Why did McGovern lose so badly?

[acsenray]

There were a lot of reasons, of course. One was the P.R. flop of the Democratic convention (McGovern's acceptance was in the wee hours of the morning). Another was Nixon's dirty tricks throughout the election that knocked out all the stronger Democratic candidates one by one and sabotaged Democratic events. Another was the succesful tarring of McGovern with the "Triple A" brush.

But most importantly -- something nobody has mentioned yet -- is that 1972 was the year that the Republicans' "Southern Strategy" (a.ka., appeal to racist whites) really kicked into high gear for the first time. This is really the ongoing appeal of the Republican party in the south and rural midwest. The Republicans have successfully positioned themselves as the "we're one of you and we'll protect you against THEM (i.e., other Americans) party."

[acsenray]

Give it a rest already. Democrats are the party of the slaver and history backs me up on that.

Using similar logic, I could say that the Republican party is the party of slavery, because Thomas Jefferson was a slaveholder and he was a member of a party called the Republican party. Never mind that it wasn't the same Republican party. In the same way, the Democratic party that exists today has nothing to do with the Democratic party of the slaveholders, especially considering that all the people with the attitudes and agenda of the slaveholders switched to the Republican party since the 1960s. Which party did Strom Thurmond die a member of, eh?

[acsenray]

Byrd has also repudiated his KKK membership, apologized for it, rejected the ideals of the segregation movement, and since has pursued a liberal agenda. How many southern Republicans have done that?

As far as equating liberal social policies with slavery, that is merely a slogan. It says nothing about the realities of racial politics in the two parties.

[acsenray]

BTW, Thomas Jefferson was a Democrat NOT a Republican. The Democratic Republican Party which he founded in opposition to the Federalist Party dropped the "Republican" part of the name by 1828 when Andrew Jackson ran for president. One of the Democratic Party's big annual fundraising events if the Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner.

Jefferson was neither a Democrat or a Republican in terms of the modern party names. He and his followers referred to themselves exclusively as "Republicans" and the "Republican party." The Democratic-Republican party (which became the Democratic party) was not created until the split between Jackson and John Q. Adams's National Republicans in the 1820s. Jefferson himself never used, nor had ever heard of the name "Democratic-Republican."

The point is that Jefferson's Republican party is not the same party as today's Republican party. Similarly, the pro-slavery Democratic party of the mid 19th century and the pro-segregation southern Democrats of the 20th century have nothing to do with today's Democratic party, especially since all the segregationists switched to the Republican party.

And, BTW, today's Democratic and Republican parties both claim Jefferson as a model and a hero. So that counts for nil.

[acsenray]

Welfare holds people back from the true potential. Most people will take the freebie over having to go out and work for it themselves.

Disagreeing with policy on policy grounds is one thing. So you don't like welfare ... It's still more than ridiculous to equate it to slavery or segregation or racism. (For one thing, it has nothing to do with race.)

[acsenray]

Welfare absolutely DOES have a lot to do with race. Dependence on the government is equivalent to slavery in the same way as the slaves were dependent on the plantation master. What party is the party of the free check handout? If you keep people dependent on you you can easily subvert them to your way of thinking.

Again, you're talking in slogans and propaganda.

The idea that black people are being tricked into voting against their own interests is pure silliness. They vote for whom they want to vote for. Furthermore, people on welfare don't vote. The black people who are voting for Democrats are the ones with jobs.

If your point is that the Democratic party is essentially buying the votes of African-Americans with welfare, well, that really has nothing to do with race. Political parties have been paying off their loyal voters since the beginning. Take a look at who's benefitting most from the Republican tax cuts.

Second, far, far, far more white people benefit from welfare than blacks do. So, where's the race connection there? The idea that welfare is a race issue is errant nonsense. The idea that only blacks are poor or that only blacks need help or that only blacks are willing to accept help is, in itself, racist. Some people need help and are willing to accept it. Liberal are willing to offer that help through government programs.

Third, the idea that those who support policies that benefit the underprivileged are doing so in order to get some kind of voodoo mastery over them is nothing more than slander. Liberal support for public benefits comes from the same instinct that anyone who wants to help someone else in need. The liberal position is that if a problem is widespread, then the people as a whole (that is, the government) should work together to help solve the problem. You might disagree with this method of dealing with problems, but your sloganeering and propaganda and slander of the motives of the people who disagree with you is not fitting in a great republic.

Your whole political position seems to be that people who disagree with you are either stupid or evil. I'd suggest you rethink that notion. Reasonable people may disagree on policy.

[acsenray]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, it is absolute nonsense to equate the denial of all civil and human rights to a person to offering that person a voluntary public benefit. It's fine if you disagree with social welfare for policy reasons. To equate it with slavery on any level tells more about you than it does about the reality of public policy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In the late 40s? How many of these voters are still alive? The whites who vote Republican now are the ones who controlled the Democratic party in the south back then. Why were they free to switch parties when they wanted to but the blacks weren't?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It doesn't have to be 100 percent true. It's true enough to make hash of your argument.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, people who support social welfare believe that the people acting together (= the government) should help people in need.

In any case, there are now strict limits on welfare. Nobody can live their lives on welfare any more.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're not making any sense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is that right? The last figure I saw was that 50 percent of welfare beneficiaries were white and only about 30 percent or so were black. How does that constitute a majority?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fallacy of argument by anecdote. I lived for three years in a rural area where there were lots of whites on welfare. Does that mean I should conclude that there are no blacks on welfare? The basic fact is that there are a lot more poor whites in this country than poor blacks and that there are a lot more whites on welfare than blacks. That's a fact.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fine, that's what you believe. There are plenty of people who disagree with you. That doesn't mean that those who do are stupid, evil, anti-democratic, anti-freedom, anti-American, or whatever. In a democracy, you vote and then the winners compromise on a policy solution. So nobody gets exactly what they believe. That's the way grownups behave.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I believe that no religious group should be empowered to act on behalf of the people as a whole. That's what government is for. That's what I believe. So what names are you going to call me now?

[acsenray]

Senator Beet, how do I go about doing that?

Regarding the "Southern Strategy." I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that we all know what we're talking about here and there's no need to harp on it further.

After all, it's been staring me right in the face all this time. Senator States' Rights? What a giveaway! Thanks for pulling my leg.