Looking to understand something American

[jerome1232]

I think part of the confusion is that, I believe, most American conservatives are socially conservative, economically liberals.

[Drpepper]

One big difference is that you know how on tv you see people jumping up and down excitedly like their at a Pink concert, waving American flags and various celebrities endorsing their favourite candidate. Well you won't see that in Australia. We just throw cans of beer at our politicians.

What I wouldn't mind knowing is can the current Party just throw out their leader( meaning the President of the United States) and opt for a new one within the specified 4 year term at any time. We have just had that here twice?

[Lakumi]

One big difference is that you know how on tv you see people jumping up and down excitedly like their at a Pink concert, waving American flags and various celebrities endorsing their favourite candidate. Well you won't see that in Australia. We just throw cans of beer at our politicians.

What I wouldn't mind knowing is can the current Party just throw out their leader( meaning the President of the United States) and opt for a new one within the specified 4 year term at any time. We have just had that here twice?

we throw pies:lol:

[jerome1232]

One big difference is that you know how on tv you see people jumping up and down excitedly like their at a Pink concert, waving American flags and various celebrities endorsing their favourite candidate. Well you won't see that in Australia. We just throw cans of beer at our politicians.

What I wouldn't mind knowing is can the current Party just throw out their leader( meaning the President of the United States) and opt for a new one within the specified 4 year term at any time. We have just had that here twice?

The president of the US has to commit a crime to get impeached afaik, I don't believe he can just be removed because his own party doesn't like him any more.

[Drpepper]

The president of the US has to commit a crime to get impeached afaik, I don't believe he can just be removed because his own party doesn't like him any more.

Well there's a difference. We've learnt here that it doesn't really matter who you vote for they can be thrown out the next day. Might as well have monkeys campaign with little red hats and a drum...

[mnn727]

What I wouldn't mind knowing is can the current Party just throw out their leader( meaning the President of the United States) and opt for a new one within the specified 4 year term at any time. We have just had that here twice?

No, the candidate is the winner Not the party.

[Guest]

Anatess, I appreciate your perspective coming from a foreign country. While you are correct on certain things some things about your definition just don't feel right.

I found this list and I think it's accurate for the U.S.

Is there anything here you disagree with?

Conservatism Vs. Liberalism - Home

Okay, here's the explanation of WHY these are Conservative and Liberal views and my own commentary. This is actually a great discussion. It clearly shows in most cases how both Conservative and Liberal viewpoints may come from opposing philosophies but both have merit when one tries to understand "why" they follow such a philosophy.

C- Families know best how to raise their children. They need to be strengthened and have the right to raise their children the way they want.

L- It takes a “village” not a family to raise a child. Families need government help and oversight. Cradle to grave involvement is optimal.

C - The family IS the society of the child until he becomes a voting member of the Society (State) and can then have the attendant moral contribution to the majority.

L - The child, is an individual, therefore, he needs to be liberated from those families who are not capable of providing what is good for the individual.

C-Society is composed of individuals to be judged on their individual merit. Values individualism, self-reliance, and independence.

L-Sees society as composed of groups: black vs. white, old vs. young, rich vs. poor, male vs. female. These groups are pitted against each other. Stirs up racial and class envy and division.

C - The Society is a collection of individuals. The Society can only be as strong as its weakest member. Therefore, for the Society to be a functioning unit, each individual must be able to contribute to the Society. The Society's moral, political, economic, etc. principles are determined by the moral, political, economic state of the majority of its members. Individualism is, therefore, a necessary trait - to be able to stand on good principles against a ruling majority to be able to effect change.

L - This is not a liberal viewpoint. This is a Political ploy to get votes. I've dealt with this type of political campaigning growing up (Marcos era). The actual liberal viewpoint is - each individual comes with their own individual class and culture that the Society needs to recognize. The Society, therefore, cannot impose any rule that does not take into account each individual class and culture. So when a group is pitted against another, it is not to divide them but to have one group recognize the individual traits of the other group so rules cannot be made that would make one group rule over the other (e.g. whites rule over blacks, rich rule over poor, etc., or vice versa).

C-Individuals are responsible for themselves and their actions. Crime should be punished. Evil exists and good should fight against it.

L-Society is responsible for individuals. Man is inherently good and something causes him to do wrong.

They talk about how we need to change society when someone does wrong. Even terrorists need to be understood.

C - This is not a conservative viewpoint. This is a human philosophical viewpoint that is shared by most humans, regardless of whether they are conservatives or liberals.

L - The first sentence is liberal - but it is not clearly stated. The good of the individual trumps that of Society, therefore, Society has a moral obligation to promote the welfare of each individual and even rehabilitate those who have done misdeeds. The rest is not a liberal viewpoint (although it touches on the first sentence). It is a human philosophical viewpoint that is shared by the utopian crowd. It just so happens that a lot of utopians are also liberals (refer to my commentary on the first sentence).

C-Limit to how much can be taken from people to give to others. Welfare should help people to become independent (not dependent) and given to those truly incapable of taking care of themselves.

L- Supports welfare state. Government is morally justified taking from those that have and giving it to others because people are entitled to basic needs including housing, food, healthcare, income, etc. even if they are able to work.

This is classic liberal and conservative ideals.

C - The good of Society trumps the individual. For this to work, each individual must be contributors to the Society. The good of Society is compromised when the number of contributors becomes fewer and fewer. Now, in a Society of 5 members where 4 members are contributors and 1 member has no means to support himself, it is to the benefit of Society to provide aid to the 1 member. Why? Because, when that 1 member has to choose between hunger or crime, he is more likely to choose a life of crime against the Society.

L - As I've stated in the previous section, the good of the individual trumps that of Society, therefore, Society has a moral obligation to promote the welfare of each individual.

C- Promotes equal justice.

L- Promotes social justice.

(Travon Martin anyone?)

Equal justice and Social justice are apolitical philosophies so I'll answer this with a juxtaposition...

In conservatism where the attendant moral traditions of Society trumps that of the individual, each individual must, therefore, be subject to equal justice regardless of your social standing. Liberalism also promotes equal justice. But when the Society's rule becomes unjust to each individual due to their social standing, equal justice is not possible. To correct this imbalance, social justice is applied to achieve equality. Although, I don't get why Trayvon is highlighted...

C-Competition is good.

L- Competition is unfair.

These are not conservative/liberal positions nor are these political philosophies. These are differing ideologies in the running of a free market. Conservatives and Liberals hold that competition is good in certain cases and bad in others. In which cases is where each differ.

C-Supports lower taxes for all because people have a right to what they earn.

L-Supports progressive taxation with high taxes for the rich in an attempt to equalize incomes through redistribution of earnings.

C - I've covered this above. The Society is only as strong as the weakest individual, therefore, each individual must be given every opportunity to become a contributor to society. Progressive taxation can be applied to help the weakest get out of the rut.

L - I've covered this one too. The welfare of each individual trumps the Society, therefore, it is better for a society to have everybody in middle class than to have a society with a very poor member.

C-Less government is better. Wants only necessary regulation of business, economy, and individual lives, resulting in more freedom.

L-More government is better. Many regulations are necessary to achieve a more fair & just society which is government’s primary role, resulting in less freedom.

Less government is better for a Conservative because... remember... Society trumps the Individual - if the government is huge, the Society will stifle the Individual. The Liberal viewpoint does not necessarily want big government. It only becomes so in the USA because of the Federal versus the State dynamic which makes it so that the Federal government gets to make laws to liberate the individual from the State. The amount of freedom is subjective. I can tell that this little bit is written by a conservative because it assigns more freedom to Conservatism. A liberal would read this and think - if that is the case, then why do they want to put laws against a man's freedom to marry another man? See what I mean?

C-Limited federal government with more power given to state and local governments.

L-Powerful centralized federal government with limited state and local control.

(This is a point you made Anatess that I agree with)

Okay, I won't expound on this one. Besides, it is covered by the one preceding this.

C-People and property rights are more important than environment. Supports conservation and development and use of our natural resources along with the development of green technology by private enterprise and when it is economically feasible and self-sustaining. Opposes cap and trade due to its high cost and negative impact on our businesses and way of life.

L-Environment more important than people and property rights. Supports rationing and limiting access to natural resources. Focuses on green technology subsidized by the government. Supports cap and trade to redistribute and control energy usage.

