Hitting the nail right on the head.

This isn't a Clinton celebratory thread. You chose to open it and piss in it.

you'll be left alone with like-minded folks, but no one should have to feel restrained from discussing or critiquing a major speech by the leading candidate for the dem nomination, in SEPARATE threads.

Democratic Party of the first half of the 20th Century is superior to the Democratic Party of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, that is a substantive debate which should be had.

But the people pining for FDR's Democratic Party should explain why they think the party of segregation is the model we should emulate.

Personally, I think people who think the TPP is worse than Jim Crow are in the same category as those who say Obamacare is worse than slavery.

is superior to the party of the New Deal, social security, Medicare, and the Voting Rights Act, let's do it.

Fought for economic justice for all Americans. He fought the corporate agenda more than most politicians of his age. He garnered 71% of the black vote in 1932 and was largely responsible for African-Americans moving en masses to the party. He won overwhelmingly four times. He understood what it meant to have a disability, to be an outsider in his own class.

No Dem wants a return to Jim Crow. You are setting up a straw man to knock down. Please stop this nonsense.

Every apartheid law was passed by Democratic legislatures and signed by Democratic governors.

FDR helped kill federal anti-lynching legislation. The New Deal itself was discriminatory, though it undoubtedly did help everyone.

This is not to discount the great things FDR did. But, what enabled him to do them was the FDR coalition-a coalition that was so deeply flawed and compromised that it was doomed to break apart.

Keep in mind southern blacks were not allowed to vote during FDR's presidency.

No one is channeling FDR because of JimCrow. Everyone on DU agrees that is garbage. They're talking up FDR because of his progressive vision, particularly on economics and regulation. How you don't get that is incomprehensible.

from wiki:

____ Most women and minorities were excluded from its benefits of unemployment insurance and old age pensions. Employment definitions reflected typical white male categories and patterns.

Job categories that were not covered by the act included workers in agricultural labor, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers. The act also denied coverage to individuals who worked intermittently.

These jobs were dominated by women and minorities. For example, women made up 90% of domestic labor in 1940 and two-thirds of all employed black women were in domestic service. Exclusions exempted nearly half the working population.

Nearly two-thirds of all African Americans in the labor force, 70 to 80% in some areas in the South, and just over half of all women employed were not covered by Social Security. At the time, the NAACP protested the Social Security Act, describing it as “a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.”

Created in 1935, the program took 40 years just to include all working Americans in its basic coverage. When the old-age insurance program launched in 1937, barely more than half the labor force participated.

A series of amendments to the Social Security Act gradually expanded coverage. By 1979 it finally reached 90 percent of American workers. Over the decades, Congress repeatedly retrofitted Social Security: adding dependent and survivor benefits; balancing payments between early participants and later retirees; including farm workers, domestic laborers and the self-employed, and introducing annual cost-of-living adjustments.

Social Security’s first baby steps proved especially uncertain. Of course, opponents denounced the pension plan as the leading wedge of a socialist revolution. One senator warned that the nationalization of wheat fields would soon follow. Former President Herbert Hoover suggested the law would reduce once-hearty Americans to servile passivity. “Our people are not ready to be turned into a national zoo,” Hoover warned, “our citizens classified, labeled and directed by self-approved keepers.”

But it was not just dissident conservatives who issued ideological censure. Even friendly critics disparaged the program for its incompetent personnel, confusing procedures and widespread abuses. One watchdog group particularly disapproved the rapid hiring of thousands of untrained, ill-qualified workers to staff the program.

In response, the fledgling Social Security administration launched a massive PR campaign to educate Americans about the intricacies of the program and broaden support for it . . .

". . . just a reminder that most legislative progress has been historically incremental (and progressively evolving), even with passage of sweeping initiatives."

We all want what we want when we want it. Like yesterday. Sometimes, however, it takes more time. "Incremental" is a VERY good word.

"social justice" issues don't matter bullshit we've been seeing from the usual crowd.

Sid

" " and raise you a " + "

…

x

about which party was responsible for slavery and segregation?

Sid

Hugo Black's fellow travelers in Georgia.

All parties were involved in Slavery. Federalists,m republican-Democrats, Democrats, Whigs...

between 1865 and 1964.

Father Coughlin. Democrat.

Orval Faubus: Democrat.

