The 21st Century Know Nothing Party

Politics • Views: 5,846

Think Progress did a comprehensive survey of Republican candidates for the US Senate and found that nearly all of them are anti-science deniers of global warming.

What an incredibly sad picture of the Republican Party this paints. I’d like to see a similar survey of Republican politicians who favor teaching creationism as science, because I’ll bet it’s just as pervasive. The GOP has become the Know Nothing Party of the 21st century.

Jump to bottom

67 comments
1 Gus  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 1:39:47pm

Grand Old Party Luddites

2 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 1:42:59pm

Ludnecks.

3 Kragar  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 1:44:23pm

re: #1 Gus 802

Grand Old Party Luddites

That generalization is unfair to Luddites.

4 thatthatisis  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 1:48:52pm

I would love to hear someone ask Sarah Palin who the Know Nothings were.

5 Interesting Times  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 1:49:07pm

"The Know-Nothing movement modern, Teabagger-influenced GOP was is a nativist American political movement of from the 1840s and 1850s 2008 to the present. It was is empowered by popular fears that the country was is being overwhelmed by German and Irish Catholic immigrants Hispanics and Muslims, who were are often regarded as hostile to Anglo-Saxon Real AmericanTM values and controlled by the Pope in Rome seekrit Kenyan Muslim in the White House. Mainly active from 1854 to 1856 from 2009 onward, it strove strives to curb immigration and naturalization, though and its efforts met with little success so far are meeting with a frightening degree of popularity and lack of critical analysis from the Mainstream Media."

/Fixed the Wikipedia entry

6 Kragar  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 1:49:26pm

The original Luddites believed techonology was destroying the economy, and was putting skilled workers out of work so mill owners could hire cheaper unskilled laborers to work the machines. They didn't deny the science behind the technology.

7 Obdicut  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 1:49:32pm

Science is strength for America. This nation has many strengths, but there is no doubt about it; the freedom of inquiry, of academia, the high education level, the long tradition of reverence for science is one of the major reasons we've been a superpower. Everything from our agricultural output to our military might, apple pie and guns, is dependent on our science research, and our exploitation of that research in the private market.

The GOP, by attacking science, over and over, are weakening America in ways no entitlement program, no stupid anti-smoking law, no bungled health care reform effort every could.

We have a huge advantage in technology and science. We are pissing it away. It is not given to us by god, but gained for us by the studious, underrewarded, incredibly difficult work of scientists.

And for their hard work, they are seeing themselves smeared, ignored, suspect, and ignored. We see the climatologists attacked by climate deniers, medical researchers attacked by radical pro-lifers, even goddamn geologists by young earth creationists.

Western civilization is science, tempered by civic concerns and Enlightenment ethics. It is not blind faith in those who say God speaks to them. It never was.

Speak up on behalf of scientists. Write to your congresspeople, no matter what party they are, to let them know you won't stand for attacks on science and you want to see scientists defended. Educate yourself, and spread that knowledge. And don't vote for any of the bastards attacking science and reason, be they panderers or be they sincere whackjobs.

There is nothing more critical for this nation.

8 freetoken  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 1:49:54pm

It wasn't always like this. Back when the GOP was the progressive party it was more friendly to science. Even after TR left and the GOP became the party of big business it still was strongly modern - after all, science is the bedrock on which industry and modern commerce has been built.

With the rise of Nixon's Southern Strategy and then Reagan's religious coalition did the GOP begin to abandon its modernity.

9 Kragar  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 1:50:04pm

re: #4 thatthatisis

I would love to hear someone ask Sarah Palin who the Know Nothings were.

He was that guy on Hogan's Heroes, right?

10 Obdicut  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 1:50:17pm

re: #6 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Damn, every day someone on LGF impresses the hell out of me with knowledge of obscure-but-important history.

11 Idle Drifter  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 1:51:51pm

Better to be thought a fool then to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. Was it really necessary, GOP, to tap into that section of voting public which brings crazy to apex. I guess winning is everything.

12 Surabaya Stew  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 1:52:01pm

re: #4 thatthatisis

I would love to hear someone ask Sarah Palin who the Know Nothings were.

