What Is The Democrat Party?

The Democrat Party is a coalition of the oppressed and formerly oppressed Americans.

And who was doing the oppressing? Social conservatives of the Protestant variety.

Here is one example dealing with the public schools.

Separate Roman Catholic and Jewish schools were established in the mid-nineteenth century, first in New York City, and later across the country. This was in response to the overly anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish positions presented by most textbooks used in public schools throughout the nation, in the interest of promoting Protestant homogamy throughout the United States.
Until the Republican Party does something about being identified with oppressors it will be in a world of hurt.

My suggestion? Champion marijuana legalization. It would show that the party stands not only for Economic Liberty but also Cultural Liberty.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

posted by Simon on 11.09.08 at 07:47 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/7631






Comments

Until 1854 or thereabouts the parties doing the oppressing were the Whigs and the Democrats. The Whigs split up over slavery and the anti-Slavery Whigs joined with the Free Soil Party to form the Republicans.

The Democratic Party loved Black people so much they thought everyone should own one.

After the war in the south the Democrats in the Klan were protestants. In the north the Dems made inroads among the Irish etc because the Irish had been opposed to the wartime draft and had rioted in New York, murdering blacks.

The modern public schools in MA are so good I have worked with recent high school graduates who believed Lincoln was a Dem.

John Costello   ·  November 9, 2008 09:34 PM

The Democrats have an unsavory background according to modern day standards. In the day, they were simply going along with the numbers - wherever they were.

It is this pandering that has turned me away from Democrats ever since I learned to read.

If principles mean nothing, why pretend to have them?

Donna B.   ·  November 9, 2008 10:04 PM

"If princple mean nothing, why pretend to have them?"

That applies to the current Republican party as well.

Donna B.   ·  November 9, 2008 10:06 PM

Donna B.

The difference is this , the Republican base will not vote if the candidate that supposed to represent them does not adhere to the principles of the Republican party while the modern Democratic base tends to vote anyway because nobody knows what the modern Democratic party have in terms of principles .

Will   ·  November 9, 2008 11:36 PM

John,

All true. But have you looked at this year's electoral map?

I'm not discussing how it came about. Just what is.

M. Simon   ·  November 10, 2008 01:05 AM

M. Simon - confirmation bias. You are leaping to conclusions on the basis of insufficient evidence. You have made up your mind, and now rework the data to fit your theory. Stars scattered across the sky are drawn to make a new constellation. You have closely identified the socons with the Romney, now with anti-Jewish element. Are Mormons among the historical persecutors of Jews, then? Is the evangelical support for Israel anti-Jewish in some way, or its pro-life stance anti-Catholic? Any stick is good enough to beat the socons with, apparently. Whatever comes to hand seems to prove your point.

If it is indeed true that social conservatives scare Democrats, where did all the socially conservative Democrats come from? I might also point out that libertarians scare people - unfairly, but it is still a fact on the ground. And up here it was the libertarian wing of the Republican party who disliked McCain as a statist from the start and stayed home. Palin actually brought some of them back.

If you believe that socons will be the death of the Republican Party on philosophical grounds, then make that argument. If you think that trends indicate a better future for the GOP with libertarians than social conservatives, then show trend numbers and make an arguemnt. But you are making it on practical grounds of votes cost, and the data doesn't support your contention.

Assistant Village Idiot   ·  November 10, 2008 08:41 AM

AVI,

It is all explained in my latest post.

M. Simon   ·  November 10, 2008 08:53 AM

If you look at history you'll find that the Democrats buy elections with public money till everything goes to pot. Then a nominal Republican is voted in to get the roads fixed and the trash collected and the bonds paid.

Then the Democrats are voted back in.

Huggy   ·  November 13, 2008 07:15 PM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)



November 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits