|Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: When I say Republicans have veered right|
When I say Republicans have veered right
Posted - 8/26/2013 11:56:06 PM | show profile | flag this post
...I'm not kidding. But don't believe a liberal like me. Read the 1956 Republican Party platform. Here's an excerpt. The whole thing is available through the URL at the bottom.
The Eisenhower Administration will continue to fight for dynamic and progressive programs which, among other things, will:
Stimulate improved job safety of our workers, through assistance to the States, employees and employers;
Continue and further perfect its programs of assistance to the millions of workers with special employment problems, such as older workers, handicapped workers, members of minority groups, and migratory workers;
Strengthen and improve the Federal-State Employment Service and improve the effectiveness of the unemployment insurance system;
Protect by law, the assets of employee welfare and benefit plans so that workers who are the beneficiaries can be assured of their rightful benefits;
Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of Sex;
Clarify and strengthen the eight-hour laws for the benefit of workers who are subject to federal wage standards on Federal and Federally-assisted construction, and maintain and continue the vigorous administration of the Federal prevailing minimum wage law for public supply contracts;
Extend the protection of the Federal minimum wage laws to as many more workers as is possible and practicable;
Continue to fight for the elimination of discrimination in employment because of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry or sex;
Provide assistance to improve the economic conditions of areas faced with persistent and substantial unemployment;
Revise and improve the Taft-Hartley Act so as to protect more effectively the rights of labor unions, management, the individual worker, and the public. The protection of the right of workers to organize into unions and to bargain collectively is the firm and permanent policy of the Eisenhower Administration. In 1954, 1955 and again in 1956, President Eisenhower recommended constructive amendments to this Act. The Democrats in Congress have consistently blocked these needed changes by parliamentary maneuvers. The Republican Party pledges itself to overhaul and improve the Taft-Hartley Act along the lines of these recommendations.
Posted - 8/27/2013 8:27:21 AM | show profile | flag this post
What's your point?
Posted - 8/27/2013 8:42:49 AM | show profile | flag this post
I stated it as succinctly as possible
1. The Republican party has veered far right.
2. Here's the proof.
What could be more basic than that?
Posted - 8/27/2013 1:33:17 PM | show profile | flag this post
The GOP hasn't just veered off this course...
they're not even on the same map these days!
Posted - 8/27/2013 2:45:03 PM | show profile | flag this post
Thanks for this, VTexan
I suggest for perspective you also read the democratic platform of 1956. One thing I found real interesting, the republicans barely mentioned the democrats while the democrats seemed focused on what the republicans were doing. Hmmmm, why does that sound so familiar?
Posted - 8/27/2013 2:56:28 PM | show profile | flag this post
So much of the change in direction...
comes from Nixon's Southern Strategy -- designed to build a base of southern support based on segregation and racism.
Many southern Democrats abandoned the party as Democratic politicians embraced the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. Democrats in the South began to shift to the left -- liberals like Jimmy Carter and Dale Bumpers rose to political prominence, displacing The Faubuses and Wallaces of the 1950s.
But the old segregationists and racists simply quit voting. That's where Nixon saw an opening. He reshaped the GOP into something that could embrace the "good old days." Segregationist politicians frequently switched to the GOP -- Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond are the two most famous. And segregationist voters followed to the GOP.
This created a huge inversion in the political landscape in the formerly Solid South. And it led to a long struggle within the GOP to keep the racists in their ranks under control.
That's wearing thin.
As the GOP's demographic base collapses into primarily older, white males -- they have to rely on every vote they've got -- and that gives the old time racists in the party greater voice. We've seen that raised more and more often since the mid-2000s.
The voice we're hearing out of today's GOP sounds like the old voice of the Southern Democrats of the 1950s.
Democrats took care of their racists by ignoring them as they moved forward toward inclusion.
The GOP needs to learn the same lesson and seek diversity -- not by telling people to conform to belong, but by actually addressing the wants and needs of differing communities.
Posted - 8/27/2013 3:43:52 PM | show profile | flag this post
That's pure bullshit
Eighty percent of the GOP supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That compared to only 61 percent of Democrats. It was southern Democrats...or Dixiecrats...who were racist.
Republicans have always been supportive of civil rights and individual liberty while Democrats support the most insidious form of slavery...forced dependence on the federal government for basic subsistence, etc.
