Perspective: How It All Happened

[Foxfyre]

You were absolutely wrong when you claimed that the South returned to voting Democrat for decades after the 1964 election when the South went for Goldwater.

I don't usually use Wikipedia as a source, but I'm pretty sure they have this right and in its condensed form, it is easier to post than digging out the information from more trustworthy sources. (Emphasis mine.)

Southern Democrats are members of the U.S. Democratic Party who reside in the American South. In the 19th century, they were the definitive pro-slavery wing of the party, opposed to both the anti-slavery Republicans (GOP) and the more liberal Northern Democrats. . . .

. . . .After World War II, during the civil rights movement, Democrats in the South initially still voted loyally with their party. After the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, white voters who became tolerant of diversity began voting against Democratic incumbents for GOP candidates. The Republicans carried many Southern states for the first time since before the Great Depression.

When Richard Nixon courted voters with his Southern Strategy, many Democrats became Republicans and the South became fertile ground for the GOP, which conversely was becoming more conservative as the Democrats were becoming more liberal.

However, Democratic incumbents still held sway over voters in many states, especially those of the Deep South. Although Republicans won most presidential elections in Southern states starting in 1964, Democrats controlled nearly every Southern state legislature until the mid-1990s and had a moderate(although not huge) amount of members in state legislatures until 2010. In fact, until 2002, Democrats still had much control over Southern politics. It wasn't until the 1990s that Democratic control gradually collapsed, starting with the elections of 1994, in which Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress, through the rest of the decade.
Southern Democrats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From your own link:

After the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, white voters who became tolerant of diversity began voting against Democratic incumbents for GOP candidates. The Republicans carried many Southern states for the first time since before the Great Depression.

That's bullshit. Goldwater didn't win the South because Democrats who had become 'tolerant' voted for him. Goldwater won the South because the Democratic Party at the national level had become intolerant of segregationists.

(cough). Did you really read what you just wrote? Sometimes in an effort to be right, it is really easy to find yourself arguing with yourself.

 

[Oddball]

Ok, so how long will this question have to go unanswered before we can reasonably confirm that there is no Eisenhower wing of the Republican Party today, and with that put an end to any false comparisons made between Ike's party and the modern GOP?

24 hours? More? Less?

They became "blue dog" democrats and eventually got run out of the party because they weren't socialistic enough.

Now, where is the Grover Cleveland -or even the Scoop Jackson- wing of the Democrat Party?

Nowhere to be found, that's where.

Then you agree that these repeated attempts to somehow malign the current Democratic Party by making some guilt-by-association connection to it and the conservative faction of the Democratic Party in the South from 50 years ago or more

is idiocy.

No, I don't agree...The current Democrat Party is self-maligning...They don't need anyone's help.

Now, where is the Grover Cleveland wing of the Democrat Party?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I can only guess that you are admitting that the democrat party really has gone all liberal on us, Carb. When Miller retired he had stated that the party left him behind....he wasn't referring to segregation, he was referring to the liberalism. Kennedy wouldn't have been a democrat in todays version of your party.

Where do you come up with this shit Meister? Both parties have moved to the right. I remember voting for a Republican Senator (Javits) who was proud to be a liberal Republican. The Governor of New York was proud to be a liberal Republican.

John F. Kennedy was proud to be a liberal.

Accepting the NY Liberal Party Nomination, 1960

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my view -- I hope for all time -- two nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

From your source:

For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.
What happened along the way?????
You people have morphed the word "liberal".

More from your source:

I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others.

What happened?????
You people morphed the word "liberal".

Medicare and Medicaid were passed by Johnson and the Democrats. They were part of the Kennedy agenda, cut short by his assassination.

 

[bendog]

You were absolutely wrong when you claimed that the South returned to voting Democrat for decades after the 1964 election when the South went for Goldwater.

I don't usually use Wikipedia as a source, but I'm pretty sure they have this right and in its condensed form, it is easier to post than digging out the information from more trustworthy sources. (Emphasis mine.)

Southern Democrats are members of the U.S. Democratic Party who reside in the American South. In the 19th century, they were the definitive pro-slavery wing of the party, opposed to both the anti-slavery Republicans (GOP) and the more liberal Northern Democrats. . . .

. . . .After World War II, during the civil rights movement, Democrats in the South initially still voted loyally with their party. After the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, white voters who became tolerant of diversity began voting against Democratic incumbents for GOP candidates. The Republicans carried many Southern states for the first time since before the Great Depression.

When Richard Nixon courted voters with his Southern Strategy, many Democrats became Republicans and the South became fertile ground for the GOP, which conversely was becoming more conservative as the Democrats were becoming more liberal.