C - This is not a conservative viewpoint. It is a Republican viewpoint. But even then, the first line is incorrectly stated. The environment is not less important than property rights. The environment is very important but due to property rights, the obligation of "green" environment is handed to each individual property owner.

L - This is also not a liberal viewpoint. It is a Democrat viewpoint.

C-Wealth is good. All have an opportunity to be wealthy (The American dream). Creates a better life for all through entrepreneurship.

L-Wealth is bad and unfair. Promotes class warfare.

C - Also not an exclusively Conservative viewpoint. It's a viewpoint shared by all free people who desire to be wealthy. I can name several in my ward - all conservatives - who have expressed in many a Gospel Doctrine class that wealth is bad.

L - Not a Liberal viewpoint (I can tell that this one is also written by a Conservative). Liberal viewpoint posits that wealth is bad if it is gotten through the backs of other people's hard work that has no opportunity to attain wealth. Liberals do not promote class warfare (although several Democrats do to gain votes) unless it is to point out the unfairness of a society of wealthy people working off the backs of poor people.

C-Equal opportunity without discrimination. Recognizes people make different choices with what they have and that it isn't government's role to make things fair. Doesn’t seek equal outcomes.

L-Equal results through such things as quotas, free college, and equal pay for unequal work. Government has to level the playing field in order to have equal opportunity. Seeks equal outcomes.

C - Society trumps the Individual. You can be rich or poor, black or white, bright or dumb. Doesn't matter as long as you comply with the traditions of society.

L - Individual trumps the Society. I mentioned this before - it is better to have a society where every member is in middle class than to have a society where there are very poor people. Therefore, quotas, free college, etc., gives the very poor opportunity to rise as individuals. Seeks equal outcomes is as liberal as you can get. Now, about government leveling the playing field - that's not liberal, that's American. Both conservatives and liberals share that view. The American ideal is that every American is given equal opportunity to achieve happiness.

C- Supports healthcare reform that gives consumers choices.

L - Supports government takecover of healthcare and limiting of consumers' choices.

Also not a conservative/liberal viewpoint. This is purely Republican/Democrat viewpoint.

The Conservative/Liberal viewpoint on healthcare is this:

C - The Society benefits from healthy individuals. It is, therefore, good to Society to provide healthcare for its unhealthy members. Now, in American application, the Society is the States, not the Federal Government. So, you will see conservative people promoting the platform of giving the responsibility for healthcare solutions to the State Government.

L - Individual welfare includes healthcare. Therefore, just like the society is responsible for promoting welfare services to individuals, it is also responsible for healthcare services. Now, in American application, it really doesn't matter much for a liberal where the healthcare service comes from as long as there is one and it covers every individual regardless of work status.

C-Judicial restraint with strict interpretation of laws according to the Constitution and original intent.

L-Judicial activism: enacting social policy changes via court rulings. Constitution is seen as outdated and in need of change.

Also not a conservative/liberal viewpoint but a Republican/Democrat viewpoint.

There's no conservative/liberal take on this one.

C-Free market economy.

L-Government regulation of economy.

Also not a conservative/liberal viewpoint but Republican/Democrat viewpoint and even then it is wrong. Republicans do not promote free-market economy. They promote less regulation of capitalistic endeavors limited to the maintenance of healthy competition and consumer rights. Free-market means unregulated and not a single popular Republican is for that.

C -Free market creates jobs.

L -Government creates jobs.

Also not a conservative/liberal viewpoint but Republican/Democrat viewpoint but more importantly the difference between Keynesian Economics and Hayek Economics. It just so happens that the greatest proponents of Keynesian Economics in American History are Democrats (not all of them are). But, as far as liberalism goes, if an individual cannot find the means to support himself through private enterprise, it is the obligation of society to step in and find a way for the individual to support himself by a job in the public area or get some welfare assistance.

C-Business is good: creates jobs & improves lives. Let free market supply and demand adjust practices and employers and employees determine wages/benefits.

L-Business is evil: out to exploit employees, environment, and consumers. Needs to be regulated to protect consumers, employees, and the environment. Government regulates employee benefits.

Okay, this is another one written by a conservative. It is an American tradition to believe that Business is Good and that it creates jobs and improve lives. It is not limited to just conservatives. Liberals do not believe that Business is Evil. Liberals believe that Businesses are forms of Society and that Individual welfare trumps that of the Society (in this case the Business). Liberals, therefore, desire for an individual worker oppressed by an evil business to be freed from it.

