What do you see in this picture?
When the Treasury announced that Alexander Hamilton might be removed from the $10 bill, it was a gut-punch to many traditional Republicans. Hamilton is the underrated star of the early Republic. The intellect behind George Washington, the first American economist, and the architect of both our constitutional government and our unique form of capitalism, one can make a solid case that Hamilton is the forgotten founder of the Republican Party.
This week Treasury announced a change in direction. The father of American capitalism and the GOP would retain his place on our currency. Instead of replacing Hamilton, Treasury would remove one of the founders of the Democratic Party from the twenty. Andrew Jackson, a slaveholder who dismantled Hamilton’s signature achievement, the central bank, would be replaced on the $20 bill by a gun-toting, freedom-fighting, Republican badass, Harriet Tubman.
Republicans everywhere…well, failed to rejoice.
A full anthology of Republican responses to this move would be too depressing to recount. And it would kill more brain cells than drinking six jugs of hand sanitizer. Here’s a brief, hopefully tolerable summary.
Naturally, Donald Trump who resembles Jackson in nearly every relevant way derided the move as ‘political correctness.’ Fox News called it ‘stupid’ and ‘divisive,’ because nothing is more stupid and divisive than treating black people with dignity. Ben Carson, the GOP’s designated black friend, suggested putting her on the $2 instead. I mean really, does a black woman deserve a whole $20?
Other idiots suggested creating a new bill for Tubman, perhaps a $25. At least they didn’t recommend putting her on a bill worth 3/5 of a $20. Or maybe a “separate, but equal” twenty-dollar bill which in reality could only purchase something worth 30 cents. Perhaps it could be used to pay the salaries of women?
If you think the topline reactions to the Tubman move are unsettling, heed this advice: Do not read the comments section of any article on the subject. Nothing down there will improve your day.
Heading this post is an illustration from a children’s book on Tubman. That image can be treated as a fairly definitive political Rorschach. Assessed at its most empirical, objective level, that is a picture of an armed Republican risking her life to help others obtain their liberty. Yet it seems that few Republicans share that mental response. Something else stirs in their minds when they see an indomitable, armed black woman breaking the law. Reactions by prominent Republicans to this honor bestowed on Tubman speak volumes about the transition the party has experienced.
Perhaps now we can stop pretending that the GOP is still the Party of Lincoln. A political party that derives nearly all of its support from the former slave states, where old tyme religion masks a drive to restore white supremacy, cannot credibly retain its claim to an abolitionist legacy. There is no universe in which The Party of Lincoln can simultaneously be the party of Cruz or Trump. After July, that break with Republican heritage may lead to a more formal, official break in the party’s brand.
Mother Moses just saved the father of the Republican Party. Can anyone lead the modern GOP out of this racist swamp?
Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.
GOPLifer 
To be fair, the GOP stopped being the party of Lincoln long before this. I blame Goldwater for it since his stance on the 1964 CRA pretty much destroyed the party’s credibility on civil rights and created an almost permanent resentment between Black America and the party.
Charles Koch was interviewed on “This Week” yesterday. The Kochs have not endorsed a GOP nominee and the interview made clear that he was disgusted by both Trump and Cruz. Other surprising bits was his admission that their attempts to buy government (my words, not his) had not been successful and that they were considering pulling back on the spending. Then there was the bit below:
“In the interview with White House correspondent Jonathan Karl, which aired on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos,” Charles Koch said Bill Clinton had done a better job than George W. Bush in controlling government growth while president.
“So is it possible another Clinton could be better than another Republican?” Karl asked.
“It’s possible,” Koch responded.
“You couldn’t see yourself supporting Hillary Clinton, could you?” Karl pressed.
Koch responded: “Well, I – that – her – we would have to believe her actions would be quite different than her rhetoric, let me put it that way. But on some of the Republican candidates we would – before we could support them – we’d have to believe their actions will be quite different than the rhetoric we’ve heard so far.”
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/nation/article/Conservative-activist-Koch-suggests-Clinton-might-7306812.php
I saw that interview as well, JG. Koch is amazingly sharp and I appreciated his frankness even if I don’t agree (usually) with his politics. I don’t see him moving over to HRC as there is no way she’s going to be able to win without Bernie’s supporters who will keep her moving left.
I have read several articles (Politico mostly) about Trump moving to the center and becoming more “presidential”. His new campaign manager is more accustomed to establishment politics than the “loosey-goosey” style Trump has run thus far. Plus, he knows Trump “needs” the GOPe. They will make adjustments and I have no doubt that Trump will begin to hone his remarks and style to present in a more dignified way. This, of course, doesn’t mean the leopard has changed his spots, but he will do what he needs to win.
Another interesting bit was that Koch praised some of what Sanders had brought up – the convoluted tax code and “welfare” (he used that word) for the wealthy. You’re probably right that he’s not going to endorse (or donate to) HRC, and if he did it might do her more harm than good, but there is a basis here for a deal on important issues that would have bipartisan support.
That said, the Kochs have made their bed and now have to lie in it.