However, Democratic incumbents still held sway over voters in many states, especially those of the Deep South. Although Republicans won most presidential elections in Southern states starting in 1964, Democrats controlled nearly every Southern state legislature until the mid-1990s and had a moderate(although not huge) amount of members in state legislatures until 2010. In fact, until 2002, Democrats still had much control over Southern politics. It wasn't until the 1990s that Democratic control gradually collapsed, starting with the elections of 1994, in which Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress, through the rest of the decade.
Southern Democrats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From your own link:

After the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, white voters who became tolerant of diversity began voting against Democratic incumbents for GOP candidates. The Republicans carried many Southern states for the first time since before the Great Depression.

That's bullshit. Goldwater didn't win the South because Democrats who had become 'tolerant' voted for him. Goldwater won the South because the Democratic Party at the national level had become intolerant of segregationists.

This is getting to it. Goldwater flat out said he supported the aims of Brown v. Board of Educaton, but he was unwilling to impose his morality upon Mississippi or any other state.

History News Network

I don't know of a poll from 1964 about desegregation in Miss. I assume it was unpopular. And, people voted for Goldwater as the least objectionable.

But, if you are asserting the reason white southerners mostly vote gop today is because they just don't like blacks or want to "re-segregate" or something, then I don't agree.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They became "blue dog" democrats and eventually got run out of the party because they weren't socialistic enough.

Now, where is the Grover Cleveland -or even the Scoop Jackson- wing of the Democrat Party?

Nowhere to be found, that's where.

Then you agree that these repeated attempts to somehow malign the current Democratic Party by making some guilt-by-association connection to it and the conservative faction of the Democratic Party in the South from 50 years ago or more

is idiocy.

No, I don't agree...The current Democrat Party is self-maligning...They don't need anyone's help.

Now, where is the Grover Cleveland wing of the Democrat Party?

Okay, so right after you said there is no connection between the current Democratic party and the conservative Southern Democrat party of yesteryear now you're saying there is.

Which is it? And stop being a fucking asshole about it.

 

[Erand7899]

The Civil Rights bill was passed with a coalition of Northern Republicans and Northern Democrats. They defeated the coalition of Southern Democrats and Southern Republicans. The southern population of course blamed President Johnson, a Democrat, and soon began voting for Republicans. Which is ironic because a hundred years ago the southern population was hell bent on killing as many Republicans activist (giving Blacks voting rights) as possible.

"The southern population of course blamed President Johnson, a Democrat, and soon began voting for Republicans."


Isn't it amusing how many of the things you fervently believe, actually have no basis in fact?

PC, it is not a matter of belief. Since the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964 the Republicans began to win more and more in the South and today it is their stronghold.

The south voted democratic at all levels for the next one hundred years. In 1948 Strom Thurmond, a Democratic Senator from South Carolina, ran for president as a "Dixiecrat" after disagreeing with Truman over civil rights. Truman won anyway, despite Thurmond's dividing the Democratic vote. This let the Democrats know they could win without southern votes. Then in the 60s Democrats Kennedy and Johnson angered the south by forcing desegregation and civil rights on the south (ignoring identical problems in the north), and the south turned Republican, joining the "party of Lincoln". Ideologically the parties had traded places in the century since the Civil War.

The voting patterns of the southern states after the civil war was nicknamed

The fact that I have an empty milk jug in my hands is not proof that I drank the milk. You equate one fact with another fact, and reach a false conclusion over cause and effect.

Democrats ruled the South for over a century as a one party fiefdom. If you wanted to vote for any local or state offices, you registered as a Democrat because the vast majority of the electoral decisions were made in the Democrat primary. The party machine was so entrenched that Republican candidates were few and far between. In the early periods of this fiefdom, a White Republican was just as likely to be lynched as a Black man.

Consequently, when the Democrat machine was finally broken in the 60's and early 70's, the Republican party began to emerge as a real political force, and the people who were Democrats in name only, began to switch to the Republican party. I would assume that some racists did change party, but that had nothing to do with the resurgance of the Republican party.

Anyone who traveled to the South in the 60's would have been startled by the concept of leaving a modern world and traveling back in time at least two decades. That was the result of long term Democrat rule, and still applies in many places where Democrats have held power for long periods of time.

That is why the South went Republican. And, that is why it will probably remain Republican until those with memories of the evils of Jim Crow Democrats remain alive.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't usually use Wikipedia as a source, but I'm pretty sure they have this right and in its condensed form, it is easier to post than digging out the information from more trustworthy sources. (Emphasis mine.)

