PDA

View Full Version : Where are the Democrats of yesteryear?


Abdul Alhazred
3rd April 2004, 12:42 AM
OK this is a USA-centric thread.

Where are the Democrats of yesteryear?

I would enthusiascally vote for Henry Wallace, Adlai Stevenson, or Hubert Humphrey. But those guys are dead.

What the Hell is with the Democrats these days?

They will do anything to get elected, other than come up with someone you'd really want to vote for.

"Yeah, but he's sorta better than W." isn't good enough.

I want to *like* a Democrat candidate for president.

Tony
3rd April 2004, 12:52 AM
It's not just the dems. the repubs. are a bunch of losers too.

Abdul Alhazred
3rd April 2004, 01:10 AM
Originally posted by Tony
It's not just the dems. the repubs. are a bunch of losers too.

Admitted. But my heritage is being a Democrat. I never yet so far voted for a Republican, except for the judge who presided over my acquittal. :p

But he was running as a Democrat as well as a Republican. Such it is with allegedly elected judges. :D

epepke
3rd April 2004, 01:26 AM
Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
OK this is a USA-centric thread.

Where are the Democrats of yesteryear?

They're all wusses and weedeaters.

It's depressed me, not just about Democrats, but the left in general. Thirty years ago they were willing to get clubbed and dragged to jail for what they believe in. Nowadays, they seem only to be able to take a weekend off to go light up at the G7 protest.

Shane Costello
3rd April 2004, 05:30 AM
Originally posted by epepke:
It's depressed me, not just about Democrats, but the left in general. Thirty years ago they were willing to get clubbed and dragged to jail for what they believe in.

Didn't a lot of clubbing and dragging of leftists take place at Democratic conventions?

I've a lot of sympathy with ingrained political heritage, suffering from the same congenital malady myself. Likewise I find myself increasingly out of symapthy with the political party in question.

Some Friggin Guy
3rd April 2004, 05:49 AM
Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
OK this is a USA-centric thread.

Where are the Democrats of yesteryear?

I would enthusiascally vote for Henry Wallace, Adlai Stevenson, or Hubert Humphrey. But those guys are dead.

What the Hell is with the Democrats these days?

They will do anything to get elected, other than come up with someone you'd really want to vote for.

"Yeah, but he's sorta better than W." isn't good enough.

I want to *like* a Democrat candidate for president.

I wish I could tell you. Unfortunately, the only experience I have with the Dems are i this election, since until 2002, I was a hard-core Republican.

However, after the guy currently running the show, I will never be again.


You know, I'll be of legal age to run in '08. Maybe I should do it.

Abdul Alhazred
3rd April 2004, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by Shane Costello
Didn't a lot of clubbing and dragging of leftists take place at Democratic conventions?


Not since 1968. Hey, nobody's perfect! :p

edited to add: The police were there to preserve disorder.

rockoon
3rd April 2004, 08:19 AM
Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
OK this is a USA-centric thread.

Where are the Democrats of yesteryear?



If you really want to go back in time.. it used to be the republicans were the "progressives."

I wonder when exactly the republicans changed from being of the Lincoln Ilk (freeing the slaves, national unity, and so forth) to being the Racist Warmonger Pigs that they are made out to be today...

Wally
3rd April 2004, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy


I wish I could tell you. Unfortunately, the only experience I have with the Dems are i this election, since until 2002, I was a hard-core Republican.

However, after the guy currently running the show, I will never be again.


You just described my experience, just 22 years earlier.

Clancie
3rd April 2004, 11:16 AM
Posted by Abdul Alhazred

I would enthusiascally vote for Henry Wallace, Adlai Stevenson, or Hubert Humphrey...What the Hell is with the Democrats these days?

They will do anything to get elected, other than come up with someone you'd really want to vote for.
Well, I'd vote for the ones you mentioned, too, but the majority of Dems appear to be smarter than we are. They've decided it is better to win once in a while.

The only "liberal" Dem President since FDR, imo, was Johnson and he would never have won a national election if it wasn't for the sentiment attached to Kennedy's assassination.

No liberal Dems in the "Wallace-Stevenson-Humphrey" tradition will win in this electoral college system, in a 50% Republican country (with probably about 80% of the electorate supporting more conservative candidates, including Dems, than what you or I would ideally choose).