The Weekly Sift’s blog today, “Beyond Bernie” is an important read. The author, Doug Mudor, is the DEMlifer to Chris Ladd’s GOPlifer. His posts are well researched, interesting, and well written. Today’s post has so much to ponder that I leave it to you to parse.
http://weeklysift.com/2016/04/25/beyond-bernie-2016/
Way off topic (and long), but a fivethirtyeight writeup about the minimum income movement:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/universal-basic-income/
At some point, at least in a developed economy like the US, there simply won’t be enough “jobs” (as we currently know them) for all of the citizens within normal working age groups.
Maybe we all become poets, philosophers, and artists, but that isn’t going to put bread on the table.
Lifer is on target with his basic income recommendation. The challenge is that we still need to
retrain people to transition into new jobs where that is possible, and that simply isn’t happening. That will not only require money, but it will also require a cooperative effort between government and business. Not all will be able to move into new skill areas, but those who can, should be assisted in the process. Then, people need to really think about how many children they have…..Another argument in favor of contraception being readily available and without criticism/great expense. There are things we as a society can and should do to prepare for this “new” economy. Instead, the focus seems to be on increased revenue for those who need it least which is “made up” by cutting programs that serve the poor..
Think the wealth divide isn’t a market unto itself? The rest – not so much.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/business/economy/velvet-rope-economy.html?emc=edit_th_20160424&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=41048410
My main concern with it is that if I was going to honor a black person on our currency, I would do MLK, who unquestionably had a much larger impact on our history. Tubman is a relatively obscure historical figure by comparison; she isn’t even necessarily the most important person in that particular category of female slave/suffragist (Sojourner Truth is arguably more important there). The problem is that people are pushing for a black person and a woman on our currency, and this is so obviously a “token” move to have both.
I think a lot of people are annoyed because it is such an overtly political choice. Jackson was one of our best presidents (he’s pretty consistently ranked in the top 10), and is very little like Donald Trump. Hamilton deserves his spot on the $10, but does Jackson not deserve his slot on the $20?
I was annoyed by the idea of bumping Hamilton from the $10, but it isn’t like Jackson is any less important a historical figure than he was.
Calling Jackson “A leader of one of our nation’s most brutal genocides” is historical revisionism of a dangerous sort.
At the time of the Indian Removal Act, Jackson was dealing with the Nullification Crisis. Georgia refused to reverse their aggressive stance towards the local Native Americans. Jackson feared an outright civil war, as well as actual outright extermination of the Native Americans by the locals, so worked to negotiate the treaties to get the Native Americans out of the South (and America in general) to avert further conflict.
He took a very paternalistic view towards the Native Americans, but it was a much more historically complicated situation than OMG NATIVE AMERICAN GENOCIDE makes out. The Native Americans weren’t even Americans at that point, but foreign sovereign states. It was only much, much later that Native Americans became Americans. The problems with the South were real, and Jackson didn’t want to have a civil war over it.
I think given that the Civil War was a bloody mess, and that by postponing it for 30 years the North had a much better chance of winning it (and the actual cause for it being much more unified, not dealing with the Native Americans, which probably would not have been a popular cause for such a bloody war), it was arguably for the best that Jackson did what he did.
The Trail of Tears was a nasty thing, but knowing the counterfactual history is much harder. Things could have been much, much worse.
Jackson did a lot of great things for the US. The fact that we vote for president today pretty much universally can be attributed in part to Jackson’s populism. His opposition to civil service positions being passed through families, with the introduction of the “spoils system”, arguably did a great deal to help make the American bureaucracy what it is today. His victory in the Nullification Crisis helped cement the idea that states cannot nullify federal law. His backing of the idea of Manifest Destiny helped the US expand and become the powerful nation it is today.
Of course, it is a sort of ironic “screw you” to Jackson to put him on the $20 when he was responsible for vetoing the second bank of the United States. Still, if I was going to put someone else on the $20, it wouldn’t be Tubman.
Though there is at least one upside – now when people roll $20s to snort cocaine, they can say they’re going to be riding the Underground Railroad.
“The problem is that people are pushing for a black person and a woman on our currency, and this is so obviously a “token” move to have both.”
And? She was an important figure in US history who fought against slavery, and yes had to overcome prejudices of her time. It’s not that crazy to recognize an important historical figure as important.
You seem to be saying that your problem is that she is also supposed to represent women and blacks in general as opposed to just being Harriet Tubman to which I again say that even if that were true… what of it? Blacks and women also contributed to bulding this nation, if you hadn’t noticed. Giving some recognition on ONE dollar amount seems like the least we can do. You’re acting as if all the portraits on money were replaced with a paragraph denouncing white men as evil and telling us we should feel guilty.
“His opposition to civil service positions being passed through families, with the introduction of the “spoils system”, arguably did a great deal to help make the American bureaucracy what it is today.”
The spoils system was a patronage system where civil service positions were still handed out between family members who were all part of the winning party. It was in direct oppoistion to today’s more Webster influenced merit based system.
Jackson opposed central banking and paper money which would have helped America modernize its economy and was also insanely pro-slavery to the point of repressing abolitionists, he wasn’t a very good president even if you can somehow overlook the Indian Removal Act (which at the end of the day he still, you know, signed off on).
