I had to laugh today when I read the piece by Paul Waldman in The American Prospect. Waldman's thesis is that the way for Democrats to do better in the South is to be more liberal. I am not kidding. Waldman thinks that the Democrats who have now lost every senate and governor's seat in the southern states aside from Florida (where they still have one) and Virginia (where the government workers in the area around DC has changed the nature of the state) need to move further left if they are to succeed. Only in the DC/NY/Hollywood bubble could anyone even say such a thing with a straight face.
If there were any need to prove that Waldman is stuck in the middle of the bubble, one only need to read this sentence from his article:
Landrieu's loss [in Louisiana]is being described by some as the end point of a process that began in the 1960s, when Democrats became the party of civil rights and white Southerners began their migration to the GOP.
This sentence means that Waldman has no idea of the actual facts and instead uses the liberal fantasy history in his everyday thinking. In the 1960's, there was only one party that opposed civil rights for all Americans: the Democrats. George Wallace, who had blacks beaten by cops, was a Democrat. Lester Maddox, who got elected governor of Georgia by brandishing an ax handle with which he had kept blacks out of his restaurant, was a Democrat. Orville Faubus who fought tooth and nail to keep blacks out of the schools in Little Rock was a Democrat. In fact, every Southern supporter of segregation was a Democrat. When the 1964 Civil Rights act passed, it was because of nearly universal Republican support. When the earlier 1957 Civil Right act passed, it was only over the strident opposition of then Texas senator and Democrat Lyndon Johnson. The members of the Ku Klux Klan who served in Congress or the Senate were all Democrats, the last being senator Byrd who lasted until this past decade. The truth is that all that Democrats did to become the "party of civil rights" was to lie about the past.
Still, while it is amusing to see an article of this sort, I do not want to discourage this sort of thinking. After all, if the Democrats move further to the left, they will guarantee themselves permanent minority status. That sounds fine to me.
If there were any need to prove that Waldman is stuck in the middle of the bubble, one only need to read this sentence from his article:
Landrieu's loss [in Louisiana]is being described by some as the end point of a process that began in the 1960s, when Democrats became the party of civil rights and white Southerners began their migration to the GOP.
This sentence means that Waldman has no idea of the actual facts and instead uses the liberal fantasy history in his everyday thinking. In the 1960's, there was only one party that opposed civil rights for all Americans: the Democrats. George Wallace, who had blacks beaten by cops, was a Democrat. Lester Maddox, who got elected governor of Georgia by brandishing an ax handle with which he had kept blacks out of his restaurant, was a Democrat. Orville Faubus who fought tooth and nail to keep blacks out of the schools in Little Rock was a Democrat. In fact, every Southern supporter of segregation was a Democrat. When the 1964 Civil Rights act passed, it was because of nearly universal Republican support. When the earlier 1957 Civil Right act passed, it was only over the strident opposition of then Texas senator and Democrat Lyndon Johnson. The members of the Ku Klux Klan who served in Congress or the Senate were all Democrats, the last being senator Byrd who lasted until this past decade. The truth is that all that Democrats did to become the "party of civil rights" was to lie about the past.
Still, while it is amusing to see an article of this sort, I do not want to discourage this sort of thinking. After all, if the Democrats move further to the left, they will guarantee themselves permanent minority status. That sounds fine to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment