26-01-2003 07:05									#31
	Inflate your Upload Space

IIRC, at the beginning of the 20th Century, most Republicans were liberals (like Teddy) and most Democrats were conservatives.

When the Great Depression hit, there was a massive reorganization, with FDR putting together a coalition of liberals, the working class and southern conservatives. The Republicans ended up a mostly center-right party.

However, for decades, both parties were represented along the whole spectrum, when the Dems having a strong left and the Republicans a strong right.

In 1964, Goldwater managed to grab the Republican nomination from the center. That came as a surprise because the center was still strong, and Republican liberals like Nelson Rockefeller were still powerful.

When Nixon ran against Humphrey in 1968, Nixon successfully employed a "Southern Strategy," which peeled off the southern conservatives and added them to the Republicans. By then, the Republican left had almost completely withered away. So, the Republicans were a center-right party and the Democrats a center-left party.

Reagan dealt the death-blow to the remnance of the FDR coalition when he recruited the white working class (the so-called Reagan Democrats) to the Republican cause and turned the Republican Party sharply to the right.

I think the Republicans "really began to suck" following Gingrich's attempt to radically cut back on Medicare, the EPA, and the Depts. of Energy and Education. That took the Party way too far to the right and drove the working class back into the waiting arms of Bill Clinton.

	26-01-2003 07:07									#32
	Got spare money?

Republicans began to suck with Nixon... IMO... Reagan effectively tipped the scales over to "the evil greedy 4sswipe party"

	26-01-2003 08:02									#33
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: I think the Republicans "really began to suck" following Gingrich's attempt to radically cut back on Medicare, the EPA, and the Depts. of Energy and Education. That took the Party way too far to the right and drove the working class back into the waiting arms of Bill Clinton.

But they came back to Bush . And the unions were already pro-Dem.

	26-01-2003 10:06									#34
	Tired of ads?

Zkribbler, my father in law just arrived a couple of days ago from the Phils, first time he's been away.
Anyway, we were discussing our next trip back and he said, "not in 2004". Why says I. "that's election" Oh, who do you think will win? "a rich one"



Like many poor, few words, great wisdom.

	26-01-2003 10:19									#35
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: he was a Republican then... but today, he'd be a Democrat.

Perhaps this is because America is moving more and more right. Besides Lincoln was a racist, and everyone knows that the Republican party is the party of racists!

	27-01-2003 06:17									#36
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

double post

	27-01-2003 06:18									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by SlowwHand I was just wondering, if Lincoln was a water-walker, when exactly did the Republican Presidents begin to suck ? Not than I count myself as a Republican, as I say, just wondering.

I really find the history of the political changes of the Republican party, and the Democratic party very interesting.

In 1877, the Republican party made a deal -- their candidate would be given the presidency in the closely disputed, questionable election, and in return, they promised Southern Democrats that Union troops would be withdrawn. That was the beginning of the Republican party's betrayal of blacks and white Southern liberals. By the 1890's, the Republican party was really as much of a white supremacist party as the Democratic party already had been.

The Democratic party began to appeal to blacks under the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, when he began to inch somewhat towards racial equality, and through Eleanor's activism concerning women and blacks. White Southern Democrats felt betrayed by this movement towards liberalism, so they formed the temporary party, the Dixiecrats. Franklin Roosevelt was the first Democratic president to have appealed to popular support of blacks.

That is a summary of what I know -- anyone know more about the political changes of these two parties?

Lincoln was not as blatant of a racist as others, in my opinion -- he did, however, state that the society's appeal to racism would not make it possible for the Republican party to advocate more progressive proposals in race relations.

	27-01-2003 07:08									#38
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: In 1877, the Republican party made a deal -- their candidate would be given the presidency in the closely disputed, questionable election, and in return, they promised Southern Democrats that Union troops would be withdrawn. That was the beginning of the Republican party's betrayal of blacks and white Southern liberals.

Would you rather a President entered into office with a VP who was an out and out racist and KKK member? Hell, you want to see rollbacks in civil rights for blacks? Imagine if Tilden was elected.

quote: By the 1890's, the Republican party was really as much of a white supremacist party as the Democratic party already had been.

Proof please. Even in 1900, the Republicans were the party of the North (Teddy Roosevelt, William McKinley, Howard Taft). They were much more tolerant of blacks than the Democrats of the Deep South (and the Dems that made Woodrow Wilson President in 1912).

	27-01-2003 07:39									#39
	Put an end to popups!