While your dishonest narrative may play in some places, it doesn't pass the smell test on here.
Posted - 8/27/2013 4:05:42 PM | show profile | flag this post
You got the first part right, cruzo...
Go back and read what I posted. I acknowledged the segregationist leanings of the Democrats up through the 1960s. But by 1970, segregationists were being rapidly disenfranchised by the single party south as the majority of southerners went with "New South" Democrats.
Nixon swept in and gathered up all these segregationists as part of his Southern Strategy.
That began the shift of hard core segregationists -- and racists -- to the GOP.
Read a book about it sometime. It's pretty standard knowledge throughout the south, and in just about any history class.
Posted - 8/27/2013 5:22:59 PM | show profile | flag this post
*** One thing I found real interesting, the republicans barely mentioned the democrats while the democrats seemed focused on what the republicans were doing. ***
blacked, my guess would be that it was because the Democrats were gearing up to campaign against Eisenhower as he ran for a second term. He was very popular as president.
Posted - 8/27/2013 5:24:31 PM | show profile | flag this post
See how slick this idiot thinks he is?
He tried to change the subject to deflect the FACT that Democrats support the most insidious form of slavery, as I stated in my post above.
Posted - 8/27/2013 5:26:12 PM | show profile | flag this post
*** Republicans have always been supportive of civil rights and individual liberty ***
Republican like you, you mean -- as long as minorities conform to whiteness?
Oh, I don't think so. You're hardly representative of the Republican Party.
Posted - 8/27/2013 5:29:08 PM | show profile | flag this post
*** See how slick this idiot thinks he is?
He tried to change the subject to deflect the FACT that Democrats support the most insidious form of slavery, as I stated in my post above. ***
He didn't "deflect." He knew you made a ridiculous, backhanded-racist statement and he chose to spare you by not bringing it up again -- which you did anyway.
Happy anniversary of MLK's "Dream" speech, cruiser!
Posted - 8/27/2013 5:39:07 PM | show profile | flag this post
Good point grateful..
Of course if you read the republican platform for the 2012 election, when they were running against a popular President, you would be hard pressed to find a single mention of the democratic party. Just an observation.
Posted - 8/27/2013 9:03:03 PM | show profile | flag this post
Maybe it was a strategic error, blacked. It's always wise to keep an eye on the competition; ignoring it can be foolishly arrogant.
Posted - 8/27/2013 9:14:02 PM | show profile | flag this post
Well, most of it anyway.
blackedtape is quite correct when he points out that whether it's 1956 or 2012, the Repubs barely mention the opposition. However, I could make the observation that the last platform was so 'against the mainstream', you didn't to mention the Dems tou sound a little 'out of touch'.
A Const Amend banning ALL abortions. (And it praised mandatory ultrasounds). Another Const Amend calling for a balanced budget. Same sex marriage should be illegal. No women in combat either. No Statehood for DC, but they should relax their gun laws. Flag burning should be illegal (and oldie but goodie). We should teach Abstinence to our kids becaise it's "science based" (Huh?) And while we're at it we should stop exporting our "abortion and the homosexual rights agenda" to other countries--especially Africa. (Huh? What?) And..."As a matter of principle, we oppose the creation of any new race-based governments within the United States." (Double Huh? and WTF?)
Besides all that--let's assume for a minute (or an hour) that the vast majority of voters--on both sides--have no friggin clue what's in their Party Platform. The candidates spend a great deal of time attacking their opponent (A pitbull with lipstick anyone?). So where does the civility in the platform get us?
(PS) While anyone with a history book knows, Yes, the GOP Congress often took the lead in Civil Rights, that ended with the Civil Rights battles in the 60's and Nixons Southern Strategy. Remember the LBJ quote “There goes the South”. He was right. The Party has been identified aith anti-Civil Rights ever since. They've got their "Solid South" all right--and that's all they have)
Posted - 8/27/2013 10:40:14 PM | show profile | flag this post
the democrat and republican parties of 1956..
have no more relevance to the parties of 2013 than did the democrat and republican parties of 1856, for god's sake..
you're all trying to compare apples and..carburetors..
Posted - 8/28/2013 12:22:28 AM | show profile | flag this post
Not true Orth
Many times here I've claimed the Republicans have veered hard right, and cruiser (amongst others) give a full-throated opposition to that idea, saying that in fact, Democrats have veered hard left.
