- Jan 12, 2016
- 1,125
- 608
- 124
- Country
- New Zealand
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Part of a discussion I had on American history...
Understanding these comparisons, America is blessed with stability not because of her politics but because of her policies. America ultimately relies on the Constitution to be survived by Americans who hold to it's ideology, and without this foundation in place no Democratic or Republic platform would have ever been made possible.
To further reiterate on the Democratics logic here: Abraham Lincoln lead the Republican Party's policy to abolish slavery - the Democrats say that action wasn't conservative therefore it wasn't Republican. Historically the Republican Party stood for emancipation, anti-segregation, anti-lynching, and of course many others; Likewise the Democratic Party were for slavery, segregation, lynching, etc. To the Democratic Party this was their idea of progressivism. What the Democratic Party have done is use post-structuralism as a basis to push identity politics; whenever you hear about liberty and progress you'd think Democrat.
Fact is, a Republican can be a liberal because what he conserves holds to ideals of liberty for all men. A Republican can be progressive because what he conserves allows for individual initiative, community, faith, self-efficacy and encouragement to help others.
John Adams first posed anti-slavery, and Thomas Jefferson who agreed, but said doing away with slavery was an issue to tackle at a later time for it was an unrealistic endevour for the choices they had available to them. The Democrats idea on slavery was to make it appealing and beneficial to both the slave and the master, but a third-party was created called the Republican Party to abolish slavery, and through Abraham Lincoln's leadership it was achieved.
There are literally mountains of articles out there that show JFK as quite the contrary to what your bullet-point states. A colleague to Martin Luther King Jr, puts it finely, "I couldn't understand why so many people elevated Kennedy as highly as they did," Civil Rights leader Julian Bond told America Tonight. "He was a good figure, but not a great figure in my view, and was disappointing in many ways."
“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.” - Lyndon B. Johnson
Why was Lyndon B. Johnson for Republican-passed Civil Rights legislation in 1964 but against it in 1948? LBJ was evidently not concerned about the plight of African Americans but rather about the continuation of the Democratics form of progressivism. Lyndon B. Johnson is one of the most disgusting and devious Presidents in American history; and his legacy unfortunately still exists today.
Now Nixon had to win in the other regions in order to get the 270 electoral votes necessary for winning the presidency. What further complicates his predicament, is if he emphasized with the Dixiecrat states he risked losing the support from the anti-segregation and major industrial states - essentially committing political suicide. So what does he do? He becomes a classic centrist.
Regardless, the deep south was unabidingly won by an ultra-conservative Democrat named George Wallace. The man who said, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever," and infamously known for standing in the schoolhouse doorway to prevent black American students going in.
The Founding Fathers and other well known figures throughout history have expressed encouragement of America's origin. It is in many respects part of a history that many people would like to conserve just like an Oath in court. One of the five most secular Founding Father's Benjamin Franklin even commemorated it.
The Constitution is actually staunchly rich in Judaeo-Christian values. Many of the Founding Fathers found strength and inspiration from the Bible. Though Benjamin Franklin was one of the least religious, he was the one that chewed out the guys who were religious for not praying enough in his famous speech at the Constitutional Convention. What's more remarkable about this man, is in his famous speech, it is filled with Bible verses which not many Christians today would know or be able to cite.
Also, to say Reagan increased militarization of police forces is inaccurate. SWAT teams were founded in Philadelphia and Los Angeles in the 60's in response to decade's of ultra violence and riots, and delicate situations such as hostage incidents. Other big cities quickly followed suit to modernize their policing and had steadily continued the trend to other cities throughout the years. Did he support it? probably, but according to the data so did every other President from the 60's to Post 9/11.
"You can either give a man a fish and you'll feed him for a day, or teach a man to fish and he can feed himself for a lifetime."
Some people find it appealing to eat from the hand that feeds them, others prefer the government provide opportunities for self-efficiency. If history has told us anything here, people are easily attracted to the sweets dangled in front of them and they walk away content only to keep coming back ultimately relying on the hand that feeds them. Black people have been voting for Democrats their whole life, and they’re still poor, exclaimed Charles Barkley.
