A Nation Divided

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo

Democrats since the days of Jackson have demonized Republicans as being the party of the rich...

That'd be a little difficult since the Republicans didn't exist during the days of Jackson.

The opposition party, the Whigs, were the party of the rich (particularly, of industrialists). The Democrats were the party of the common (white) guy, who were politically allied with plantation owners in opposition to industrial protectionism.

Please quote the entire paragraph next time where I mentioned the Whigs in the previous sentence. The Republican Party in a sense inherited the Northern Whigs, but the demonization started by Jackson against the Whigs continued against the Republicans. That was my point and everyone but you seemed to understand it.

[chequita guevara]

It took about twenty years for the switch to be complete, probably because the GOP didn't come right out and yell "White Supremacy Forever!" even if some of their new Repugs had shouted such slogans in their youth (Strom Thurmond anyone?)

Even Reagan talked in code, refering to Welfare Queens, etc., though in the Deep South, the codes were discarded. "How many times have you seen a strapping young buck pay for a couple of t-bone stakes with food stamps then drive off in his new Cadillac?" was used in at least one speech by the Gipper according to Playboy magazine (I forget which issue).

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Odin


They ARE the party of the rich. Privileged male voters are mostly Republicans.

That's not how Republicans of minority races, ethnicities, Republican women, and those who are gay see it.

[Ned]

1968

Here's what happened in '68. It illustrates that the South's switch to the Republican Party occurred in '72 and later.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Oh, so you decided to use real numbers this time...a good move, IMHO

[Ned]

TEF, as to the minority figures, it does support what I said about the party switch, but just not to the degree I thought. I must say that I was truly surprised by the figures. What this tells me is that the Republicans have a golden opportunity to get the minority middle class to switch parties. We should be doing more trying to understand why they are not coming over to the party that protects their interests better.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

We should be doing more trying to understand why they are not coming over to the party that protects their interests better.

I see your penchant for the incorrect isn't limited to numbers.

[Ned]

TEF, I see. An please explain why being pro-business and pro-growth is antithetical to the minority middle class?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by St Leo
Does anyone else find the phrase "economically liberal" ambiguous and confusing?

No. It refers unambiguously to economic rightism.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

No. It refers unambiguously to economic rightism.

By comparison only. The economic liberal in the US is a socialist.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Ned
TEF, I see. An please explain why being pro-business and pro-growth is antithetical to the minority middle class?

Middle-classers tend to like welfare (as long as it protects them at least as much as the underclass, at any rate).

[The Emperor Fabulous]

You kid yourself when you think that growth is a partisan issue. You also kid yourself if you think that Republicans are for the middle class, and especially for the minority middle class. Why do you think that Bush's economic policies have been deemed the "War on the Middle Class", much like Reagan's were deemed the "War on the Poor".

You also seem to think that economics are the sole reason for party affiliation. That completely discounts the humanity, a great reason why African-Americans are overwhelmingly Democrat, and Hispanics remain largely Democrat even while the younger generation is assuming more conservative values (though there is a growing dissent in conservative hispanics, who like GWB but don't like the party that panders to Rich WASPs).

[DanS]

Why do you think that Bush's economic policies have been deemed the "War on the Middle Class"

That's easy. Because Dems want to win the next election.

It's just stupid rhetoric that doesn't have nearly as much impact as the Dems believe.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Middle-classers tend to like welfare (as long as it protects them at least as much as the underclass, at any rate).

Really????

Middle classers really are squeezed by high taxes and high cost of living. They certainly resent the welfare state that pays people for not working.

[Ned]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
You kid yourself when you think that growth is a partisan issue. You also kid yourself if you think that Republicans are for the middle class, and especially for the minority middle class. Why do you think that Bush's economic policies have been deemed the "War on the Middle Class", much like Reagan's were deemed the "War on the Poor".

You also seem to think that economics are the sole reason for party affiliation. That completely discounts the humanity, a great reason why African-Americans are overwhelmingly Democrat, and Hispanics remain largely Democrat even while the younger generation is assuming more conservative values (though there is a growing dissent in conservative hispanics, who like GWB but don't like the party that panders to Rich WASPs).

The problem I see is not that the Republicans are against the middle class, as they are not. It is the Demonization of Republicans by Democrats as being rascists which is the problem.

As to the Dems being pro-growth, that is laughable as they are always anti-business as far back as I can remember.