Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
A look back on political party history
Published on February 3, 2004 By Draginol In Republican
The Republican party hasn't changed nearly as much as the Democrats were. The Democrats bet the farm on slavery in the 1860s -- they wanted to protect it. They lost. So then they became the party of white power. Woodrow Wilson was incredibly racist for instance and undid many executive branch reforms brought in by Teddy Roosevelt and Taft. The KKK, the Jim Crowe laws, the seperate but equal schooling, seperate drinking fountains were all laws passed by Democrats over the objections of Republicans.

The first African American congressmen were Republicans.

But over time, overt racism is just a loser of an issue. Sensibilities change and Democrats like Woodrow Wilson and his contempoaries arguing that this country was for the white race sounded more and more ignorant and hateful. It was a lower of an issue. Of course, it took Democrats a long time to figure that out as Wilson was only one of two Democratic presidents since before 1860 (Wilson was elected in 1913 so picture only having 2 Democrats in office in a perid of 53 years).

So the Democrats found a new strategy -- rather than being the party of the white man they would become the party of the downtrodden.

The change began with the election of Franklin Roosevelt. He was earnestly trying to save the Republic but was also a shrewd politician. He was the first President to recognize the true power of the recently passed amendment allowing federal income taxes. He began teaching the masses, particularly the lower classes that democracy could be a tool in which they used the power of the ballot to confiscate the wealth generated by the upper classes. It wasn't hard given the inequalities of the time (people who argue that there are greater differences between the rich and the poor today than at any time in history are..to be charitable, wrong).

He was much more subtle and I believe more honorable in his intentions than later politicians would become. In those days (1930s to 1945) you could work hard and still be in poverty as millions of Americans of that era could attest to. I mean really working hard (full time working in a dangerous mine or mill or factory where you could die at any time and still be living in poverty). And people who cry about Enron should read up on the great depression in which millions of regular Americans suffered while a few percent of the elites walked away just fine.

So the earliest programs were about taking some wealth from the highest echelons of income earners and providing some benefits and services for those who were honestly trying to make their way in the world. Hence the term "New Deal".

Later Democrats recognized even greater opportunity by looking at the trends. Those who ended up being dependent on government help were overwhelmingly supporting them. No matter how well constructed, some percentage of people will always end up dependent on some goverment service. By pushing through programs that "assisted" the less fortuntae, they could create more and more dependents that would increasingly serve as their base.

And so here we are today with 90% of African Americans supporting the political party that literally fought to the death to keep them enslaved. Siding against the party that was largely formed (largely to free them whose very first President did free them (I'm not arguing that Lincoln was some sort of abolutionist, I am only arguing the facts here).

Democrats switched their strategy of white power to a strategy designed control of the less fortunate through the growing percentages of government dependents. Slaves of the government if you will. So I suppose, depending on how one looks at it, the Democrats haven't changed so much after all. They are still about keeping large segments of the population down in slavery. It's just that now they use much more flowery language to attain it.

Comments (Page 1)
on Feb 03, 2004
Just want to follow-up on this without the article getting muddied:

This isn't really fair to Democrats as I can't think of any rank and file Democrats who would see it that way. But intentions are irrelevant. The results by any statistical analysis you want to do (whether you want to look at one conducted by the Heritage Foundation or one by the Brookings Institute) show the same thing - those who find themselves dependent on government services are overwhelmingly Democratic in their voting patterns while the more independent of government services the voter, the more likely they are to be Republican.

Right now you have basically a 54 / 46 split amongst working Americans in favor of Republicans. What makes the country a 50/50 split is the 80 / 20 split in favor of the Democrats amongst those dependent on the government.

But the end result is the same, by design or not, the Democrats have focused on policies that effectively make slaves of a growing number of people. Now they're slaves of the federal government instead of plantation owners but they are still slaves.

Even those who do work are spending a great deal of time in bondage for the federal government. I will be working for the federal government until mid-May and then until nearly the end of June for the state government.

But unlike the "poor" most working people don't get very much back for all their work to the government. Most of January I worked to help pay the interest on the debt. I'll be working until early April to pay for welfare (social security, medicare, medicaid, etc.) to strangers who will rise up and argue that the rather trivial amounts of money, even adjusted for inflation, somehow justifies the 15 years of of $11,000 plus per year they'll receive if they live an average life span today) -- average social security recipient receives a check between $900 and $950 per month. Typical retiree today was born in 1939 and paid a trivial amount into social security even when you adjust it for inflation.