From your own link:

After the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, white voters who became tolerant of diversity began voting against Democratic incumbents for GOP candidates. The Republicans carried many Southern states for the first time since before the Great Depression.

That's bullshit. Goldwater didn't win the South because Democrats who had become 'tolerant' voted for him. Goldwater won the South because the Democratic Party at the national level had become intolerant of segregationists.

This is getting to it. Goldwater flat out said he supported the aims of Brown v. Board of Educaton, but he was unwilling to impose his morality upon Mississippi or any other state.

History News Network

I don't know of a poll from 1964 about desegregation in Miss. I assume it was unpopular. And, people voted for Goldwater as the least objectionable.

But, if you are asserting the reason white southerners mostly vote gop today is because they just don't like blacks or want to "re-segregate" or something, then I don't agree.

The white southern shift to the GOP?

"We came for the segregation, but stayed for the Gays, Guns, and God."

 

[PoliticalChic]

I notice you have no reason why a black person should be taking advice from a Korean girl. Thanks again for proving my point that you just say things but don't know why you say them. It's just a girl thing

I'm not taking tips from someone who isn't in the community and just observes from a perch doesn't know anymore than Pailin knows about Russia just because she can see it.

Keep up with the insults, when you have nothing you stick out your tongue. It's funny.

What's pathetic is that you only see the world via skin color.

Here the question: why won't the less informed, you, take qualified instruction from the more informed, me.


The answer is the same as the reason why you remain less informed.




Insults?
I don't insult you.....I describe you.

You are simply next-day delivery in a nanosecond world.
Don't ever change.

 

[bendog]

From your own link:

After the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, white voters who became tolerant of diversity began voting against Democratic incumbents for GOP candidates. The Republicans carried many Southern states for the first time since before the Great Depression.

That's bullshit. Goldwater didn't win the South because Democrats who had become 'tolerant' voted for him. Goldwater won the South because the Democratic Party at the national level had become intolerant of segregationists.

This is getting to it. Goldwater flat out said he supported the aims of Brown v. Board of Educaton, but he was unwilling to impose his morality upon Mississippi or any other state.

History News Network

I don't know of a poll from 1964 about desegregation in Miss. I assume it was unpopular. And, people voted for Goldwater as the least objectionable.

But, if you are asserting the reason white southerners mostly vote gop today is because they just don't like blacks or want to "re-segregate" or something, then I don't agree.

The white southern shift to the GOP?

"We came for the segregation, but stayed for the Gays, Guns, and God."

yep. It's also gonna be about impossible to elect a black republican without ending the redistricting along racial lines. Any one who runs will be asked if they support ending it, and if they say yes, they probably can get elected, but they will face a lot of cat calls.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't usually use Wikipedia as a source, but I'm pretty sure they have this right and in its condensed form, it is easier to post than digging out the information from more trustworthy sources. (Emphasis mine.)

From your own link:

After the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, white voters who became tolerant of diversity began voting against Democratic incumbents for GOP candidates. The Republicans carried many Southern states for the first time since before the Great Depression.

That's bullshit. Goldwater didn't win the South because Democrats who had become 'tolerant' voted for him. Goldwater won the South because the Democratic Party at the national level had become intolerant of segregationists.

(cough). Did you really read what you just wrote? Sometimes in an effort to be right, it is really easy to find yourself arguing with yourself.

There's nothing wrong with what I wrote. If there was you would have pointed it out, but since you can't, there isn't.

 

[bendog]

Race should not matter in anything ... except Nascar.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I notice you have no reason why a black person should be taking advice from a Korean girl. Thanks again for proving my point that you just say things but don't know why you say them. It's just a girl thing

I'm not taking tips from someone who isn't in the community and just observes from a perch doesn't know anymore than Pailin knows about Russia just because she can see it.

Keep up with the insults, when you have nothing you stick out your tongue. It's funny.

What's pathetic is that you only see the world via skin color.

Here the question: why won't the less informed, you, take qualified instruction from the more informed, me.


The answer is the same as the reason why you remain less informed.

Insults?
I don't insult you.....I describe you.

You are simply next-day delivery in a nanosecond world.
Don't ever change.

So once again no reasoning to why I, a black man, should listen to you, a Korean girl about the black community. Duly noted.

While you try desperately to claim that I only see skin color in a thread started by you about blacks. Lol...good luck with that spin sweetie

 

[PoliticalChic]

I notice you have no reason why a black person should be taking advice from a Korean girl. Thanks again for proving my point that you just say things but don't know why you say them. It's just a girl thing

I'm not taking tips from someone who isn't in the community and just observes from a perch doesn't know anymore than Pailin knows about Russia just because she can see it.

