Democrats: Doomed by Internal Contradictions

email Email

To understand why they lost the election to Trump and the Republicans, stunned Democrats must come to terms with the internal contradictions in their party’s policies and personalities.

On a policy level, Democrats tell the voters that the government is corrupt, and slanted toward the rich and powerful, even while they seek to grow that government. If corrupt government is using its power to help the privileged, you can’t correct the problem by handing government even more power.

Second, while Democrats pretend to represent the powerless rather than the privileged, they always pick elite candidates to head the ticket. Of the last 8 Democrats nominated for president, every one of them—8 for 8—had a degree from either Yale or Harvard.

Hillary Clinton could hardly appeal to outsiders who feel cheated by the system: with her Ivy League background and personal wealth, she’s been part of the political power elite her whole adult life.


email Email

Comments (30)

Leave a comment
  1. Jim Bird  •  Feb 10, 2017 at 3:10 pm

    Trump pardons Hillary of thousands of high crimes and misdeMEANors and ten minutes later she starts tweeting about the rogue 9th Circuit. But the good ole Boys Club, the DC establishment on both sides of the aisle, has stabbed us in the back for the fourth consecutive election cycle. The GOP will NOT look at Obamacare for 18 months?!?!?? Is that true? No tax cuts or cutting cost of government legislation now either??? Seriously! Open borders for terrorists because the 9th Circuit terrorist thugs don't know the law or Constitution?? DOES THE GOP REMEMBER THE LAST ELECTION??!! WTF IS GOING ON??? I CAN ONLY SPECULATE BUT ARE THE GOP OLD GUYS AS CORRUPT AS THE DEMOCRATS?? ARE YOU NUTS GOP? DO YOU THINK THIS IS A JOKE? Do you GOP never-Trumper's honestly think we will sit on our collective butt while you jerks destroy the country, and world for that matter, by doing what you always do – nothing? You're disgusting and like Trump said in his inaugural speech, the DC establishment has been put on notice. If you continue to do nothing, making excuses and lieing to and betraying the people out here WHO PAY YOUR SALARIES AND WATCH YOU BUILD YOUR FOUNDATION EMPIRES WITH OUR MONEY TOO, then you can kiss the Party goodby as if you bloviating cowards really care.

  2. Ty  •  Feb 12, 2017 at 1:34 am

    Michael, I think you are missing some key factors in the past election. While Hillary won the primary and was definitely part of the elite, Bernie ALMOST won the primary as someone with virtually zero name recognition, bad posture, and nearly a thousand years old.

    That happened. Democrats are not the elite loving snobs you make them out to be. And in Bernie we also find a challenge to your original democratic contradiction. Bernie was seen as being for the little guy while also wanting to expand the power of government. The Bernie solution, however radical you all may see it to be, was a solution that essentially tries to place more… honest and pure politicians in the roles of power.

    Bernie was basically one of "the untouchables" to many liberals, incorruptible because he was a true believer and pure of heart.

    And to all the conservatives reading this, pay VERY close attention to what I am about to say here. This is something that as conservatives you will have a VERY hard time wrapping your cynical heads around. Liberals do NOT see government power as some intrinsic force for evil or graft. It can be, but it can also be helmed by honest officials who genuinely have the best interest of those they serve at heart. Liberals, in essence, are infinitely less cynical and nihilistic compared to you conservatives.

    Because you place the original sin more towards the all malevolent force known as "government" your solution is almost always to shrink it to the smallest size you can without gutting the absolute basics.

    Problem? Government is staffed by MEN. This is the same flaw of the libertarian mind, MEN are not angels, they can work against the common good in government or outside of it. Shrinking government is no panacea, and with an enlightened and noble steward government can be a force for good.

    Conservatives, bitter nihilists to the end, have given up on that possibility. Liberals haven't.

    The world is what we make of it, our government is what we make of it. So when you all rail and drone on and on about how government ruins this and that, know that to a liberal such arguments crash upon them like water on rock.

