Author Topic: There is one naive assumption that is running rampant in (Google time again)  (Read 399 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline CC27

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5135
  • Reputation: +1185/-29
Quote
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Wed Jul-27-11 05:14 PM
Original message
There is one naive assumption that is running rampant in
   
the country.

It goes something like this... just because a party is the way it is right now, it has always been this way.

Reality is that parties change... and they also change the coalitions that bring them to power and keep them in power.

First let's look at the Republicans... then we will take a look at the Democratic-Republican Party...

The Republicans were a fringe group, of populists, that rose against the Whig establishment. A few things in the party of Lincoln that should be striking today is that stance against slavery.

Over the next few decades the party of lincoln was cooped and moved slowly into an establishment party, and pro business. It also became quite insular, and against any and all wars. Hell, they were very critical of the mere idea of Empire. Ok fast forwards to the 1880s, they were truly an establishment party. They were pro business, and they were controlled by business. (So a few things have not changed since then)

Then fast forwards to the 1950s. They had a little problem called the John Birch society... (realize the Kochs were heavily involved in that one)... the INTELLECTUALS in the party kicked the birchers out... they realized just how dangerous they were. Ok fast forward to today... the GOP, through the conservative revolution, and the tea parties has become what it was started against... it is a radical right wing... intolerant party. The WHIGS have come back, as well as the John Birch society... in effect they have made themselves an extreme minority, albeit loud and dangerous, party.

Now lets look at the other side.

The party of Jefferson was pretty much an establishment party... as much as you can get one in the early Republic. It was taken over by populist forces, with the expansion of the vote. the franchise. under Jackson. It was a populist party. Over time it morphed into an establishment party. During the Civil War it was the party that didn't want the war, and ran on a peace platform in 1864... so fast forward to the 1880s... there was little light between the two... so the Granger movement (and a few others) were created to fight the establishment. Over the next thirty years these OUTSIDE movements infiltrated and took over the democratic party. The Party of FDR is that NEW coalition of the people and for the people. You should think Jackson... it was once again a populist party.

What has happened over the last thirty years is that the Democratic party was infiltrated by moderate republicans, the Rockefeller faction, and it's own internal, business friendly, faction rose to power. THis is exactly where we are.

So the first thing we need to recognize is that yes, parties change.

The second is that perhaps external forces will be needed.

The third is that if we are to move this party away from the RIGHT... we will need to infiltrate it, or pressure from the outside.

This is in a nutshel a political history. I have said it before, the parallels to 1859 are just striking, and this is but one more reason.

All you need to know the part that is bold.  :whatever:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1590385

Offline thundley4

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 40571
  • Reputation: +2222/-127
Quote
During the Civil War it was the party that didn't want the war, and ran on a peace platform in 1864.

Dems didn't want the war?  Dems wanted to keep slavery.

Offline BattleHymn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8750
  • Reputation: +974/-63
  • Not right, but not left, either.
Quote
This a political history, from a nutshell. I have said it before, the parallels to 1859 are just striking, and this is but one more reason.

Fixed. Also, your man for the 1864 election, McClellan, acted similar to how you guys function in society today; whining, insubordinate do-nothing.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2011, 06:22:11 PM by BattleHymn »

Offline captrandom

  • Probationary (Probie)
  • Posts: 70
  • Reputation: +38/-5
ugh... Put a spoiler tag on next time

My brain hurts after reading that.
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles scream and shout!

Offline Duke Nukum

  • Assistant Chair of the Committee on Neighborhood Services
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
  • Reputation: +561/-202
  • O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
Why George Soros hasn't swooped in and given Nadin Nutcase her own foundation for the teaching of Nistory is beyond me.
“A man who has been through bitter experiences and travelled far enjoys even his sufferings after a time”
― Homer, The Odyssey

Offline jukin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15753
  • Reputation: +1724/-170
The know it all forgot that the KKK was the democrat party terror wing.
When you are the beneficiary of someone’s kindness and generosity, it produces a sense of gratitude and community.

When you are the beneficiary of a policy that steals from someone and gives it to you in return for your vote, it produces a sense of entitlement and dependency.