting to older ways, which almost invariably means a smaller federal government, especially outside of military expenditures (given how large domestic spending is federally, relative to historical averages).  

Keep in mind that Hamilton v. Jefferson was at a time where the nation had just undergone a revolution and a "small federal government" wasn't a firmly conservative tradition yet.  However, by the late 1800's, I absolutely think it was.  

Furthermore, I think efforts at "reformism" - such as child labor reform, prison reform, maximum workweeks, etc. - are almost inherently liberal or left-wing, and the southern states have always been less likely to adapt those reforms than the Northern ones.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: April 26, 2016, 11:45:51 PM »

There is inherent stability that is fundemental to Conservativism and therefore it would not be inconsistent for Conservatives to embrace stabilizing measures to the wild environment of the period. It depends on what type of Conservative you are. This was certainly the approach of Bismarck in Germany for instance and the GOP had a good number of German advisers on economic policy and so forth during its first few decades.
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,952
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: April 27, 2016, 12:39:37 AM »
« Edited: April 27, 2016, 12:48:08 AM by MW Representative RFayette »

There is inherent stability that is fundemental to Conservativism and therefore it would not be inconsistent for Conservatives to embrace stabilizing measures to the wild environment of the period. It depends on what type of Conservative you are. This was certainly the approach of Bismarck in Germany for instance and the GOP had a good number of German advisers on economic policy and so forth during its first few decades.

This is fair.  Perhaps I'm thinking of conservatism too much as "reactionary," but that seems to have been the predominant tenor of the right-wing for a long time.  Most of us are more concerned with reversing existing changes rather than preventing future ones.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: April 27, 2016, 02:19:24 AM »

There is inherent stability that is fundemental to Conservativism and therefore it would not be inconsistent for Conservatives to embrace stabilizing measures to the wild environment of the period. It depends on what type of Conservative you are. This was certainly the approach of Bismarck in Germany for instance and the GOP had a good number of German advisers on economic policy and so forth during its first few decades.

This is fair.  Perhaps I'm thinking of conservatism too much as "reactionary," but that seems to have been the predominant tenor of the right-wing for a long time.  Most of us are more concerned with reversing existing changes rather than preventing future ones.

Using international colors, a blue-red (black-red in today's German colors) alliance seems unthinkable now, but it was certainly present in places like Germany, France under Louis Napoleon III (Socialist on Horseback as he was called).

 I got into it with Einzige over when Conservativism began to embrace classical liberalism. He insisted it was the 1850's and earlier, but I think it was a slower, more gradual process with a defining turning point in 1896, with it being set in stone by the New Deal. When Gov't becomes the threat to stability (or that of your interests) is when limited government becomes the desired approach to policy.

Prior to that, Conservatism had a strong strain of pro-gov't economic nationalism as well as the stabilization factor (with a strong Puritanical motivation, get rid of the booze to strengthen communites and help children and women. Build churches and drive out the saloons and brothels) and within that umbrella, Progressives and even some socialists found operating space. Progressivism itself was not as defined either as being left or right, but was considered to be advancing in whatever direction you supported. Business considered growth to be "Progressive" for instance. It came to adopt it's modern definition by being most closely associated with stability desiring social reformers, who were mostly Puritanical women seeking to secure the wilds for faith, family and community. This made them the enemies of the individualist nature of the wilderness, the Libertarian ideal of today.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: April 27, 2016, 08:37:47 AM »

Tbf Gerald Ford was perfectly fine with letting open housing provisions get torn apart.

Tbf Gerald Ford did want to boycott a game because of the opposing team's racism. You know, Carter went to a church/denomination which was segregated.

Insult the others as much as you want, but Gerald Ford was not a racist by any means. Even if the South always votes for the most racist candidate, Ford lost the South overwhelmingly.
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,952
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: April 27, 2016, 11:20:56 AM »

There is inherent stability that is fundemental to Conservativism and therefore it would not be inconsistent for Conservatives to embrace stabilizing measures to the wild environment of the period. It depends on what type of Conservative you are. This was certainly the approach of Bismarck in Germany for instance and the GOP had a good number of German advisers on economic policy and so forth during its first few decades.

This is fair.  Perhaps I'm thinking of conservatism too much as "reactionary," but that seems to have been the predominant tenor of the right-wing for a long time.  Most of us are more concerned with reversing existing changes rather than preventing future ones.

Using international colors, a blue-red (black-red in today's German colors) alliance seems unthinkable now, but it was certainly present in places like Germany, France under Louis Napoleon III (Socialist on Horseback as he was called).

 I got into it with Einzige over when Conservativism began to embrace classical liberalism. He insisted it was the 1850's and earlier, but I think it was a slower, more gradual process with a defining turning point in 1896, with it being set in stone by the New Deal. When Gov't becomes the threat to stability (or that of your interests) is when limited government becomes the desired approach to policy.

Prior to that, Conservatism had a strong strain of pro-gov't economic nationalism as well as the stabilization factor (with a strong Puritanical motivation, get rid of the booze to strengthen communites and help children and women. Build churches and drive out the saloons and brothels) and within that umbrella, Progressives and even some socialists found operating space. Progressivism itself was not as defined either as being left or right, but was considered to be advancing in whatever direction you supported. Business considered growth to be "Progressive" for instance. It came to adopt it's modern definition by being most closely associated with stability desiring social reformers, who were mostly Puritanical women seeking to secure the wilds for faith, family and community. This made them the enemies of the individualist nature of the wilderness, the Libertarian ideal of today.

If the alliance was "blue-red," are we saying that libertarians were the "true" left-wingers of the time?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.042 seconds with 13 queries.