Republican Ideology through History

[whitehall]

History begins in the "roaring 20's"? Maybe according to lefties who were educated by union workers. Republican Lincoln saved the Union. FDR turned Hoover's recession into a soup-line depression in eight years. Every Soldier who died in a foreign War during the bloody 20th century died during a democrat administration. The democrat party was the party of segregation all through the 20th century. Now the radicals who drifted to the democrat party actually think big business is the enemy and American prosperity is the cause of famine in the rest of the world. Life (and history) is upside down in the liberal mind.

 

[Oddball]

Goldwater was more of a neocon than Rockefeller. In fact...Irving Kristol and Goldwater are the quintessential neocons. Neocons can be identified by wanting to reverse FDR's new deal. That was the cold war days....everyone was a warmonger by today's standards.

Pure....unadulterated....bullshit.

Neocons are perfectly happy to go along with FDR's socialistic welfare state...In fact, they sell themselves at being better stewards of the federal gravy train....Try again.

We've Been Neo-Conned by Rep. Ron Paul


Cain and Johnson are known by people who are paying attention to something other than the mutts that the lamestream media are pimping as "front-runners"....That "Christian Conservatives that make up 90% of the Republican party" crap is more shit shoveled at you by those same media and pop culture hacks...Seems you're cherry picking which myths you'll buy into and which you won't.

Personally, I detest that GOP candidates campaign mostly as libertarains and govern like socialists.

Warmongering Democrats?......which ones?...when?.....I mean, which warmongering Democrats are you talking about? FDR, Kennedy, or LBJ?.....and WTF does that matter when the Democratic party approves of militarism so much less than the Republicans YOU will probably vote for.

Wilson, FDR, Truman & LBJ in particular.

Haven't voted for a single GOP candidate since '94, fool.

You're a really hostile person aren't you?....anyone who can't hold a civil discussion without insults is, well..you know.

btw....I don't watch themainstream media.

I call fools who make *ahem* assumptions about people they know nothing about, along with those who present stereotypes as factual, the fools that they are.

If you care to carry on a conversation with me sans such assumptions, I'll most likely refrain from (properly) identifying you as a fool.

 

[midcan5]

Please note the number of irrelevant and/or ad hominem replies from the right, is it any wonder they vote for mediocrity. I did want to address Coolidge who like Reagan is the best republican out there even though his lack of insight and his hands off approach lead to Hoover and eventually to the complete collapse of the American economy. In history as the piece below notes, we have to look at the time in which they lived, but as the nuns always reminded us, there are sins of omission too.

"More troubling, for him, was the administration's failure "to face up to the stock market speculation of the time." It was "clearly underway," but Coolidge did not understand it, and he understood the economy "less than some of his contemporaries." Ferrell concludes that "the student of Coolidge's era must confront . . . a failure to remedy something that might have involved going beyond the possibilities of his time" (p. 207)."



"A series of thematic chapters on industry and labor, agriculture, society, Latin America, and Europe and the Far East follow. Coolidge knew well enough to leave the thriving economy alone, and "the fate" of the FTC was "the most obvious symbol of presidential disdain for regulation" (p. 71). Industry flourished, and labor was better off than it had been. Farmers, however, suffered from overproduction, and the administration's solutions were of no help. The farm bloc's efforts for McNary-Haugen legislation "faced a clever opponent in the White House, . . . an experienced calculator" who twice vetoed farm legislation (p. 91)."
[..]
"The administration, according to Ferrell, "made its presence felt" in society "positively," only in one area, highway construction, and even there it was "on a relatively small scale" (p. 95). Although "the car boom was clear to all adults," the government virtually ignored . . . a revolutionary change in the way Americans lived" (p. 101). The administration's involvement in other areas, Ferrell stresses, was "all negative" (p. 95). It enforced Prohibition in "a lackadaisical way"; it did "little for civil rights and liberties"; "it went along" with the determination to restrict immigration; and, finally, it "looked with a jaundiced eye" toward the Muscle Shoals social experiment, when "the usually clear Coolidge" made his proposals "difficult to understand" (pp. 95-96, 120)."

H-Net Reviews

 

[Oddball]

Please note that the entire OP was a litany of self-gratifying sophistry and intellectual masturbation, thereby deserving little more consideration than the ad hominem replies received in return.

Seriously dude, get the **** over yourself.

 

[Si modo]

Please note the number of irrelevant and/or ad hominem replies from the right, is it any wonder they vote for mediocrity. I did want to address Coolidge who like Reagan is the best republican out there even though his lack of insight and his hands off approach lead to Hoover and eventually to the complete collapse of the American economy. In history as the piece below notes, we have to look at the time in which they lived, but as the nuns always reminded us, there are sins of omission too.

"More troubling, for him, was the administration's failure "to face up to the stock market speculation of the time." It was "clearly underway," but Coolidge did not understand it, and he understood the economy "less than some of his contemporaries." Ferrell concludes that "the student of Coolidge's era must confront . . . a failure to remedy something that might have involved going beyond the possibilities of his time" (p. 207)."



"A series of thematic chapters on industry and labor, agriculture, society, Latin America, and Europe and the Far East follow. Coolidge knew well enough to leave the thriving economy alone, and "the fate" of the FTC was "the most obvious symbol of presidential disdain for regulation" (p. 71). Industry flourished, and labor was better off than it had been. Farmers, however, suffered from overproduction, and the administration's solutions were of no help. The farm bloc's efforts for McNary-Haugen legislation "faced a clever opponent in the White House, . . . an experienced calculator" who twice vetoed farm legislation (p. 91)."
[..]
"The administration, according to Ferrell, "made its presence felt" in society "positively," only in one area, highway construction, and even there it was "on a relatively small scale" (p. 95). Although "the car boom was clear to all adults," the government virtually ignored . . . a revolutionary change in the way Americans lived" (p. 101). The administration's involvement in other areas, Ferrell stresses, was "all negative" (p. 95). It enforced Prohibition in "a lackadaisical way"; it did "little for civil rights and liberties"; "it went along" with the determination to restrict immigration; and, finally, it "looked with a jaundiced eye" toward the Muscle Shoals social experiment, when "the usually clear Coolidge" made his proposals "difficult to understand" (pp. 95-96, 120)."

H-Net Reviews

Please note your lack of any intellectual capacity to distinguish fact from opinion.


Unbelievable. Maybe even pathological.

 

[Sallow]

It's not "Republicans" per se that screwed the pooch in America. It's conservatives..and conservatism. The "States Rights" thing is nothing more then a desire to first revert to tribalism..then to a Monarchy of some sort.

 

[Mr Natural]

FDR rescues the nation from Great Depression, creates job programs...

What year did that happen?

Sometime around 1941 with a massive government spending program (aka WWII).

 

[Sallow]

FDR rescues the nation from Great Depression, creates job programs...

What year did that happen?

Sometime around 1941 with a massive government spending program (aka WWII).

It was much more then that..really. The WPA, all the infrastructure projects, bringing electricity to rural areas..

It's the sort of stuff there is no initial "profit" in..

 

[Si modo]

It's not "Republicans" per se that screwed the pooch in America. It's conservatives..and conservatism. The "States Rights" thing is nothing more then a desire to first revert to tribalism..then to a Monarchy of some sort.

Ah, so the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights is just crap, in your opinion.

 

[Oddball]

It's not "Republicans" per se that screwed the pooch in America. It's conservatives..and conservatism. The "States Rights" thing is nothing more then a desire to first revert to tribalism..then to a Monarchy of some sort.

Yeah...Them tribalistic authors of the Bill of Rights, and their bone-in-the-nose 9th & 10th Amendments!

 

[Sallow]

It's not "Republicans" per se that screwed the pooch in America. It's conservatives..and conservatism. The "States Rights" thing is nothing more then a desire to first revert to tribalism..then to a Monarchy of some sort.

Yeah...Them tribalistic authors of the Bill of Rights, and their bone-in-the-nose 9th & 10th Amendments!

The second amendment and the 10th are really all you guys care about. And you basically get them wrong.



Left to you guys the Constitution would like something like this:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To provide for the common Defence;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Si modo]

It's not "Republicans" per se that screwed the pooch in America. It's conservatives..and conservatism. The "States Rights" thing is nothing more then a desire to first revert to tribalism..then to a Monarchy of some sort.

Yeah...Them tribalistic authors of the Bill of Rights, and their bone-in-the-nose 9th & 10th Amendments!

The second amendment and the 10th are really all you guys care about. And you basically get them wrong.



Left to you guys the Constitution would like something like this:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To provide for the common Defence;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But you think at least 10% of the BILL OF RIGHTS is crap.




Good to know.

 

[bripat9643]

It's not "Republicans" per se that screwed the pooch in America. It's conservatives..and conservatism. The "States Rights" thing is nothing more then a desire to first revert to tribalism..then to a Monarchy of some sort.

Right. So the founding fathers were monarchists and tribalists.

Every time I think I've seen the ultimate in idiocy, you come out with something to top it.

The 10th Amendment was created to limit the power of the federal government. That's why servile statist lick-spittles despise it so much.

 

[toxicmedia]

Pure....unadulterated....bullshit.

Neocons are perfectly happy to go along with FDR's socialistic welfare state...In fact, they sell themselves at being better stewards of the federal gravy train....Try again.

We've Been Neo-Conned by Rep. Ron Paul


Cain and Johnson are known by people who are paying attention to something other than the mutts that the lamestream media are pimping as "front-runners"....That "Christian Conservatives that make up 90% of the Republican party" crap is more shit shoveled at you by those same media and pop culture hacks...Seems you're cherry picking which myths you'll buy into and which you won't.

Personally, I detest that GOP candidates campaign mostly as libertarains and govern like socialists.


Wilson, FDR, Truman & LBJ in particular.

Haven't voted for a single GOP candidate since '94, fool.

You're a really hostile person aren't you?....anyone who can't hold a civil discussion without insults is, well..you know.

btw....I don't watch themainstream media.

I call fools who make *ahem* assumptions about people they know nothing about, along with those who present stereotypes as factual, the fools that they are.

If you care to carry on a conversation with me sans such assumptions, I'll most likely refrain from (properly) identifying you as a fool.

But the Republican Party...of which Ron Paul is a part...don't like Ron Paul. Does anybody dispute that? Irving Kristol and Barry Goldwater are textbook neoconservatives Irving Kristol | The Economist The vast majority of Republicans are Christian conservatives, who disputes that?...Ron Paul, Cain, And whats his name, will never be influential within the GOP.....nobody disputes that either.....

....exactly what sterotypes did I present that weren't factual?

btw.....maybe you should get laid.....might take the edge off that rage you're bottling up and blowing out on this site.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Please note the number of irrelevant and/or ad hominem replies from the right, is it any wonder they vote for mediocrity. I did want to address Coolidge who like Reagan is the best republican out there even though his lack of insight and his hands off approach lead to Hoover and eventually to the complete collapse of the American economy. In history as the piece below notes, we have to look at the time in which they lived, but as the nuns always reminded us, there are sins of omission too.

"More troubling, for him, was the administration's failure "to face up to the stock market speculation of the time." It was "clearly underway," but Coolidge did not understand it, and he understood the economy "less than some of his contemporaries." Ferrell concludes that "the student of Coolidge's era must confront . . . a failure to remedy something that might have involved going beyond the possibilities of his time" (p. 207)."



"A series of thematic chapters on industry and labor, agriculture, society, Latin America, and Europe and the Far East follow. Coolidge knew well enough to leave the thriving economy alone, and "the fate" of the FTC was "the most obvious symbol of presidential disdain for regulation" (p. 71). Industry flourished, and labor was better off than it had been. Farmers, however, suffered from overproduction, and the administration's solutions were of no help. The farm bloc's efforts for McNary-Haugen legislation "faced a clever opponent in the White House, . . . an experienced calculator" who twice vetoed farm legislation (p. 91)."
[..]
"The administration, according to Ferrell, "made its presence felt" in society "positively," only in one area, highway construction, and even there it was "on a relatively small scale" (p. 95). Although "the car boom was clear to all adults," the government virtually ignored . . . a revolutionary change in the way Americans lived" (p. 101). The administration's involvement in other areas, Ferrell stresses, was "all negative" (p. 95). It enforced Prohibition in "a lackadaisical way"; it did "little for civil rights and liberties"; "it went along" with the determination to restrict immigration; and, finally, it "looked with a jaundiced eye" toward the Muscle Shoals social experiment, when "the usually clear Coolidge" made his proposals "difficult to understand" (pp. 95-96, 120)."

H-Net Reviews

Pointing out that I knew more about the class I slept through than you do might be a personal attack, but that does not automatically make it invalid.
You started the thread with this.

Roaring Twenties, growth of the automobile and a war economy

All I can say to that is, huh?

During the 1920s the US was extremely isolationist in its foreign policy, and was strictly non interventionist. I am at a loss as to how anyone could say that the Roaring Twenties was the result of a war economy. I slept through 8th grade history and I know that is absurd.

Why address the rest of your idiotic post when it starts off with a blatant falsehood?

 

[midcan5]

It's not "Republicans" per se that screwed the pooch in America. It's conservatives..and conservatism. The "States Rights" thing is nothing more then a desire to first revert to tribalism..then to a Monarchy of some sort.

That's a complex point, but I'm never sure what a conservative is, our use of the word in America represents the reaction to policies that challenged the power of the elite. Russell Kirk, along with others, attempted to outline its goals and ideals, but if you read Kirk's work, much of it fits all America. The idea of hierarchy is the only real un-American piece of his thought and many other American conservatives. The best piece for understanding the conservative's MO is, 'The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy' by Albert O. Hirschman.

"He argues that a triplet of 'rhetorical' criticisms--perversity, futility, and jeopardy--'has been unfailingly leveled' by 'reactionaries' at each major progressive reform of the past 300 years--those T. H. Marshall identified with the advancement of civil, political and social rights of citizenship...Charmingly written, this book can benefit a diverse readership."

"With engaging wit and subtle irony, Albert Hirschman maps the diffuse and treacherous world of reactionary rhetoric in which conservative public figures, thinkers, and polemicists have been arguing against progressive agendas and reforms for the past two hundred years." The Rhetoric of Reaction - Albert O. Hirschman | Harvard University Press

But the idea of 'conservative in America' is an interesting topic. After Bush Jr's debacle you would think the word would have taken on another coat. Instead it revises itself like Soviet propaganda: we don't know the future but the past is changing before our very eyes (paraphrase).

Pointing out that I knew more about the class I slept through than you do might be a personal attack, but that does not automatically make it invalid.
You started the thread with this.

Roaring Twenties, growth of the automobile and a war economy

All I can say to that is, huh?

During the 1920s the US was extremely isolationist in its foreign policy, and was strictly non interventionist. I am at a loss as to how anyone could say that the Roaring Twenties was the result of a war economy. I slept through 8th grade history and I know that is absurd.

Why address the rest of your idiotic post when it starts off with a blatant falsehood?

QW, Did you forget WWI? Military Forces in the 1920's

My comment and understanding of that time came from a history book I was reviewing, so you'd have to argue with that historian's viewpoint. War as an economy builder is a complex topic, for many years war was a growth item, later it became a liability. Iraq and Afghanistan are enormous drains on our nation. It is kinda ironic how the right gives credit to war spending when it suits them and then reverses its position based solely on politics - think WW2 and now Libya.

Instead of quibbling over your personal memories from your slumber party, aka eighth grade, get back to the sources and learn. I know you ideologues like simple history, but it just ain't that way.
_

 

[LOki]

Please note that the entire OP was a litany of self-gratifying sophistry and intellectual masturbation, thereby deserving little more consideration than the ad hominem replies received in return.

Seriously dude, get the **** over yourself.

"You must spread some reputaion around before giving it to Oddball again."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Pointing out that I knew more about the class I slept through than you do might be a personal attack, but that does not automatically make it invalid.
You started the thread with this.

Roaring Twenties, growth of the automobile and a war economy

All I can say to that is, huh?

During the 1920s the US was extremely isolationist in its foreign policy, and was strictly non interventionist. I am at a loss as to how anyone could say that the Roaring Twenties was the result of a war economy. I slept through 8th grade history and I know that is absurd.

Why address the rest of your idiotic post when it starts off with a blatant falsehood?

QW, Did you forget WWI? Military Forces in the 1920's

My comment and understanding of that time came from a history book I was reviewing, so you'd have to argue with that historian's viewpoint. War as an economy builder is a complex topic, for many years war was a growth item, later it became a liability. Iraq and Afghanistan are enormous drains on our nation. It is kinda ironic how the right gives credit to war spending when it suits them and then reverses its position based solely on politics - think WW2 and now Libya.

Instead of quibbling over your personal memories from your slumber party, aka eighth grade, get back to the sources and learn. I know you ideologues like simple history, but it just ain't that way.
_

I did not forget anything. The term war economy has a precise definition. A war economy is when the entire economic output of a country is geared toward mobilization and fighting a war. That happened exactly once in the 20th century, and that was not during the 1920s. It was not even during WWI.

War economy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do not have to argue with any history book you read because you made the post. You are personally responsible to actually check facts before you post them, or include them in a school assignment. That is called critical thinking, and, as you have just demonstrated, you are woefully unequipped to carry out the process. I do not blame you for this, it is the fault of the education system you are a product of, the same one you constantly defend with absurd quotes.

I have pointed this out to you many times on this forum, and you blissfully continue to post nonsense in the belief you are educating people. The only thing people learn from your posts is how little you actually understand about the real world.

Despite my cynicism I am an optimist at heart and I keep hoping you will realize just how wrong everything you have learned is. If you do not learn that this time I might give up hope, even if I do not give up responding to your posts in order to keep others from being mislead.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mid-, you better include Lincoln, TR, Eisenhower if you are going to be fair, but you are not, huh?

 

[midcan5]

Mid-, you better include Lincoln, TR, Eisenhower if you are going to be fair, but you are not, huh?

Lincoln (Teddy too) came before my history, Teddy was a republican in name only, he didn't even consider himself republican. Eisenhower, I noted. 'I like Ike' as the button said. What I found most interesting about Eisenhower is he served the nation in war and because of that he took the armchair warriors less seriously than they would have liked. One has to view his administration from the America he was given by Roosevelt and Truman. Just like we need to view the great mess Obama was given from Bush Jr.

Edits:

I will clarify the twenties comment, while WWI ending in America's favor may have changed the mood of the country, its economic effect was less important. While there was a push to develop military technology, the major concern at the time was America itself and an isolationist mood took hold. I should have checked that part more carefully, it was a late add.

FDR also started minimum wage at 25 cents, confirming my point, the republicans are still fighting our greatest modern president. I also want to extend my point on Watergate and add Enron, both affected election politics after republican screw ups.