Clinton was the only elected 2 term Democratic president since Roosevelt--the only one we've had in over 50 years. (On the other hand, GWB would be the fourth two-term Republican President elected in that time period--God forbid). It's not just that 34 years since 1952 have been Republican presidencies--it's that their having so many 8 year terms makes such an enormous impact on the country.

Dems realize the need to be pragmatic and win. If they can do it this time with Kerry, he's probably as close to a Humphrey as we're likely to ever get.

TillEulenspiegel
3rd April 2004, 01:33 PM
You mean the FDR Democrats? The yellow dog Dems? Social security and all that?

There on vacation somewhere with the old fashioned Republicans, you know the Eisenhower Repubs? Fiscal responsibility, minimum government guys? The people who championed 1st amendment rights, who now embrace the patriot acts and looking into woman's wombs? Like the Dems who have become the party of the Al Sharptons and philosophical inclusion Ad Nausium?

Lost in time. We have met the enemy, and it is Us.

Abdul Alhazred
3rd April 2004, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by rockoon


If you really want to go back in time.. it used to be the republicans were the "progressives."

I wonder when exactly the republicans changed from being of the Lincoln Ilk (freeing the slaves, national unity, and so forth) to being the Racist Warmonger Pigs that they are made out to be today...

Yeah OK. All the old racial segregationists of yesteryear were Democrats. Franklin Roosevelt started to change that. Lyndon Johnson completed the change.

Heck, Martin Luther King endorsed Eisenhower in 1956 due to his having sent troops to Arkansas to enforce integration.

I was born in 1956 in New York. Draw your own conclusions.

What has that to do with the current situation?

I am now a Republican, but a very reluctant one.

Yes, I hero-worshipped Mario Cuomo. But no more.

Abdul Alhazred
3rd April 2004, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by Clancie

Well, I'd vote for the ones you mentioned, too, but the majority of Dems appear to be smarter than we are. They've decided it is better to win once in a while...


The last time the Dems won the presidency (of course they win all the time in various local constituencies and congressional districts) was 1996 when Clinton was re-elected.

I'm no big fan of Clinton, but I voted for him twice and still think he was better than his Republican opponents.

But I had to choke voting for him the second time.

Abdul Alhazred
3rd April 2004, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by Clancie

Well, I'd vote for the ones you mentioned, too, but the majority of Dems appear to be smarter than we are. They've decided it is better to win once in a while.

Ya think? The only way Kerry will win is if W messes up big time. Probably with the economy.

Kerry's no winner, he's just the non-W who hopes W will mess up. Yeah, I'll probably vote for him, but no promises.

Crossbow
3rd April 2004, 04:15 PM
Democrats want to get elected, so on a national level they often talk in grand terms about their ideas and ideals, but as soon as it is pratical to do so, they will quickly shunt these topics in order to maintain that broad appeal which is so important to winning elections.

epepke
3rd April 2004, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by Shane Costello
Didn't a lot of clubbing and dragging of leftists take place at Democratic conventions?

Yeah. What's your point?

Shane Costello
4th April 2004, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by epepke:
Yeah. What's your point?

That the Democrats of yesteryear weren't left wing? I mean, didn't JFK bring in a massive upper-class tax cut?

epepke
5th April 2004, 04:07 AM
Originally posted by Shane Costello
That the Democrats of yesteryear weren't left wing?

Which has what exactly with who gets clubbed where?

I mean, didn't JFK bring in a massive upper-class tax cut?

You mean the massive cuts that brought the top tax bracket all the way down to 77% by 1964?

zultr
5th April 2004, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by rockoon
I wonder when exactly the republicans changed from being of the Lincoln Ilk (freeing the slaves, national unity, and so forth) to being the Racist Warmonger Pigs that they are made out to be today...

Between 1948 and 1964.

Nova Land
19th April 2004, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred

Heck, Martin Luther King endorsed Eisenhower in 1956 due to his having sent troops to Arkansas to enforce integration.It's too bad MLK is dead now, and thus not able to apply for Randi's million dollars. Endorsing Eisenhower in 1956 for something he would do in 1957 indicates good psychic potential.

Are you sure King endorsed Ike? I don't recall that, and can't find any record of it having happened. If you have more information about this, could you summarize it and/or provide some sources I could look up? If true, this is something I would enjoy knowing more about.