I think it is right for people to be suspicious of honoring people solely based on their race, gender, religion, or other such intrinsic traits. This is a good thing to build into people’s mentality.
Yes, Jackson’s opposition to paper money and central banking was dumb. And while he was sympathetic to slavery, on the other hand he tried to maintain stability. His main thing WRT slavery was to try and stop the abolitionists from stirring up shit, and also tried to stop the South from doing so as well at times (he delayed his recognition of the Republican of Texas in order to placate the North, and tried to resolve things primarily by not talking about them and thus not getting people worked up over them, such as the gag order on abolitionist bills in Congress that kept getting the South worked up).
As far as Jackson “not being a very good president” goes: historians generally rank him within the top 10, and even when they don’t, he’s in the top 15. He’s pretty well-regarded, and a big part of the reason why is that a lot of his policies helped to stabilize the United States and set it up for further expansion, which made the US significantly more powerful.
The problem is that revisionists don’t understand or want to understand history or the historical situation surrounding these things, and present the past as being some black-and-white, good-and-evil thing. In reality, Jackson was a person who lived in complicated times, just as we do, and dealt with those realities as best he could. He wasn’t a perfect president, but his work to keep the US together was very important, and his populism helped establish many things we presently hold sacred in elections.
I’m reading “The Reactionary Mind” by Corey Robin. And Douhat has an article by the same name in the NY Times today. The term “Reactionary” I had heard before but never thought about until recently. I recognized the “Reactionary” part of my brain when I compared Bernie to Hillary, since I prefer the latter. Some of my reaction is her policies in comparison to his, but some is just that she is mine, in some way. A familiar, worthy, part of me.
It’s hard to recognize, sometimes.
Look up this “Reactionary” stuff. I don’t know what it is but they are coming at us with it.
Example 1,267,789 of “Republicans everywhere…well, failed to rejoice.”
Some people try oh so hard to hide it, but they just cannot.
Dragon, I have to admit I’m persuaded by your argument about “genocide.” It’s just too strong a word to describe what happened. I changed the post.
I think you could go with any number of definitions, and I’m feeling pretty comfortable saying that Jackson was genocidal.
Genocide:
the intentional action to systematically eliminate an ethnic, national, racial or religious group.
the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.
the deliberate destruction, in whole or in part, by a government or its agents, of a racial, sexual, religious, tribal or political minority. It can involve not only mass murder, but also starvation, forced deportation, and political, economic and biological subjugation. Genocide involves three major components: ideology, technology, and bureaucracy/organization.
By “genocide” we mean the destruction of an ethnic group…. Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups…
“the deliberate destruction, in whole or in part, by a government or its agents, of a racial, sexual, religious, tribal or political minority. It can involve not only mass murder, but also starvation, forced deportation, and political, economic and biological subjugation.”
Even if you accept that relocating the tribes was the least of all possible evils, it’s pretty obvious that Jackson and anyone under him who implemented this didn’t do anywhere near enough to prevent people from dying of things like exposure, disease, etc. during that trek. So he doesn’t merit that many coats of whitewash.
Also the original discussion was about putting a woman (race not specified) on the currency.
Houston: No one doubts that the Trail of Tears was horrible. But just because something is horrible doesn’t mean it is genocide. The US government was trying to relocate the Native Americans, not exterminate them; it was ethnic cleansing, not genocide. There’s a difference, and I think it is important to recognize it. For example, Israel is guilty of ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, not genocide.
“Houston: No one doubts that the Trail of Tears was horrible. But just because something is horrible doesn’t mean it is genocide. The US government was trying to relocate the Native Americans, not exterminate them; ”
Sure, you can say “we’re just relocating you.” But when you force people to start that journey in the middle of winter, with little in the way of clothing/provisions, you bar them from entering any towns/settlements on the way, you charge then 10x the going rate to use a ferry, etc., some if us just might have some issues with the terminology you’re using. A significant number of people forced to make this journey died from hunger or exposure or disease. All preventable. If the walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, ……you know the rest.
The Federalist has an article on why conservative women are so much prettier than liberal women. I’m not joking. This is a thing. And from one of the more “intellectual” far-right outlets too.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/22/why-conservative-women-are-so-pretty/
I went in wanting to laugh at him but it’s so bizarre and surreal I couldn’t even do that. Still worth a read for the fascinating levels pure, undiluted crazy.
So, what are Democratic women? Chopped liver!
Amazing, Griffin. I always smile when I view a female broadcaster on a conservative network….Almost always “blond” and invariably wearing sleeveless upper garb with lowered necklines – showin’ that “skin”….It’s kind of fun, actually, to see the FOX standard for female broadcasters….Whatsamatta? Afraid the FOX audience will tune out unless the gals look the part?
Check it out for yourself. Find me a few conservative brunette broadcasters…..(and I don’t mean their “natural” hair color, bud!)
Mime, thanks for the morning chuckle.
I suppose Hillary Clinton is a natural blond.
I’ll admit that Fox News does have quite a few blonds in its lineup, but being brunette is not a disqualification.