I work about 3 weeks to pay for defense. 4 weeks if you count payments to veterans in various forms which I'm totally fine with.

Federal government works have me at their disposal for a wee or so and other things (like "corporate welfare") have me for the rest of the time.

So we're working our asses off for the federal government but I sure don't see it being spent very well. What's worse, the government really needs me to work for them for another 3 weeks per year if they wanted to actually balance the budget.
on Feb 03, 2004
There you go again, throwing hand-grenades at crowds to get at the one guy who wronged you (and some Democrat must have really wronged you at some point to be so neurotic about it all the time). Your broad brush strokes on history are done to hide truth in generalities. If you ask a Confederate why he fought, you would just as likely get a telling of the evil'Federalism' which the Republicans were forcing on Sovereign States. Lincoln, the Republican, is the only President to suspend habeas corpus in our nations history. There is a great deal I could go into about the Corporate Attorney who represented land-barons and railroad industry before being told he could be President. My study of history does not grant him the popular status of 'ggod guy' most are fed in school.
Besides this I note that there were repeated afforts in New York, Minnesota, Ohio, and New England AFTER the so-called 'Civil War' ( I think it is properly termed a 'Revolutionary War' and the 'Revolutionary War' was a 'Civil War') to grant to Afro Americans the vote, ALL overwhelmingly defeated in referendum after referendum. If this is so, and I assure you it is, then you tell me Brad, Why were the Northerners (termed Federalists) fighting? So don't go getting holier than thou and hold forth that Democrats are the racists. I say this to save you being laughed out of your own forum.
There is another way to view the events since the civil war you don't go into. Maybe the Democrats found the error of their ways, saw the evolving standards of decency of a maturing Nation and changed. Maybe they saw how the Federalists were but charlatans who told people they believed in fredom, but the only freedom they meant was the freedom of the rich and powerful to take by use of criminal legislation to corner the markets, runout small business, discriminate in hiring, kill strikers, oppress non-christians, dicate what a woman does with her own womb, give tax breaks to the rich at the expense of the laboring middle-class. Maybe Democrats found so many were suffering under this form of scam, they elected a FDR to save them from starvation, divestiture, and disease.
It is sad that anyone has to ask for a hand-up in a society such as ours. It is sad some are still blind to the facts that cause it. I don't condemn a hard working man or woman for catching the early bus to work and sweating at a meaningless job and still be unable to receive a 'LIVING WAGE' .
I also don't think Sen. Kerry, married to a Heinz, has any idea about the poor anymore than you do. He will be but the flip side of the coin of the realm, Republicratism. I don't think you'll win many converts to the Republican party (as in Bush) here with this stuff, most bloggers representing the Republican or Conservative point of view would probably beg to dis-agree they are on the side of minorities anyway. Well, maybe the guy who says," we have to kill the poor" (true story for those who haven't read it) is on your side.
What's your next persuasive argument Brad, you going to tell us how Democrats have lower IQ's, so they should vote Republican?
on Feb 03, 2004
Wahkonta Anathema, do you even read the crazed rantings in your blog? For you to refer to anyone else as tossing hand grenades is just amazing.

I enjoy writing articles that are interesting. They aren't designed to be one that most people would agree with, just thought provoking.

I am a registered independent btw and do not plan to vote for Bush at this point.

One other hting you should know about me, I would be willing to bet that I grew up poorer than you.
on Feb 04, 2004
o.k. Fair enough. I guess maybe we're in the same boat on that. I get accused of being the 'L' word all the time. Maybe I am in some areas. I just don't think of myself in that way. I always thought you to be a strong and vocal advocate for Republicans. I may be wrong to apply the labels I don't like applied to me. If so, I will refrain form it as best I can in the future, my fellow independent.
You do bring a posse of ranting one sentence Republicans with you to blogs though, you must admit. I guess I just wrongly assumed you were with them and their, "Yeah, yeah, you tell em Brad. Can I hold your books for you?" I honestly don't recall a case of you posting a provocative critique of Republicans though. Does anybody else? (Well, in all fairness, once you did say FOX news isn't part of the liberal news media, saying the jury is out on whether or not they are slanted for Republicans. Ha, Ha,Ha...) [excuse me].
My blog replies to you are always to provoke thought too in the anti, you'll notice.
on Feb 04, 2004
and some Democrat must have really wronged you at some point to be so neurotic about it all the time