Lester Maddox: Democrat.

George Wallace: Democrat.

White primaries: An integral part of the Democratic Party until April 1944

Poll taxes, segregation, literacy tests--all passed by Democrats in state legislatures, signed by Democratic governors.

Republicans didn't really make their bid for the KKK vote in the South until 1964.

the armed forces. FDR famously told Hugo Black not to worry about his KKK ties, since some of FDR's "best friends and supporters he had in the state of Georgia were strong members of that organization."

That is of course, the biggest focus of the split, but it began earlier - As you noted, for the longest time the democratic party was the "southern" party, and here come this "New York Liberal" riding in on a platform that the Old Guard of the party didn't much care for.

History is a more complex thing than three-paragraph blurbs from a high school textbook.

The die-hard segregationist governors tended to pursue populist economic platforms.

FDR far from liberal when it came to race, so they got along just fine.

I know you're just having fun.

because FDR's allies wouldn't let them?

But he's perrrrfect for Hillary, the new progressive to use today. Then why isn't she running from FDR the bigot? I get it totally, umhum-

profound sins from the first half of the 20th century.

It is fundamentally dishonest to discuss Democrats as the party of the New Deal without also pointing out that the New Deal was passed by cutting deals with the Ku Kux Klan wing of the party.

Heck, good luck getting people to acknowledge that the Democrats had a KKK wing.

FDR told Hugo Black that "some of his best friends and supporters in the state of Georgia were strong members of the KKK."

ergo the 21st Century, when life began. Ok, I see.

The New Deal was not a virgin birth of a pure-of-heart President rallying everyone in the country to his banner using the bully pulpit of common sense economic populism.

It also involved a lot of very reprehensible and downright evil acts of back room dealing and human rights violations. That was part of the process. That was the price of the new deal.

That is how politics worked back then, that's how it works now.

People judging today's pols should compare them to the real FDR, not the demigod fairy tale FDR.

for one didn't die until 10 or so years ago. Maybe there shouldn't have been a New Deal the way you write, and that's fine, just make it clear. I don't know anyone who thinks of FDR as a God, professionally or personally, he had plenty of flaws and those times were extremely difficult. But in spite of all, the reform legislation his administration pushed through on banking, the progress they made with labor, and the establishment of the social safety net were remarkable policies and a foundation that kept this country strong and no. 1 in many areas until the 1980s.

However, as you can see from the OP, there is plenty of complaining that the party has changed for the worse since the 1930's, which is a statement only those wallowing in white privilege would make.

People will alert on posts stating the truth about FDR's complicity in segregation and lynchings.

VERY touchy.

why the party of Jim Crow and lynchings was superior to the one lead by Barack Obama.

speeches by famous Democrats like this

Ok...

You're slagging liberals for invoking FDR, citing the racism of the era and saying they apparently support that. But... Hillary is invoking FDR, and you seem to think that's just fine.

Wait a minute... you couldn't be employing one of those 'double standards' I've heard so much about, could you? Ooh, fancy!

It's a dictionary word: strict adherence to the basic principles of any subject or discipline.

"Progressives" (who hated FDR back in the day) today love to elevate him to almost Sainthood like Republicans do with Reagan. You never acknowledge the good old days weren't all that good. You refuse to believe today's Democratic part is vastly more liberal than the FDR era and you can't fathom how someone who doesn't meet your strict definition of 'progressive' can possibly share any kinship with FDR.

I'm going to ignore more of that because frankly, it doesn't deserve a response-- but I will say that you cannot honestly make the blanket statement that the Democratic Party is more progressive than it was during the FDR era. In some ways, it is yes-- but in others-- particularly economic issues, it has run miles to the right.

But again, why aren't you angry with Hillary for invoking FDR? I mean god, to hear you tell it, the man was terrible and even to Hillary Clinton's right! So when liberals invoke FDR, they're raising a racist to Sainthood, but when HRC does it, that's... inspiring...

Does it hurt to think in figure eights?

What's your evidence for claiming progressives 'hated FDR'?

OK.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/08/11/891631/-UPDATED-Liberal-Criticism-of-Franklin-Roosevelt-and-The-New-Deal#

And before you spin this and say "they didn't HATE FDR," just know he got the same level of animosity and criticism from the left then that the Clintons do today.