Harris Faulkner, Andrea Tantaros, Kennedy, Stacey Dash, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Jeanine Pirro, Mary Katherine Hamm, and Michelle Malkin come quickly to mind.
Thanks for the list, Ob, of which I have only heard of Michelle Malkin. Guess I need to watch FOX News more….not.
If you can ever find a photo of blonded HRC with scooped neckline and sleeveless tops, be sure to post it….Of course, being 69 may have a little to do with her choice, but you have to admit that the “major” FOX broadcast female corps is blonde and sleeveless. Very attractive, although I don’t care as much for M. Kelly’s more severe hair style…Guess curb appeal is part of the news there.
Mime, I think you’ll find “curb appeal” is a big factor no matter what channel you’re watching. Greta Van Susteren and Megyn Kelly are the two women who anchor evening primetime shows. (O’Reilly and Hannity are the two male anchors.) Greta left CNN because she felt that she would never be given a shot at a primetime slot there. She has been happy at Fox.
The rest of the women are either on during the day, the weekend or are contributors.
It’s true that Hillary does not wear sleeveless dresses or plunging necklines. However Michelle Obama does. Hillary Clinton does not have the body to be able pull off a look that shows a lot of skin, but even her earlier fashion choices were, shall we say, unfortunate.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/09/hillary-clinton-style_n_1408893.html
It was a petty comment on my part, Ob, however, the prime time gals on FOX follow the profile pretty closely….Greta Van S. is an exception. As for Michelle Obama, you are dead on. Somehow the difference in my mind with Michelle is that it is “her” decision which is decidedly “un-first-lady” if you look at her peers. I definitely don’t get the impression that she’s following a WH dress code but rather doing her own thing.
Michelle Obama has great taste. No where does it say a first lady should be dowdy. I congratulate her for the sense of style she has brought to the White House.
Good Lord, this man is utterly clueless. So much to criticize, but I only have time for two points:
“The women of the Right are allowed to believe things that the women of the Left are not. They are allowed to believe there is a difference between women and men, female and male, and that those differences are real, not a false cultural construct imposed by a self-interested, manipulative patriarchy. Unlike Gloria Steinem, they can express their femininity in any way they choose to, without fear of being accused of a calumnization of the sisterhood.”
Has this guy ever even talked to any women to the left of him on the political spectrum?? Sure, there are vitriolic left wing echo chambers who can be critical, but he really thinks that all non-Conservative women are really trembling in fear over crossing them? Seriously? Also, there’s no one way for women to “express their femininity” which is a very subjective concept. I’m pretty sure that Steinem is expressing her femininity in a way she chooses, and there’s no mandate for non-Conservative women to do as she does. Some women are girly-girls, some are tomboys, some are somewhere in that vast space in between.
“They are allowed to love their gay friends and want all good things for them, but still believe it’s a bad idea to start redefining marriage without being labeled a bigot by those same friends, and that, too, removes a burden. They are allowed to go through life treating people—all people—with dignity, respect, and friendship, and not be concerned about being called racist, even if they are called racist, because they know they are not.”
Can you give me an example of someone treating everybody with dignity, respect, and friendship, and still getting branded as a racist for their trouble? Seriously, I want to see this, because in my experience people who really do treat others with dignity, respect, and friendship don’t get called racist. Or is it one of those cases where you think you mean well, but you say something really clueless and condescending, like Jeb saying he wanted to help Black people without giving them free stuff?
As for “redefining marriage”, that’s nothing new. It’s been going on for a while. I refer you to the Notorious RBG’s arguments about head and master laws. If you want to be against gay marriage and avoid that dreaded bigot label, you need a better argument than “it’s bad to redefine marriage”, or “my religion doesn’t approve”, and “I find it icky.” If you want to forbid something in a free society, you have to demonstrate some harm it does to other people.
Griffin, I think your ‘surreal’ judgment fits. Reading the essay made me weary. But it does real a truism of sorts: the more you like someone, the more attractive they become.
real = reveal
(sigh)
We all mistype or autocorrect nabs us (-; Thought you in particular would relate to my Sunday diversion – Watched Prince of Tides for the 3rd/4th time and it always inspires. Pat Conroy was such a wonderful writer and I think this movie captured the feeling behind his family stories. His body of work is well known to me and will live on. We lost him too soon. What a great movie – seldom does a movie of a great book do it justice. Prince of Tides is the exception. Every now and then it’s nice to simply turn off current events and enjoy outstanding cinema.
mime, it is a fine movie.
This is so absurd. Its the literal definition of confirmation bias, and anybody with more then a 5th grade grasp of critical thought would laugh at this.
Good article from The Atlantic.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/the-party-of-lincoln-in-the-time-of-trump/479601/
I had a chuckle when I read this paragraph:
“Amid the deepening crisis, Lincoln wondered in 1855 how he could be effective fighting slavery while maintaining his identity in the crumpling Whig Party. “I think I am a Whig; but others say there are no Whigs, and that I am an abolitionist,” he wrote.”
