== When Liberals Rule The World = By Mark Morford

Stats say the GOP is dying. But red-staters are breeding like drunken ferrets. Who wins?

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2007/03/28/notes032807.DTL&nl=fix

Here's the good news: The Republican party is dying. Slow, painful, twitching, secreting war and intolerance and desperation like a fetid gas, snarling and gagging like Jabba the Hutt being choked by the hard chain of progress and hope and relaxed social mores and an upcoming Generation Next that seems to sense that screaming about gays and women's rights and Muslims and drugs actually doesn't do much to move the human experiment forward in the slightest.

Is this not delicious? Is this not cause for rejoicing? According to Pew Research, the percentage of young 'uns age 18 to 25 (a.k.a. Generation Next) who identify with Republicans has been in steady decline since the early '90s, and now hovers around a meager 35 percent, down from a high of 55 percent in the Reagan-toxic early-90s, and is still dropping, whereas fully 48 percent of 18-to-25-year-olds now lean Democratic ... and rising.

Seems Generation Next tend to be more socially liberal and much less worried about the trembling "sanctity" of the failed nuclear family, and are overall less inclined to align with a particular religion. Indeed, it almost makes you want to weep and sigh and go buy a large grass-fed free-range organic hybrid vibrator.

Ah, but there is a flip side. A counterargument. A dark cloud of righteous bleakness and it looms like a giant synthetic cheesecake-scented Glade PlugIn of potential misery. ...

saw the light early and became Democrats. My brother and I are two examples.

And the richest of the rich, who are the only ones benefiting from Bush's policies, don't tend to have large families, do they?

More and more regular folks are waking up--sort of hard not to, with Cousin Bubba returning from Iraq after three tours severely injured-and they are calling him to go back again.

"Idiocracy."

sadly, I don't think there will ever be a shortage of either.

The old line was when the Democrats get to wacky, people turn to the GOP, when the GOP turns to greedy, people embrace the Democratic Party.

Both parties are coalitions. These coalitions have switched over time (and often do to the success of whatever Coalition is in power). Prior to the 1930s the Country was mostly GOP (Outside of the South which was Democratic, through DINO in nature). The Democrats were a coalition of Rural Liberals, radicals, Tammy Hall of New York and Southern DINOs (Which includes certain areas of the North with strong Democratic traditions such as Southern Illinois and South West Pennsylvania). Holding this group together was Progressive Liberal fundamentalism of William Jennings Bryan (Most cities were GOP strong holds Prue-1920s). This was true even when the Democratic party won the White house in 1912 with Wilson (Who won elections as liberal Republicans abandoned the GOP for Wilson for the Democrats had supported An Income Tax that the GOP opposed).

Anyway in the 1920s the Liberal Wing of the GOP returned to the GOP, till the 1932 election when FDR won. FDR won with enough Democrats in the House and Senate to pass that the Democrats and other progressives had been talking about since the Nomination of Bryan in 1896. It took the full weight of the Depression to get people to stop voting GOP when it was NOT in their best interests (This was most true of Labor and people living in Urban Areas, both of whom had voted GOP prior to 1932). Given that FDR increased spending on the poor and help for the poor even people in the Urban Areas started to vote Democratic for the first time ever. On top of these new Democrats, FDR was able to keep the old members of the Democratic party, including Southern Conservative Democrats voting Democratic. This pattern of voting Continued from the time of the New Deal till the 1960s.

In the 1960s the GOP under Nixon decided to divide the Democratic Coalition (The 1950s use of red-baiting had been found NOT to be effective at getting people NOT to vote Democratic). First by using the key word of "Crime" the GOP slowly convinced Southern Conservative Democrats to vote Republican. While the GOP used the world "Crime" the key was that Crime in the South was connected directly with the world "Black". Thus the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a huge blow in Southern Democrats. This was further enhanced with the passage of 1974 Education Act, which provided Federal Funding for Public Schools, but none if the Schools were segregated. This was a big blow to the Democrats.

The second thing Nixon did was to emphasis "Abortion". Since "Abortion" had been declared constitutionally protected, they was NOT much anyone could do about it, but it gave the GOP the ability to run with the issue without actually having to do anything. This caused a lot of "Value" voters to leave the Democratic Party (especially in the South, but also elsewhere).

The third thing the GOP did was talk about "Guns" and how the Democrats were going to take them away. The main purpose of this was to keep Northern Rural Voters voting GOP and to reinforce GOP candidates in the South. Again, no one was proposing any real restrictions, thus the GOP only had to say they were "Stopping" the Democrats from passing confiscatory gun laws. The fact that while you had one or two radical purposing such laws provided the GOP with "Proof" of the Democrats plan to take people's guns away.