Abdul Alhazred
19th April 2004, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by Nova Land
It's too bad MLK is dead now, and thus not able to apply for Randi's million dollars. Endorsing Eisenhower in 1956 for something he would do in 1957 indicates good psychic potential.

Are you sure King endorsed Ike? I don't recall that, and can't find any record of it having happened. If you have more information about this, could you summarize it and/or provide some sources I could look up? If true, this is something I would enjoy knowing more about.

Brown versus Board of Education -- 1954

My error, it was Kansas not Arkansas.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/brown.html

RandFan
19th April 2004, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Shane Costello
Didn't a lot of clubbing and dragging of leftists take place at Democratic conventions?Shhhhh..... keep it quiet. No one is supposed to know.

Nova Land
19th April 2004, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred

Brown versus Board of Education -- 1954

My error, it was Kansas not Arkansas.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/brown.html Thank you for the link, but the information in it is simply a summary of Brown v Board of Education, which is not something I was questioning. What I was specifically questioning was whether Martin Luther King endorsed Dwight David Eisenhower for president in 1956. This is something I am unfamiliar with, and something that arouses my curiosity. (I'm posting from a public library at the moment, but can go into greater detail about why I find this curious later this evening.)

I am puzzled by your comment about "Kansas, not Arkansas" -- it was Arkansas that Ike sent the troops to in 1957, and I am not aware of Ike sending any significant federal presence in to enforce desegregation earlier. (That's one of the reasons I find King's alleged endorsement of Ike in 1956 curious -- Ike, as I recall, had something of a reputation as a foot-dragger on civil rights at the time of the election.)

Here is a link to a desegregation timeline (http://www.abqtrib.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=BROWNTIMELINE-03-31-04&cat=LS), which contains both the Brown decision and the Arkansas action, but fails to mention any troops sent to Kansas, and fails to mention King endorsing Ike.

Again, I ask if you are sure that King endorsed Ike? Is this based on personal memory, or are there sources you can refer me to for more information about this?

One thought that occurs to me is that possibly you have mixed up Martin Luther King with Adam Clayton Powell in your memory. (You would have been fairly young at the time -- less than a year old, I gather from your post -- so you likely were not paying as close attention to politics as you do today.) Powell, like King, led a boycott against bus segregation (although a couple decades earlier), and Powell did indeed endorse Ike in 1956 (creating a bit of a stir).

Michael Redman
20th April 2004, 10:37 AM
Mr. Costello, I don't know what you've heard, but it wasn't the convention delegates in 1968 that were clubbing the protestors.


Where are any party politicians who will stick their necks out for ideal? Who will advocate what is right, but unpopular?

Where are the politicians who will say that our freedom is more valuable than our security? We used to have lots of them, on both sides.

Where are the republicans who say states can allow medicinal marajuana if they choose, and set whatever drinking age and speed limits they feel is best for their people? Where are the republicans who say that perscriprion drugs are properly set at the market price, and if anyone wants to help the elderly, it should be the states? That education is fundamentally a local issue in which the Feds have no business? Where are the Dems saying that religion has no place in government? That the 4th Amendment was meant to actually protect people? That maybe the death penalty isn't such a good idea? That we should raise taxes to pay for what we're spending, rather than borrowing, since we don't have any desire to lower expenditures?

c0rbin
20th April 2004, 11:13 AM
Where...

Where...

Where...



On the back of a train, slowly pulling out of the station.

Vorticity
20th April 2004, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by zultr

Originally posted by rockoon
I wonder when exactly the republicans changed from being of the Lincoln Ilk (freeing the slaves, national unity, and so forth) to being the Racist Warmonger Pigs that they are made out to be today...
Between 1948 and 1964.
No, it was much earlier. The last "liberal" republican was Theodore Roosevelt. His hand-picked succesor, William Howard Taft, became the first "conservative" republican. TR was pissed, so he ran against Taft in '08 on the "Bull-Moose" ticket. However, both TR and Taft were handily defeated by Woodrow Wilson, the first "liberal" Democrat. Thereafter (roughly), the Dems were more "liberal", and the Republicans were more "conservative". [All of the preceding ignores the anomalous "Dixiecrats". If you include them, then the whole liberal/conservative dichotomy goes out the window.]

Tony
20th April 2004, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by Vorticity

However, both TR and Taft were handily defeated by Woodrow Wilson, the first "liberal" Democrat.

Woodrow Wilson liberal???

He was a racist bigot, a typical southern democrat, the ideological home of the KKK. What measure are you using to gauge his liberalness?

gnome
20th April 2004, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by Tony


Woodrow Wilson liberal???

He was a racist bigot, a typical southern democrat, the ideological home of the KKK. What measure are you using to gauge his liberalness?

One big issue comes to mind:

He was a strong proponent of the idea of "Nation-building" in the aftermath of a war. That is, instead of picking the bones of the defeated nation for spoils of war, to help them rebuild and become reasonable members of the international community again.

He was ignored after WWI, of course, and this IMO led directly to World War II. I believe his ideas could have prevented the war.

Tony
20th April 2004, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by gnome

He was a strong proponent of the idea of "Nation-building" in the aftermath of a war. That is, instead of picking the bones of the defeated nation for spoils of war, to help them rebuild and become reasonable members of the international community again.


By this rationale, GW would be liberal. Is this the only way in which Wilson's liberalness is gauged (i'm not really arguing, i'm just trying to understand how wilson could be considered liberal)?

gnome
21st April 2004, 08:56 AM
Conservatives, IMO, have often been reluctant to engage in Nation-building... in fact GWB himself spoke out against it during his campaign.

Q: How would you decide when it was in the national interest to use US force?

BUSH: Well, if itís in our vital national interests. And that means:
Whether our territory is threatened, our people could be harmed, whether or not our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. Whether or not the mission was clear, whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Whether or not we were prepared and trained to win, whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy.

I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I donít think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think weíve got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president believes in nation-building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders.
Source: Presidential debate, Boston MA Oct 3, 2000

He more or less has found himself pushed into it... I believe it is because it truly is the only sensible option... and I admire Wilson for being one to realize it early.

He also promoted the evolutionary interpretation of the Constitution.

Here's some more:

http://yahooligans.yahoo.com/reference/wak/presidents/wilson_woodrow.html

Certainly, he may have had the flaws that you mentioned--and his decisions far from perfect... But he left some good works behind. Most of our admired leaders in history were a mixed bag... but we can revere their contributions without condoning their weaknesses.

Tony
21st April 2004, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by gnome
Conservatives, IMO, have often been reluctant to engage in Nation-building... in fact GWB himself spoke out against it during his campaign.


I was already aware of that, but thanks for reminding me.

He also promoted the evolutionary interpretation of the Constitution.

Which is what exactly?

Tony
21st April 2004, 09:24 AM
Upon further reading of this (http://yahooligans.yahoo.com/reference/wak/presidents/wilson_woodrow.html), it's apparent that Wilson was "liberal" only in the mere sense of challenging the status quo.

Shane Costello
21st April 2004, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Michael Redman:
Mr. Costello, I don't know what you've heard, but it wasn't the convention delegates in 1968 that were clubbing the protestors.

Where did I suggest otherwise? The point is that the leftists seemed to have felt strong enough about Democratic policies at the time to turn up at their convention and protest. I posed a question, I didn't state a fact, so my knowledge of the matter is a little hazy.

Michael Redman
21st April 2004, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by Shane Costello
Where did I suggest otherwise?Originally posted by Shane Costello
Didn't a lot of clubbing and dragging of leftists take place at Democratic conventions?;)

(Yes, your point is a good one.)

Shane Costello
22nd April 2004, 12:23 AM
Well, I don't see how I necessarily implied that the delegates were the ones doing the clubbing and dragging

Michael Redman
22nd April 2004, 06:23 AM
I don't think you did. I just think your words could be (intentionally) misconstrued that way.

(Hence the ;) .)

c0rbin
22nd April 2004, 06:41 AM
Upon further reading of this, it's apparent that Wilson was "liberal" only in the mere sense of challenging the status quo.

This is the definition of the word "liberal." Not some "mere" facet of usage. The terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" these days are used in place of party names by shock jocks.

Tony
22nd April 2004, 06:50 AM
Originally posted by c0rbin


This is the definition of the word "liberal."

It's a definition, not the definition. And it's not a very good definition either. A person advocating death to adulterers in America would be considered liberal under this definition simple because they challenge the status quo.

c0rbin
22nd April 2004, 06:56 AM
A person advocating death to adulterers in America would be considered liberal under this definition simple because they challenge the status quo.