MrFun, at least your hero isn't Castro. That's all I can say.

	27-01-2003 09:28									#40
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: In 1877, the Republican party made a deal -- their candidate would be given the presidency in the closely disputed, questionable election, and in return, they promised Southern Democrats that Union troops would be withdrawn. That was the beginning of the Republican party's betrayal of blacks and white Southern liberals. Would you rather a President entered into office with a VP who was an out and out racist and KKK member? Hell, you want to see rollbacks in civil rights for blacks? Imagine if Tilden was elected. quote: By the 1890's, the Republican party was really as much of a white supremacist party as the Democratic party already had been. Proof please. Even in 1900, the Republicans were the party of the North (Teddy Roosevelt, William McKinley, Howard Taft). They were much more tolerant of blacks than the Democrats of the Deep South (and the Dems that made Woodrow Wilson President in 1912).

Just because there were some Republicans who were not racists, does not deny the fact that the Republican party was a white supremacist party by the 1890's. A minority of Republicans remained egalitarian afterwards, yes. For instance, Theodore Roosevelt invited Booker T. Washington to dine with him at the White House on equal terms, much to the disgust of white supremacists -- that was an exception among Republicans.

The decades of 1890's through the 1920's is called the nadir of race relations -- the period where blacks had no political party to look after their interests.

And yes -- in spite of the Republican betrayal by retreating from racial equality, we ended up with lesser of the two evils in 1877.

	27-01-2003 10:34									#41
	Support Apolyton

quote: Proof please. Even in 1900, the Republicans were the party of the North (Teddy Roosevelt, William McKinley, Howard Taft). They were much more tolerant of blacks than the Democrats of the Deep South (and the Dems that made Woodrow Wilson President in 1912).

The Republicans didn't have any power in the South and blacks didn't live in the North in any great number, so that's pretty much irrelevent. After the Compromise of '77, the Republicans guaranteed a hands off federal policy with respect to blacks in the South, so they were effectively just as racist as the Democrats during the late 19th century.

	27-01-2003 10:40									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Just because there were some Republicans who were not racists, does not deny the fact that the Republican party was a white supremacist party by the 1890's.

I asked for proof and got another opinion. Par for the course, MF?

quote: After the Compromise of '77, the Republicans guaranteed a hands off federal policy with respect to blacks in the South, so they were effectively just as racist as the Democrats during this era.

There is no such thing as 'effectively being racists'. Just because you don't pass legislation to benefit blacks doesn't mean that you are racists (in that case Democrats today can be called racists ). This is witnessed by the fact that blacks in MASSIVE numbers voted Republican until the 1930s. You can't be a racist party if a majority of the minority votes for you.

	27-01-2003 10:48									#43
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

The Republicans allowed Southern Democrats to steal the liberties of blacks, hence they were racist. If the Democrats today did nothing while the Southern states started taking away the liberties of blacks, the Dems would certainly be racist.

	27-01-2003 10:56									#44
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: The Republicans allowed Southern Democrats to steal the liberties of blacks, hence they were racist. If the Democrats today did nothing while the Southern states started taking away the liberties of blacks, the Dems would certainly be racist.

That's piss poor logic, Ramo, and you know it.

Standing aside during a racist act (ie, some blacks may say that removing Affirmative Action is racist) does not make you racist. That's just silly.

	27-01-2003 11:10									#45
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Affirmative action (which I don't support personally) is not the issue. Things much more significant were at stake during the late 19th century and partiuclarly during the 1890's. The fundamental liberties of blacks were being taken away from them. When the Republicans chose not to enforce the Constitution in the South to protect blacks, that was racist.

If tomorrow, the Democrats stand by while Southern states start taking away the votes of blacks, honestly, do you think that wouldn't be racist?

	27-01-2003 11:15									#46
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: When the Republicans chose not to enforce the Constitution in the South to protect blacks, that was racist.

Bullshit.

quote: If tomorrow, the Democrats stand by while Southern states start taking away the votes of blacks, honestly, do you think that wouldn't be racist?

Yes, I don't think that act of standing aside would be racist. Especially if Democrats had no power in the South and didn't want to face another open revolt (or station troops there ad infinitum).

Guilt by association is a classical logical fallacy, Ramo. You actually have to be performing a racist act or think racist thoughts to be a racist. Simply standing aside while racist things are going on does not make you racist.

By that logic you are a capitalist, because you are standing by while capitalist groups continue their power hold.

Oh wait... is this another 'you are either with us or against us' argument?

	27-01-2003 11:29									#47
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: I think the Republicans "really began to suck" following Gingrich's attempt to radically cut back on Medicare, the EPA, and the Depts. of Energy and Education.

Yup, Orwel is alive and well. Increasing a budget less than what Democrats claim to want is actually a cut in the budget. Hey Boss, I want a $10 k raise and you will only give me $2 k? You're cutting my pay!!!

Btw, y'all, this argument about the GOP being racist a century ago for not enforcing civil rights laws is a bit humorous given the fact it was the Democrats who established Jim Crow.

	27-01-2003 11:33									#48
	Remove this text

But the point is that the Republicans did have the power and authority to enforce the liberty of Southern blacks. The Civil War and the subsequent Constitutional Amendments insured that. The problem was that they didn't have the will.

In the 1890's, Northern politicians didn't chose to not enforce the Constitution because they feared some Southern rebellion, but simply because they didn't care about blacks (and poor whites).

	27-01-2003 11:37									#49
	Tired of ads?

quote: Btw, y'all, this argument about the GOP being racist a century ago for not enforcing civil rights laws is a bit humorous given the fact it was the Democrats who established Jim Crow.

Why is that humorous?

	27-01-2003 11:52									#50
	Increase Your PM Length

Democrats or their sympathisers are in this thread accusing the GOP of being racist based on the past.

	27-01-2003 12:05									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I wouldn't consider myself a "Democrat sympathizer," but I still don't see your point...

	27-01-2003 20:14									#52
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Don't even tell me you don't see the irony in Berzerker's (and Sloww's) posts.

quote: In the 1890's, Northern politicians didn't chose to not enforce the Constitution because they feared some Southern rebellion, but simply because they didn't care about blacks (and poor whites).

So now 'not caring' about blacks is racist? My, oh my, has the English language been butched that much by the forces of political correctness?

	27-01-2003 21:19									#53
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Just because there were some Republicans who were not racists, does not deny the fact that the Republican party was a white supremacist party by the 1890's. I asked for proof and got another opinion. Par for the course, MF?

Proof? All the books I have read about Reconstruction and post-Reconstruction, discussed the fact that Republicans had become a white supremacist party by the 1890's. One of those sources that I own, is by James Loewen in his book titled "Lies My Teacher Told Me." That's only one source among others I have read.

When most Republican leaders began to support segregation in the Northern states, and refused to enforce legal civil rights provided through the 14th and 15th amendments, they were pandering towards racism.
Refusing to enforce civil rights is racist behavior, Imran.

Also, a number of Republican leaders organized clubs associated with the Republican party that explicitly excluded blacks from membership in the 1890's.

	27-01-2003 21:21									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Democrats or their sympathisers are in this thread accusing the GOP of being racist based on the past.

That's a lame attempt in putting words in my mouth, Beserker. I'm participating in a discussion about the political changes of the Republican and Democratic parties.

Where have I said that all Republicans today, are racist? I'm aware of the fact that a substantial number of minorities of various races are Republicans today.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

	27-01-2003 21:28									#55
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Proof? All the books I have read about Reconstruction and post-Reconstruction, discussed the fact that Republicans had become a white supremacist party by the 1890's. One of those sources that I own, is by James Loewen in his book titled "Lies My Teacher Told Me."

Give me a non-biased source please. I don't give any weight to Loewen, because I know his ideology and where he is trying to go.

quote: Refusing to enforce civil rights is racist behavior, Imran.

Bull. Once again, nonaffirmative acts cannot be deemed racist unless there is proof that underlying there was racist beliefs.

quote: When most Republican leaders began to support segregation in the Northern states, and refused to enforce legal civil rights provided through the 14th and 15th amendments, they were pandering towards racism.

Pandering towards racists is a political manuver, not a racist one. Plenty of lefties call the Willie Horton ad a racist one and Bush I was pandering to racists. Do you actually believe that Bush I was a racist?

--

Now if you told me the 1890 Republicans were ethnicists, then I'd believe you. But racists? Sorry.

	27-01-2003 21:36									#56
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Give me a non-biased source please. I don't give any weight to Loewen, because I know his ideology and where he is trying to go. Bull. Once again, nonaffirmative acts cannot be deemed racist unless there is proof that underlying there was racist beliefs. Pandering towards racists is a political manuver, not a racist one. Plenty of lefties call the Willie Horton ad a racist one and Bush I was pandering to racists. Do you actually believe that Bush I was a racist? Now if you told me the 1890 Republicans were ethnicists, then I'd believe you. But racists? Sorry.