Keep up with the insults, when you have nothing you stick out your tongue. It's funny.

What's pathetic is that you only see the world via skin color.

Here the question: why won't the less informed, you, take qualified instruction from the more informed, me.


The answer is the same as the reason why you remain less informed.

Insults?
I don't insult you.....I describe you.

You are simply next-day delivery in a nanosecond world.
Don't ever change.

So once again no reasoning to why I, a black man, should listen to you, a Korean girl about the black community. Duly noted.

While you try desperately to claim that I only see skin color in a thread started by you about blacks. Lol...good luck with that spin sweetie

I can't make it any simpler: you should learn from those who know more.

That's why you should 'listen' to just about anyone...including most fifth graders.

 

[ClosedCaption]

What's pathetic is that you only see the world via skin color.

Here the question: why won't the less informed, you, take qualified instruction from the more informed, me.


The answer is the same as the reason why you remain less informed.

Insults?
I don't insult you.....I describe you.

You are simply next-day delivery in a nanosecond world.
Don't ever change.

So once again no reasoning to why I, a black man, should listen to you, a Korean girl about the black community. Duly noted.

While you try desperately to claim that I only see skin color in a thread started by you about blacks. Lol...good luck with that spin sweetie

I can't make it any simpler: you should learn from those who know more.

That's why you should 'listen' to just about anyone...including most fifth graders.

Exactly right, that's why I don't listen to you. If I have questions about the Korean Community I'll be all ears, K? Besides that stay in your lane

 

[NYcarbineer]

Who is "us"?

Is this an attempt to pretend that there are sentient humans who would admit association with you?



But if the pretense makes you feel better....what the heck: six out of seven dwarfs are not happy.

'Us' refers to the more than one person reading this thread.

Now obviously you do not want to tell us, or me, or the man behind the tree, what specifically you would change.

So despite your claim to be obsessed about what is best for America,

you are incapable of even citing one single thing you would like to see done to make America better.

You're a self-hating bitch who likes to bitch, for the sake of bitching.

Good for you, you found a large category of American women you can fit right into. LOLOLOL, the Americanization of PC.

"'Us' refers to the more than one person reading this thread."

By what stretch of credulity do you imagine to speak for them????

If you could take time out from painting your dog, or eating him, whichever the case may be,

and focus, you might be able to understand that I wasn't speaking for anyone when I asked you to tell us something which you are now admitting you can't do.

 

[bendog]

"The southern population of course blamed President Johnson, a Democrat, and soon began voting for Republicans."


Isn't it amusing how many of the things you fervently believe, actually have no basis in fact?

PC, it is not a matter of belief. Since the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964 the Republicans began to win more and more in the South and today it is their stronghold.

The south voted democratic at all levels for the next one hundred years. In 1948 Strom Thurmond, a Democratic Senator from South Carolina, ran for president as a "Dixiecrat" after disagreeing with Truman over civil rights. Truman won anyway, despite Thurmond's dividing the Democratic vote. This let the Democrats know they could win without southern votes. Then in the 60s Democrats Kennedy and Johnson angered the south by forcing desegregation and civil rights on the south (ignoring identical problems in the north), and the south turned Republican, joining the "party of Lincoln". Ideologically the parties had traded places in the century since the Civil War.

The voting patterns of the southern states after the civil war was nicknamed

The fact that I have an empty milk jug in my hands is not proof that I drank the milk. You equate one fact with another fact, and reach a false conclusion over cause and effect.

Democrats ruled the South for over a century as a one party fiefdom. If you wanted to vote for any local or state offices, you registered as a Democrat because the vast majority of the electoral decisions were made in the Democrat primary. The party machine was so entrenched that Republican candidates were few and far between. In the early periods of this fiefdom, a White Republican was just as likely to be lynched as a Black man.

Consequently, when the Democrat machine was finally broken in the 60's and early 70's, the Republican party began to emerge as a real political force, and the people who were Democrats in name only, began to switch to the Republican party. I would assume that some racists did change party, but that had nothing to do with the resurgance of the Republican party.

Anyone who traveled to the South in the 60's would have been startled by the concept of leaving a modern world and traveling back in time at least two decades. That was the result of long term Democrat rule, and still applies in many places where Democrats have held power for long periods of time.

