|
|
| Re: WSJ interview with Jeb Bush: GOP must be national party, moderate on immigration, push school ch (415210) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: WSJ interview with Jeb Bush: GOP must be national party, moderate on immigration, push school ch |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Feb 15 11:52:17 2009, in response to Re: WSJ interview with Jeb Bush: GOP must be national party, moderate on immigration, push school ch, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Feb 15 09:50:06 2009. Let's not forget that during the Civil War, it was the Republican party was what wanted to abolish slavery, but the Democratic party wanted to keep slavery.How the Democrats became the "party of minorities" is almost beyond me, as it certainly was the total opposite at the time of the civil war. It wasn't until around the Kennedy administration and the 1960's that the Democrats began to support racial equality and integration. It wasn't so much gradual evolution as shifts in who the parties pitched their message to and shifting demographics. My thoughts follow. In the antebellum, Republicans forced the question of whether or not slavery should be extended to the territories. Democrats were strong in the South, so they were in favor of slavery in the new territories if those within the state were in favor of it. Republicans were absolutely opposed to the extension of territory to the territories, but they were split between those who only embraced that modest goal (like Lincoln) and others who were more radical. Lincoln didn't believe in racial equality. But he did believe that slavery was evil. Almost everyone conceded that, however. The Confederate States Constitution proscribed the slave trade, after all. But the southern states were also fearful that Lincoln was more radical than he was, and they seceded. Thus began, as schoolchildren know, the Civil War. Lincoln was a Unionist; he did not believe that a state could secede even if its people were in favor of secession by very, very large margins. Democrats were split on this - in the north and west, they mostly believed that the southern states couldn't secede, whereas in the south, of course, opinions went the other way. Republicans were the party of centralized control, of big government. This is, of course, in stark contrast, to the party's rhetoric nowadays. Their position was totally against so called states' rights of dual sovereignty. The Republican campaign through the south was brutal during and after the war. Democrats tapped into this anger to build a solid region for themselves while becoming a party of great interest in many urban areas. Republicans gave up their project of "Reconstruction" in a bargain to retain executive control. Eventually I'm sure that they realized that trying to change minds by force of arms was rather futile. The idea that people should be judged on individual merit was more of an idea for academia at this time, mostly in the north and west. Put back into charge in the south, Democrats there resolved on payback for the occupation by northern Republican forces, by targeting Republican proxies, especially Blacks. But at the same time, many Democratic party machines traded on the votes of recent immigrants, and northern Republicans like Theodore Roosevelt were sympathetic to meritocratic treatment of persons. Pushed by Democrats in the south, many Blacks migrated to cities outside of the south, mostly to precincts of Democratic party machines. There would not be another President interested in the plight of Blacks until Franklin Roosevelt, and he was mostly interested via his more progressive wife, Eleanor. The second phase of the New Deal, which never did happen because of Franklin Roosevelt's cutting the first phase short (which precipitated economic downturn he supported higher taxes and lower spending during the Depression), and then the War came, and then FDR died. But the political power of blacks in the Democratic party in urban areas had been growing, at the same time that many Blacks were still Republicans because of "Father Abraham". Woodrow Wilson was a disappointment to Blacks. But the latter group was mostly in the south, where their effectiveness politically was next to zero. Democrats succeeded in establishing a one-party state in the south, just as Republicans had succeeded in that effort during Reconstruction. Harry Truman provoked the biggest thing in race relations with Blacks in a very long time: he ordered integration of the military, which really exposed southerners to Blacks as human beings, as the guy in the trenches with you, very different from the picture they had of barely civilized monkeys put into human clothing by Republicans. Leading up to this, Blacks had been gradually revving up to a campaign in the courts to push for desegregation in the south. A very progressive Supreme Court ruled for desegregation, and this precipitated another crisis, albeit not on the Civil War level. Dwight Eisenhower was President but he was very ambivalent. Deep down, he simply did not believe in equality of Blacks with others. So he was not a very progressive force at a time when Blacks really wanted it. John Kennedy and Richard Nixon were each far more sympathetic. But Kennedy won. He was unable to push through the major legislation but for the first time, there was a Democrat with the will - but not the ability - to take on his own party over the issue of race. He died before real progress was made, but his successor was the greatest legislative leader in the history of this country, bar none: Lyndon Johnson. LBJ pushed that legislation through, but the libertarian hawk Barry Goldwater saw a chink in the armor and opposed the Civil Rights Acts, thus creating a chance for a radical reversal. Richard Nixon, a very astute political tactician, adopted a "southern strategy" to capitalize on racist sentiment in the south, in spite of the fact that he himself was working behind the scenes to bring affirmative action employment for Blacks and other racial minorities to new heights. But after Nixon, the transformation was really becoming complete: the south was becoming the party of Republicans, and the north was becoming the party of Democrats. George HW Bush stemmed the tide somewhat with his civil rights agenda, but only the more recent movement for the Democrats in each region to build up a national party has succeeded in making the Democrats into a nationally competitive party by pitching a different kind of Democrat to each region, while Republicans have been steadily losing by pitching the same kind of Republican to each region. The south is for the first time in generations politically competitive in many places, and if the Republicans can somehow figure out how to become a national party that can pitch viable candidates all across the country, maybe our country will be much better for it. But right now, the GOP has a huge problem: they are like dinosaurs. Can Republicans pitch candidates to the north and west while holding on to constituents in the south? Can Republicans make inroads with the exploding Latino demographic? can Republicans make inroads with urban voters? |
|
|
|