"These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference." - Lyndon B. Johnson
For me, the proof is in the pudding. I look at the cities that have the worst crime rates (Detroit, Chicago, DC, Memphis, NY, LA, Baltimore) the cities with the worst economies and unemployment (Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, LA, New Orleans, Miami, Cleveland) and which cities have a horrible track record of police brutality against impoverished populations which are disproportionately black (LA, Detroit, Chicago, DC, Baltimore). And then I say to myself what do all these cities have in common? They’ve been Democratic strongholds for multiple decades.
I'm not alluding to the Republican Party being all clean and fresh as daisy's, but the Democrats have successfully muddied the terminologies and in turn misrepresented the GOP's position, covered their own tracks and have richly profited for it. This has left the Republican Party forced to play to the tune of the Democrats influence over the media and pop-culture, which has also caused instability within the Republican Party's initiatives. Dispite the Republicans shuffling around they all do tend to agree on two points: Lower taxes and smaller government.
If Americans namely blacks continue giving the Democratic Party legitimacy, history and stats clearly show nothing will change for them. Einstein once said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and always expecting different results.”
There is a difference between politics and policies. America has remained a single form of government since 1789 and that is the key point here. Compared to France, France had 15 forms of government since 1789, Brazil, 8 since 1822; Russia, 4 since 1918, and so on. If you are 95 years old and live in Poland, you have lived through 7 revolutions. If you are a baby boomer in South Korea, you have already lived through 6 different policies.
Understanding these comparisons, America is blessed with stability not because of her politics but because of her policies. America ultimately relies on the Constitution to be survived by Americans who hold to it's ideology, and without this foundation in place no Democratic or Republic platform would have ever been made possible.
Firstly the term Progressive that you're talking about wasn't invented until the 21st century, and secondly the Whig Party was the party for the banks, your typical corporate capitalists. Their policies were not based on moral initiative; If slavery was economically advantageous for them they'd lean towards it, I would hardly consider that persuasively liberal. You can be a progressive, a liberal, a conservative and be a Republican.
To further reiterate on the Democratics logic here: Abraham Lincoln lead the Republican Party's policy to abolish slavery - the Democrats say that action wasn't conservative therefore it wasn't Republican. Historically the Republican Party stood for emancipation, anti-segregation, anti-lynching, and of course many others; Likewise the Democratic Party were for slavery, segregation, lynching, etc. To the Democratic Party this was their idea of progressivism. What the Democratic Party have done is use post-structuralism as a basis to push identity politics; whenever you hear about liberty and progress you'd think Democrat.
Fact is, a Republican can be a liberal because what he conserves holds to ideals of liberty for all men. A Republican can be progressive because what he conserves allows for individual initiative, community, faith, self-efficacy and encouragement to help others.
I'd want to conserve "All men are created equal" and keep the Democratic Party's socialist ideals at bay, wouldn't you?
John Adams first posed anti-slavery, and Thomas Jefferson who agreed, but said doing away with slavery was an issue to tackle at a later time for it was an unrealistic endevour for the choices they had available to them. The Democrats idea on slavery was to make it appealing and beneficial to both the slave and the master, but a third-party was created called the Republican Party to abolish slavery, and through Abraham Lincoln's leadership it was achieved.
I touched on this a little bit that FDR had ideals that leaned towards fascism, it was understood that in terms of societal systems he welcomed it; much in line with Mussolini who even applauded FDR for his views. The Republican Party couldn't agree to his policies so he left to join the Democratic Party.
John F. Kennedy is not automatically associated with Civil Rights issues as Kennedy’s presidency is more famed for the Cuban Missile Crisis and issues surrounding the Cold War. Also, no obvious civil rights legislation was signed by Kennedy. However, Kennedy did have a major input into civil rights history – though posthumously. In other words, he supported Civil Rights funnily enough after he died.
There are literally mountains of articles out there that show JFK as quite the contrary to what your bullet-point states. A colleague to Martin Luther King Jr, puts it finely, "I couldn't understand why so many people elevated Kennedy as highly as they did," Civil Rights leader Julian Bond told America Tonight. "He was a good figure, but not a great figure in my view, and was disappointing in many ways."
"This will keep those n****** voting Democrat for 200 years." - Lyndon B. Johnson regarding the Civil Rights Act.