You kinda get the feeling if Honest Abe had access to the Internet, he might just have started a blog called “WhigLifer” :p
OMG. You may have just solved my problem. No joke. WhigLifer. That may be what this blog becomes if Trump wins the nomination. I am serious.
I would just mention that the “Modern Whig Party” does exist. At least in name.
Here’s a provocative dive into Sanders’ real contribution to this election and his criticisms of capitalism. Is it working for all, Sanders asks? Who is benefiting? Does it need to be changed, and how? These serious questions will be Sanders’ legacy but they should also provoke us all to think more deeply about whether America needs to transition into a different economic model which more fairly and effectively serves our people. Will we finally have that discussion? Is it time? The article’s author suggests:
“The true danger that campaign (Sanders) presented to the American political establishment lay not so much in Bernie Sanders himself — an unlikely candidate, and a less likely nominee — as in the heretical ideas it embodied, which may now prove difficult to contain.”
“The system we have doesn’t work. Maybe it used to work a whole lot better than it does now, and maybe it just looked that way — that’s a tendentious historical debate that speaks to important underlying questions, but we’d better set it aside for now. But almost no one, across the ideological spectrum, will try to convince you that the interlocking systems of American politics and the American economy are functioning smoothly for the benefit of all. ”
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/24/bernies_greatest_legacy_suddenly_its_ok_to_question_capitalism/?source=newsletter
Guess I’m stuck in election mode….but, here’s an interesting piece on the GOP major donors who are “sitting on their checkbooks”, and what that portends down the road. I have no doubt that money will flow once the GOP nominee is determined, but:
“The money slowdown on the Republican side could cause problems in the general election….
Clinton’s super-PAC Priorities USA has already reserved more than $120 million worth of advertising for the general election – securing bargain ad rates by booking so early. But given the uncertain status of the Republican race, no GOP super-PAC has been able to lay down a penny.”
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/277312-fed-up-gop-mega-donors-sitting-on-their-checkbooks
Last election post, promise!
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/04/23/many-gop-becoming-resigned-idea-trump-nominee/whJpzOFqn8bliOkiXho8vJ/story.html?s_campaign=email_BG_TodaysHeadline&s_campaign=
Bernie needs to pack it in. And I say this as someone whose a Bernie supporter and what he stands for. Hes starting to make excuses and sound a little patehtic.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sanders-lost-primaries-poor-people
He needs to understand HRC will be the nominee. And frankly, he still has immense leverage to implement his agenda. Hill needs his voters, and if I’m Sanders, she’s going to have to earn them through making specific, concrete policies based on Sanders key issues (namely, wealth inequality).
Sanders has done an amazing job, and it would not shock me in anyway if the next few decades of American politics will be dominated by “Sandersism” in the same way that the past few decades have mostly been dominated by “Reageanism”.
But even though he’s run probably one of the most improbable campaigns in American history, even revolutions have their limits. I do believe Bernie’s vision for America will more or less come true. I also think it will take time and Sanders himself will probably never see it. In fact, if Sanders got everything he wanted right now, that might actually be the nail in the coffin for his burgeoning movement. ANY change that is too much ttoo fast is likely to cause backlash. And honestly, the entire Sanders movement is ITSELF a backlash movement. I think slow and steady wins the race here. Bernie did all he could realistically do. Now’s the time to bow out gracefully, and make HRC earn his voters. In no way should she just be given them, however. She’s made good strides tonthe left thanks to Sanders, but not enough yet .
For what it’s worth I agree 100% Rob.
On talk tv this morning, the focus turned to exactly what you have suggested: how Sanders could influence the Democratic platform in ways that will extend beyond his years. An example offered was the elimination of superdelegates, which empowers those who are entrenched in the DEMe, and a mountain for outsiders to climb.
Meanwhile, a similar discussion over on the right talked about “uniting” the party….Evidently the GOPe is doubling down on the status quo and will sweet talk Trump supporters.
IOW, Sanders might have a much more profound impact on changing politics as usual by losing but playing it smart at convention; whereas, the GOPe seems oblivious to any need for change…..
“On talk tv this morning, the focus turned to exactly what you have suggested: how Sanders could influence the Democratic platform in ways that will extend beyond his years.”
Our whole system is based on the notion that nobody gets 100% of what they want, and you need to decide what is most important, then make deals and compromises. The Tea Party simply cannot grok this, and I think this will be their eventual undoing, although they can do a lot of damage/ cause a lot of trouble on their way down. The Dems best chance is to continue to be the adults in the political room here; even the Koch brothers seem to be grudgingly, indirectly hinting that HRC is the best choice for this election.
I thought this interview of Bernie was more telling…..I don’t disagree about HRC needing to “earn” the support of Bernie’s base, but he seems to be in a real “pique” about where things are right now….IF he follows through with his statement that he “will remain? a Democrat following the campaign, where’s his party loyalty? Now seems to be a good time to continue to promote his ideas on the campaign trail, while giving Hillary a little breathing space. She has to focus on the tough campaign ahead and if Bernie really does plan on remaining a Democrat, now’s the time for him to start being one.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/277431-sanders-on-supporting-clinton-as-nominee-that-is
“a Democrat following the campaign, where’s his party loyalty?”
