Republican President disregards international law

[Ramo]

I contend no political "re-alignment" occurred! Geographically, yes. Politically and ideologically, no.

The Dem Party in 1904 was a coalition between conservative landowning interests in the South (i.e. the nominee in 1904 - though he was Northerner since it was difficult for pols from the South to get elected nationally), progressive Irish and Italian communities (i.e. Smith), and agrarian populists mostly from the West (i.e. Bryan). The GOP was a coalition between conservative industrial interests outside of the South (i.e. McKinley), urban WASP progressives (i.e. Roosevelt), and black people (though they were largely disenfranchised at this point). The issue that most differentiated the parties was free trade. Which the Dems were for. You can cherrypick a few details, but the political situation at the time doesn't come close to resembling today.

[Ramo]

Local Dems can't be compared to federal Dems. Look at the Congressional delegations; that tells the whole story.

[Ramo]

Yes, the governor and both US senators are Republican, yet of the state's four reps in the House, only one, Chip Pickering is a Republican, while Bennie Thompson, Gene Taylor, and Travis Childers are all Democrats.

Gene Taylor is probably the most conservative Democrat in Congress. Childers probably is going to be pretty close.

[ramseya]

Ramo:

the country has changed since then obviously as has the relevant political issues. Whether the money should be made of gold or silver was a huge deal back then but obviously is meaningless now.

The general philosophies/ideologies behind the different positions are what has not changed, however. For example, even if since 1904, the GOP has flipped its position on some issue, the underlying assumptions and philosophy behind their positions on the issue have remained the same, even if the different world conditions have motivated a change in the position. Like I said in another thread, the Democratic party has always been the protector of the common man and has always been hostile to business, while the Republican party has always been pro-business (don't bring up monopoly busting cause aside from the fact that I could counter with union busting, breaking up monopolies is hardly an anti-capitalist idea as it supports competition) and very morally righteous (look at the temperance movement and the religious origin of abolitionism).

[GePap]

You would be correct and I wasn't about most state legislatures, but then, New York had a republican governor and still maintains a Republican State Senate, and I don't think that even back in 2002 anyone would have called New York a "Republican" state.

[ramseya]

Ramo:

The argument is that the South, despite voting for Republican presidents, is STILL a haven of Democratic party loyalty. I initially supported this assertion by the fact that Democratic party affiliation exceeds Republican affiliation in most of the South. Your colleague GePap then incorrectly pointed out that that metric would not be useful as Republicans control the governorships, state legislatures, and congressional delegations. Using the examples of Mississippi and Alabama, the two most Southern of the Southern states, I disproved GePap's claim.

Now you say,

Local Dems can't be compared to federal Dems. Look at the Congressional delegations; that tells the whole story.

Why, sir, would it be invalid to use the fact that the Democrat's have significant majorities in the state legislatures of many Southern states to support the idea that the Democratic party is still strong in the South?

No bother, Mississippi has a 3-1 Democratic advantage in Reps, but then you say:

Gene Taylor is probably the most conservative Democrat in Congress. Childers probably is going to be pretty close.

What exactly do you want? I think I made a very strong case yet nothing is sufficient for you. Now, the Democratic Congressmen in the Congressional delegation aren't "Democratic" enough? They still have the D after their names!

Even assuming that you are right and they are better described as Republicans (I doubt it could be anything more than reverse Lieberman's; what with, Lieberman really being more of a moderate), why would they still cling onto the Democratic party name?

Maybe because as Republicans, they wouldn't be able to get elected? Makes sense, but this assumes strong pro-Democratic convictions in the South, something which only aids my argument.

[GePap]

Originally posted by ramseya
The general philosophies/ideologies behind the different positions are what has not changed, however. For example, even if since 1904, the GOP has flipped its position on some issue, the underlying assumptions and philosophy behind their positions on the issue have remained the same, even if the different world conditions have motivated a change in the position. Like I said in another thread, the Democratic party has always been the protector of the common man and has always been hostile to business, while the Republican party has always been pro-business (don't bring up monopoly busting cause aside from the fact that I could counter with union busting, breaking up monopolies is hardly an anti-capitalist idea as it supports competition) and very morally righteous (look at the temperance movement and the religious origin of abolitionism).

Even if one were to accept your statement as a given, that some underlying "basic values' remain unchanged, these values are used to create policy based on the conditions of the time. SO a moralistic streak under 1902 conditions leads to different policy recommendations than a moralitic streak under 2002 conditions.

Sometimes the very same basic values will give different results. For example, someone standing for the common man can be a religious populist spreading an exclusionist message, or a socialist trying to end religiosity so that people can realize their basic class interests.

One of the more basic issues would be environmentalism - after all, the EPA and the National Parks system were began by Republican presidents. Was it their support for business, or their moralizing that led to those actions? And in todays situation is it the Democrats' stance for the common man, or their anti-business interests that make them the relative champions of these government programs against Republican attempts to undermine them?