He thinks I called him a racist. But more to the point. While it's true that Democrats "bet the farm" on slavery and we lost, so what? We admitted we were wrong, we moved on and now we're better for it. The republican party has long been majority dominated by White Men. I have no problem with White Men, being one myself. While it was a "republican" who freed the slaves, going off of current political definitions of the parties, Lincoln would have been a democrat. And while it's possible you grew up poorer than Wahkonta, betcha the dollar I earn from the state government working as a professor that you probably didn't grow up poorer than me. But before we get into that kind of debate, I'd like to address your point. How many days/weeks/months do you work to pay for the federally funded highways you drive on? How many days do you work to pay for the education you/your children receive? How many days do you work so that our prisons stay operational? How many days do you work so that there will be a police? How many days do you work so that handicapped people can have access to buildings? How many days do you work to know that the courts function? How many days do you work to pay off that interest, which by the way come from deficits which reached their highest during republican presidencies? (link requires registration with LAtimes.com, it's free so if you really want to know...) Link And the list could go on... Now, obviously you make a good deal of money, but please don't complain and say all your taxes go to benefit someone else.

And you know what, even if they do go to someone else, those people are less fortunate than you. You make more, you pay more. If you'd like to change the way things are done get into politics, work it out for yourself. But for God's sake don't sit there and whine about high taxes.

Oh and Wahknonta, it was me who said Fox news wasn't a part of the liberal new media.

Cheers.
on Feb 04, 2004
Jeb - you do know that anyone (including you btw) can look up the percentages of the federal budget are spent on the issues you describe (high ways, etc.). So you can work it out yourself.

If I may be so bold, your responses tend to imply that information on the net is somehow hard to obtain (such as demographic information on the homeless). Finding how much the federal government spends on various programs is a matter of public record.

All you have to do is figure out the percentages and then divide it by 365 days (1 year) and then look at what percentage of your income is going to state and federal.

If you had bothered to read, you would even know that I mentioned how many days we work to pay off the deficit for instance. If you want people to respect what you write, Jeb, you could at least show some respect by fully reading what others write.

As for who grew up poorer, I don't know if you grew up poorer. I know statistically I grew up poorer than 95% of Americans. Obviously if someone grew up outside the US all bets are off. My point was in response to Wahkhonta implication that people like me know nothing of poverty or being poor. Having grown up poor (by American standards) I am quite familiar with what it's like as well as what causes it.
on Feb 04, 2004
I think all of you are crazy kooky political-minded fancypants with tinted glasses.
Being a republican doesn't make you evil, nor does being a democrat. I wasn't born with a label slapped on my ass proclaiming me for either.
It doesn't mean you support slavery or that you think everyone should kotow to the bum next door and turn him into rockerfeller while you become Ghandi and go without.

These opinions all seem, to me, to be extremely exaggerated connotations and generalizations that would indeed insult anyone with half a brain.
However, both halves of my brain show me to be a truely misguided individual with the penchance of going against any side that unbalances the equasion.
My party affliation? Chaotic Neutral
on Feb 04, 2004

I won't continue to post as I am now a converted chaotic neutral. I do want to say, I do find my statement on poverty to be un-justifiably written. For this assumptive statement, I apologize Brad. I never thought of it as it appears now that I read it, and it has served to detract from my larger point because of it. I should have said Kerry has no idea about the poor any more than Bush, or left it out entirely. I just did not want my reply to insinuate I was a Democrat, but rather, that I was challenging Brad's historical perception. The blog was provocative and brought me into it, so I guess it worked and I've said my two cents worth. Thanks for the read and catch you on another blog.
on Feb 04, 2004
Promise this is actually my last post, but my questions were rhetorical in nature.
on Feb 05, 2004
Power to the chaotic netural!..Or not..

on Feb 05, 2004
Brad, what makes the 54/46 split in favor of the Republicans is electorally based. The 80/20 split is predicated on a fuzzy definition of government dependence — do you include government workers as well — or are we talking about welfare, single mothers, patients of Abortion clinics, those in the armed service, children in Head Start, those who get free school lunches, college students on food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, teachers’ union lobbyists, corporate welfare, farm subsidies, cops on the beat, and congress’ Cadillac health plans?
on Feb 05, 2004
Wahkonta, strange, isn’t it? — that there are still so many Americans who have to take a bus to work and expending hours just to get to a low-paying job below “living wages.” However, I take issue with your view on Kerry who, as you know, was just another grunt in Nam. Granted he’s wealthy — even forgetting the Heinz fortune — but that doesn’t preclude his being for the downtrodden. I trust, that Kennedy had something to do with Kerry’s liberal thinking yet Kennedy, too, has plenty of dough. I understand where you’re coming from as Shawn Hannity says if these damn Democrats are so against the tax-cuts why don’t they return it?