C-Traditional morality including traditional family and values. Absolute standards of right and wrong. Absolute truth. Sees standing against wrong as a moral duty.

L-Tolerance of all lifestyles & beliefs except those that hold views they consider to be intolerant. No absolute standards of right and wrong. Moral relativism.

C - of course. Society moral standards trumps that of the individual - the majority better know what the absolute standard of right and wrong are as they get to make their moral standards the rule of law.

L - of course. The Individual moral standard trumps that of the Society as long as it abides by the rule of law.

C-Right to free speech must be supported even if it offends.

L-Right to free speech is limited to speech that does not offend. (Political correctness)

Another one written by a conservative. Have you ever heard of a liberal politician trying to change the first amendment to be limited to only those that does not offend? And have you ever heard of a liberal talk show commentator that tries not to offend a conservative?

C-Peace through strength via a strong military.

L - Peace through appeasement, cooperation, and understanding others' views. Dislikes showing and exercising strength.

Not liberal versus conservative but Obama versus everybody else.

C-Supports a missile defense system.

L-Opposes a missile defense system.

Nothing to do with liberal or conservative but more to do with Democrat versus Republican.

C-American sovereignty comes before globalism.

L-Globalism comes before American sovereignty.

Also not conservative versus liberal but Democrat versus Republican.

C-Sees America as good: the best hope for the world. Believes in American exceptionalism.

L-Sees America as flawed: racist, homophobic, imperialistic, sexist, ageist and no better than other countries.

Another one written by a conservative. This is not liberal versus conservative. Not even Republican versus Democrat. I'd posit that this is Fox News versus MSNBC.

C-Western cultures are superior to others without rights, freedom, and respect for life.

L-All cultures are equal. Can’t pass judgment on any even if they don’t value freedom, rights, and life.

Another one written by a conservative. Think about this - that girl from Heroes who goes swimming in Japanese waters to save the whales/sharks/can't remember quite what it was she was trying to save... she is a poster child for liberals because of what she did... She passes judgment of Japanese shark/whale/whatever-it-is killers with every breath that she takes. And do you really think the people who are supporting Trayvon think that all cultures are equal? Now, about western cultures being superior to others without rights, freedom, and respect for life... that's not conservative. That's American.

C-God is a necessary part of a moral society. Religion makes people good when they know they have to answer to God.

L-State is secular (without God and hostile to Christianity). Seeks to eliminate references of God through separation of church and state.

C - Society moral tradition trumps Individual. Hence, the Church of England became the law of the land in Britain back in the colonial era. But, in America, you don't have to believe in God or a Religion to be conservative. You just have to be able to comply with the moral traditions of Society. It just so happens that the existing moral tradition is founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

L - of course... Hence America ceded from the Church of England. But no, liberalism is not hostile to Christianity - there are TONS of Christian liberals. Liberalism merely believes that the individual does not have to comply with moral tradition (currently Judeo-Christian) if he doesn't want to as long as the individual complies with the existing rule of law (hence, the desire for liberals to remove laws founded on Judeo-Christian traditions not shared by other religions from the rule of law).

C-Rights emphasized: Freedom, Parental, Property, Religious, Guns, Life.

L-Rights emphasized: Civil, Privacy, Secularism, Reproductive.

The emphasis is not conservative/liberal but Republican/Democrat. Although we can go through each one of those issues and discuss the conservative/liberal viewpoint for each.

Whew. I'm tired. Hope this helps.

Edited July 23, 2013 by anatess

[Windseeker]

I appreciate you taking the time to respond to each of these.

Now please explain Anthony Weiner.

[Guest]

I appreciate you taking the time to respond to each of these.

Now please explain Anthony Weiner.

Oh that one is easy... he's the guy that showed his weiner through private electronic transmissions that became public. That's neither conservative nor liberal. It's... okay, I can't explain where that belongs...

[Lakumi]

that's seriously his name?!

[Windseeker]

that's seriously his name?!

It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.

~William Shakespeare

William says yes

[LittleWyvern]

I can tell that this little bit is written by a conservative...

(I can tell that this one is also written by a Conservative)..

Okay, this is another one written by a conservative...

Another one written by a conservative...