Of COURSE FDR got withering criticism from Communists. That was a very different day, and the political landscape was a hell of a lot more broad.

Many extreme leftists (and no, wyldwolf, a liberal Democrat is not an extreme leftist) accused FDR of rescuing capitalism-- and he was. They didn't want that.

Not surprising.

For the fourth time, why do you castigate liberals for invoking FDR, but celebrate it when Hillary Clinton does it?

Fifth time. You just can't answer it, can you?

Now, you explain how post 64 was " a pile of deceitful bullshit" even though sources and link were provided.

In 1983, Wallace and Clinton were the governors of their states (Alabama and Arkansas, respectively), and Bush was the Vice President. Bush was hosting a meeting of governors at his home. It's highly likely many other governors were there.

or, the version YOU were hoping for: An early secret meeting between Bush and Clinton to discuss evil things. bwahahahahaha.

Next?

are easy peasy for many by now. The relationship between Bill and the Bush family is also becoming more well known.

on the Walmart Board of Directors?

At least she was the first female partner at Rose and that truly is what I would emphasize if I were supporting her ... but to claim they were doing public service work is stretching it a bit.

Bubba said that is not relevant to Hillary's having been a partner there because the money the firm made from Arkansas was not counted in Hillary's compensation. Huh?

and that explains why she was working on Walmart instead.

I don't see that as a public service however.

Not to nitpick.....

Oh wait... that wasn't me.

Take your pick

And John Boehner.

Simply having been a career politician isn't anything wonderful.

and what's worse, she has been leveraging public office to do it

and unless you got a good explanation for how she became one of the richest people in the country that doesn't strongly imply an organized bribery ring on a scale unprecedented in this nation, you're just digging the hole deeper

Meanwhile, her accomplishments in that "life in public service", other than self-enrichment, are what exactly?

The differences between them is glaring.

I remember how it was before the restorations and new erections began, and she should be lauded for that (among other things, of course).

She's not my candidate (I support Senator Sanders), but Secretary Clinton is still a fine person and not worthy of such derision.

If you decide to actually watch it.

The Republican Party has not changed at all.

allowed it to grow, perversely enough.

All of the KKK good old boys switched from the Democrats to the Republicans.

They went from a Wall Street party to one of white racists and Wall Street.

Ironic, isn't it?

For day after day DU members talk about the debate, the policy, the issues that are of worth, that are important for solidifying candidate loyalties. And you come up with some idiotic "Clinton can't do symbolism" as just one more inane bashing point?

when the Democratic Party was the party of white supremacism and apartheid.

Just like with President Obama, it is hateful to use past Democrats to bash present ones.

FDR would have supported Obama, Hillary, any of today's Democrats.

So just to get this straight... when HRC invokes FDR, it's about economic justice (even though she's got bags of campaign cash from Wall Street), but when liberals do it... they're supporting racism?

well, besides being the first woman President, who really knows what she wants?

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Sat Jun 13, 2015, 12:13 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Another person pining for the good old days
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6827668

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Accusing a fellow DUer of longing for a return to segregation is way over the top. Like Skinner says, it's time to stop the worst of the jerk behavior here.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Jun 13, 2015, 12:23 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Meh. The "jerk behavior" here started with the OP.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Not relevant to the OP. Just your average pissing and moaning.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think this is a perspective that minorities would like people to consider when they talk about "the good ole days." The Democratic Party, back then, was composed of Southern white males, who have not, historically, advocated for equal rights for minorities. I see this as a valid opinion.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Who is this thin skinned? That's barely a flame. I had to read it multiple times to even figure out why this was reported. I'm still not sure.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

about the party's history.

Note the voters to hide had nothing.

Mahalo Bryce

of the era had been anti-Semitic. The treatment of the S.S. St. Louis is a disgrace that should shame us all.

"The S.S. St. Louis, part of the Hamburg-America Line (Hapag), was tied up at Shed 76 awaiting its next voyage which was to take Jewish refugees from Germany to Cuba. Once the refugees arrived in Cuba they would await their quota number to be able to enter the United States. The black and white ship with eight decks held room for four hundred first-class passengers (800 Reichsmarks each) and five hundred tourist-class passengers (600 Reichsmarks each). The passengers were also required to pay an additional 230 Reichsmarks for the "customary contingency fee" which was supposed to cover the cost if there was an unplanned return voyage.1 As most Jews had been forced out of their jobs and had been charged high rents under the Nazi regime, most Jews did not have this kind of money. Some of these passengers had money sent to them from relatives outside of Germany and Europe while other families had to pool resources to send even one member to freedom.

-----
The Cuban government wanted $500 per refugee (approximately $500,000 in total). The same amount as required for any refugee to obtain a visa to Cuba. Berenson didn't believe he would have to pay that much. Through negotiations, he believed it would only cost the JDC around $125,000.

-----
While the negotiations continued, the St. Louis milled around Cuba and then headed north, following the Florida coastline in the hopes that perhaps the United States would accept the refugees. A U.S. Coast Guard ship and planes followed the St. Louis to prevent it from landing. Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr. learned of this from the newspapers, but did not intervene beyond verifying with the Coast Gaurd commander the St. Louis was being followed.

----
Having crossed the Atlantic Ocean twice, the passengers' original hopes of freedom in Cuba and the U.S. turned into a forlorn effort to escape sure death upon their return to Germany. Feeling alone and rejected by the world, the passengers returned to Europe in June 1939. With World War II just months away, many of these passengers were sent East with the occupation of the countries to which they had been sent."

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/stlouis.html


"The MS St. Louis was a German ocean liner most notable for a single voyage in 1939, in which her captain, Gustav Schröder, tried to find homes for 915 Jewish refugees from Germany, after they were denied entry to Cuba, the United States and Canada, until finally accepted in various European countries, which were later engulfed in World War II. Historians have estimated that, after their return to Europe, approximately a quarter of the ship's passengers died in concentration camps. The event was the subject of a 1974 book, Voyage of the Damned, by Gordon Thomas and Max Morgan-Witts. It was adapted for a 1976 American film of the same title."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis

We have a list taken from a comment on Facebook...

He is definitely 'pinning' away for the good old days of the New Deal economic progressivism. He wants to reinstate New Deal banking regulations, expand medicare, and strengthen social security for starters.

Now, of course, he also wants social justice issues to be equal to the economic ones as his history on civil rights and LGBT rights clearly shows (and no 'evolving' necessary!)

So why do you have his avatar and say you support him.

You HATE the New Deal. All you ever go on about is how bad it was.

And now you are also in a thread with hypocrites agreeing with you on the one hand, and yet they are also trying to say that HRC is channeling Roosevelt?

There is some Jedi level cognitive dissonance going on in this thread.

agenda. He is not wedded to the ignorant notion that the era of Father Coughlin and Orval Faubus and J. Edgar Hoover represent the model for the Democratic Party to follow.

There was a great deal to admire about the New Deal. It needs to remain basis of our safety net.

But, if people are going to cite history, they should do it honestly. And it is an indisputable fact that the same white populism that helped support the New Deal's enactment also kept black Americans in a state of de facto slavery.

There are always compromises and trade-offs to be made. Those who call themselves "FDR Democrats" who treat the white populism of the era as the solution to today's problems while decrying the compromises of today's party are selling mythology and fairy tales.

No one who calls themselves an FDR Democrat today, including Sanders, decries the compromises. We don't sell or talk fairy tales or myths.

We are serious about the economic injustices. We are seriously about civil rights. Hell, Sanders and supporters like myself were serious about civil rights while other candidates were 'evolving'.

You are attacking an imaginary thing. Populism is not just for whites. There are several POC including myself who are outspoken proponents of it here on these boards.

If by compromise what you are really saying is that we have to accept the Third Way's evolving social liberalism and also accept their horrid economic corporatism, then yes, I, and other populist, are completely against that.

Look at the OP in this thread.

It's all about that old time religion.

We don't have to accept our policies being too corporate friendly. But we do need to understand why things happen.

that HRC is NOT Roosevelt.

Old time religion is another windmill you are tilting at.

I did a search, and what I found is exactly what I have stated. Posters from DU2 who are on DU3 still promoting economic and civil rights issues.

I am curious. What is your ethnicity and gender?

So, now you're shifting the goalposts.

Everyone here favors economic and civil rights. The self-described "FDR Democrats" aren't special in that regard.

The difference is how people think that gets changed. The crowd I'm describing thinks angry populism that says "fuck you" to the bankers is the strategy we need.

