16 thoughts on “Democrats then and now

  1. I’m surprised you’d post this. Not only is it not even accurate enough to warrant a meme, the site you (or Chet?) found it on appears to be full of white supremacists going on about race mixing and jews.

    Why did you post this?

    • Because it depicts Democrats, correctly, as advocates of wholesale intimidation and coercion as standard operating procedure, in direct opposition to the principles and laws of liberty?

      Careful you don’t get upset though; This isn’t an “our team verses their team” kind of reply. Republicans are scarcely any better; they’re just there to appeal to a different kind of voter (“You get those votes over there, and we’ll get these votes over here, we’ll suck them all dry and we’ll both profit”). Republicans are the antithesis to the Democrat thesis in the dialectic scheme as outlined by Marx, and the synthesis is always some increased level of wholesale coercion combined with a diminishing of respect for, or even understanding of, the American principles of liberty.

      MLK Jr., for one, had to die because his Christian principles of love, and therefore respect for the original American principles, were threatening the game.

      I find that this trend coincides quite perfectly with the papal encyclical, Rerum Novarum (of the new things) published in 1891. In it you will see the argument for what was to become 20th Century Fascism (a farce in which the trappings of private property are maintained but actually all property is in effect managed by the state. That encyclical in particular has been cited many times since as a blueprint, if you will, for the future, but it in no way stands alone among Catholic assertions in its advocacy of what has come to be known as The New World Order. Subsequent popes have declared private property “immoral” and called for Redistribution (coercive of course) on a global scale. Others have claimed all property, including the products of industry, as the rightful property of the Vatican. Much of the world has been operating on those principles for over a century.

      But who cares about any of THAT, right? I mean, when we can each root for “our side” (both of which are on the same side), and get all worked up and distracted it’s a lot more fun. Besides, learning things requires time and effort, and it can be painful.

  2. Sorry, I found it on minds.com and was surprised that the KKK were Democrats trying to overthrow the Republicans during reconstruction in the south. I did not check the source or other postings and did not know the origin (and still do not).

  3. Well, read about it on wikipedia. The KKK was indeed the militant wing of the Democrat Party in the antebellum South, and they liked lynching freed blacks, Catholics, Jews, Republicans…

    • Context is important: At the time of the civil war, the Democratic party was conservative, like the Republican party is now, and Republicans (the party of Lincoln) were liberal. Over time that reversed.

      Associating either party as “the party of the KKK” is historically true only to the extent that you force any party to claim ownership of all the crazies who say they’re a part of it. The KKK today claims it’s part of the Republican party, and fully supports Trump (and hates the Democrats). Does that mean they’re Republicans, and we can blame Republicans for what they do?

      Same is true of Antifa, though note that they don’t even claim to be liberals, they’re anarchists. So I’d be surprised if you could find more than a few of them who would claim to be Democrats.

      • Good points. So while there is an element of truth in the meme (and one that surprised me), that does not make it a good meme that will stand up to scrutiny.

      • It wasn’t just during the Civil War. Does the name Robert Byrd “ring a bell” with you? He was Exalted Cyclops (top officer) of his local chapter of the KKK. He was a US senator until 2010.

        Hillary Clinton said this about him:

        It is almost impossible to imagine the United States Senate without Robert Byrd. He was not just its longest serving member, he was its heart and soul. From my first day in the Senate, I sought out his guidance, and he was always generous with his time and his wisdom.

        And what party pushed the civil rights act of 1964 and which party filibustered against it? Republicans for and Democrats against.