She wouldn't know nothing about it.
/

13 Idle Drifter  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 1:53:54pm

re: #10 Obdicut

Damn, every day someone on LGF impresses the hell out of me with knowledge of obscure-but-important history.

It's why I love coming here.

14 Gus  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:01:54pm

re: #6 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

The original Luddites believed techonology was destroying the economy, and was putting skilled workers out of work so mill owners could hire cheaper unskilled laborers to work the machines. They didn't deny the science behind the technology.

There's the historical definition and there is a modern definition in which Luddite is defined as "one who opposes technical or technological change." These GOP candidates are engaged largely because they oppose technical or technological change. Must like people who oppose compact fluorescent light bulb; alternative fuels and electrical generation; smart grids; etc. AGW mitigation require a slew of technical or technological changes. They are opposed to these changes. Therefore, they are indeed Luddites in the modern sense of the word.

15 Kragar  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:06:09pm

re: #14 Gus 802

There's the historical definition and there is a modern definition in which Luddite is defined as "one who opposes technical or technological change." These GOP candidates are engaged largely because they oppose technical or technological change. Must like people who oppose compact fluorescent light bulb; alternative fuels and electrical generation; smart grids; etc. AGW mitigation require a slew of technical or technological changes. They are opposed to these changes. Therefore, they are indeed Luddites in the modern sense of the word.

Change is bad.
/

16 HappyWarrior  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:06:13pm

re: #4 thatthatisis

I would love to hear someone ask Sarah Palin who the Know Nothings were.

Something something socialism, freedom, wink, smile, they hate my son becuase he has Downs.

17 Gus  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:09:05pm

re: #15 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Change is bad.
/

We've gone this far with the horse and carriage and I'll be damned if I'll let the steam carriage replace the backbone of American industry and agriculture: the horse.

//

18 Kragar  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:10:44pm

I dont think these folks are anti-tech. I think even if you provided them with a clean, cheap, easily implemented energy solution today, they would rally against because they don't think its necessary, because they're too stupid to understand why its needed.

Anti-tech, no. Just plain stupid, yes.

19 thatthatisis  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:11:17pm

re: #9 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

He was that guy on Hogan's Heroes, right?

re: #12 Surabaya Stew

She wouldn't know nothing about it.
/

re: #16 HappyWarrior

Something something socialism, freedom, wink, smile, they hate my son becuase he has Downs.

George: "Say goodnight, Gracie."
Gracie: "Goodnight, Gracie."

20 HappyWarrior  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:13:11pm

Honestly, the GOP's anti science is what makes it so hard to understand for me. It's not simply disagreeing with Darwinian theory, it's demonizing Darwin and comparing his theories to the Nazis like Ben Stein did. The fundamentalist Christians that the GOP plays to for support sincerely do believe that to accept Darwin is to accept Satan. I've long had my disagreements with the Roman Catholic Church but at least they realize Darwin is legitimate science.

21 Romantic Heretic  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:13:56pm

Oooo, FreedomWorks has renewed the 'Contract On America'.

Oop. Sorry I always misread that phrase. It's 'Contract From America'.

22 Cato the Elder  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:16:43pm

Inbred dummies in bed with venal chummies.

23 Kragar  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:18:03pm

re: #20 HappyWarrior

Which reminds me of Galileo versus the Church on Facebook

Image: d6cd8a9f-8fc9-4491-a94c-d50a4008ace6.jpg

24 allegro  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:18:28pm

re: #18 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I dont think these folks are anti-tech

I don't think they're anti-tech either. I think they are anti-liberal and the tech just represents the hated elitist libruls to them.

25 DaddyG  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:19:34pm

To be fair I'd like to see the question separated:

1) Does science show that man's actions contribute to climate change (global warming)?

2) Which of the following policies do you think would help lessen the impact of man's contribution to climate change...
a. Cap and Trade
b) emmissions tax
c) Insentives for alt fuel vehicles...
etc.
etc.

Some of those GOPers weren't science deniers as much as climate policy deniers. Yes, there are far too many who weasel around or simply deny the science that is out there.

26 freetoken  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:20:23pm

Bill Scher focuses in on this stupidity:

Is Global Warming Frying Conservative Brains In Alaska And Delaware?

A prediction: the next Senator from Delaware will know that global warming is real and will support a cap on carbon emissions.

That description fits the Democratic nominee Chris Coons, who is running unopposed in tomorrow's primary, and GOP Rep. Mike Castle.

It does not fit Castle's primary opponent, the Tea Party Express-funded Christine O'Donnell.

There is absolutely no way O'Donnell can win a Senate seat in Delaware. She is an extreme right-winger in a left-leaning state.

And Rep. Castle, who has already served as governor and has repeatedly won statewide as he is the state's only congressperson, presents Republicans with a golden opportunity to pick up a currently Democratic-held seat.

Castle probably couldn't be counted on to filibuster everything President Obama supported, but he would surely filibuster more than anyone else that could get elected in Delaware. And there is almost no chance Republicans can take control of the Senate -- and fully control the legislative agenda -- without winning Delaware.

But apparently because Castle was one of eight Republicans that actually voted for the House carbon cap bill, conservatives are willing to throw all that away.

His "cap-and-trade" vote wasn't the only vote Castle took that put him at odds with conservatives. But it is literally at the top of Christine O'Donnell's list of reasons for opposing him.

And even if Castle fends off O'Donnell tomorrow, it will be because Delaware still has a significant population of Republican moderates. Today's poll of the race shows that O'Donnell has the support of 62% of the state's conservatives.

In other words, if it was up to Delaware's conservatives, they would put rejection of climate science over conservative control of the Senate agenda.

Prominent conservative activist Erick Erickson has said this bluntly: "I would rather 50 seats without Mike Castle than 51 seats with Mike Castle."

Already, conservatives chose to roll the dice in Alaska in part because of global warming.

[...]

The lurch to far right in the GOP is a "feel good" strategy for ideologues, not a method of governance. These self-declared "conservatives" really are on an emotional trip.

27 HappyWarrior  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:22:52pm

re: #23 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Which reminds me of Galileo versus the Church on Facebook

Image: d6cd8a9f-8fc9-4491-a94c-d50a4008ace6.jpg

Yes! Love that. Though seriously I've always admired the Jesuits for the scientific pursuits. The bar I was at had CNN on Friday night and they had the guy who co-wrote the new book with Stephen Hawking and a Jesuit priest.

28 mikhailtheplumber  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:23:42pm

Just a matter of time before the next GOP presidential wannabe writes a speech about how "you shall not crucify real America upon a cross of science".

29 Kronocide  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:24:22pm

re: #26 freetoken

The lurch to far right in the GOP is a "feel good" strategy for ideologues, not a method of governance. These self-declared "conservatives" really are on an emotional trip.

I could not have said that better. Add to that a huge slab of hypocrisy since a winger meme is that leftists are touchy feely and governed by emotions.

30 Mr. Crankypants  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:24:41pm

re: #26 freetoken

=

The lurch to far right in the GOP is a "feel good" strategy for ideologues, not a method of governance. These self-declared "conservatives" really are on an emotional trip.

They aren't interested in governance and never have been. The GOP is about good governance like the Olive Garden is about authentic Italian cuisine.

31 Decatur Deb  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:25:07pm

re: #15 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Change is bad.
/

Tell me. I spent most of last week changing a 5 wk old.

32 Mr. Crankypants  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:25:29pm

re: #28 mikhailtheplumber

Just a matter of time before the next GOP presidential wannabe writes a speech about how "you shall not crucify real America upon a cross of science".

Based upon some of their beliefs, that should read surreal America.

33 Idle Drifter  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:25:44pm

Ever ROFL when you hear RYNO or "Not a true Christian" thrown around?

34 DaddyG  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:25:47pm

re: #30 PT Barnum

They aren't interested in governance and never have been. The GOP is about good governance like the Olive Garden is about authentic Italian cuisine.

You mean endless breadsticks and salad isn't an ancient Roman tradition? /

35 Kragar  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:26:52pm

re: #31 Decatur Deb

Tell me. I spent most of last week changing a 5 wk old.

But the diaper says its good for up to 8 lbs.

36 DaddyG  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:27:03pm

re: #33 Idle Drifter

Ever ROFL when you hear RYNO or "Not a true Christian" thrown around?


Heck, as a Mormon I've been "not a true Christian™" for decades. There is a point where it becomes a badge of honor.