Another source? My professor in one of my American history courses. Loewen bases his scholarly research on revisionist history based on facts that undo Anglophile feel-good mythology.

And I still hold to the position that refusing to enforce civil rights is racist behavior. Explain to me how it CANNOT be.

And associating with racists and racists organizations in any affirming way, for whatever motive, implies that the person is racist, so yes, Bush senior would be racist to a certain extent, and so would Lott.

	27-01-2003 21:44									#57
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: And I still hold to the position that refusing to enforce civil rights is racist behavior. Explain to me how it CANNOT be.

You cannot be a racist unless you actually believe that one race is better than the other. To not enforce civil rights because of politics does not indicate racism.

quote: And associating with racists and racists organizations in any affirming way, for whatever motive, implies that the person is racist, so yes, Bush senior would be racist to a certain extent, and so would Lott.

Btw, you've just basically implicated just about every politican in the United States. The Democratic Party associates with Robert Byrd and even named him their majority leader in the 1980s. Gephart spoke in front of a white supremecist organization and was the Democratic Party's standard bearer in the House.

It is impossible NOT to associate with racists, especially if you are in the government.

Btw, would a racist party include a clause in its Party Platform in 1896 condemning lynchings?

quote: Loewen bases his scholarly research on revisionist history based on facts that undo Anglophile feel-good mythology.

Loewen is a quack with an agenda.

	27-01-2003 21:54									#58
	Remove this text

Just an interesting source:

http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/resou...black_press.htm

The black press of the Reconstruction period supported the Republican Party almost unanimously, a situation that would change only gradually until the 1920s. The former slaves believed that the party of Abraham Lincoln would create a new world where black economic, social, and political interests would be protected. Later, as many blacks became disillusioned with the lack of progress in American racial matters, the Republican Party still seemed a better alternative than the Democratic Party that represented the old slave-holding South.

Why would the black press continue to defend a party until the 1920s which, as you assert, was racist in the 1890s? It doesn't measure up. Simply put, the lack of progress in race relations didn't mean that people believed the Republican Party was a racist party.

	27-01-2003 23:08									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Just an interesting source: http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/resou...black_press.htm The black press of the Reconstruction period supported the Republican Party almost unanimously, a situation that would change only gradually until the 1920s. The former slaves believed that the party of Abraham Lincoln would create a new world where black economic, social, and political interests would be protected. Later, as many blacks became disillusioned with the lack of progress in American racial matters, the Republican Party still seemed a better alternative than the Democratic Party that represented the old slave-holding South. Why would the black press continue to defend a party until the 1920s which, as you assert, was racist in the 1890s? It doesn't measure up. Simply put, the lack of progress in race relations didn't mean that people believed the Republican Party was a racist party.

Interesting source -- different information from what I have read and studied. But the source that you provided describes it merely as lack of progress. James Loewen described how Republican leaders in the 1890's created various clubs associated with the Republican party that explicitly excluded blacks from membership.

And, even though Theodore Roosevelt invited Washington to the White House for dinner, he also contradicted himself, by having black soldiers arrested in Brownsville, Texas for a riot that they were not responsible for.

Oh, and how about when the Republican party supported segregation in the Northern states by the 1890's, while hypocritically attacking lynching and disfranchisement in the Southern states?

As for not enforcing civil rights -- what other motivation could there be, Imran?

	27-01-2003 23:18									#60
	Increase Your PM Length

So am I to correctly believe that because the West stood aside while genocide was occuring in Bosnia in 1992, when we had the power to prevent it (Geneva Conventions) meant that we supported the genocide?

quote: As for not enforcing civil rights -- what other motivation could there be, Imran?

Obviously you've never heard of this thing called politics. They made a deal to keep the Presidency in 1877. The deal freed the South from Reconstruction. After that civil rights could not be validly enforced for the simple reason that the Southern leaders would not enforce it (and that would look really good). To send troops in AGAIN to enforce the law would not fly, no matter what you think.

quote: Oh, and how about when the Republican party supported segregation in the Northern states by the 1890's

So which section of the country was under segregation during the 1950s? It seems interesting that MLK, Jr. marched in Alabama and Mississippi, doesn't it? I don't recall mass protests against state officials in New York and Chicago. And where did Republican strength come from? BINGO! The North.

quote: James Loewen described how Republican leaders in the 1890's created various clubs associated with the Republican party that explicitly excluded blacks from membership.

AGAIN, can you back this up with another source?