4 ms·

Undermining faith in the government has been a right wing project since riiiight around the time the federal government took a strong role in passing and enforc

Undermining faith in the government has been a right wing project since riiiight around the time the federal government took a strong role in passing and enforcing civil rights law...

krige 5y ago
If you really insist on bringing [american concept of wing] partisanship into this right now we have a really good example of american "left wing" doing the undermining perfectly fine without any extrenal help.
kortilla 5y ago
Nope, it’s been a theme since around the time of the federalist papers.
rayiner 5y ago
Check the vote tallies on those civil rights bills lol.
- PostThisTooFast 5y ago
  Oh boy, here we go with someone ignoring the flipping of party ideologies...
- tptacek 5y ago
  Seriously?
  - rayiner 5y ago
    Yes seriously. Portraying conservative interest in small government as being a result of civil rights enforcement is pure historical revisionism. Hoover’s party advocated small government while FDR’s party advocate big government. Those orientations were in place long before FDR’s party got on board with civil rights. What’s changed isn’t the parties but the valance of civil rights issues. The court cases today aren’t about facially discriminatory laws, but about whether the USDA can discriminate based on race in granting debt relief, or whether Harvard can use race as a criterion for admissions. The party of FDR and Wilson is the natural home for those efforts at bureaucratic social engineering, while the party of Hoover is the natural opponent of such efforts.
    - random314 5y ago
      I don't know why you keep pushing narratives that are borderline asinine. Yes, the Republican party is about "small government" and "civil rights" as exemplified by Mr. Trump and his lackey Stephen Miller.
    - tptacek 5y ago
      What does any of this have to do with the vote tallies on civil rights bills? The modern Republican party is literally defined by opposition to those bills; it was the core of Goldwater's strategy, which set in motion the "ideological sort" of the late 70s and 80s. I probably don't have a beef with your defense of limited government! But obviously you can't use D'Souza-ism to build your case.
      - rayiner 5y ago
        > The modern Republican party is literally defined by opposition to those bills; it was the core of Goldwater's strategy, which set in motion the "ideological sort" of the late 70s and 80s. Goldwater lost in a landslide, losing virtually every traditional Republican state including his home state of Arizona. He won a few southern states, but Carter won all of those same states in 1976. Saying that Goldwater’s civil rights stance defines the modern Republican Party is like trying to call Joe Biden socialist. It’s red meat for Democrats, not historically accurate. The Reagan re-sort was driven by economic development in the southern states, as those states became dependent on low taxes and low regulation to draw business from blue states. Carter won rural Georgia in 1980, but Reagan won up and coming Atlanta suburbs like Gwinnett and Cobb. On race, Reagan ran on opposition to affirmative action, which is completely different than the civil rights laws Goldwater opposed: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/10/10/how-the-reagan-administration-stoked-fears-of-anti-white-racism/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/....
        tptacek 5y ago
        We're on a thread nobody is reading, but obviously I don't think your argument is winnable. Goldwater lost, but Nixon won, on explicitly the same racial strategy. Nor is the chronology of the ideological sort really disputable. Goldwater's civil rights stance defines the modern Republican party. The party has moderated since Goldwater, of course, but Goldwater's positioning literally restructured US politics, from a de facto 4-party state (in the 1970s, Republican support for abortion rights was still an open question! There's a 1970s-era GOP platform where debate on abortion is a plank!) to the 2-party "liberal/conservative" one we have today. Rockefeller wouldn't even be a Kiwanis Republican today; he'd simply be a Democrat. Phil Gramm did become a Republican; in fact, almost every party switcher in the US after the Civil Rights act switched to the GOP, because they were fleeing the Democratic party after the Civil Rights Act. The idea that the modern Democratic party is somehow accountable to votes against civil rights legislation is D'Souza-ism. It ignores the plain fact that those Democrats became Republicans, and, to a lesser extent, a bunch of liberal Republicans became Democrats. You see it clearly in the candidates themselves, but also even more clearly in shifts among voters.