37 Kragar  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:27:54pm

re: #30 PT Barnum

They aren't interested in governance and never have been. The GOP is about good governance like the Olive Garden is about authentic Italian cuisine.

As a buddy of mine once said, "As Mexican as Taco Bell."

38 Kragar  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:28:53pm

re: #36 DaddyG

Heck, as a Mormon I've been "not a true Christian™" for decades. There is a point where it becomes a badge of honor.

Just so long as you're not a bloody Catholic...
/

39 DaddyG  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:30:32pm

re: #38 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Just so long as you're not a bloody Catholic...
/

At least their Priests don't compete for our wives. /

40 Idle Drifter  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:38:16pm

re: #38 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Just so long as you're not a bloody Catholic...
/

I've been Catholic Light for decades as in right after conformation. Mom and Dad don't care who I marry as long as I love her and give them a grandchild.

41 garhighway  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:40:51pm

re: #18 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

re: #24 allegro


I think you are both wrong. The GOP is, with its anti-science position, sucking up to two indispensable constituencies: the religious right and the energy industry. One provides them with foot soldiers and votes (and chooses to ignore the party's economic policies) and the other with giant sacks of cash (and, via the Kochs and others, funds the Party's intellectual leaders).

I suspect that the vast majority of the candidates surveyed know, in their heart of hearts, that the positions they are taking are nonsense. But they also know that if they take the opposite position that their careers are over. So they say what they have to say.

42 allegro  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:44:51pm

re: #41 garhighway

I think you give them more credit than I do for having something like a clue. Wouldn't be arguing with ya though. ;)

43 John Q  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:50:51pm

Evolution and warming are two of the big Republican denials. The other biggie is Keynesian economic analysis. (Until Keynesian policies suggest a cut in tax rates: then they're in favor.)

Then there are the minor denialists, like Andy Schlafly, who believes that the Theory of Relativity couldn't possibly be true because it conflicts with the Bible

44 ragnwald  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:53:00pm

I'm a scientist and as such I'm of course very concerned with the rise of the anti-science movement. Just last week, one of the premiere scientific journals, Nature, dedicated an editorial to this issue:
[Link: www.nature.com...]
The comments to this editorial clearly prove the point the editor was making.
I blogged about it:
[Link: bjoern.brembs.net...]

45 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:56:58pm

re: #7 Obdicut

And don't vote for any of the bastards attacking science and reason, be they panderers or be they sincere whackjobs.

There is nothing more critical for this nation.

Amen to this

46 HappyWarrior  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:58:12pm

Here's a Palinism we all may remember well: "Fruit fly research in Paris, France, how ridiculous." Shit you guys I've got very little academic training in science and biology. After all I'm a history major and english minor but even I knew how mindblowingly ignorant taht statement was since I learned in one of the few science classes I've taken at a college level that fruit fly research is vital to studying genetics.

47 mikhailtheplumber  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:58:12pm

re: #43 John Q

Evolution and warming are two of the big Republican denials. The other biggie is Keynesian economic analysis. (Until Keynesian policies suggest a cut in tax rates: then they're in favor.)

Then there are the minor denialists, like Andy Schlafly, who believes that the Theory of Relativity couldn't possibly be true because it conflicts with the Bible

Schlafly is not a minor denialist. He refuses to accept the Theory of Relativity in addition to being a Young Earth Creationist, misogynist, Bible Literalist, and Global Warming denialist.

Then again, he rejects reality in general, so don't be surprised.

48 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 2:59:55pm

Here's a question:

what's more harmful to the Republican part in the long term?

They don't actually win back the house or the senate?

Or they DO win back the house or the senate and the discourse is filled with Tea Party lunatics

Sometimes the worst thing for someone is that they get the spotlight

49 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 3:01:31pm

re: #43 John Q

Evolution and warming are two of the big Republican denials. The other biggie is Keynesian economic analysis. (Until Keynesian policies suggest a cut in tax rates: then they're in favor.)

Then there are the minor denialists, like Andy Schlafly, who believes that the Theory of Relativity couldn't possibly be true because it conflicts with the Bible

I wonder about a guy like that, I wonder if it's all just a scam, just manipulation of the groundlings

it seems too easy to just think they're all crazy

50 Decatur Deb  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 3:01:42pm

It should be possible to convince some portion of the anti-science crowd that accepting modern medicine is entering a pact with the devil. Could only help.