An excellent context sentence. A+!

Tony
22nd April 2004, 07:01 AM
Originally posted by c0rbin


An excellent context sentence. A+!

So you agree?

Michael Redman
22nd April 2004, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by Tony
Upon further reading of this (http://yahooligans.yahoo.com/reference/wak/presidents/wilson_woodrow.html), it's apparent that Wilson was "liberal" only in the mere sense of challenging the status quo. From that link:In 1913 and 1914 he carried out his plan for the New Freedom with the Underwood Tariff Act, which lowered duties for the first time in 40 years; the Federal Reserve Act, which set up a new system to back finance and banking; the Clayton Antitrust Act, which strengthened earlier laws limiting the power of large corporations; and the establishment of the Federal Trade Commission. In 1916 Wilson secured federal loans and marketing aid for farmers, an 8-hour day for railroad workers, and a law prohibiting child labor (later struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court). His liberalism was epitomized by his appointing to the Supreme Court the noted reform lawyer Louis D. Brandeis, the first Jewish member of that body. Liberal, under almost any definition, as I see it.

Tony
22nd April 2004, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by Michael Redman
Liberal, under almost any definition, as I see it.

Would you care to explain how that's liberal?

Michael Redman
22nd April 2004, 10:07 AM
Here are some definitions of liberal provided by dictionary.com:Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

One who favors greater freedom in political or religious matters; an opponent of the established systems; a reformer;

showing or characterized by broad-mindedness;

having political or social views favoring reform and progress;

tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition; Wilson was a progressive. He brought about new laws that limit the power of corporations, created a consumer protection agency, created programs to help farmers, and work rules to limit hours and stop child labor. He favored changing or creating institutions on a national and global scale to stablish peace and social justice.

I'm not really sure how you can object to calling him a liberal.

Tony
22nd April 2004, 10:23 AM
I'm not really sure how you can object to calling him a liberal.

Easy, all of those actions can be interpreted in different ways, let's break it down.

He brought about new laws that limit the power of corporations

While increasing power of government. He replaced one tyranny with another.

created a consumer protection agency

Which gave the government power over buying and selling, a power that is often abused.

created programs to help farmers

A government power grab.

and work rules to limit hours and stop child labor.

Good things, I agree.

But shouldn't a 13 year old who wants to make some money have the right to work?

He favored changing or creating institutions on a national and global scale to stablish peace and social justice.

Which gave the government more power to use and abuse.

At his time, he was challenging the status quo, but challenging the status quo is a bad measure of liberal IMO. Like I said, a person in the context of American politics, could advocate death to adulterers and be considered liberal under this rationale.

c0rbin
22nd April 2004, 10:32 AM
At his time, he was challenging the status quo, but challenging the status quo is a bad measure of liberal IMO.

This statment, I am afraid, does not receive a passing grade.

gnome
22nd April 2004, 12:16 PM
Tony:

Most of what you mentioned as "giving power to the government" brings up a point...

This was brought up recently by radio humorist Phil Hendry, in a serious monologue--he supports the war in Iraq and the actions of the President, so a lot of people ask him why he still considers himself a liberal.

As I recall, he considers a conservative someone who wants to limit the role of central government, considering it a necessary evil. Whereas, he said, a liberal believes that government is a tool that can be used, for good results or bad.

I don't know if I entirely agree, but he's at least partly right. As a liberal, I do not fear governmental power if there is sufficient checks and balances upon it, and it stays within certain boundaries.

"Increasing the power of government" is not necessarily a step towards tyranny. It depends on how easily that power can be abused.

Tony
22nd April 2004, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by gnome

"Increasing the power of government" is not necessarily a step towards tyranny.

Historically, it has.

It depends on how easily that power can be abused.

I don't think this makes sense. Having power to do X, automatically opens the door to abuse of that power. Can you give an example of a power that's not easily abused?

IllegalArgument
22nd April 2004, 12:35 PM
I think the one of the reasons politicians seem so bad today is TMI. Too much information, we know every detail about them, unlike earlier decades.

Very few people look good with that kind of spotlight on them.

In terms of corruption, politicians are bunch better today, due to the attention. Read up on people like LBJ, that man was as corrupt as you can get. How long would have Kennedy's womanizing stayed secret today?