Please don’t shortchange yourself; your input is more than two cents.
on Feb 05, 2004
Jeblackstar, You did a great job on your laundry list of “How many days...” to alert the blogger to the obvious that the self also benefits.


Lunaticus, you hit the nail on the head — ouch! — we are prone to “exaggerated connotations and generalizations” because politics requisite is half a brain.
on Feb 05, 2004
Reaction to Blogger's "Republican's Freed the Slaves..."
Granted that Woodrow Wilson turned a blind eye to the South were he to win election, he is no more a racist than Lyndon Johnson who did turn a good eye, which led to the fracture of the solid south for the Democratic Party. Woodrow Wilson capitalized on the Republican split between the liberal wing and the conservatives leading to Teddy Roosevelt’s third party based on “New Nationalism” — a strong central government steeped in social legislation — which ironically later became the battle cry for the New Deal. But the notorious Brownsville incident of 1906 charging black soldiers with killing one white man. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Roosevelt discharged all 167 soldiers without honor — hardly the sentiment of a man sympathetic to blacks in the south. Not until 1972 was Roosevelt’s ruling overturned.


Still, Wardell is correct that the Republicans before and after the Civil War were the champions of the blacks. Theodore Roosevelt, and following, Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt were in the main pre-occupied with war, foreign affairs and corporate corruption to concern themselves over egregious behavior in the south.


Even FDR could not concern himself with the ills of the south because he needed a solid south to embody a mandate for economic change to end the Depression. Truman edged into the south by acknowledging equal rights for the black man in the armed service and almost cost him the election. It took the great liberal Republican Earl Warren as Chief Justice to reject the separate but equal clause in Brown v. Board of Education, declaring unconstitutional the separation of public-school children according to race.


This eventually led to Nixon’s notorious “southern strategy” that was actually originated by Wilson and FDR, but in a far less sophisticated south. The Republicans at the time never realized their traditional identity would be in jeopardy, for by then the south was changing as an increasing number of whites from the north settled in and was absorbed by the revival of the southern gentry. So, too, was the white trash no longer trashy thanks to Democratic legislation. As a result, the south had, in the end, won the Civil War by converting the cosmopolitan liberal wing of the Republican Party to endorse the provincialism of modern confederates still grudgingly adamant toward centralized governance.


It is a bit of a stretch to lump all northern Democrats with the statement: “90% of the African Americans side with the party that literally fought to the death to keep them enslaved.” Moreover, interpreting this to suggest that modern Democrats abandoned white power for, I suppose, black [“downtrodden’] in order to produce a slave mentality for those who are thankful for the party’s assistance to make something of themselves is another stretch of the blogger’s logic, or as blogger Wahkonta Anathema would say, using the “broad brush.” The fact is the Democrats learned from sensitive liberals of old on both sides to forge a more caring government by recognizing the insidious fact that uncontrollable, deregulated laissez-faire is as old as the hills and can no longer be tolerated in modernity where so many millions are hurting from profiteers lobbying in behalf of insensitive oligarchies. Blogger Jeblackstar commented that in today’s terms Lincoln would be a Democrat.


Contrary to Wardell’s implication that Republicans are the freedom party that does not subject its followers to enslavement because it champions enlightened citizens who can figure out for themselves how best to make a living, the truth is that it is rare that an average Joe can make the grade in an interdependent society that is under threat of eroding opportunity for the sake of the grasping few.


Without a strong, but sensitive sentinel of governing, we have, as an illustration, a hike of 30% in Wall Street broker bonuses in contrast to 0.5% increase in the hourly wage, and, thanks to Bush’s tax-cuts, high-end sales increase, such as Tiffany at 16%, dwarfing Wal-mart’s 3.9%. The trickle down pipe is clogged. It is the Republicans who have made a 180◦ turn.


    
on Feb 06, 2004
Steven, but it doesn't require thel full use of the brain? Does the nation know we've got halfwits in the most important offices of our governments?! *gasp* WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN?...I knew I shouldn't have went to the bathroom during the action scene.
Meta
Views
» 3273
Comments
» 22
Category
Sponsored Links