51 allegro  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 3:02:17pm

re: #48 WindUpBird

That is a very valid point. And better that they do it now while we have Obama and the veto against their goofy shit so they can't do so much damage.

52 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 3:02:52pm

re: #50 Decatur Deb

It should be possible to convince some portion of the anti-science crowd that accepting modern medicine is entering a pact with the devil. Could only help.

Pray harder! That'll get rid of the angina

53 HappyWarrior  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 3:06:09pm

re: #48 WindUpBird

Here's a question:

what's more harmful to the Republican part in the long term?

They don't actually win back the house or the senate?

Or they DO win back the house or the senate and the discourse is filled with Tea Party lunatics

Sometimes the worst thing for someone is that they get the spotlight

I don't know. It really does seem though like the right and Republican Party has gone crazy. The guy we elected attorney general here is a frigging loon who goes around investigating climate change scientists, espouses nirther rhetoric, and drops protections for gay/lesbian college students. Some of the college dems were telling me that they came less than a 100 votes short of beating him and thus ruining his ambitions. Shows you how important it is to win those local races to prevent the loons from gaining momentum. Something I know all too well here after Jim Webb narrowly beat George Allen back in 2006 but Ken Cuccinelli makes Allen look sane and there are Ken Cuccnelli's across the country gaining promience in the GOP.

54 garhighway  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 3:14:04pm

re: #47 mikhailtheplumber

Schlafly is not a minor denialist. He refuses to accept the Theory of Relativity in addition to being a Young Earth Creationist, misogynist, Bible Literalist, and Global Warming denialist.

Then again, he rejects reality in general, so don't be surprised.

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

55 MarkAM  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 3:14:26pm

re: #44 ragnwald

Glad you posted that. I was going to myself. Many of the comments are alarming but not surprising. These people come out of the woodwork whenever an editorial like this appears.

56 elizajane  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 3:19:28pm

re: #41 garhighway

re: #24 allegro

I think you are both wrong. The GOP is, with its anti-science position, sucking up to two indispensable constituencies: the religious right and the energy industry. One provides them with foot soldiers and votes (and chooses to ignore the party's economic policies) and the other with giant sacks of cash (and, via the Kochs and others, funds the Party's intellectual leaders).

I suspect that the vast majority of the candidates surveyed know, in their heart of hearts, that the positions they are taking are nonsense. But they also know that if they take the opposite position that their careers are over. So they say what they have to say.

I would like to think that you are right. But when the Republicans start nominating people like Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell.... Let's face it, these people actually believe what they say.

57 garhighway  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 3:24:22pm

re: #56 elizajane

I would like to think that you are right. But when the Republicans start nominating people like Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell... Let's face it, these people actually believe what they say.

Agree: there are a few nuts in every can. And believe me, I do not intend my comments as a defense of those people. In fact, I am not sure who scares me more: the "true believers" like Angle and O'Donnell or the cynical pretenders. At least with the true believers you know where you stand.

58 mikhailtheplumber  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 3:26:50pm

re: #56 elizajane

I would like to think that you are right. But when the Republicans start nominating people like Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell... Let's face it, these people actually believe what they say.


Well, I think the strategy of the GOP blew up on the faces of the less cynical (read: more responsible and honest) republicans, who got owned in the primaries by honest-to-god, full-blown crazies who actually do believe in the Bible-trumps-science philosophy. Meanwhile, those without a conscience and motivated solely by a thirst of power (like Newt or Sarah Palin) have had to up the ante to not be outgrown by the monster they created.

Too convoluted?

59 Decatur Deb  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 3:28:37pm

re: #58 mikhailtheplumber

Well, I think the strategy of the GOP blew up on the faces of the less cynical (read: more responsible and honest) republicans, who got owned in the primaries by honest-to-god, full-blown crazies who actually do believe in the Bible-trumps-science philosophy. Meanwhile, those without a conscience and motivated solely by a thirst of power (like Newt or Sarah Palin) have had to up the ante to not be outgrown by the monster they created.

Too convoluted?

Explaining the interaction of crazy and evil will tend to the convoluted.

60 WMKaffir  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 7:05:15pm

Best news I've read all week, thanks.

61 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 7:25:20pm

Here we go again.

62 ClaudeMonet  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 11:24:32pm

re: #31 Decatur Deb

Tell me. I spent most of last week changing a 5 wk old.

And you succeeded in changing him/her. He/she is now a six-week-old.

Amazing!re: #8 freetoken

It wasn't always like this. Back when the GOP was the progressive party it was more friendly to science. Even after TR left and the GOP became the party of big business it still was strongly modern - after all, science is the bedrock on which industry and modern commerce has been built.

With the rise of Nixon's Southern Strategy and then Reagan's religious coalition did the GOP begin to abandon its modernity.

Does that mean it was OK with you when the Democratic Party controlled the Deep South and all the mouth-breather types voted the straight D ticket?

I'm not trying to pick a fight here, just trying to figure out why the Southern Strategy is considered so bad. Is it because it enabled the Republicans to win once in a while?

63 ClaudeMonet  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 11:28:19pm

re: #49 WindUpBird

I wonder about a guy like that, I wonder if it's all just a scam, just manipulation of the groundlings

it seems too easy to just think they're all crazy

The simplest explanation is often the truth. They ARE all crazy.

As many of my teachers and professors told me years ago, "Just because you see multiple explanations doesn't mean they're all true."

64 ClaudeMonet  Mon, Sep 13, 2010 11:31:51pm

re: #58 mikhailtheplumber

Well, I think the strategy of the GOP blew up on the faces of the less cynical (read: more responsible and honest) republicans, who got owned in the primaries by honest-to-god, full-blown crazies who actually do believe in the Bible-trumps-science philosophy. Meanwhile, those without a conscience and motivated solely by a thirst of power (like Newt or Sarah Palin) have had to up the ante to not be outgrown by the monster they created.

Too convoluted?

No. Quite true. Deb's response ("Explaining the interaction of crazy and evil will tend to the convoluted") is accurate.

The inmates are running the asylum.

65 freetoken  Tue, Sep 14, 2010 12:32:11am

re: #62 ClaudeMonet

Does that mean it was OK with you when the Democratic Party controlled the Deep South and all the mouth-breather types voted the straight D ticket?

The problem with Nixon's Southern Strategy is that it came post George Wallace, and that meant one thing - Nixon knew that he was trading the soul of the GOP for a win. It was cold and calculating and Nixon surrendered the moral high ground (as he did several times in his Presidency) of being the political party to most promote equality based on purely egalitarian and political-theory ideas.

Progressive Democrats (e.g., the Kennedy's) embraced equality as a message too, but they had to fight the old Democratic base in the South.

Nixon IMO was the second most important President of the 20th century (after FDR), and his decisions have impacted us (mostly for bad, but a few for good too) ever since.

What we are seeing today is the conclusion of what Nixon encouraged and amplified - the transition of the GOP from being the party of Modernity and Good Governance into the party of reactionary and backward power-brokering.

From Lincoln to Eisenhower the GOP was a leading force in this country for good. Hoover may have fumbled, but he wasn't a bad guy (indeed, man celebrate him for his humanitarian work.)

It's sad to see today that the GOP has turned into the party of blind opportunism built upon the prejudices and backwards views of certain portions of the electorate.

66 freetoken  Tue, Sep 14, 2010 12:33:33am

re: #65 freetoken

pimf:

re: #62 ClaudeMonet

"Does that mean it was OK with you when the Democratic Party controlled the Deep South and all the mouth-breather types voted the straight D ticket?"


The problem with Nixon's Southern Strategy is that it came post George Wallace, and ...


[I hate it when the tags get lost.]

67 garhighway  Tue, Sep 14, 2010 4:40:40am

re: #62 ClaudeMonet

And you succeeded in changing him/her. He/she is now a six-week-old.

Amazing!re: #8 freetoken

Does that mean it was OK with you when the Democratic Party controlled the Deep South and all the mouth-breather types voted the straight D ticket?

I'm not trying to pick a fight here, just trying to figure out why the Southern Strategy is considered so bad. Is it because it enabled the Republicans to win once in a while?

Because, like the subject of this thread, it was a calculated, cynical trade of principles for votes. That was and will forever be strenuously and dishonestly denied by those involved.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh