Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Those "clueless" liberals


Bob Herbert’s column the other day (Hold Your Heads Up) was a reality check for liberals and conservatives:

Troglodytes on the right are no respecters of reality. They say the most absurd things and hardly anyone calls them on it. Evolution? Don’t you believe it. Global warming? A figment of the liberal imagination.

Why liberals don’t stand up to this garbage, I don’t know. Without the extraordinary contribution of liberals — from the mightiest presidents to the most unheralded protesters and organizers — the United States would be a much, much worse place than it is today.


There would be absolutely no chance that a Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin could make a credible run for the highest offices in the land. Conservatives would never have allowed it.

Civil rights? Women’s rights? Liberals went to the mat for them time and again against ugly, vicious and sometimes murderous opposition. They should be forever proud.


The liberals who [as Mitt Romney would have it] didn’t have a clue gave us Social Security and unemployment insurance, both of which were contained in the original Social Security Act. Most conservatives despised the very idea of this assistance to struggling Americans. Republicans hated Social Security…. “In the procedural motions that preceded final passage,” wrote historian Jean Edward Smith in his biography, “FDR,” “House Republicans voted almost unanimously against Social Security. But when the final up-or-down vote came on April 19 [1935], fewer than half were prepared to go on record against.”




Pictures: Saddleback College Library, yesterday

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

What were the vote totals on the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Which party voted with a higher percentage in favor of it?

From Wikipedia:

By party
The original House version:[9]

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:[9]

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

But remember! "Republicans are stupid," right DtB?

Roy Bauer said...

Ah, yes, those were the days in which white people in the south--I think you'll have to admit that they were more conservative than liberal--refused to have anything to do with the "Party of Lincoln," and so that left them with the Democratic Party. Nevertheless, there were indeed "liberals" in the Democratic Party, and those liberals were the ones who wrote and pursued the Civil Rights Act, etc.

The southern racists eventually overcame their objections to the Republican Party. Where'd they go? Why, they went to the Republican Party! And that's where they are now.

The Republican Party, the party of Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond.

Anonymous said...

The 1964 Civil Rights Act was introduced by President John F. Kennedy in his civil rights speech of June 11, 1963.

Kennedy was a liberal.

Roy Bauer said...

3:08, nice cherry picking. If you had looked a little further into the Wikipedia article, you would have found that the Southern Democrats (who were no liberals and who eventually fled to the GOP) produced the odd voting pattern:

The original House version:

* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)

* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

As you can see, Southern Democrats overwhelming opposed the Bill and Northern Democrats overwhelmingly supported it.

The Senate version:

* Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)

Once again, Southern Democrats overwhelmingly opposed the Bill and Northern Democrats overwhelmingly supported it.

And what became of Southern Democrats? They joined the Republican Party.

AOR said...

In the main, those who voted for the Civil Rights Act in 1964 were liberals. The Democratic Party, at that time, wasn't.

It was a time not only when Dixiecrats ruled the Democrats, but also when the Republican Party had room for people like Nelson Rockefeller (whom I am certainly not claiming as a liberal, but whose support of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement was significant: See Stanford's MLK museum page on this.)

While we're celebrating liberals, remember we have a two-day weekend to do it in, and we don't spend it sleeping because our work week is only 40 hours. . . .

. . . . I mean, except for the people who have to work multiple jobs and/or risk getting fired if they don't come in for overtime (often unreported and so unpaid)?

Maybe someday the federal minimum wage will be raised beyond its current 62% of the poverty level for a two-parent-one-child family. If so, it will be the "liberals" who do it, over the protests of the conservative economics think tanks funded by minimum-wage employers who push a bankruptcy/unemployment myth to fight it.

I am very proud to be a liberal. Thanks for this posting, Chunk.

Anonymous said...

You been token on some good shit have'nt you, Roy? Liberals contributing to the good of America? Right, you mean like Hate & Ashberry in Berkly? Man! That must really be good shit you growen back in Tabasco Canyon.

Anonymous said...

Wow, 9:26, you sure have some liberal spelling.

Anonymous said...

Chunk relying on a WIKI as a source? Tisk, tisk, tisk... I digress...

Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"

  This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...