Fourth, the GOP emphasis taxes, and that they would cut them. Everyone likes tax cuts, but also want services, the GOP just made sure that any service being cut did not affect the groups they were going after (Thus most cuts was to programs for the poor and minorities as opposed to cuts to white Middle Class suburbanites).

This program succeeded, first with Reagan who won both the Senate and for all practical purposes the House (The House stayed Democratic in the 1980s, but most congresses were dependent on Southern Conservatives to stay Democratic, so the house was technically Democratic, for all practical purposes it was GOP controlled). Like most such GOP movements the seeds of it sown destruction was in its success. One of the first thing the GOP did was convert the Collage Grant program to a Loan Program. People who previously graduated with little or no school debts now started to come out of school with hugh school debts that had to be paid back (and the GI bill was changed so that the previous policy of Veteran receiving a monthly stipend while in Collage was abolished and replaced by a program where the Vet had to put money into the school program while he was in the Military). A lot of students first taste of the GOP relates to how they were treated compared to their parents when it came to Collage (Student loans prior to 1980 were lo interest and rare, for the Grants program had come out of the Great Society Program which ended private Banks Student loans common till the early 1970s).

Another area where the GOp has been failing is Abortion. Starting in 1994, the GOP controlled the House and Senate. From 2000 to 2006 ALL THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT. Yet no bill to abolish abortion, no constitutional amendment to abolish abortion etc. Now most Democrats OPPOSE restrictions on Abortion, but it was the GOP who said give them power and Abortion would be outlawed. The GOP failed to deliver. This hurt them with Value Voters. Furthermore most Value Voters, except for Abortion, prefer DEMOCRATIC IDEAS over GOP Ideas. Remember the bible clearly say you are your Neighbor's Keeper. To cut back welfare without any real plans on how those mother and Children are to survive upset these Value Voters. Global Warming is a Concern for them (man was granted Control over the earth, which always implies the duty NOT to HARM the earth). I have know SEVERAl value voters who voted for Bush on the Abortion issue who will NOT do so today for he failed to deliver AND what he has delivered on hurts him in the eyes of such value voters. These Value Voters are shifting to the left or are abandoning politics, both harm the GOP and strengthen the Democratic Party.

The recent spat of Court Decisions about the Second Amendment, while minor in a legal sense, are major in a Political Sense. It shows the Courts are willing to consider that the Second is a individual right. While a clear cut Supreme Court case would be nicer from a legal point of view (and I doubt you will ever have one, the GOP likes the ability to use the fear of Democrats taking people's guns as a way to keep Rural Voters voting GOP), the fact that the decision HAVE been made has taken the Gun issue out of the political picture for many rural voters who then will vote their economic benefit i.e. Democrats instead of voting GOP to protect their Guns.

While the Southern Conservative Democrat is gone, the urban Democrat is alive and kicking and growing in strength. Rural Northerns are voting Democratic. Value Voters are returning to the Democratic Party. Each of these groups are unceasing in number for they see the Democratic Party as providing more benefit for them then the GOP. In 30-40 years this will change again, but by that time hopefully the Democrats will have done enough good to survive the GOP gutting of those programs, like what Reagan did to the Ne Deal programs (Under Reagan, regulation of Securities were for all practical purposes ended, Anti-trust laws were NOT enforced, and he busted a Union, thus telling the rest of the Unions to behave or suffer the same fate).

The parties have shifted over the years and will shift again. We are in a huge Shift to the Left that the GOP is not even seeing, but when confronted will do everything to oppose, including cheating as the GOP did in the 2000 and 2004 Presidential Election (which they did in 1896 when the last time the Democratic Party embraced Liberalism as a solution to the excesses of Capitalism).

The movement to the left has been going on since the mid-1990s when people started to see the full affect of the GOP vision for American (and rejected it). The GOP has always had more money than the Democrats. In the 1896 election the GOP outspent the Democrats 10-1 (and that is the OFFICIAL spending, GOP newspapers and other support is NOT in that number). Even in that election the Democratic candidate came close to winning (and thus the GOP had to cheat to win). This money advantage has always helped the GOP even when it was in the minority. In my opinion the GOP would have disappeared decades ago except for that money advantage.

While I ignored the issue of Money in my previous thread, it is an important factor. Fortunately for most people they do have long memories so the greed of the GOP of the 1920s was remembered by people till they started to die off in the 1970s. The baby-boomer's did NOT know the Depression first hand and received most of the advantages of the Democratic Reforms of the New Deal. The GOP used they money to convince the Baby-Boomer's that they best choice was the GOP not those wacky Democrats. The Democrats have to overcome this money advantage by being better and they generally are.

One way the Democrats are better is shown in the Scoop's Monkey Trial of 1925. Before I go into why this trial shows the difference between Democrats and Republicans I have to first get the reader to understand that their concept of the trial is WRONG if that concept is based on the movie and play "Inherit the Wind". The Play is based on a book written by a Republican which attacked Bryan and his performance in the Trial. Even in the 1931 when the book was published, the GOP still feared Bryan, six years in his grave by then. Anyway what most people think of that trial is based on GOP propaganda for the GOP word machine by 1925 had been Anti-Bryan for 30 years and when it came to the trial kept on that attack (There is a quote of one reporter when asked how can he call in his report while the trial was on, retorted "I know what my editor wants").

Since the Trial the attacks on Bryan has continued for people REMEMBER what they war told and the GOP is good at repeating things over and over till you accept them as true even when they are not. Some example of the errors most in the play:

1. Scopes while arrested, never spend a day in Jail.
2. All the attorneys involved were referred to a "Colonel" it was a title to ANY attorney in Tennessee at that time.
3. BOTH sets of Attorneys were greeted by the Town with a dinner (Two dinners, Bryan spoke at one, Darrow the second).
4. Bryan never complained by the sentence for a Fine was all that could be assessed against Scoops (And Bryan had earlier offered to pay it if Scopes did not have the money AND had also wrote a letter to the Tennessee Legislature NOT to put a fine in the Stature the year before).
5. Scopes was actually offered a renewal of his contract with the School after the trial (and would later say he meet greater bigotry in academia then he ever faced in the hills of Tennessee). The scene in the play is based on McCarthy's attack on those opposing him, not on anything that happened in Dayton in 1925.
6. Remember the Trial was a made up case to bring money into the City of Dayton Tennessee. Scopes agreed to be the Defendant after the town had told him he would have his job back, the town would pay the fine etc.
7. No preacher in town said anything to anyone involved in the Trial (The Preacher in the Play is 100% fictional, no such character existed in Dayton in 1925).

If you missed any of the above, join the club, most people have for it was the result of a massive GOP propaganda program against Bryan and was internalized by so many people that when the Play came out in the 1950s no one really remembered the Trial so no one objected to the inaccuracy of the Play compared to the Trial.

While the perception of Bryan is a product of GOP smear campaign, the point I want to make is the make up of the two sets of Attorneys. Scopes lead attorney was Hall who was the ACLU attorney and had been Bryan's Assistance Secretary of State under Wilson (When Bryan had been Secretary of State). Darrow came in late to the fight, only volunteering his services once Bryan agreed to appear for the Prosecution. Thus you had the situation where a Trial involving what the parties thought was an important legal and social debate, occurring in a Republican County, in front of the Republican Judge, with a Republican Jury (and paid for by a Republican Chamber of Commerce as a money making plan for the City of Dayton) when both sets of Attorneys were members of the Democratic Party.

Why the debate? Because Democrats ALWAYS DEBATE POLICY, Republicans never do. The Debate was simple, When it comes to PUBLIC Schools paid for by Public Taxes, do the Public have the right to decide what is to be taught in such Public Schools? If yes, what limitation is on that right? Both Bryan and Hall wanted that Debated and that was the whole thrust of the Trial from those two long time Democrats. Even Darrow was a caught up in this spirit, agreeing to be a Witness for Bryan after he had examine Bryan (This was canceled by the Judge who ruled the whole concept, including Bryan's testimony, was irrelevant to the issue at trial). In Bryan's eyes and the eyes of the ACLU the trial was to start a debate, a debate that never occurred for the book publishers chicken out and quickly removed Darwinism from most if not all Biology books. This is NOT want Bryan wanted, and NOT what the ACLU wanted. Bryan wanted Darwin out of High School Biology only as to Human evolution but based on a belief that teaching evolution made people less charitable to their fellow man (Social Darwinism was big in the 1920s, and Social Darwinism was something a progressive like Bryan always opposed). Bryan knew Darwinism had to be taught to a degree, the debate in his mind is first who makes that decision AND what are the limits to such restrictions and how to correct for the harm of teaching it (i.e. how do you address the problem of Social Darwinism).

The Scopes Monkey trial shows the difference between Democrats and Republicans, Democrats want to discuss policy, both good and bad, and hope that out of that debate a good policy will come out. Republicans want to make money even of that is the result of bad policy and as long as they are making money, the policy must be good.

If you want more on the Scoop's Monkey Trial go here:
http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/tennes15.html#tbdc
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3645
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0603.kilgore.html

For Speeches of Bryan (He wrote some great anti-Imperialism Speeches in his 1900 Campaign):
http://www.boondocksnet.com/ai/ail/bryan.html

His Speech on the "The Religious Argument" for imperialism is still accurate today:
http://www.boondocksnet.com/ai/ailtexts/bryan041230.html

but -- don't expect the "powers-that-be" to inform the people -- of this fact though.