The last three paragraphs really stick out.

It is not enough to claim that "liberalism" has, somehow, changed meanings thus allowing us to disown the Mississippi Senator. On the contrary, the Roosevelt administration congratulated Bilbo on his win in 1940 pronouncing him "a real friend of liberal government." When Bilbo himself first ran for Senate he promised to "raise the same kind of hell as President Roosevelt." When he was up for reelection Bilbo promoted himself to be "100 percent for Roosevelt ... and the New Deal."

If the New Deal is ours, so is Theodore Bilbo. Acknowledging this part of our history wounds us. Class interests, in the liberal mind, has always been seen as the great uniter. And yet we see for whole stretches of our history race not simply race trumping class, but race effectively functioning as class.

Does it mean that the New Deal was worthless? No. Is the point that Roosevelt was a covert anti-black bigot? Nope. But it is part of our history. And it is as important to acknowledge this--just as, when the history of marriage equality is written, it will be important to acknowledge the Democratic Party's "evolution."

We tend to forget the bad and laud the good. We need to remember and not slip back into nonsense.

Indeed. There is always something to be gained from remembering and learning.

As I totally correctly pointed out in the other thread: Ted Bilbo was no genuine liberal/progressive. Not even close. He was, in fact, an extreme right-wing faux-populist; he was merely taking advantage of the surge in progressivism's popularity by latching himself onto a certain few causes, and talking a likable game(even supposedly fooling Roosevelt at one point). But deep down, he was always a reactionary, but merely an opprotunistic one. And you know what? There's guys just like that today; one of the greatest examples of such would be Rand Paul. Paul claims to be against the drug wars, and even pays lip service to anger against bankers on Wall Street.....(and sadly, some people actually have fallen for his schtick.) By the logic utilized by Coates and Katznelson here, Paul, too, according to that, is a progressive liberal.

But in reality, he's not. Neither was Ted Bilbo, and anyone who believes otherwise is frankly either naive, or even deluded.

Thanks.

I wish i had read it when it came out.

As with "part I" I am hoping I can find time to do more than skim the article after work