    • Derek  •  Feb 19, 2017 at 9:44 am

      "Bernie ALMOST" won? Just why didn't he win Ty? You need not look past all your benevolent Democrat leadership. And the win was the nomination- Trump beat HRC who was wired in with the left, the women, nearly 170 Electoral Votes delivered before election day by the Blue States. Your cautions to the Conservatives/Republicans is laughable because Trump has just shown you that people don't want "Men" running their lives all that much.

    • Chaplain Steve  •  Mar 1, 2017 at 9:21 am

      Man do you have a weird view of politicians. Even the word politics is a good description…. Poli is Latin for many and tics are blood sucking insects. Ergo Poli tics = many blood sucking insects. There are very few politicians out there that actually are looking out for the interests of the people. Trump is NOT a politician. He's a businessman who wants the country to succeed as it was meant to by the founding fathers. Give him a chance and he'll do his job. As long as the politicians keep fighting him "tooth and nail" it will take much longer.

  3. Rizzo  •  Feb 12, 2017 at 7:46 pm

    Poor Ty, you will never learn…
    Please explain why it is that you believe that elected government officials are somehow more noble than than the private citizenry? Think about all the evils that you believe are at the heart of private citizens, businesses and corporations. Those same evils, and worse, exist within elected government officials. It is actually worse, not because they are inherently more evil than private citizens, they just have the ultimate power to act upon it.
    This is why we Conservatives believe in Constitutional, limited government… divided government, states rights, and ultimately individual rights.
    Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Liberal forms of government give absolute power to government.
    The history of government is tyranny, not freedom.

    • Ty  •  Feb 13, 2017 at 12:09 am

      I don't think public officials are more noble, in many cases they are far worse. But I am not so cynical as you conservatives to think that the only thing we can EVER hope to expect from public officials is wanton disregard for the public interest. But perhaps that last is the problem. We have different definitions of the public interest.

      I do not think it is in the public interest to have homeless people clogging the streets, many of whom literally cannot take care of themselves due to mental illnesses. I'd like to tax society to fund institutionalizing those people and getting them OFF the streets and improving their diminished quality of life. Your private charity FAILED to solve the issue. The charity fairy is nowhere to be seen, what little it does has not stemmed the flow. So government ought to step in. Now if I was a conservative who cared more about a few extra percentage points of income going to moi vs some downtrodden homeless, then I'd rail against such a policy. But I'm not that.

      You know that government can be used as a tool to tackle social ills, and you HATE that fact don't you? You want to discredit the very IDEA that such a tool can EVER be effective at anything, not I suspect because you actually believe or care about the veracity of that sentiment, but because IF the tool was effective, you might be compelled to chip in for issues and people you don't give a damn about. The conservative circle is far more focused on me and mine, and while that might be a fine way to run a family, it's a terrible way to structure society. This libertarian ethic, the purer it gets, the more anarchistic it gets. And that is literally the antithesis of the project of civilization. For this reason and many others, I see libertarians and conservatives that are too far off to that edge of more perfect freedom in all things to be the enemies of civilization itself.

      We need a mix of freedom and coercion, because we do NOT live alone, and sometimes coercing the citizenry in select spheres makes society and civilization work better.

    • Derek  •  Feb 19, 2017 at 9:49 am

      well stated Rizzo. Exhibit A, circa 2016; "The Clinton Foundation". We are meant to believe that HRC left the SoS position in order to prepare for the Presidential run, yet the benevolent CGI is virtually out of business just a few months after HRC's loss 11/8?

    • Chaplain Steve  •  Mar 1, 2017 at 9:24 am

      Fairly well stated. Politicians as a rule are only out for themselves. We finally have a President who is "All For The People." Give him a chance to do his job. The job we elected him to do!

  4. Rizzo  •  Feb 13, 2017 at 10:45 am

    Private charity has failed? How about government coercion has failed.
    NOBODY said we live alone, so, you can stop with your strawman argument.
    Keep propping-up your government-utopian theories, and one day, when it's far too late, you will realize your own fallacy.
    You pretend as if the government is underfunded, or if we just had one more regulation or tax to add to the tens of thousands of the existing ones, then we might reach Utopia.
    One day you will learn, in many, if not most cases…. Government is not the solution to problems, government is the problem.
    Now you can resume praying to Al Gore or whoever, to save us from ourselves.