You're more right than you think. It's obvious the author of that list did so to make one group look good and the other group look bad. Elsewhere on the same site, Karla Downing writes:

Fellow patriots, we’ve got a problem. The President, Democrats , RINOS, liberal judges, liberal media, bureaucrats, and Obama Czars are trying to change America...

Towards TalkativeIntrovert's original question, you get more accurate information about any group when you avoid getting that info from the group's rivals/enemies.

[Guest]

You're more right than you think. It's obvious the author of that list did so to make one group look good and the other group look bad. Elsewhere on the same site, Karla Downing writes:

Whoa... did you really read through what I wrote? I mean, as I was writing it, I was thinking to myself, why am I spending time doing this when I can bet my life's savings that nobody will read it... I mean, in my first post on this thread, I try to write a very serious post and I get insulting responses except for Windseeker's. I persevered writing that crazily long post for Windseeker. I feel good that somebody else actually read bits of it...

Edited July 23, 2013 by anatess

[Lakumi]

It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.

~William Shakespeare

William says yes

methinks he was destined to expose his privates to a smartphone:lol:

[LittleWyvern]

Whoa... did you really read through what I wrote? I mean, as I was writing it, I was thinking to myself, why am I spending time doing this when I can bet my life's savings that nobody will read it... I mean, in my first post on this thread, I try to write a very serious post and I get insulting responses except for Windseeker's. I persevered writing that crazily long post for Windseeker. I feel good that somebody else actually read bits of it....

I'm just glad you wrote it. I read that list too and thought "you know, that list seems pretty biased but I'm too lazy to post about what I feel is inaccurate about it." I'm sort of glad that I was lazy now, too, because I don't have as much political smarts as I should and what you wrote is better than whatever I could have written. :)

Edited July 24, 2013 by LittleWyvern
mixed up threads

[Quin]

Broadly in USA terms to follow your own...

Democrats - Liberal - Slur = Communist

Republicans - Conservatices - Slur = Bigot &/or Warmongerer

BOTH are afraid of being seen as not capitalist enough!!! (or "pro-business/ pro small business/ pro etc.)

Those are our 2 MAJOR parties (most funded) but we have dozens of smaller parties from communist to green to libertarians to (et cetera).

To date, because we have no campaign deadlines, only the 2 major parties have a shot (unlike the UK where there are advertising limits).. Because campaigns span years, and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. But any person (over the age limit, & meeting other qualifications) can run, regardless of party affiliation. It's not the party that wins, it's the individual.

Here's some other polarizing / generalizations concerning our 2 main parties:

- If you're a republican under the age of 35 you have no heart /

If you're a democrat over the age of 35 you have no brain

- Democrats = Domestic Policy

Republicans = Foreign policy

- Every few generations the parties SWITCH. Ex: Republicans USED to be socially liberal, and are now socially conservative. & vice versa. We're in one of those switches at present, with the Republican Party focusing on domestic issues while the democrats focus on foreign policy. Also, republicans used to be small government as a party rule, but have been lately trying to get the government involved in areas (like the bedroom as one of many) that they've wanted the govt the heck out of. So it gets infusing for US as well. Case in point... The Reps freed the slaves, and then burned crosses & lynched black voters 100 years later. And democrats are often the laughingstock of international politics, but by the end of Pres. Bush's term the US State department was in a frazzle... Because nation after nation made plain that they would NOT deal with a republican president. I have dear friends who voted Democrat, not because they believe in the Party, but because they were terrified of what would happen on the international stage if another republican was elected. This is historically backwards. Same thing happened to the democrats a couple generations ago. So... Unlike many parties who retain their platforms statically. The US ones almost go 180 every so often.

- Both major parties generally want the same thing, just with 'minor' variations in how to get there.

______

Myself.... I'm a midliner. Meaning I want both foreign & domestic policy, the military & education, small govt & social services. I vote both D & R depending on the particular candidate.

[Windseeker]

The Reps freed the slaves, and then burned crosses & lynched black voters 100 years later.

This is highly inaccurate.

Here are some Republican accomplishments since 1913.

Every founder of the N.A.A.C.P was Republican

Republican President Dwight Eisenhower sent U.S. troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools, established the Civil Rights Commission in 1958, and appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation.