I can understand why a GOPer would ditch party loyalty if Trump got the nom- the man is in no way suited for the office. HRC is. Same for Kasich. As a loyal party member you may have some ideological differences with them. But they’re not going to destroy your party, so there is a point when it is not unreasonable to say “time to close ranks and focus on the general.”
There were southerners of pre-Civil War time who did not believe one group of people had the right to exploit another. One of my great fathers on mom’s side was one such. He was an underground rail road conductor who declare for the Union at the start of the Civil War. He was ran out of Missouri after that.He fought for the north. Much more prouder of him than the Confederate ancestor on dad’s side.
We are still fighting his battle. But this time those who want to exploit others
are using the Republican Party. Same Dixicrats who now instead infest the GOP instead of the Democrat party. The war between good and evil has never let up. Tubman
to me is a kinder soul. I am glad this hero is finally being honored.
That’s a pretty cool story.
Also wasn’t Andrew Jackson opposed to paper money? What sense would it make to take off Hamilton and keep Jackson on the very piece of paper that Hamilton would be supportive of and Jackson would have a heart attack (or duel) over?
Part of the drive to replace Hamilton was due to the plans to redesign the bills. The $10 was next on the schedule, due in 2020, and putting a woman on that bill would have (approximately) coincided with the centennial of women’s suffrage. I think replacing Jackson is a much better plan and has led me to rediscover Tubman, who was indeed a badass.
It has been speculated that Jackson was put on the 20 as an insult since he was so against a central bank and paper currency.
That hit Broadway show came along just in time, it seems.
Chris, come on man. Its time to leave the cesspool that is the Republican party, no matter how much you hate unions.
When any organization has morally bankrupt leadership like this, it is beyond saving.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/dennis-hastert-tom-delay-letters-court-sentencing-222344
With friends like Tom DeLay, who needs enemies? If I were the judge, DeLay’s letter would serve to extend Hastert’s sentence!
I mean, seriously. This is part of DeLays statement to the judge. There’s so much immoral, disgusting hypocrisy to unpack here that I’ll need to break it up into pieces to do so.
“He has never disappointed me in any way. He is a man of strong faith that guides him. He is a man of great integrity.”
Seriously? These are ppl who TO THIS DAY will say God is sending a gay man to hell because he had the bad luck to be born gay, and yet Hastert is “a man of integrity” even though he likes to force sex on children because he gives platitudes about God? THIS is the way that these Christo-fascists think morality works? And ppl are shocked that atheist are by far the fastest growing “denomination” in America, with almost 30% of Americans rejecting religion? Do they think ppl just believe the words out if their mouths even though their actions speak very clearly to the opposite effect? Who WOULD believe in any God these scumbags process to serve? People say “well, where are the moderate Muslims calling out Islamic terrorism?”. Well, where are the moderate Christians calling out the Christian version?
” He loves and respects his fellow man.”
Sure, he respects men. Probably because he can’t rape them. Kids, on the other hand, well, they dont fet the same respect from Hastert as “his fellow man” does. For Monsters like Hastert, the turn on is not really the sex, but from forcefully imposing your power onto weaker, defenseless human beings. I.e. children.
“I have never witnessed a time when he was unkind to anyone.”
Well, no, you wouldn’t. He isn’t going to rape children in front of you, so it’s not likely you WOULD witness it. And is that srsly your standard for whats right and wrong? I’ve never personally witnessed Hitler doing anything wrong either. He must be a good guy then.
“He is always giving to others and helping anyone including me so many times.”
Which brings us to the crux. “Hes always helped ME” therefore, he must be a good guy? Conservatives only care about something when it affects them. “Well, he didn’t rape MY child. Plus, he prays and talks about Jesus. Hes all right in my books”.
Kinda like how they all hate gays and think they’re immoral, until it’s THEIR kid that’s gay (I’m looking at you Dick Cheney and others). Then they miraculously find some compassion.
All in all, its a stunning piece if hypocrisy, considering Delay and Hastert were instrumental in passing tough criminal laws that put away thousands of non violent drug offenders for years. But this piece of human excrement is a man of “great integrity” and shouldn’t do jail time.
What a joke.
I should add, Tom Delay is not some disgraced figure with no standing in respectable GOP circles. Hes a member of good standing in the “conservative establishment” with a lucrative political consulting business.
In other words, hes still a member of the GOPe and he’s publicly defending child rapists as ppl of great integrity. If that isn’t evidence of a rotten to the core “movement” I don’t know what does.
To the “well both sides are just as bad” , please, point out even one example of a high profile Democratic insider with such repulsive behavior? Meanwhile, Hastert got dozens of letters of support from all areas of the Republican Guard.