    • Ty  •  Feb 13, 2017 at 4:30 pm

      No one is talking about utopia here, just trying to get to a better place than where we are. Where we are is not a terrible place, but I am less.. conservative about being content with the status quo than conservatives. It is not enough that I and my peers are doing well. I want more people to do well. And sitting back and being contented with the idea that the reason others do not do well is almost purely based on their own choices is not good enough for me.

      IF that is true, I want to know if it's possible to help them make better choices? When conservatives look at a government program that failed, they see that as evidence that government is intrinsically terrible at things. When a liberal like myself sees the same failure, I think to myself, wow, that turned out to be a bad idea, let's try another one.

      Did you catch that? My reaction to bad policy is to try and get better policy. Conservatives reactions seems to be to just want to pull back. How do you know that will give better results? What if doing x and y government policy makes things worse than doing nothing and pulling back government involvement, but doing Z policy makes thing better than either? How will you ever know that?

      You wouldn't. This is the essence of the crippling failure of conservatism. You need the LIBERALS to think outside the box and push the envelope. Many of their ideas will be disasters and complete failures. And that is OK so long as we are able to reset and try something else. That something else might be LESS government involvement, but as a liberally minded person I do not close off government roles by default like the closed conservative mind.

      Watch this talk about a Universal Basic Income. Those are all liberals.

      That idea will likely be HATED by nearly all conservatives, but Sam Altman with his y combinator fund will be funding a basic income experiment to get some actual data. Conservatives would never even bother TRYING new policy experiments at the same scale. I wish they would, I wish they were inclined to be more open to more options.

      IF A UBI was effective at its goals, it could virtually end homelessness. A Thing Michael HATES. And the people with mental issues? A Ubi would provide a built in finding scheme for the cost of institutionalizing such people and NOT having them blighting the streets.

      • Rizzo  •  Feb 14, 2017 at 10:01 am

        The most laughable, yet preposterous thing you have suggested, is the notion that conservatives need liberals to think "Outside the box", or that anything you have suggested, represents "Outside the box" thinking. Almost EVERY POLICY that liberals propose to "improve" America, has been tried and failed. These ideas of: Universal Healthcare, Anti-Gun Rights, Guaranteed Basic Income, etc., etc., etc. are ALL OLD AND TIRED IDEAS, and they are ALL CONTRARY TO AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM. Most liberals are historical illiterates, so they would never know this.
        America, as founded, has been THE ONLY "Outside the box" thinking in recorded human history. The idea of a Constitution that limits and restricts government from "coercing" people rather than the other way around, was and still is "Outside the box" thinking.
        Liberals constant assault on individual freedom is not new nor novel. It is the history of the world, and it NEVER stops trying to repeat itself through the manipulation of evil masterminds, and the pull-through of useful idiots.

      • Ty  •  Feb 14, 2017 at 3:19 pm

        Basic income has not really been tried in the US, it has with small pilots in various places and disaster did not ensue. It certainly produces fewer issues than the current welfare state and the disincentives to rise higher and work more.

        Look at the tangled mess of the current welfare state

        Now conservatives, being the lazy dullard thinkers that they are, will look at that and think to themselves, better to do NOTHING !!!!! Better to stripe every redistribution scheme under the sun from government because of the widely believed FLAWLESS Logic of:

        Policies A-F did not work ergo, Policy Y CANNOT work.

        … Stop sniffing paint is my reaction to that "logic"

        You do not KNOW some new policy will not work until it is actually TESTED in the real world, you see, liberals are not as arrogant as conservatives, they do not presume they are omniscient beings that have all answers for all time laid down in the thought processes of the founders or GOD.

        And btw, universal healthcare schemes, which we do not have for all people in the US, exist in multiple countries around the world in multiple forms, and they do just fine. IF they were SO terrible you might expect people dying in the streets of France or the UK, or Canada, or Singapore, or Germany, or Sweden. It is a LIE when conservatives suggest UHC schemes have been tried and failed.