This OP says (laughably) that the issues haven't changed since 19 fucking 36. But laments that the party has changed since 1936. (1936 being when Father Coughlin and the White Primaries were powerful forces within the Democratic party).

That is backwards looking (myopically and incorrectly so), while humming "Gimme that old time religion, gimme that old time religion, gimme that old time religion, it's good enough for me."

Here is the difference between myself and the OP and the other "FDR Democrats"--

I disagree with this:

I searched for FDR Democrats and those who call themselves that are the same DU2 posters who are now DU3 posters who stated quite clearly that ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL JUSTICE ISSUES ARE BOTH IMPORTANT.

Yes, I capitalized it so you would get it clearly. You love to run off on other tangents.

When it comes to financial and economic issues, no these issues HAVE NOT changed.

When it comes to social issues, the whole damned country has changed. Republicans and Democrats alike were anti-LGBT, racist, sexist, etc. for much of the 20th century. Hell, we have a video of HRC still being an LGBT bigot as late as 2004.

The party has changed dramatically when it comes to economic issues. New Dems, neo-liberals, the Third Way, whatever the fuck you want to call them have dismantled and are dismantling piece by piece with GOP support the New Deal economic regulations that are obviously just as relevant today as they were in 1936.

You still did not answer my question. What race and gender are you?

It was an EVERYTHING issue.

It was the core, festering evil at the heart of this country, by far the dominant driver of economic and social inequality in the country.

Racist economic policies like redlining stripped generations of black families of the ability to generate household wealth.

That's not a fucking "social issue."

And sorry, you're making shit up about the Democratic party dismantling the New Deal. The social safety net has been expanded, not dismantled since WWII.

Social Security (retirement)? Expanded.

Social Security (disability)? Expanded.

Medicare? Not even part of the New Deal.

Medicaid? Not even part of the New Deal. Expanded several times, including under Obama.

SCHIP? Created under Bill Clinton.

Family Medical Leave Act? Americans with Disability Act? Decades after the New Deal was enacted.

National health care regulation, including coverage of people with pre-existing conditions and system of national subsidies? Passed under Obama.

To the extent New Deal programs were rolled back, that happened under FDR's watch, by the courts and by the much more conservative Congress elected in 1938.

Today's Democratic party is much more committed to equality than it was pre-1964, to be certain.

social and economic issues.

Welcome to the team!

So let's have FDR style New Deal economic policies with LBJ Civil Rights Act with the 1970's ERA with the 2010's overturning of DOMA & DADT.

But what you and others forget is that when you focus on one without the other, EVERYONE suffers. The highest rate of child poverty in the world for highly developed nations is here, the US! And guess which races are the most affected by that? Yes, that would be blacks and hispanics.

Both/and not either/or is where the Democratic party should be. It is not.

and, quite frankly, pretty much universal positions inside the Democratic party.

where people differ is how to achieve policy results along those lines.

HRC and her supporters do not support economic justice. Neo-liberalism is Reaganesque corporatism. Anti-TPP, anti-NAFTA, pro-union, too big to fail bank prosecutions, a return to Glass-Stegal, a living wage not just an pitiful incremental increase in a living wage, student loan debt reduction, etc. are not policies that are supported by the Third Way.

Sorry.

Also a very ugly smear of Clinton supporters.

Last word is yours.

It is not sloganeering.

Those are real issues that have effected all of us - black, white, hispanic, gay, straight, man, woman, etc. - for the last 30 years. The only break was 8 years of Bush's Neo-Con war mongering which Clinton is a supporter of.

You said we are all alike. We are not. O'Malley, Chafee, and Sanders supporters are NOT like Clinton ones when it comes to these issues. That is a fact and not a 'smear'.

Grow up.

I'm leaning Bernie, but I'm not about to rain on the parade of any Democrat or their supporters. We should be glad we're not GOPers stuck with selecting one sorry clown from the sweaty, smelly, crowded car they are riding around in.

like FDR was.

So, she's got that going for her.

Sid

say the same of Hillary. As I mentioned up thread she was the first female partner at the Rose Law firm and that is to be commended. So she has pushed some boundaries. I can say that without throwing FDR under the bus, however, and it pains me to see folks on a supposedly Democratic party board attempt to tarnish FDR in such a manner.