“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.” - Lyndon B. Johnson
Why was Lyndon B. Johnson for Republican-passed Civil Rights legislation in 1964 but against it in 1948? LBJ was evidently not concerned about the plight of African Americans but rather about the continuation of the Democratics form of progressivism. Lyndon B. Johnson is one of the most disgusting and devious Presidents in American history; and his legacy unfortunately still exists today.
The biggest fallacy in the Southern strategy viewpoint is that it ignores the fact that the Deep South was the segregationist states which were Democratic AKA the Dixiecrats. The outer southern states however: Texas, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida, have been statistically Republican friendly since the 20's.
Now Nixon had to win in the other regions in order to get the 270 electoral votes necessary for winning the presidency. What further complicates his predicament, is if he emphasized with the Dixiecrat states he risked losing the support from the anti-segregation and major industrial states - essentially committing political suicide. So what does he do? He becomes a classic centrist.
Regardless, the deep south was unabidingly won by an ultra-conservative Democrat named George Wallace. The man who said, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever," and infamously known for standing in the schoolhouse doorway to prevent black American students going in.
Bogus conspiracy theory long disregarded. In reality, Reagan’s foreign policy approach wasn’t a factor in the hostages’ release, as scholars told us. The Carter administration negotiated the deal months before Reagan’s inauguration without involvement by Reagan or his transition team. In politics there is internal greivences which tend to be based on ill-informed suspicion rather than actual facts.
I wouldn't call that forced but rather a restoration of the lineage of American history.
The Founding Fathers and other well known figures throughout history have expressed encouragement of America's origin. It is in many respects part of a history that many people would like to conserve just like an Oath in court. One of the five most secular Founding Father's Benjamin Franklin even commemorated it.
The Constitution is actually staunchly rich in Judaeo-Christian values. Many of the Founding Fathers found strength and inspiration from the Bible. Though Benjamin Franklin was one of the least religious, he was the one that chewed out the guys who were religious for not praying enough in his famous speech at the Constitutional Convention. What's more remarkable about this man, is in his famous speech, it is filled with Bible verses which not many Christians today would know or be able to cite.
Actually it was under Richard Nixon that the "War on Drugs" began. On the surface this does sound like a noble cause, however there may have been other internal/external interests involved.
Also, to say Reagan increased militarization of police forces is inaccurate. SWAT teams were founded in Philadelphia and Los Angeles in the 60's in response to decade's of ultra violence and riots, and delicate situations such as hostage incidents. Other big cities quickly followed suit to modernize their policing and had steadily continued the trend to other cities throughout the years. Did he support it? probably, but according to the data so did every other President from the 60's to Post 9/11.
The Republicans still want to conserve and protect the Constitution, and the Democratic Party want to continue to proceed America in a direction they believe is good for America. An ancient proverb sums up each Party's ideology well:
"You can either give a man a fish and you'll feed him for a day, or teach a man to fish and he can feed himself for a lifetime."
Some people find it appealing to eat from the hand that feeds them, others prefer the government provide opportunities for self-efficiency. If history has told us anything here, people are easily attracted to the sweets dangled in front of them and they walk away content only to keep coming back ultimately relying on the hand that feeds them. Black people have been voting for Democrats their whole life, and they’re still poor, exclaimed Charles Barkley.
"These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference." - Lyndon B. Johnson
For me, the proof is in the pudding. I look at the cities that have the worst crime rates (Detroit, Chicago, DC, Memphis, NY, LA, Baltimore) the cities with the worst economies and unemployment (Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, LA, New Orleans, Miami, Cleveland) and which cities have a horrible track record of police brutality against impoverished populations which are disproportionately black (LA, Detroit, Chicago, DC, Baltimore). And then I say to myself what do all these cities have in common? They’ve been Democratic strongholds for multiple decades.
I'm not alluding to the Republican Party being all clean and fresh as daisy's, but the Democrats have successfully muddied the terminologies and in turn misrepresented the GOP's position, covered their own tracks and have richly profited for it. This has left the Republican Party forced to play to the tune of the Democrats influence over the media and pop-culture, which has also caused instability within the Republican Party's initiatives. Dispite the Republicans shuffling around they all do tend to agree on two points: Lower taxes and smaller government.
If Americans namely blacks continue giving the Democratic Party legitimacy, history and stats clearly show nothing will change for them. Einstein once said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and always expecting different results.”