        You may not LIKE the way they operate, you may not LIKE that TERRIBLE aspect of having some of your tax dollars going to subsidize the health cost of your fellow man (conservatives are certainly NOT their brothers keeper when it comes to such things, free for all, live or die, as long as not a penny comes from ME – lovely attitude), but their operation and success is real with multiple examples.

        BTW, same with Israel, universal healthcare, Is Israel a socialist/communist hell hole? Do people not have property rights? Does Israel NOT have a dynamic economic because they socialize one aspect of the society? Paying for the health of their citizenry and subsidizing the cost of those who cannot afford treatment? Are they AWFUL people because in that ONE sphere of LIFE itself, they do not retreat to PURE meritocracy and social darwinism that treats the sum total of the worth of a man and their ability to get care with something so debased as their ability to pay?

        Please. Conservatives have far more to answer for than liberals. The worst you can accuse liberals of, is that we tried some programs that failed. Conservatives are not even interested in trying. Once we get liberals more into the mindset of pruning the failures, they will be even better than what they are now, more interested in helping people thrive with an eye on the efficacy of their programs and policies.

      • Rizzo  •  Feb 15, 2017 at 10:19 pm

        You claim not to be striving for Utopia, but one of the earliest concepts of guaranteed income, universal healthcare and a pervasive welfare state comes from non other than Thomas Moore's "Utopia". So, it is quite clear, that liberals have no unique and "outside the box" ideas.

        Your ideas and arguments ring as hollow today as any liberal argument ever has… "Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."
        -Frédéric Bastiat

        Liberals NEVER say: Policy A-F didn't work, so let's try Y instead. It's always let's add policy Y to the already failed A-F policies. Because like Milton Friedman said, "Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program."

        You libs are real "outside the box" thinkers when it comes to school choice, or right to work… If any plan doesn't involve more money flowing to Washington, you libs are 100% predictably against it.

        Libs main problem is they have the undying belief that government should solve EVERY problem. I will ask you… Is there any problem that government can't solve?
        Have you ever actually seriously analyzed the problems that government causes by creating these so-called policy solutions? I suspect not. The liberal answer is almost ALWAYS send more money and less freedom in return… always for the common good, of course.

        If government is so benevolent, as you believe… to guarantee basic minimum income, then perhaps government should dictate maximum income levels too. Who does money belong to? Is it the guy who earned it or the government's, who printed it? What is the maximum percent of someone's money that government should be allowed to confiscate for the "common good"? What you want is what is classically referred to as Legal Plunder. It is easy to identify… put simply, legal plunder is when the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

        If, as you have suggested, "the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?"
        -Frédéric Bastiat

        The Founders and the Framers never claimed to know everything and they never tried to solve every possible problem/issue that was ever going to happen. But they knew one thing for sure, and that's the Tyrannical nature of government. They wrote a Constitution, not to restrain us, but to restrain government. Government, especially centralized federal government, was to be viewed with suspicion… Unfortunately, The Founders and Framers never could have envisioned the liberals of today who WORSHIP IT.

      • Ty  •  Feb 20, 2017 at 1:17 am

        Virtually no liberal believes government should solve every problem, we just think they can help solve some better than the absence of government policy, and ergo should intervene to solve certain (not all) problems.

        I do not want maximum income levels. This is another LIE conservatives believe about liberals. I am not bothered by the success of other people. I think that's great, I do not want to limit the maximum wealth or income of anyone. What I DO want is to tax peoples incomes to socializes SOME services that promote… wait for it…. the general welfare. I know, I know, NONE of the founders thought THAT was a good idea right?

        And spare me your endless tirades about not being "free" because upper end tax rates are 35% vs 33% or 28%, or because some of your tax dollars were spent in ways you disapprove of. Where do you think you live? Candy land? Where every policy under the sun is exactly what you'd prefer? You live in a democracy, among millions of people that have VERY different priorities for how to wield or constrain government than you do. Not getting your ideal way does not mean we are in a tyranny, it means you are reacting like a spaz who rapes the memory of people who actually endured misery and DEATH in communist countries that REALLY restricted the freedoms of men.

      • Rizzo  •  Feb 20, 2017 at 4:12 pm

        Virtually no Leftist believes government should solve every problem?

        According to the Office of the Federal Register, in 1998, the Code of Federal Regulations(CFR), the official listing of all regulations in effect, contained a total of 134,723 pages in 201 volumes that claimed 19 feet of shelf space. In 1970, the CFR totaled only 54,834 pages.

        Twenty years ago saw the release of the first edition of Ten Thousand Commandments, an annual report that tracks the cost and scope of the federal regulatory state. It’s been a very busy two decades for Washington, with 81,883 new regulations hitting the books during that time. That’s a new regulation every two hours and nine minutes—24 hours per day, 365 days per year, for 20 years.
        The total estimated burden is now up to $1.8 trillion per year, or roughly half the size of the federal budget. This is larger than Canada’s entire economy.

        The Federal Register is a daily digest that lists all new proposed and final rules, along with other federal documents. The last two decades have seen nearly 1.43 million Federal Register pages published. The Obama administration is responsible for three of the four highest page counts, including a record 81,405 pages in 2011.

        So, I ask again… How free are you really? And which problems exactly does government NOT aim to "Solve"?

        This doesn't even include, state and local regulations. You must live in a fantasy world, my leftist friend.

  5. Becky lee  •  Feb 14, 2017 at 3:21 pm

    Today I turned in to listen to your radio show there were nothing but commercials and some weird talk show, what happened?

  6. Keith  •  Feb 19, 2017 at 1:31 am

    Rizzo, I can say that you truly do not understand conservatives or conservatism, based on your arguments.

    I'm not going to resort to any sort of broad, derogatory statements about Leftists (I call you Leftist, not Liberal), as you have done towards the Right. But, I will address a couple of things that stood out to me when I skimmed through some of your posts.

    You accuse conservatives of being nihilistic. However, it is your side that wants to "fundamentally transform" the nation. That means completely redoing. Conservatives want to preserve and defend that which works and has stood the test of time. We want it to continue. There is nothing nihilistic about that.

    You said that conservatives are uncharitable because they would reject a government tax to take the homeless, put them into some sort of care facility or home, and get them off the streets. a) Conservatives statistically give 30% more of their income to charity than do people on the Left. This makes sense, considering the Right's greater religiosity. b) You seem to be advocating a policy that would make the gov't take homeless people off the streets, sometimes against their wills. Do you want the government to force homeless people into shelters? This would seem to be the sort of thing that shows the difference in our mindsets. The government can exert its power against the people's liberty, as long as its intentions are good, yes?

    You accused conservatives of being cynical because we do not trust the elected officials to do the right thing. Did I understand you correctly? All throughout the world, we see the results, the awful results, of over-reaching governments. Even democratically elected governments can become tyrannical, sometimes through the benignity of "We're from the government and we are here to help." John Dalberg-Acton famously said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." This shows a knowledge of human history and human nature. Anything else shows naivety about those same two subjects.

    I could philosophically go after a lot of your specifics, but I'd be here all day and I hate getting into tiring, unending debates. You should call Dennis Prager during his radio show. Tell him some of what you have told us here. You have faith in your convictions? Then test them against a preeminent conservative thinker.

    Anyway, I pray your mindset goes the way of the dinosaur, but that will require a fierce battle from my side, and we are not willing to fight, march, protest, burn, ransack, block, interfere, character-assassinate, etc., etc., the way your side does.

    • Keith  •  Feb 19, 2017 at 1:35 am

      Rizzo, forgive me. That should have been addressed to Ty.

      • Rizzo  •  Feb 19, 2017 at 10:46 am

        No problem… you correctly point out, today, the term liberal is a misnomer. They are indeed leftist, socialists.
        As for Ty's understanding of conservatives and conservatism, perhaps Mark Twain said it best: "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
        He only knows and understands conservatism through the filthy and inacurate lens of MSNBC and Rachel Maddow.

      • Ty  •  Feb 20, 2017 at 2:04 am

        No Rizzo, I understand conservatism by listening to conservatives. I've been listening to Michael Medved since he was promoting Right Turns on the radio. And first heard Prager around the same time. I've heard Larry Elder, Al Rantel, Hannity (had to turn that off since he's for the shill conservatives), O'reilly, Levin. I hear conservative callers chime in on issue after issue, I know what they think, I know what they value.

        One of the greatest conceits of the conservative mind is that if liberals ONLY heard conservative ideas, we'd all line up on the side of conservatism ourselves, and for the ones that do not, we are all statist that have some deep seeded desire to control others. Keep thinking that buddy.

        Conservatives only give a damn about promoting freedom from, care about some of that too, but pay more attention to another very important type of freedom. Freedom to.

    • Ty  •  Feb 20, 2017 at 1:50 am

      I think I understand conservatism quite well, I just reject it's modern form because I see no intrinsic virtue in trying to conserve aspects of our society that do not deserve conserving.

      The conservative argument during the civil rights movement would have been to go slower, don't rock the boat, don't try to fundamentally transform society. Notice, those lines of argument say NOTHING about the merits of the current systems and society, it just plays on any rapid alterations or deviations from the current standards being ill advised and destructive. Why? The liberal position during that time was pro civil rights, and the liberals were right. If conservatism had its way people would still be in chains.

      This does NOT mean that a liberal wants to change everything, I think most aspects of the nation in modern times work relatively well. But not everything. I do not see employer based healthcare as something worth preserving as some SACRED model of perfection that CANNOT be allowed to be deviated from.

      Why do you think that is some virtue? Why is trying to conserve EVERYTHING noble and good? And if you do NOT want to conserve EVERYTHING about our current structures, what do you want to change? One of the big lies and distortions from demagogues like Prager is that people on the left want to fundamentally change what is good and works about this nation. That's bull. I fight plenty of people farther to my left on things I think do NOT need changing, and conservatives on my right about things I think DO need to change.

      Did you catch that? I want to fundamentally change things that are NOT WORKING well in the nation. NOT the things that are working. Now to people like Prager, virtually nothing needs to fundamentally change, because America where it current is is more or less an ideal already. And to the extent it's not, that's ONLY because of things the left did.

      How convenient. What an honest arbiter that is. And you all eat that up like it's cotton candy, he told you exactly what you wanted to hear.

      But I'll leave you with this. Those abolitionists, and civil rights marchers? Those were LIBERALS. They wanted to "fundamentally change" how America treated black people. Is that clear Mr Conservative? If you hear nothing else I've said, read the following and take it in.

      There is no intrinsic virtue in conserving something about a nation, or changing something about a nation. The right policy could be to keep something as is because it is working well or to change it because it is not or conflict with other goals we have. People like Prager are stuck on conservation, and he's convinced an awful lot of you that people like me, a moderate liberal, are the radicals because we are not dumb enough to want to conserve everything and change nothing.

    • Chaplain Steve  •  Mar 1, 2017 at 9:31 am

      Keith: You need to run for Congress….. You'd be a breath of fresh air.

  7. Rizzo  •  Feb 20, 2017 at 7:16 am

    When there is something worth fundamentally changing, we conservatives will let you misguided leftists know. Because, it was we conservatives, who exist ONLY in The Republican Party, that ended slavery and HEAVILY supported civil rights. Because, we conservatives, found it 100% necessary to promote and conserve the idea of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.
    And just so you leftists know and understand, not every issue that you support is "Civil Right".
    It's a convenient and lazy argument.
    Lastly, if you don't like the employer-based healthcare model, figure out a better model, and people will flock to it. Don't have your government thugs jam mud down our throats and insist that it's Chocolate cake.

    • Ty  •  Feb 20, 2017 at 2:26 pm

      The republican party was the more liberal party when it pushed to end slavery. Times have changed.

      I think I've posted this before but I always like to highlight it and bring it up when deceit factories like Dinesh distort history to show the intrinsic racism from the democratic party and the noble pedigree of the republican party on issues like slavery and early civil rights.

      Using the vote totals in Congress for the 1964 civil rights bill as a bellwether for party support for or antagonism towards the issues of civil rights (a continuation of the issues from the fall of slavery).

      Dinesh misrepresented reality. He only talked about democrats being racists and using the state to constrain people. But the key variable is not whether one was a democrat or republican in determining support for the civil rights bill, The key variable was based on REGION !!!!!!!

      80% of republicans voted for the civil rights bill
      63% of democrats voted for the civil rights bill

      95% of SOUTHERN (old confederate states) democrats voted against the bill
      100% of SOUTHERN republicans (the one in the region at the time) voted against the bill

      98% of NORTHERN democrats voted for the civil rights bill
      84% of NORTHERN republicans voted for the civil rights bill

      The Greater center of mass to blacks being free and not enslaved, to having civil rights and not living under the STATES RIGHTS of Jim Crow was in the north and not the south, that was FAR more determinant than one being a republican or democrat.

      And guess where those children of the old confederacy vote now? Almost uniformly republican. Those southerns were BITTER over Johnsons Civil Rights bill, HATED it, HATED being told they had to desegregate the schools, and the long campaigns of the southern strategy flipped the south from mostly democrat to mostly republican. You want to find loons talking about the war of northern aggression? They are mostly in the south, and guess what party they identify with more? The republican party, the party of Lincoln is now filled with the descendants of the confederacy.

      It was a LIBERAL impulse to alter society for the better, and when the republicans were pushing for the 14th amendment, they were liberals. They have changed.

      • Rizzo  •  Feb 20, 2017 at 3:31 pm

        Wrong again Ty… When Republicans pushed for the 14th. Ammendment it was to Conserve, as Lincoln believed… to reaffirm the principles of The Founders and The Declaration of Indpendence, "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
        The Civil War was fought to Preserve and Conserve The Union.
        Now go tell your leftist fables to Robert Byrd.

    • Rizzo  •  Feb 21, 2017 at 6:14 pm

      Descendants of the Confederacy? Hmm…. interesting.
      You mean like the ones who voted for Samuel Tilden (1876), Winfield Hancock (1880), Grover Cleveland (1884, 1888, 1892), William Bryan (1896, 1900), Alton Parker (1904), and so on and so on and so on…. ALL DEMOCRATS. Then more recently, Adlai Stevenson, John Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton twice.
      For MOST of US History, post-Civil War, "The Descendants of the Confederacy", voted for Democrats. Or, is it, the South is only Racists when they vote Republican? And, how about all the times the North has voted for a Republican, or the entire country voted for Reagan? I guess they are all racists too. That's how leftist liberals play… heads I win, tales you lose.
      The history of slavery, Jim Crow, Anti-Civil Rights, etc. belongs almost solely to the Democrat party. OWN IT.
      The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist… and the greatest deception the Democratic Party ever pulled was convincing the US that they aren't the true descendants of pro-slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, racism.

  8. S.D. listener  •  Feb 20, 2017 at 2:44 pm

    Ty, as someone who reads the comments section of both right and left websites I always appreciate someone who challenges the prevailing ideology on a website to get a good discussion going. However, the day after you brought up the homeless issue Michael again devoted an hour to it, it must be good for ratings. Michael has beat this issue to death. Somehow he sees himself as a victim of the homeless. He apparently lives on a nice pleasant suburban island community where he doesn't have to worry about his home being mistakenly targeted by a police SWAT team or something like that. Yet when he leaves his island for one of his frequent visits to the Hawaian Islands the homeless always seem to spoil the trip. One time he posted an article by his wife complaining about a homeless man on the ground right at an entrance to an upscale boutique near the beach had spoiled the ambience of the scene. The other day he complained that a homeless shelter nearby his studio sometimes had visits from ambulances with sirens sounding. For someone with a net worth of over 35 million, it shouldn't be that hard to find a better studio location. Many conservative politicians receive campaign donations from the private prison industry, so putting the homeless in jail every so often helps meet the required quota % of prison cells filled and keeps the campaign contributions coming. So Ty, conservatives do pay taxes to deal with this problem just in a more punitive way.

    And Becky Lee, there does seem to be an extra ad now, the personal one from Michael about pain relief that leads into the regular ads. Also, about 2 years ago the radio network dropped the motto "intelligent talk radio" for a more ideological hard-line "the answer" motto. This may have caused some dropoff in non-conservative listeners, as here in middle-of-the-road San Diego we no longer get the 3rd hour of this show on the radio.

  9. Rizzo  •  Feb 25, 2017 at 10:44 am

    Ty… I don't expect that you will comprehend this, but PLEASE try.

    "I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men, all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest; his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind. As for the rest of his fellow citizens, he is close to them, but he does not see them; he touches them, but he does not feel them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country. 
    Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living? 
    Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things;it has predisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits. 
    After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."
    ― Alexis de Tocqueville

    “I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
    ― James Madison

  10. S.D. listener  •  Feb 27, 2017 at 6:16 pm

    Republicans of Lincoln's time were descended from the Federalist & Whig parties. Lincoln's main concern was to preserve the Union (the phrase "national security" was a term made common by his Secretary of War). The Constitution doesn't address the possibility of secession — it was a practical matter that The Confederacy would be fertile soil for European Powers (Spain, France. England) to try to re-colonize a state like Texas or Florida that concerned Lincoln. The idea of "Manifest Destiny" also had taken hold, that it was kind of God's will that the U.S. should expand to the Pacific ocean. Lincoln himself originally favored sending freed slaves to a new country in Africa, he certainly wasn't a "Radical Republican", the most anti-slavery Republicans of the time. Many Northern workers were anti-slavery because they faced competition from cheaper products made by Southern slaves. Most Union troops, even those opposed to slavery, refused to fight alongside black Union regiments, Segregation continued in the North well into the 20th century.

    The Democratic party (descended from the Democratic-Republicans) quickly became the party of state's rights and limited gov't. Jefferson himself struggled with the constitutionality of the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. While most Southerners weren't slaveowners, many whites (even free blacks) aspired to be. And other whites saw freed slaves as economic competitors and a threat to the higher status of whites. Slave states enacted fugitive slave acts (based on the laws that slaves were property) requiring slaves who had escaped to a non-slave state to be returned to the owner of the property. Helping a slave escape was considered aiding in property "theft". Strict constructionists felt compelled to follow the definition of property according to where the slave was from; dissenting opinions would quote European court decisions where a slave became free if now in a province where slavery was not allowed. Since slavery had become economically vital to the South, it became a traditional institution of Southern heritage. Southern Christians whose views were based on traditional Biblical interpretations did not see the Bible forbidding slavery, in fact Philomen is about returning a slave to it's owner. The Southern Baptists left the national Baptists over this issue. More libertarian types like Jefferson treated his slaves more like servants and actually did grant one of his slaves his freedom. Jackson had a free black "sidekick" and paid for the college education of one of his slaves. Both were Democrats.

    If you define liberals as more willing to embrace gov't solutions to problems and conservatives more of the limited gov't view and apply these labels to the 19th century, you can say the radical Republicans fit the liberal category. Libertarian conservatives of today would probably have opposed slavery. Social conservatives in the South would not have, as protecting traditional values and institutions included slavery. While some atheists might have supported slavery, the more intellectual secular "free-thinkers" and religious liberals were definitely leading the charge against slavery.

    As for the 1964 Civil Rights, the opposition was overwhelmingly from Southern politicians of both parties. In the U.S. Senate, only 5 of 32 N. Republicans were opposed. Only one N. Democrat of 46 voted against: Robert Byrd of W.VA.

  11. Rizzo  •  Feb 27, 2017 at 7:40 pm

    One caveat to your statement about opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights vote, and that is the House had 10 southern Republicans, and only one in the senate.
    The bottomline is far more Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than Republicans, and without strong Republican support, the act does not pass.
    And, I would be remiss if I failed to mention the 83 day, Democrat-lead filibuster of the act.

Tell Us What You Think

All fields required. The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this website you agree to accept our Terms of Use.


Listen Commercial FREE  |  On-Demand
Login Join
Advertise with us Advertisement

Follow Michael

The Michael Medved Show - Mobile App

Download from App Store Get it on Google play
Listen to the show on your amazon echo devices
Michael Medved's History Store Also available on TuneIn