        How about George Wallace? Another famous Democrat. Read about him here. For a time he spoke out against the KKK but that didn’t last long:

        Since the 1901 constitution’s effective disfranchisement of the state’s blacks, and most poor whites as well, the Democratic Party had been virtually the only party in Alabama. For all intents and purposes, the Democratic primary was the real contest at the state level. This was a political crossroads for Wallace. State Representative George C. Hawkins of Gadsden ran, but Wallace’s main opponent was state attorney general John Malcolm Patterson, who ran with the support of the Ku Klux Klan, an organization Wallace had spoken against. Wallace was endorsed by the NAACP. Wallace lost the nomination by over 34,400 votes.[18]
        After the election, aide Seymore Trammell recalled Wallace saying, “Seymore, you know why I lost that governor’s race? … I was outniggered by John Patterson. And I’ll tell you here and now, I will never be outniggered again.

        Democrats were the party of the KKK well into the 1960s. 100 years after the civil war.

        Antifa are leftists composed of anarchists, communists and socialists. That seems to be a consensus. Are they Democrats? Well… the Democrats haven’t disowned them. That also seems to be a consensus and if they vote I find it difficult to imagine the majority of the votes would go for anyone other than the Democrat party. Communist party? Sure, some. But Democrats have for all intents and purposes have taken over the socialist vote in this country. If the claim “Antifa are Democrats” is a stretch it’s a very mild stretch.

        Which party best represented the domestic terrorists such as the Weathermen, Black Panthers, Occupy Wall Street, Animal Liberation Front, and Black Liberation Army? Street protests and riots are the political currency of the left. Antifa is just the most recent expression of the violent tendencies of the political philosophies grouped under the Democrat umbrella.

        • “Anarchists” are also part of the playbook for the revolutionary communist. Seriously, explicitly written in black and white in the playbook.

          The “anarchists” are encouraged by the RCP to cause trouble. The RCP that decries the destruction, mayhem and lack of civil order, and uses that as a criticism of the ‘existing regime’.

          “They can’t keep you safe!” they proclaim. “We can bring the new utopia of blah blah blah”.

          When enough of the population has bought the scam, a bunch of “anarchists” go up against the wall, and the rest are held in reserve for terrorizing areas with insufficient revolutionary zeal.

          So, yes, Antifa are “anarchists”… and their printed signage has “RevCom” stamped somewhere on it.

          Antifa is different from the KKK in that they are willing to be violent to anyone, regardless of race, color creed or whatever other identity group classification they can arbitrarily come up with, if that person doesn’t toe the progressive and/or revolutionary communist line. Never forget what “progressive” is progressing towards. That destination is “communist”, and the progressive (communist) movement is the alternative to the revolutionary (communist) movement.

          • “Antifa is different from the KKK in that they are willing to be violent to anyone…”

            PoTAYto, PoTAHto. It doesn’t matter who the target is. Take your pick, as long as there’s intimitdation, agitation, control, fear and hatred.

            Do you not yet know what it is we’re facing?

          • “Take your pick, as long as there’s intimidation, agitation, control, fear and hatred.”

            Describes Trump perfectly.

            Oh wait, you were talking about Antifa? Two sides of the same coin: anarchists vs. authoritarians.

            As for Joe’s reference to Byrd and Wallace: Do you really want to make a list of bad people and use that a brush to tar an entire group? (The first image that came to mind when you cited those two guys was of Strom Thurmond.) The current congress has a huge contingent of Republicans explicitly endorsed by the KKK, Stormfront, and the like, and many of those endorsees accept or at least refuse to disown that endorsement. Also true of the president.

            “Rather than toss out worthless labels let’s dig into the basic principles and see where we want to stand.”

            I’m good with that.

          • There is a big difference between an bunch of unsavory types saying one party or another is their political favorite and prominent political figures being a member of the unsavory organization and those political figures praising them and seeking their votes. Until at least the 1960s the Democrats and the KKK were very closely connected.

            Your mention of Strom Thurmond only reinforces my point. He was a Democrat until 1964. He lead the opposition to the Civil Rights act of 1957 and moderated his position on race in the 1970s after becoming a Republican.

          • https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/03/01/blaming-the-klan-on-modern-democrats-is-like-blaming-the-unabomber-on-the-montana-territory/?utm_term=.e6de2549fda7

            “It’s critical to point out that talking about the Democratic Party of early 20th century Alabama is like talking about Alexander Graham Bell’s telephone in relation to the iPhone. It’s … not really the same thing.”

            “Those shifts — in presidential voting and on Capitol Hill — make clear that the Democratic south that was the birthplace of the Klan is not linked to the Democratic Party as it exists today. It’s a bit like a kid in college who dabbles in communism but who grows up to be a libertarian. Calling him a communist is awfully disingenuous.

            But the point isn’t to make an historically valid point about the nature of racism. The point is to take one of the few things that everyone agrees is bad and using it to stamp your opponents any way you can.”

          • Nice deflection!

            The point isn’t that modern Democrats are KKK or even obvious racists (a case can be made for indirect racist policies but let’s not go there now). The point is that the political left, best represented by Democrats in this country, is inherently violent. You and I have had this discussion before. You concluded:

            It doesn’t leave me much to argue with…I tend to agree.

            One hypothesis of mine is that people attracted to the Democrat party have a personality trait which strongly desires to control other people. The fading of overt racism in the 1960s corresponds with the increase in hostility to gun owners is the substitution of one victim class for another. I have wanted to research this and test the hypothesis but I’m not sure how to do that without access to speeches of politicians of that era. That would require a fair amount of time to pull news archives and read a decade or two of their speeches. I have higher priorities in life right now.

            Please note that I’m not saying Republicans are the good guys in any of this. I pick on Democrats a lot because they are leading the herd, which includes Republicans, in a direction I am extremely opposed to–government control of every facet of our lives. By, figuratively, “throwing a few rocks” at the leaders of the herd it is possible the herd can be turned (I grew up on a farm and we raised cattle for a number of years so this analogy works for me). I frequently vote Republican not because they are the best match for my political beliefs but because it has the best chance to legally and morally remove Democrats from power. If the Democrat agenda is a political loser then we can then vote between other alternatives, one of which may actually be headed in a direction I approve of.

      • President Woodrow Wilson, Democrat, loved the KKK, helped promote their movie, Birth of a Nation, and invited them to a huge rally in WA DC. Progressive darling and Eugenicist, Margaret Sanger also was very tight with the KKK.

        “Conservative” and “liberal” can mean very different things. “Conservative” in today’s political sense was made up as a slander, meaning “backward” or “unwilling to consider change”.

        “Liberal” points to freedom, which can be good, or to a lack of restraint, which can be deadly on a mass scale. It can mean freedom to right, or it can mean freedom to do wrong. We can advocate for “liberal” use of the coercive power of government, for example, for the purpose of “social engineering” (Wilson and Sanger loved that) or we can advocate for “liberal” expansion of property rights and all the others in the Bill of Rights. Those two definitions of “liberal” are opposites. Just as you can’t be honest in labeling someone “liberal” without discussing exactly what it is they want to “liberate”, you can’t call anyone “conservative” without discussing what it is they wish to “conserve”.

        The Civil War South was “conservative” in the sense that they wanted to “conserve” their slave economy and the “traditional” hierarchical culture that surrounded it.

        “Progressive” is another one. It fails to tell us FROM what, and TO what we’re expected to be “progressing”. “Fundamental Transformation”, likewise, was lauded and applauded, but no one ever took the time to explain exactly what it was we were to be “transforming” FROM, nor “transforming” TO.

        On the other hand, “Redistributive Change” is quite clear. It means “Wholesale Robbery on a Global Scale”. “Yaaaaay! Yaahoo!” went the crowds.

        Rather than toss out worthless labels let’s dig into the basic principles and see where we want to stand.

  4. Hmm… This is a good discussion. It is easy for people to only use the current narratives in making judgments and this meme will cause some to dig deeper instead seeing history and the present only through rose-colored glasses.

Comments are closed.