Republicans passed the Civil Rights Acts of the 1950’s and 1960’s with the greatest percentage.

Republican President Richard Nixon instituted the first Affirmative Action program in 1969.

A large majority of Blacks voted for Republicans until 1964 when Barry Goldwater (A principled libertarian) ran for President. He opposed the Civil Rights Act on principle (remember the Republicans passed it that year in a majority compared to the Democrats) believing it a States Rights issue not a Federal issue. That is when the first Black majority voted Democrat and they've voted as a majority for Democrats since them.

I would ask the Quin to please reference any lynching's by Republicans ever. Feel free to go back 500 years.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Windseeker

[mnn727]

Anatess, after reading your list - yes every one of them. It really has very little to do with the reality of politics in America and was no doubt written by a liberal professor - why do I say liberal professor? because they are locked away in their ivory towers pontificating upon theory rather than reality.

Sorry, I am not trying to insult you, I just am dealing with the reality of current politics as the O.P. asked.

[Quin]

This is highly inaccurate.

Here are some Republican accomplishments since 1913.

Every founder of the N.A.A.C.P was Republican

Republican President Dwight Eisenhower sent U.S. troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools, established the Civil Rights Commission in 1958, and appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation.

Republicans passed the Civil Rights Acts of the 1950’s and 1960’s with the greatest percentage.

Republican President Richard Nixon instituted the first Affirmative Action program in 1969.

A large majority of Blacks voted for Republicans until 1964 when Barry Goldwater (A principled libertarian) ran for President. He opposed the Civil Rights Act on principle (remember the Republicans passed it that year in a majority compared to the Democrats) believing it a States Rights issue not a Federal issue. That is when the first Black majority voted Democrat and they've voted as a majority for Democrats since them.

I would ask the Quin to please reference any lynching's by Republicans ever. Feel free to go back 500 years.

LOL... May I introduce you to Mississippi?

And let's not forget 'Bama, North & South Cackilacky, Lousiana, and the whole rest of the blood Red republican Bible Belt in & around the Deep South?

On Violence and Nonviolence: The Civil Rights Movement in*Mississippi | Mississippi History Now. Is only one of thousands of sources pertaining to racial violence in the south in the 60's. the 1960s, that is.

Here's another "fun" one, that's far more politically minded... The literacy "tests" for black voters. Durn near to outright impossible. Veterans of the Civil Rights Movement -- Literacy Tests. Sadly, one of the only ways for black voters in the south to be 'qualified' to vote (or allowed in even the fringes of society (starting organizations, buying land, etc.) was to vote republican whilst being watched (or to allow your name to be used for a white man to vote for you), or become members of the Republican Party. So actual membership in the south isn't really something a person can look at as definitive. A lot of times it was a means to an end. (Same as in other times/places/parties. I'm thinking of the Irish 100 years earlier in NY, but there are plenty of other cases).

As I said... I'm a midliner. Which means I DO vote republican. But it's also kinda silly to say (or intimate) that the republican south didn't participate in racial violence & dirty politics, just because I personally don't Like it or agree with it. Has the Rep party accomplished many great things? Of course. It was also predominantly the Rep party who blocked the civil rights movement like a linebacker at every possible point and opportunity.

All my best!

Quin

[Quin]

By the by... Since the Reps were founded in 1854 (and rhe US in 1776) I was just going to gloss over the 500 year thang... But it's making my teeth itch. Just a bit.

[LittleWyvern]

Republicans passed the Civil Rights Acts of the 1950’s and 1960’s with the greatest percentage.

On this specific issue, the Republican/Democrat distinction isn't very helpful. For the Civil Rights Act of 1964, what you say here is true:

House Votes

Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)

Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

But that hides a different correlation. If you break up the vote between North and South, where South is defined as the former CSA and North is defined as everywhere else, you get this:

House Votes

Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)

Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)

Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)

Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

Thus the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was primarily a North/South thing, not a Republican/Democrat thing.

[Windseeker]

LOL... May I introduce you to Mississippi?

And let's not forget 'Bama, North & South Cackilacky, Lousiana, and the whole rest of the blood Red republican Bible Belt in & around the Deep South?

On Violence and Nonviolence: The Civil Rights Movement in*Mississippi | Mississippi History Now. Is only one of thousands of sources pertaining to racial violence in the south in the 60's. the 1960s, that is.