This is proof positive that the Republican party of my childhood and the Republican party of today have almost nothing to do with one another. And that was my point.
Posted - 8/28/2013 12:49:39 AM | show profile | flag this post
which, i think, is pretty much..
what I said..
Posted - 8/28/2013 8:30:19 AM | show profile | flag this post
In a sense, yes
But perception of one's party VS reality of said party is an exercise worth doing. Especially given the nonsensical claim I've seen here, that Republicans haven't veered right.
If we don't establish measures and baselines and actualities...it's a freakin' free-for-all. People get to claim whatever they want, without having to legitimize their claims by way of actual facts.
Posted - 8/28/2013 9:27:32 AM | show profile | flag this post
VTexan, perhaps you should
Focus some of that perception on the democrats. Perhaps maybe you should stop trying to convince people like cruiser of anything and turn your energies towards other things. Perhaps you should stop trying to find examples of dumb ass republicans like those in rural Louisiana that answered questions from a targeted "research" poll. Perhaps you should realize that the world has changed drastically since 1956. Unless you really think that adding your voice to the never ending chorus of "republicans are the real problem" that comprises about 80% of this forum, the other 20% being "Obama and the democrats are the real problem", is a worthwhile endeavor or even a really good distraction. Try "Candy Crush", it's addicting as hell and accomplishes as much as contributing here.
Posted - 8/28/2013 9:40:16 AM | show profile | flag this post
That's a dangerous attitude to take.
Too many Republicans have taken the very suggestion you suggested for VTex to take.
As a result, they've lost control of their party to the fringe. They now pander to this tiny minority because they need every vote they can get to win elections.
If they'd paid more attention to what was going on in America -- how women, blacks, and other minorities were rising in political and voting power -- they might have grown these folks into their party.
Instead, they've backed themselves into a corner where they need the fringe -- and by embracing them, the Republican Party has driven away the majority of Americans.
Posted - 8/28/2013 10:28:17 AM | show profile | flag this post
...for effectively responding as I'd like to have to blacked.
And blacked, there's a weariness in most of your posts these days. I think it grows from the realization that a lot of what is said about your party is true. I suspect you feel pretty disenfranchised from your own party and don't really care to have the reasons why verified.
Whatever the case, I don't play here much. Whenever I've got something to say, I do. And that's not so often.
|it's just tv folks||
Posted - 8/28/2013 10:45:21 AM | show profile | flag this post
You hurt blackedtaped's widdle fee fees.
You presented facts as examples of how far the gop has traveled to the extreme right. Most Democrats would be happy with a platform like the one the Republicans had in 1956. Most people would be happy with a platform like the one the Republicans had in 1956. That might be part of the reason Eisenhower was a 2 term President.
I think it's a really complicated concept for blackedtaped to grasp that his Southern Republican party is the son of the post Civil War until Civil Rights southern "democratic" party ... the party of jim crow, klan and lynchings. When President LBJ and Vice President Humphrey succeeded in bringing Congress together to pass the Civil Rights Act, the "southern democrats" were outraged that their Southern Democratic President would abandon one of the pillars of their party. That's where Nixon's "southern strategy" comes in. They recruited the disgruntled democratic racists into the Republican party. Two famous examples were Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms, both Democrats early in their lives when the party was all white and segregationist. Both switched to the gop when the party put out the welcome wagon for the racists.
Of course it's all much more complicated, took many years to evolve and included other interest groups. Of course this is just a bulletin board where blackedtaped doesn't think people should discuss anything he doesn't like.
Should I get into what NC Gov Howdy Doody is ramming down the throats of the citizens of the state?
Posted - 8/28/2013 10:47:19 AM | show profile | flag this post
etaoin, I suggested that democrats such as yourself and VTexan stop focusing on republicans. I don't need to give concern to what republicans are doing, they will take care of themselves or cease to exist. That's their problem, not mine or yours.
VTexan, how many times do I need to keep saying that I am not a "republican"? I am not concerned about the republican party and think that people much politically smarter than I am will solve whatever problems they may have. I only offer advice to you. At one time you actually seemed interested in the issues of the day, now it seems the only interest you have is in what republicans are saying and doing. That's just my perspective based on all your recent posts.
Posted - 8/28/2013 10:48:34 AM | show profile | flag this post
Now that "It's Just TV folks" has weighed in
Any hope of discussion has ended. Good day.