Came across this “tell” for the next new way to gig poor people from our friends on the right. The poorest of people. The sickest of people. In Ohio. Do we have a governor from OH running for president? For “all” the people? Read it and prepare…red states tend to run these trial balloons up to see how they fare then launch across the rest. A legal and a political test. It’s not accidental; it’s how Republicans govern.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2016/04/21/opponents-medicaid-fee-plan-would-hurt-poorest.html#
Only Republicans pretend they’re the party of Lincoln. Everyone else, including the mistress History, knows otherwise
“Other idiots suggested creating a new bill for Tubman, perhaps a $25. At least they didn’t recommend putting her on a bill worth 3/5 of a $20. Or maybe a “separate, but equal” twenty-dollar bill which in reality could only purchase something worth 30 cents. Perhaps it could be used to pay the salaries of women?”
That’s a great paragraph. I wish I’d written it.
Seriously though, angry about putting HARRIET TUBMAN on a bill? That’s like being furious about sainting Mother Theresa.
There’s just no way anybody can protest such a universally admired and respected person without sounding like a total piece of s*** to the 85% of Americans who aren’t white supremacists
This is Obummer’s Sec Treas who’s doing this, don’t forget that aspect.
WHA?????????? Obama’s putting a a Black woman on $20 bill? How dare he! Who does he think he is? POTUS?
Barrack Husein Obummer
“Republicans everywhere…well, failed to rejoice.”
Some of the lamer/ lazier/ dumber right ring trolls are trying to spin this as all the silly libs were rejoicing about Tubman, until the Real Americans schooled them on how she was a gun-toting, devoutly Christian Republican who was displacing the founder of the modern Democrat party from the $20, and now they’re crying. Really pathetic bait.
I think it’s great. I’d be fine if Jackson had been completely removed. He can be classified as a President who was indeed important and consequential, but mostly not in a good way.
Here’s the rub: “what” exactly “is” a Republican these days? Does a 19th century Republican look anything like a contemporary Republican? How far has its vision drifted away from its principled stand opposing slavery? It is ironic that today a Democrat can better identify with and laud the mission and sacrifice of this woman described as a nineteenth century Republican than can many contemporary Republicans, Goplifer aside. Most of us are probably misinformed, but we should all agree on the appropriateness of Harriet Tubman as a symbol of freedom and bravery. If Harriet Tubman were able to speak for herself, she would emphasize her “cause” never politics. That this commemoration is even being debated is the ultimate irony.
No doubt, the parties have changed a lot in the last 150+ years. For anyone who actually learned history, it would go without saying. I would agree with Chris’ thought that she was a Republican, which would be a late 19th Century Republican for those who haven’t paid attention or think they can troll with this.
When I saw the picture I thought it was invoking the T-800 from Terminator 2. You know, when he says “Come with me if you want to live” line he has the same pose… OK I should stop typing about this now.
Here’s the reaction from r/conservative (arguably the largest pro-Ted Cruz internet forum active right now).
https://np.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/4foe2g/harriet_tubman_to_replace_andrew_jackson_on_the/d2aofvu
They say plenty of dumb stuff but it could have been worse (?).
It’s nice to know that some Republicans recognize the disconnect. But it’s approaching 50 years since the “party of Lincoln” embraced the Dixiecrats, thus becoming the anti-Lincoln party, and since LBJ turned the Democrats into the new “party of Lincoln” by means of the Civil Rights bill. So I don’t see what would end the pretense, short of acknowledging the racism inherent in attitudes such as support of Jackson & attacks on Tubman — as you do.
A lower bar would be to end the pretense that the Civil War was fought for any other reason than preserving the institution of slavery. The words of every article of secession make it clear that the “state’s right” they were defending was specifically the right to keep slaves. But I don’t see that pretense ending, either, despite recognition by some that flying the Confederate battle flag makes them look bad.
I will you all good fortune in trying to reform your Republican Party.
I’ve never gotten that argument, like fighting the Civil War for “states rights” was somehow mutually exclusive to fighting it for slavery.
Yes, in a geberal way, the war was about states rights. In a much more specific way, it was about the STATES RIGHT to own slaves, full stop.
Even more specifically, it was about the “right” of the large plantation owners to own slaves. There were many southern families who were conflicted over the slavery issue, but the people who had the most to lose were the large property owners who farmed. The irony is that ending slavery resulted in an expanded immigration into America to find people who would perform the menial work that slaves/Blacks performed pre and post Civil War. Sicilians, the Irish, Polish, and finally, Mexicans, were recruited for their cheap labor. Which brings us right up to today, with the angry working class White man who is having to compete with those who are doing the jobs that most White people won’t do.
Rob, pretty much all of the arguments in favor of flying the Battle Flag were that it was about “southern heritage” or “brave fighters” and NOT about slavery, oh no! It turns out that this view of the “War Between the States” is taught aggressively in some southern states. I once debated a southern liberal & civil war re-enactor who absolutely insisted it wasn’t about slavery — and whose response to direct quotes from her state’s articles of secession was “we’ll have to agree to disagree.”
1mime, of course support for slavery was not universal, but from what I’ve read, even most poor whites supported slavery out of white solidarity & so that they had a higher social place than blacks. I gather that it was really quite a lot like working class whites today supporting rich people who actually are stirring up fears to enrich themselves.
Salon had an interesting piece on Mark Twain and how he integrated his humorous presentations with a serious story in the middle. For his initial effort, he recounts the story of how Huck was pressed about “who” was on that raft with him in the river….Huck recalled Jim’s parting words to him: ” “You true Huck. you only fren’ left Jim now” and despite his poor upbringing, Huck couldn’t turn Jim over to the slave catchers. Thus began a new type of Twain performance – one that entertained and educated the world over, in such a clever way that he was able to present a moral lesson in a way the audience could accept.
Slavery and racism have always been difficult to discuss without rancor.
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/23/the_night_mark_twain_brought_huck_finn_alive/?source=newsletter
An excerpt from Alexander Stephen’s infamous cornerstone speech. I’ll give the man credit, he was crystal clear in his intent, no deception here. It is a poor commentary on human nature that the old con game of make-the-oppressed-person-forget-his-sorry-state-by-giving-him-someone-lower-in-the-pecking-order-to-bully works so well.
“Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.
In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.
As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made “one star to differ from another star in glory.” The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders “is become the chief of the corner” the real “corner-stone” in our new edifice. I have been asked, what of the future? It has been apprehended by some that we would have arrayed against us the civilized world. I care not who or how many they may be against us, when we stand upon the eternal principles of truth, if we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are obliged to, and must triumph.”
“when we stand upon the eternal principles of truth, if we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are obliged to, and must triumph.”
My, my.
Thanks for posting the full text of that, Flypusher. I knew some snippets of it but didn’t know the whole text.
I especially love this bit:
“I care not who or how many they may be against us, when we stand upon the eternal principles of truth, if we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are obliged to, and must triumph.”
In retrospect, it turns out that a superior industrial capacity and logistics system can beat the ‘eternal principles of truth’ quite handily. Romanticism has never been a viable means of running anything, but in this case it got a lot of people killed. This is a tragedy even if the cause they died for was morally bankrupt.
I am amused that to hear Harriet Tubman labeled a “Republican”. That she was firmly against slavery is true, but since Tubman was both Black and female, and living in an “early” time in a state which didn’t pass suffrage legislation, she couldn’t vote.
Snopes also points out that the commonly used photograph of Tubman by conservatives is – actually – not Tubman.
“The assertion that Tubman was a Republican is also something of a stretch. While Tubman fought against slavery and political oppression and thus would have been more politically aligned with the Republican Party platform, she couldn’t actually vote (since women’s suffrage legislation had been passed in only a few states prior to her death).
Regardless, the biggest piece of misinformation included in this image macro is the photograph. The woman pictured is not abolitionist Harriet Tubman but rather Mary Fields, also known as Stagecoach Mary, the first African-American mail carrier employed by the United States Post Office…”
http://www.snopes.com/harriet-tubman-gun-republican/
Harriet Tubman was “not a Republican” in the same sense that no woman could have been a Republican in that era. Tubman was deeply tied to the Republicans in the North across her entire career. She was as much a Republican as any woman could have been.
I will agree that she would be “more” of a female Republican in today’s world. Will need to learn more about Ms. Tubman before I concede to your Repub assignation (-; The main thing to know about Ms. Tubman was that she was a woman of principle, cunning, and daring. The Republican Party today could use a role model such as Harriet Tubman – if they weren’t so deep in their denial of independent women.
Tubman was indeed packing, and justifiably so:
http://www.harriettubmanbiography.com/harriet-tubman-myths-and-facts.html
Conservatives’ racist reaction to the Tubman $20 bill is indeed sickening. I would like to know the demographic profile of those making such hateful comments. I would hope that these people skew to the age-50+ side—people who will be gone within a generation.
As a baby boomer who grew up in the 60s, it’s disheartening to see how my generation betrayed the ideals we espoused when we were young. At least for now, the Millenials seem to have their act together.
Vikinghou, only a small fraction of us were hippies. A larger group shared the hippie ideals, but I don’t know what percentage. I’ve been trying to figure out how many of those who seriously held those beliefs in the 60’s (and in the 70’s for second-half boomers like me) betrayed those ideals vs. how many never really had them. Asking people one by one I’ve mostly found that those who lived the ideals then still hold them. But yes, hooray for the Millennials!
Take comfort in this Vikinghou, people who make disgusting racist comments very often get called out on it these days. That didn’t happen as much 50 years ago. Hopefully we have the critical mass of Millennials with their heads on straight, and the hateful ignorant people will have less and less influence and relevance.
As much hope as I have for our millennial population to save us from ourselves, I will be watching with interest to see if they show rational judgement in their support of Clinton should their hero fail to be nominated. A little common sense to accompany strong personal values in support of equality will go a long way.
I did not betray my ideas. I rub shoulders with hippy types and red neck types in the sixties and seventies. I have always gone my own way. I love truth, wisdom and knowledge. That has led me at times to be at odds with different groups. One thing with an oldster like me. I would rather do something positive even if it is only a piece of the loaf of bread than be pure ideologically and accomplish nothing. Don’t be so hard on our generation. We have accomplish much. Civil rights, woman rights, environmentalism and champion the underdog among other things. This country for all it’s warts is a better place than when I was born. That is all a generation can hope to do.