[ramseya]

GePap:

SO a moralistic streak under 1902 conditions leads to different policy recommendations than a moralitic streak under 2002 conditions.

Exactly, thats why I said "For example, even if since 1904, the GOP has flipped its position on some issue, the underlying assumptions and philosophy behind their positions on the issue have remained the same, even if the different world conditions have motivated a change in the position."

We are in agreement there.

Was it their support for business, or their moralizing that led to those actions? And in todays situation is it the Democrats' stance for the common man, or their anti-business interests that make them the relative champions of these government programs against Republican attempts to undermine them?

Well, I would hazard to guess that the city slicker Republicans had a crush on the environment I don't know if it would quite have been because of any moralizing, although this is possible.

it should be noted that this takes us into the direction of the difference between conservationism and preservationism. It was an important issue at the time of Roosevelt.

From Wikipedia:

In 1903, Roosevelt toured the Yosemite Valley with John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club, but Roosevelt believed in the more efficient use of natural resources by corporations like lumber companies unlike Muir.

Roosevelt was a conservationist. I would call today's Democrats, especially the more environmentally-concerned ones, preservationists.

And yes, I think it comes from an anti-business streak (all that polluting and hazardous waste mismanagement by businesses in previous decades makes this understandable) and a pro-taking responsibility for the community idea related to the common man theme... just defenseless animals and plants are being defended.

[ramseya]

And look at this. Teddy Roosevelt as a cowboy in another Democratic political cartoon. Remind you of anyone you know?

Really this is amazing. Historical recurrence is so fun. Things never ever seem to change.

[Arrian]

Did you actually ponder the validity of those charges against TR?

Seems to me there is a pretty good basis for charging the man with militarism/imperialism/contempt for international law/use of big stick in 1904.

The claim that he protected monopolies seems odd. It could be made up crap. Or perhaps in response to such charges he went after trusts to prove he was a man of the people? Stuff like that happens (see also: welfare reform, Clinton, Bill).

I just don't know enough about TR's presidency to have the slightest opinion on the rest of the charges - personal favorites, "stand patism" and despotism/contempt for the Consitution.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Hmm, no, it does appear that TR was always anti-trust. It just took him being elected in his own right to allow him to really show it. TR

I found this interesting:

He was the first U.S. president to call for universal health care and national health insurance.

So, McCain's a TR Republican, eh?

-Arrian

[ramseya]

Arrian:

you know, I checked out the Wikipedia article where that was from and it had two references, but both only had one line statements like "The call for a universal health care system began under the Theodore Roosevelt administration, and was a major issue and topic of debate during the Clinton administration" but no reference to that claim.

I was hoping for something more concrete like a speech or something. Googling only came back with articles about why McCain isn't like Roosevelt, most of them quoting Wikipedia verbatim.

I don't know. Not very well-substantiated. I'm sure TR was in favor of some sort of program, as those programs were being introduced throughout Europe at the same time, but I think it was more an issue of TR's 1912 campaign against Taft and Wilson than his Republican presidency.

[Ramo]

Why, sir, would it be invalid to use the fact that the Democrat's have significant majorities in the state legislatures of many Southern states to support the idea that the Democratic party is still strong in the South?

Because the national Democratic Party stands for a significantly different set of positions than Democratic legislators in MS. We're not talking about the same thing. In the Northeast, MS Dems would be Republicans.

There are some Southern states where the two are somewhat closer (TX, for example), but by and large they are completely different kinds of institutions that are not comparable.

What exactly do you want? I think I made a very strong case yet nothing is sufficient for you.

You made an extremely tenuous case. You used two state delegations, and the Democrats are a minority between the two. MS has a tied delegation. Two R Senators. AL is something like 7-2 in favor of R's.

To make a more "compelling" case, you could've mentioned AR, which is the most Democratic delegation in the South, but that's a special case. Look at the South as a whole, and you would see it as the only region where R's outnumber D's in Congress.

[Ramo]

the country has changed since then obviously as has the relevant political issues.

And coalitions too. Which is why claiming continuity between the parties is completely ridiculous. As I said, you can cherry-pick a few details, but the parties are completely different.

As an aside, the both R and D nominees were for the gold sandard in 1904. The Dems were split in two over the issue (picking pro-silver nominee William Jennings Bryan 4 years earlier and later).

[Arrian]

Originally posted by ramseya
Arrian:

you know, I checked out the Wikipedia article where that was from and it had two references, but both only had one line statements like "The call for a universal health care system began under the Theodore Roosevelt administration, and was a major issue and topic of debate during the Clinton administration" but no reference to that claim.

I was hoping for something more concrete like a speech or something. Googling only came back with articles about why McCain isn't like Roosevelt, most of them quoting Wikipedia verbatim.

I don't know. Not very well-substantiated. I'm sure TR was in favor of some sort of program, as those programs were being introduced throughout Europe at the same time, but I think it was more an issue of TR's 1912 campaign against Taft and Wilson than his Republican presidency.

Yeah, I encountered the same problem. It would be nice to have a quote from a speech or something...

-Arrian