The crowd went off-script!! Fuck!!!
acquiesing to the right on certain issues has been a successful political strategy for the Democrats
and the left continues to tolerate it, mostly because the Republican platform gets more and more odious and unhinged
"while today's 14-year-olds will hit voting age and will certainly not back Republicans in culture wars or other shenanigans"
You seriously think that?
Well you got me again, memedumpster: the South didn't flip to Republican as a response to the Civil Rights Act, the Republicans didn't start practicing a Southern Strategy to appeal to whites with racist sentiments, and the current noise about Obama / Kenya / etc. has no racial component to it whatsoever.
You don't like the fact that there are white racists and Republicans trade on being able to win majorities of white voters by catering to race? Well neither do I, but it is a reality.
Here's an article for you, memedumpster:
Look, even a Republican strategist is acknowledging what I said, that the Republicans have been operating by trying to win white voters almost exclusively.
Bort, I promise I wont single you out again for this, I am starting to feel like a shitheel, since you're completely likable on every other topic I've seen you post about. I'm now pretty sure you're not trolling this, and I did have doubts, so okay, you mean it. I just truly cannot conceive of a "progressive" or "liberal" party, no matter what they are called, that does not care about civil rights and social equality over their own job security. I can't imagine wanting to be a part of that party. I feel like as a Democrat, I should stand up and address opposition and historical politicizing of civil rights. This is my own delusion, and I mean that, as I was raised by hardcore racist Democrats who had no inclination towards such things.
I apologize for trying to bend your political will to my minority opinion and warping the oldest traditions of political parties to cater to a 21st century personal superego. I would like to offer that the president, who I see as a right winger, would probably not agree with your stance on civil rights.
I will leave you alone. I don't pretend to get you, but I acknowledge that I don't.
memedumpster, we see more eye-to-eye than you are recognizing. Note that I said the Civil Rights Act was the worst mistake the Democrats ever made, POLITICALLY. That was a very deliberate qualification. Fifty years on and they're still paying the price in every election; that makes it terrible politics. You and I both agree that the Civil Rights Act was completely the correct course of action on every other level, but nonetheless, the Democrats have been paying a heavy price for it ever since, that has limited their ability to make any further positive changes to the country.
And yes, the Democrats knew this would happen. LBJ predicted they'd lose the South for two generations, but it's looking like it'll be three. So deepest respect to them for their doing the right thing even at cost to their jobs.
That history has everything to do with how I view the Democrats vs. how you (and most other progressive types) do. To you, the Civil Rights Act is ancient history, and the Democrats are just sort of wishy-washy these days. To me, the Democrats are still recovering from the Civil Rights Act, and if they're bending too much to the right, it's because their ranks are still depleted. So I cut them a lot more slack than you do, and genuinely believe that, when more racists die off, the Democrats will regain enough power for more transformative legislation.
So if I want to accelerate that process, what should I do? Well, I figure I should back the living hell out of the Democrats in every election. Even when they're pissing me off -- just get me started on the Rambouillet Agreement, you'll have me going for hours -- I regard that as an aberration that manifests only because the Democrats aren't strong enough to suppress the odd madness. So yeah, consider me a party loyalist, but they bought my loyalty with the Civil Rights Act.
You're an all right guy, and I think I get how you think. I just don't believe you're seeing how the racism of 50 years ago is still a defining element in politics, and will continue to be for a while yet, even as it diminishes.
A thought on demographics I've made before...
The leading edge of the Baby Boomer generation is 66 or 67 years old right now, meaning that they will dominate the political conversation for the next decade at least.
So, the current Republican platform is actually ahead of schedule in pandering to self-centered rich white people, because this decade has only begun to see the batshittery. The shitshow in Tampa happened when they were 50-65 years old, imagine what is going happen when they are 60-75, have more spare time and less tolerance for young people and their craaaazy ideas about equality and tolerance.
I have my gripes with the Baby Boomers, but I think I can say this: the civil rights movement was going on while a number of them were young, so they're probably a bit less racist than the "Greatest Generation" that fought Hitler and then came home to defend Jim Crow. The "Greatest Generation" is the source of today's oldest, cootliest voters who are trailing off into statistical irrelevance.
Not that racism is an either/or, though. Most racists aren't all blatant like this:
The Trayvon Martin case has really exposed a subtler form of racism, with a hell of a lot of people who think it's common sense that, if you see a random black kid in a hoodie, there's a good chance he will cause trouble. (Change just one detail in the Trayvon Martin case -- make Trayvon a white kid -- and everyone everywhere would agree that George Zimmerman was in the wrong.)
My point: I'm imagining there are a lot of Baby Boomers who are fine with blacks who are no more threatening than, say, Tim Meadows, but get seriously weirded out by dreadlocks. And by "imagining" I mean I'm pulling this out of my ass, because there's sure as hell no way to measure this statistically.
John Holmes Motherfucker
>>Well you got me again, memedumpster: the South didn't flip to Republican as a response to the Civil Rights Act, the Republicans didn't start practicing a Southern Strategy to appeal to whites with racist sentiments, and the current noise about Obama / Kenya / etc. has no racial component to it whatsoever.
>>You don't like the fact that there are white racists and Republicans trade on being able to win majorities of white voters by catering to race? Well neither do I, but it is a reality.
Yes, but you know that the President is black, right? Lyndon Johnson knew that the Civil Rights act would cost the Democrats, but we did change the country.
>>My point: I'm imagining there are a lot of Baby Boomers who are fine with blacks who are no more threatening than, say, Tim Meadows, but get seriously weirded out by dreadlocks. And by "imagining" I mean I'm pulling this out of my ass, because there's sure as hell no way to measure this statistically.
I'm 56, and I have all kinds of crazy racist wiring in my head, but I can usually overrride it. Do dreadlocks weird me out? Sure. Would I still have voted for Barak Obama if he had dreadlocks. If he was running against Mitt Romney... or any other Republican, hell yes!
I'm missing how this is somehow a "Democratic" thing. The chair ignored the clear rejection of the platform, said he "heard" a majority, changed it to his will and was basically given nothing but shit over it including an audience of people actually BOOING the inclusion of god into the platform. That is an amazing thing, I think, given how much pandering to religion we normally see.
Great camera work at 1:43.
I think this needs a "wait for it" tag.
He was doing that thing with his voice that Regis Philbin would do with the really dumb celebrities on millionaire. YeeEEESSS? Orrr No. Totally Philbining.
Five stars for bort and meme doing a fagdance. I miss the old days.
"Yah gotta let em do what dey're gunna do!"
The Charlotte Screwjob.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|