Here's another "fun" one, that's far more politically minded... The literacy "tests" for black voters. Durn near to outright impossible. Veterans of the Civil Rights Movement -- Literacy Tests. Sadly, one of the only ways for black voters in the south to be 'qualified' to vote (or allowed in even the fringes of society (starting organizations, buying land, etc.) was to vote republican whilst being watched (or to allow your name to be used for a white man to vote for you), or become members of the Republican Party. So actual membership in the south isn't really something a person can look at as definitive. A lot of times it was a means to an end. (Same as in other times/places/parties. I'm thinking of the Irish 100 years earlier in NY, but there are plenty of other cases).

As I said... I'm a midliner. Which means I DO vote republican. But it's also kinda silly to say (or intimate) that the republican south didn't participate in racial violence & dirty politics, just because I personally don't Like it or agree with it. Has the Rep party accomplished many great things? Of course. It was also predominantly the Rep party who blocked the civil rights movement like a linebacker at every possible point and opportunity.

All my best!

Quin

Where are you getting that blacks were forced to vote Republican? Did you even bother to read the link you provided? I don't know how old you are but I was a teenager in the 80's and am well aware that the Bible Belt was a Democratic stronghold up until the post Civil Rights Act.

Please review these maps and take note of the Bible Belt thru the years up until Barry Goldwater. ElectoralMaps.org - Timeline of U.S. Presidential Elections - Popular and Electoral Vote Totals - Courtesy of Wikipedia.org

Lynchings by Year up to 1968

[Windseeker]

By the by... Since the Reps were founded in 1854 (and rhe US in 1776) I was just going to gloss over the 500 year thang... But it's making my teeth itch. Just a bit.

9 out of 10 Dentist would recommend you refrain from itching.

[bytor2112]

Here's another "fun" one, that's far more politically minded... The literacy "tests" for voters.

Might not be a bad idea given the level of informed voters that are bused into vote. I am all for tests...ID cards, age restrictions imposed not only on youth but on the elderly and also restricting voting for those on public assistance.

On Violence and Nonviolence: The Civil Rights Movement in*Mississippi | Mississippi History Now. Is only one of thousands of sources pertaining to racial violence in the south in the 60's. the 1960s, that is.

Why single out the South? Maybe a look at racial violence nationwide would be more fair...

Edited July 25, 2013 by bytor2112

[yjacket]

The history of the US politics is a very tortured affair and can be extremely confusing for foreigners. Originally, in the US liberal meant something akin to someone who wanted more individual freedom, i.e. freedom from government. Sometime around 1900-1930, the definition ended up getting switched to liberal being someone who wanted the government to become more involved enforcing their definition of freedom. So for foreigners the definitions are flipped. US liberal = foreign Labor; US Conservative = foreign liberal.

To really understand what happened, you've got to delve into history. The US was extremely regional at the beginning, mostly between states, but especially between North/South. As a rule of thumb the South was Democrat, which at that time was more State's rights and individual freedom. The North was more Republican and more Federal Government, Public Works, Public Goods focused. The Southern Democrats really held back a stronger Federal government for many, many years. Unfortunately, the south had the slave issue (which is bizarre considering how anti-federal government and pro individual rights they were-one of the oxymorons of history). Once the South was defeated after the Civil War, the Republicans turned the South into a military dictatorship ruled by Republicans (Reconstruction). Southerners didn't forget that for over 100 years.

Even after the Civil War, Southerners were much more State's Right, Individual freedom oriented. But, b/c of Reconstruction they would not vote Republican. That is how FDR ended up winning. As the National Democratic Party turned more liberal (today's term), Southerners keep electing Dixicrats (very conservative politicians in an increasingly more liberal Democratic party). FDR won b/c the South couldn't stand to vote for a Republican, even though FDR was way more liberal than the Southern Congressman. It wasn't until the 1970s and 1980s that the South started voting Republican as Democrats became more and more liberal and the generational memory of Reconstruction faded. Today the South is solid Republican, i.e. more individual liberty focused.

I'd argue that in practical terms today, it's mostly lip-service for both Parties. They both want power and control, just in different areas. Unfortunately, due to the US election policies of winner-take-all and first-past-the-post, plurality elections a viable 3rd party is impossible.