That is why the South went Republican. And, that is why it will probably remain Republican until those with memories of the evils of Jim Crow Democrats remain alive.

oh posh. The deep south (not Fla or Va) was desperately poor because their richest citizens lost their capital in 1865 and lost out on the booming 20s. There was not state tax base either for infrastructure. The New Deal brought improvments like the TVA. After WWII, the military disproportionately came in, plus the South gets far more in fed dollars than it contributes.

The irony today is gop governors saying they won't expand medicaid and absolutely refuse to hear or acknowledge any argument that it's an econ stimulus measure. That denial is absolute bs and the very basis for it is econ stimulus. It's govt moving to improve salaries, plain and simple.

 

[JakeStarkey]

[sorely require.



To this moment you have not found any errors.

.

You were absolutely wrong when you claimed that the South returned to voting Democrat for decades after the 1964 election when the South went for Goldwater.

I don't usually use Wikipedia as a source, but I'm pretty sure they have this right and in its condensed form, it is easier to post than digging out the information from more trustworthy sources. (Emphasis mine.)

Southern Democrats are members of the U.S. Democratic Party who reside in the American South. In the 19th century, they were the definitive pro-slavery wing of the party, opposed to both the anti-slavery Republicans (GOP) and the more liberal Northern Democrats. . . .

. . . .After World War II, during the civil rights movement, Democrats in the South initially still voted loyally with their party. After the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, white voters who became tolerant of diversity began voting against Democratic incumbents for GOP candidates. The Republicans carried many Southern states for the first time since before the Great Depression.

When Richard Nixon courted voters with his Southern Strategy, many Democrats became Republicans and the South became fertile ground for the GOP, which conversely was becoming more conservative as the Democrats were becoming more liberal.

However, Democratic incumbents still held sway over voters in many states, especially those of the Deep South. Although Republicans won most presidential elections in Southern states starting in 1964, Democrats controlled nearly every Southern state legislature until the mid-1990s and had a moderate(although not huge) amount of members in state legislatures until 2010. In fact, until 2002, Democrats still had much control over Southern politics. It wasn't until the 1990s that Democratic control gradually collapsed, starting with the elections of 1994, in which Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress, through the rest of the decade.
Southern Democrats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

White southerners generally kept Democratic governments in power for more than two decades because those governments were conservative. When they began to admit blacks and move to the left of center, white southerners began to vote in white Republican as the conservative alternative.

From 1968 to 1988, with the exception of 1976 (Jimmy Carter), the Deep South cast all of their electoral votes except one for conservative candidates.

 

[Bfgrn]

I can only guess that you are admitting that the democrat party really has gone all liberal on us, Carb. When Miller retired he had stated that the party left him behind....he wasn't referring to segregation, he was referring to the liberalism. Kennedy wouldn't have been a democrat in todays version of your party.

Where do you come up with this shit Meister? Both parties have moved to the right. I remember voting for a Republican Senator (Javits) who was proud to be a liberal Republican. The Governor of New York was proud to be a liberal Republican.

John F. Kennedy was proud to be a liberal.

Accepting the NY Liberal Party Nomination, 1960

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my view -- I hope for all time -- two nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

From your source:

For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.
What happened along the way?????
You people have morphed the word "liberal".

More from your source:

I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others.

What happened?????
You people morphed the word "liberal".

What happened? Republicans were in power, they vastly EXPANDED government, they wasted trillions of taxpayer dollars on Hirohito sneak attacks and illegal wars...and they didn't even have the decency to put all that war spending on the books. They didn't even put it in the budget...until Obama did the responsible thing.

WHO expands government?

 

[Meister]

This is getting to it. Goldwater flat out said he supported the aims of Brown v. Board of Educaton, but he was unwilling to impose his morality upon Mississippi or any other state.

History News Network

I don't know of a poll from 1964 about desegregation in Miss. I assume it was unpopular. And, people voted for Goldwater as the least objectionable.

But, if you are asserting the reason white southerners mostly vote gop today is because they just don't like blacks or want to "re-segregate" or something, then I don't agree.

The white southern shift to the GOP?

"We came for the segregation, but stayed for the Gays, Guns, and God."

yep. It's also gonna be about impossible to elect a black republican without ending the redistricting along racial lines. Any one who runs will be asked if they support ending it, and if they say yes, they probably can get elected, but they will face a lot of cat calls.

Seems like the left has a problem with Black republican public figures.
Uncle Toms
House Nigga
Aunt Jemima

Yes, yes, it's a republican thing....couldn't be a left, right thing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's odd about this topic is, no matter how many times conservatives start threads about it, which is many many many times,

not one of them has ever been able to adequately articulate what exactly the POINT of these threads is.