Undermining faith in the government has been a right wing project since riiiight around the time the federal government took a strong role in passing and enforcing civil rights law...

krige 5y ago

If you really insist on bringing [american concept of wing] partisanship into this right now we have a really good example of american "left wing" doing the undermining perfectly fine without any extrenal help.

kortilla 5y ago

Nope, it’s been a theme since around the time of the federalist papers.

rayiner 5y ago

Check the vote tallies on those civil rights bills lol.

PostThisTooFast 5y ago
Oh boy, here we go with someone ignoring the flipping of party ideologies...
tptacek 5y ago
Seriously?
- rayiner 5y ago
  Yes seriously. Portraying conservative interest in small government as being a result of civil rights enforcement is pure historical revisionism. Hoover’s party advocated small government while FDR’s party advocate big government. Those orientations were in place long before FDR’s party got on board with civil rights. What’s changed isn’t the parties but the valance of civil rights issues. The court cases today aren’t about facially discriminatory laws, but about whether the USDA can discriminate based on race in granting debt relief, or whether Harvard can use race as a criterion for admissions. The party of FDR and Wilson is the natural home for those efforts at bureaucratic social engineering, while the party of Hoover is the natural opponent of such efforts.
  - random314 5y ago
    I don't know why you keep pushing narratives that are borderline asinine. Yes, the Republican party is about "small government" and "civil rights" as exemplified by Mr. Trump and his lackey Stephen Miller.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    What does any of this have to do with the vote tallies on civil rights bills? The modern Republican party is literally defined by opposition to those bills; it was the core of Goldwater's strategy, which set in motion the "ideological sort" of the late 70s and 80s. I probably don't have a beef with your defense of limited government! But obviously you can't use D'Souza-ism to build your case.
    - rayiner 5y ago
      > The modern Republican party is literally defined by opposition to those bills; it was the core of Goldwater's strategy, which set in motion the "ideological sort" of the late 70s and 80s. Goldwater lost in a landslide, losing virtually every traditional Republican state including his home state of Arizona. He won a few southern states, but Carter won all of those same states in 1976. Saying that Goldwater’s civil rights stance defines the modern Republican Party is like trying to call Joe Biden socialist. It’s red meat for Democrats, not historically accurate. The Reagan re-sort was driven by economic development in the southern states, as those states became dependent on low taxes and low regulation to draw business from blue states. Carter won rural Georgia in 1980, but Reagan won up and coming Atlanta suburbs like Gwinnett and Cobb. On race, Reagan ran on opposition to affirmative action, which is completely different than the civil rights laws Goldwater opposed: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/10/10/how-the-reagan-administration-stoked-fears-of-anti-white-racism/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/....
      - tptacek 5y ago
        We're on a thread nobody is reading, but obviously I don't think your argument is winnable. Goldwater lost, but Nixon won, on explicitly the same racial strategy. Nor is the chronology of the ideological sort really disputable. Goldwater's civil rights stance defines the modern Republican party. The party has moderated since Goldwater, of course, but Goldwater's positioning literally restructured US politics, from a de facto 4-party state (in the 1970s, Republican support for abortion rights was still an open question! There's a 1970s-era GOP platform where debate on abortion is a plank!) to the 2-party "liberal/conservative" one we have today. Rockefeller wouldn't even be a Kiwanis Republican today; he'd simply be a Democrat. Phil Gramm did become a Republican; in fact, almost every party switcher in the US after the Civil Rights act switched to the GOP, because they were fleeing the Democratic party after the Civil Rights Act. The idea that the modern Democratic party is somehow accountable to votes against civil rights legislation is D'Souza-ism. It ignores the plain fact that those Democrats became Republicans, and, to a lesser extent, a bunch of liberal Republicans became Democrats. You see it clearly in the candidates themselves, but also even more clearly in shifts among voters.