Republicans..The real allies of African Americans

[flacaltenn]

A lot of those racist southern Democrats became Republicans in the 70's and the 80's, like a game of musical chairs.

And some of them like the Angry Byrd from W.Va was absolved of his KKK sins and welcomed to stay for another 40 years... As hard as he tried -- he just couldn't lose the N-Word -- could he?

 

[flacaltenn]

So Jake:

Since you're working to make the GOP more responsive to blacks -- is Herman Cain a HELP or a hindrance? He does have a very loyal following -- doesn't he?

 

[Angry_Vegetable]

A lot of those racist southern Democrats became Republicans in the 70's and the 80's, like a game of musical chairs.

And some of them like the Angry Byrd from W.Va was absolved of his KKK sins and welcomed to stay for another 40 years... As hard as he tried -- he just couldn't lose the N-Word -- could he?

Yeah, can't really make an excuse for that guy.

 

[rightwinger]

So Jake:

Since you're working to make the GOP more responsive to blacks -- is Herman Cain a HELP or a hindrance? He does have a very loyal following -- doesn't he?

We shall see when it comes time to actually vote for him

 

[Jroc]

A lot of those racist southern Democrats became Republicans in the 70's and the 80's, like a game of musical chairs.

Wrong I've covered this already only one switched parties

The claim that Democrats left the Democrat party for the Republican party, especially after LBJ signed the Civil rights act of 1964 is a lie. Democrats, including racist ones, stayed within the Democratic fold, with the exception of one or two Democrats, And those one or two were told to leave the racist garbage behind. The fact of the matter is that LBJ went to the Republicans to help him pass the act because he knew he would have very little support among his fellow Democrats. And the Republicans voted in favor of it in higher percentages than the Democrats did. Upon signing the Civil Rights Act, President Johnson cited Republicans for their "overwhelming support" of the Act. Now in light of that fact, why would a racist Democrat cross over to the Republican party?

LBJ did indeed make a prediction that he had signed over the south to the Republicans because of this 1964 act, but he turned out to be wrong. The south stayed in Democrat hands for another 30 years. When it finally did turn Republican, it was because of economic and social issues, not because of racism or the 1964 civil rights act.

When did the Southern Democrats become the conservative Republicans and why? - Yahoo! Answers

 

[Jroc]

The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’
By CLAY RISEN
Published: December 10, 2006
Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members — and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”

It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)

The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys.

The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’ - New York Times

 

[rightwinger]

If Republicans fret over no longer having the black vote, think how they pissed away the Hispanic vote

- English as the official language
- citizenship checks for people who look Hispanic
- blocking the path to citizenship

Nothing says "No room in our tent" like the GOP

 

[JakeStarkey]

So Jake:

Since you're working to make the GOP more responsive to blacks -- is Herman Cain a HELP or a hindrance? He does have a very loyal following -- doesn't he?

He is very interesting. Do you believe his path is the only was for black Americans?

 

[JakeStarkey]

A lot of those racist southern Democrats became Republicans in the 70's and the 80's, like a game of musical chairs.

Wrong I've covered this already only one switched parties

No, your talking points, Jroc, did not answer the question at all. The fact is the Strom Thumonds and his apologists were the heart and soul of white racist crossover from Dem to GOP. Your lie about the Southern Strategy is routinely exposed.

You keep lying, and you will keep getting your lies kicked up your rhetorical ass.

 

[Jroc]

A lot of those racist southern Democrats became Republicans in the 70's and the 80's, like a game of musical chairs.

Wrong I've covered this already only one switched parties

No, your talking points, Jroc, did not answer the question at all. The fact is the Strom Thumonds and his apologists were the heart and soul of white racist crossover from Dem to GOP. Your lie about the Southern Strategy is routinely exposed.

You keep lying, and you will keep getting your lies kicked up your rhetorical ass.

Name um only one switched Jake. You have contributed nothing to this thread but empty comments who switched Jake?

 

[Dragon]

Regarding the Southern Strategy, here are the words of Nixon political strategist Kevin Phillips in a 1970 New York Times article:

"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."

Here is what Lee Atwater said in 1981 on the same subject:

"You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites.

"And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******"."

The intent to provoke and use racial tensions, sacrificing most of the black vote in exchange for the "Negrophobe white" vote, is clear and obvious. But in order to do this, the Republicans had to turn their backs on the support for racial equality that was the party's original raison d'être and had been one of its core values from then until the 1960s. In appealing to Southern whites, who were disaffected from the Democrats and up for grabs, the Republicans by the same move lost their appeal to votes in the Northeast, upper Midwest, and West Coast, areas that had always been Republican strongholds.

The article that jroc linked and partly quoted, in which a Southerner insisted that the "Southern strategy" was not racially based, is one of a long series of similar attempts by Southern writers to deny the racial basis of many events in Southern political history and insist on an economic base. It is in the same family as arguments that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery, in the face of several declarations by the seceding states to the effect that that was exactly what it was about. Recognized for what it is, it can be dismissed.

 

[Jroc]

Regarding the Southern Strategy, here are the words of Nixon political strategist Kevin Phillips in a 1970 New York Times article:

"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."

Here is what Lee Atwater said in 1981 on the same subject:

"You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites.

"And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******"."

The intent to provoke and use racial tensions, sacrificing most of the black vote in exchange for the "Negrophobe white" vote, is clear and obvious. But in order to do this, the Republicans had to turn their backs on the support for racial equality that was the party's original raison d'être and had been one of its core values from then until the 1960s. In appealing to Southern whites, who were disaffected from the Democrats and up for grabs, the Republicans by the same move lost their appeal to votes in the Northeast, upper Midwest, and West Coast, areas that had always been Republican strongholds.

The article that jroc linked and partly quoted, in which a Southerner insisted that the "Southern strategy" was not racially based, is one of a long series of similar attempts by Southern writers to deny the racial basis of many events in Southern political history and insist on an economic base. It is in the same family as arguments that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery, in the face of several declarations by the seceding states to the effect that that was exactly what it was about. Recognized for what it is, it can be dismissed.

Southerner?...

Title: Hawkins Chair of Political Science


Research and teaching in American politics, broadly construed. Particular interests include: political parties, institutional reform, social cleavages, policy conflict, issue evolution, political orders, American political development, national party conventions, cultural issues, electoral campaigns, American exceptionalism, British politics, comparative politics of the G-7, empirical theory, classical political science, sociology of knowledge. Concerned with the ‘big picture’ in American political life, and with locating further research within this larger framework.

UW-Madison: Political Science Department



And your anecdotal bull doesn't mean anything I could find plenty of racist crap by tons of dems means nothing

 

[Jroc]

In 1968, Nixon chose Spiro Agnew for vice president. Why? Agnew had routed George (“Your home is your castle!&#8221 Mahoney for governor of Maryland but had also criticized civil-rights leaders who failed to condemn the riots that erupted after the assassination of King. The Agnew of 1968 was both pro-civil rights and pro-law and order.

When the ’68 campaign began, Nixon was at 42 percent, Humphrey at 29 percent, Wallace at 22 percent. When it ended, Nixon and Humphrey were tied at 43 percent, with Wallace at 13 percent. The 9 percent of the national vote that had been peeled off from Wallace had gone to Humphrey.




Between 1969 and 1974, Nixon – who believed that blacks had gotten a raw deal in America and wanted to extend a helping hand:

* raised the civil rights enforcement budget 800 percent;

* doubled the budget for black colleges;

* appointed more blacks to federal posts and high positions
than any president, including LBJ;

* adopted the Philadelphia Plan mandating quotas for blacks
in unions, and for black scholars in colleges and
universities;

* invented “Black Capitalism” (the Office of Minority Business
Enterprise), raised U.S. purchases from black businesses
from $9 million to $153 million, increased small business
loans to minorities 1,000 percent, increased U.S. deposits
in minority-owned banks 4,000 percent;

* raised the share of Southern schools that were
desegregated from 10 percent to 70 percent. Wrote the
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 1975, “It has only been
since 1968 that substantial reduction of racial segregation
has taken place in the South.”

The charge that we built our Republican coalition on race is a lie. Nixon routed the left because it had shown itself incompetent to win or end a war into which it had plunged the United States and too befuddled or cowardly to denounce the rioters burning our cities or the brats rampaging on our campuses.

Nixon led America out of a dismal decade and was rewarded with a 49-state landslide. By one estimate, he carried 18 percent of the black vote in 1972 and 25 percent in the South. No Republican has since matched that.

The Neocons and Nixon’s Southern Strategy » Patrick J. Buchanan - Official Website

 

[Dragon]

Southerner?...

The similarity is there wherever he comes from, and the nonsense in view of the statements of those who designed the Southern strategy remains clear.

And your anecdotal bull doesn't mean anything I could find plenty of racist crap by tons of dems

So could I. The difference, though, is that YOU are trying to claim a counterfactual and I am not. If I were to claim that the Democrats had never, in their long history as a party, exhibited racist traits, then such quotes might embarrass me. I'm not, though.

You, on the other hand, are trying to claim that the Republican Party hasn't changed, so that its long and honorable history of support for civil rights should influence anyone's voting choices today. But it couldn't be more obvious that the GOP has indeed changed, and that for some Republicans this was a conscious political decision. The party's strategists chose to let the black vote go in order to appeal to the southern "Negrophobe" vote. In doing so, the GOP became in many ways the polar opposite of what it once was.

It used to be the civil rights party. Now, it's not, and the Democrats are. It used to be the party that championed workers' rights. Now, it's not, and the Democrats are. It used to be the party that was strong in the Northeast, upper Midwest, and (to a lesser degree) the West Coast, and was at its weakest in the South. Now, the Democrats have taken over all of the former Republican strongholds while the GOP has taken over the South.

The reason why black voters used to vote Republican by large percentages, but today vote Democratic by similarly large percentages, is very simple: both parties are, with respect to African-American interests, the exact opposites of what they used to be.

 

[flacaltenn]

So Jake:

Since you're working to make the GOP more responsive to blacks -- is Herman Cain a HELP or a hindrance? He does have a very loyal following -- doesn't he?

He is very interesting. Do you believe his path is the only was for black Americans?

You're testing me ain'tcha? After being called Massa for offering opinion, I'm not walking into that one. THAT'S for you to decide..

But I find it interesting that Cain was NOT drafted into that role. He suited up voluntarily and he's not denying his heritage. I don't see much "reaching out" from a capable Black Gooper. He's not asking what he can do for "his people". Why do you think that is?

Do you think Cain has just ABANDONED the wishes and demands of the black voting block?

 

[flacaltenn]

Southerner?...

The similarity is there wherever he comes from, and the nonsense in view of the statements of those who designed the Southern strategy remains clear.

And your anecdotal bull doesn't mean anything I could find plenty of racist crap by tons of dems

So could I. The difference, though, is that YOU are trying to claim a counterfactual and I am not. If I were to claim that the Democrats had never, in their long history as a party, exhibited racist traits, then such quotes might embarrass me. I'm not, though.

You, on the other hand, are trying to claim that the Republican Party hasn't changed, so that its long and honorable history of support for civil rights should influence anyone's voting choices today. But it couldn't be more obvious that the GOP has indeed changed, and that for some Republicans this was a conscious political decision. The party's strategists chose to let the black vote go in order to appeal to the southern "Negrophobe" vote. In doing so, the GOP became in many ways the polar opposite of what it once was.

It used to be the civil rights party. Now, it's not, and the Democrats are. It used to be the party that championed workers' rights. Now, it's not, and the Democrats are. It used to be the party that was strong in the Northeast, upper Midwest, and (to a lesser degree) the West Coast, and was at its weakest in the South. Now, the Democrats have taken over all of the former Republican strongholds while the GOP has taken over the South.

The reason why black voters used to vote Republican by large percentages, but today vote Democratic by similarly large percentages, is very simple: both parties are, with respect to African-American interests, the exact opposites of what they used to be.

Obviously -- what Atwater said was undeniable when it came to busing or certain invocations of "states rights". But I doubt that looking for the "veiled" racism in every expression to cut taxes, end unfunded mandates, reduce regulation is gonna be productive. Because the FACT is that the "poor constituency" is not largely black. And some of the political divide is actually philosophical and NOT racial. So how could the GOP be targeting Atwaters "negroids" by backing every policy that affects "the poor"?

Feeling comfortable with ever-expanding, ever more powerful Govt is a dangerous hallucinagen. Especially if you think it's expanding because it loves you....

 

[Dragon]

Obviously -- what Atwater said was undeniable when it came to busing or certain invocations of "states rights". But I doubt that looking for the "veiled" racism in every expression to cut taxes, end unfunded mandates, reduce regulation is gonna be productive. Because the FACT is that the "poor constituency" is not largely black. And some of the political divide is actually philosophical and NOT racial. So how could the GOP be targeting Atwaters "negroids" by backing every policy that affects "the poor"?

Feeling comfortable with ever-expanding, ever more powerful Govt is a dangerous hallucinagen. Especially if you think it's expanding because it loves you....

It's a good deal more subtle nowadays than just "veiled racism" in all such positions. In fact, the amount of overt racism in the South itself and among Southern white voters is a lot less than it used to be.

The lower-income constituency isn't largely black, but it's disproportionately black.

Fileersonal income race.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This shows that the median income for white non-Hispanic individuals age 25 and older in 2005 was roughly $33k, but for blacks only $26k and for Hispanics about $24k. The U.S. census found that in 2008, 13.2% of Americans lived in poverty, but 8.6% of whites, 23.2% of Hispanics, and 24.7% of blacks. Put another way, almost three times as many blacks, measured as a percentage of the total black population, live in poverty as whites. That's so even though white poor people represent a larger total than black poor people; this happens simply because there are more whites than blacks in this country.

Of those blacks who are not technically "poor," many more are above the poverty line but still lower-income working-class than is true, by percentage, of whites. And there are fewer upper-income black people as a proportion of the total black population than upper-income whites, and still fewer (though of course not zero) black people among the very rich.

At this point, while some racism remains in this country, the difference between black and white interests is more a matter of class than race. The economic interests of a poor person or a lower-income working-class person are simply not the same as the economic interests of the rich. If Republicans had not abandoned the black vote in the 1960s, they probably would never have gone as far to the right on economic issues as they have. The GOP position on economic issues used to be much more moderate, and sometimes full-on progressive, in the old days. So the move of the GOP to the right arose out of the southern strategy even though it has by this time transcended simplistic racial issues. Those black voters who do vote Republican, and there are some, are probably in most cases voting their class interests, too -- because although black people are disproportionately poor and lower-class, not all of them are.

As for the "ever expanding, ever more powerful government" idea, I remind you that conservatives are not libertarians. They do not oppose government expansion across the board; they favor it where it serves the interests of the wealthy and powerful. The maintenance of a powerful military and willingness to engage in wars overseas, the support for a powerful national security apparatus that is less contained by the Bill of Rights than liberals and libertarians feel it should be, support for laws outlawing abortion or birth control or defining marriage narrowly, none of these are small-government ideas. In reverse, liberals do not favor government expansion across the board any more than conservatives oppose it; we tend to take opposite stands on all the issues above to conservatives, and favor carefully restraining the power of the state to directly impose itself on people's private lives. Of course, there are also areas where liberals favor more government than conservatives do; neither one is consistently either for or against "big government" because that is not, for either, the true defining issue (although conservatives sometimes pretend it is for them).

(Needless to say, or it should be, when I say "liberal" I do not mean "Democratic." Many Democrats are not liberal. Including the president, IMO although he is good at talking like one.)

 

[Jroc]

Southerner?...

The similarity is there wherever he comes from, and the nonsense in view of the statements of those who designed the Southern strategy remains clear.

And your anecdotal bull doesn't mean anything I could find plenty of racist crap by tons of dems

So could I. The difference, though, is that YOU are trying to claim a counterfactual and I am not. If I were to claim that the Democrats had never, in their long history as a party, exhibited racist traits, then such quotes might embarrass me. I'm not, though.

You, on the other hand, are trying to claim that the Republican Party hasn't changed, so that its long and honorable history of support for civil rights should influence anyone's voting choices today. But it couldn't be more obvious that the GOP has indeed changed, and that for some Republicans this was a conscious political decision. The party's strategists chose to let the black vote go in order to appeal to the southern "Negrophobe" vote. In doing so, the GOP became in many ways the polar opposite of what it once was.

It used to be the civil rights party. Now, it's not, and the Democrats are. It used to be the party that championed workers' rights. Now, it's not, and the Democrats are. It used to be the party that was strong in the Northeast, upper Midwest, and (to a lesser degree) the West Coast, and was at its weakest in the South. Now, the Democrats have taken over all of the former Republican strongholds while the GOP has taken over the South.

The reason why black voters used to vote Republican by large percentages, but today vote Democratic by similarly large percentages, is very simple: both parties are, with respect to African-American interests, the exact opposites of what they used to be.

Yeah how so? The alliance with the democrat party has done what exactly? Dems don't have to work for the black vote, because they have it. Like I said before with friends like the liberal democrats who needs enemies. The proof is in the state of the black family as it is today this is the Where Democrat party has taken them. We need look no further than that

 

[Dragon]

Yeah how so? The alliance with the democrat party has done what exactly? Dems don't have to work for the black vote, because they have it. Like I said before with friends like the liberal democrats who needs enemies. The proof is in the state of the black family as it is today this is the Where Democrat party has taken them. We need look no further than that

Actually, it might help if you do some thinking instead of just letting your knees jerk about this. Let me give you a hand on that.

First off the bat, the claim that out-of-wedlock births among black women are increasing is demonstrably false:

The math on Black out of wedlock births - Ta-Nehisi Coates - Entertainment - The Atlantic

In 1970, the birth rate for unmarried black women was 96 per 1000. In 1980, it was 87.9, and in 2005, 60.6. The birth rate for unmarried black women is declining, not increasing, and has been for around 40 years.

I've gotten into discussions on this sort of subject, not about race, with other people and pointed out flaws in the panicky reference to statistics that a higher percentage of babies are "born out of wedlock." I point out that this phrase can mean more than one thing. If Junior was "born out of wedlock," that could mean:

1) Daddy knocked up Mom and then split.
2) Mom and Dad are living together in a committed relationship but for whatever reason don't want to formally, legally tie the knot.
3) Mom got pregnant and Junior was born while they were still unmarried, but they've since married.

Of those three possibilities, only #1 is anything to worry about. So if the increase in the fraction of kids "born out of wedlock" means we have an epidemic of guys knocking women up and then splitting, then we have a problem, but if it only means people are taking a more cavalier attitude towards legal marriage than in the past, we don't. Turns out to be the latter. Elton John was born out of wedlock (a no. 3 situation, as his parents married when he was 4). Seems to me he's doing fine.

Secondly, just about all of the problems in the African-American community can be attributed to economics. Things have gotten worse for working-class people over the past few decades; there are fewer and fewer good jobs, and it's becoming harder and harder to find anything to hope for. And this shit falls disproportionately on black people just as it always does. So you get teenage boys in the inner city who can't find good jobs turning to careers in drug dealing instead, and why not? As Todd Snider put it:

If that's where it's at and no one's gonna help,
How you gonna blame a kid for helpin' himself?

But of course there are a lot of problems with working in the drug industry, starting with the fact that it's illegal and so by doing it you're a criminal and associating with other criminals many of whom are violent, so you have to be violent, too. It sucks, but recognize where it starts: with a system that favors the rich over the rest of us, together with the war on drugs.

Now, if you want to say that the Democratic Party has not been all it could and should be on these matters, hey, no argument. But that's a long way from saying that the Republican Party has been better. It most certainly and most obviously has been worse. And black voters can see that.

 

[flacaltenn]

Dragon::

At this point, while some racism remains in this country, the difference between black and white interests is more a matter of class than race. The economic interests of a poor person or a lower-income working-class person are simply not the same as the economic interests of the rich. If Republicans had not abandoned the black vote in the 1960s, they probably would never have gone as far to the right on economic issues as they have. The GOP position on economic issues used to be much more moderate, and sometimes full-on progressive, in the old days. So the move of the GOP to the right arose out of the southern strategy even though it has by this time transcended simplistic racial issues. Those black voters who do vote Republican, and there are some, are probably in most cases voting their class interests, too -- because although black people are disproportionately poor and lower-class, not all of them are.

Agreed -- "more about class than race". So it escapes me how supporting a political party who's radical wing wants to hobble folks that exceed their class benefits. Now think carefully about "estate/death tax".
Why is it that 1st generation wealthy blacks shouldn't be able to lift up their descendents? Think Venus/Serena Williams, NBA stars, entertainers, Bryant Gumbel, ect... Are you really that committed to the principles of Socialist redistribution as to deny them the choice of feathering their progeny's nest with a little well-earned "reparations"?? It certainly DOES "transcend racial issues" IMO.

Class disparity doesn't get solved by mere money. You could redistribute everything today and before the generation was buried, you'd see similiar disparities. You solve class disparities by the same methods that toned-down racial disparities. You change attitudes. And in the short term, you address the disparities in incarceration rates, graduation rates, out of wedlock births, and opportunities. Today black youth are FAR more employable than a purple-haired, pierced nose, tatooed Goth white teen. The competition is to make better choices..

As for the "ever expanding, ever more powerful government" idea, I remind you that conservatives are not libertarians. They do not oppose government expansion across the board; they favor it where it serves the interests of the wealthy and powerful. The maintenance of a powerful military and willingness to engage in wars overseas, the support for a powerful national security apparatus that is less contained by the Bill of Rights than liberals and libertarians feel it should be, support for laws outlawing abortion or birth control or defining marriage narrowly, none of these are small-government ideas. In reverse, liberals do not favor government expansion across the board any more than conservatives oppose it; we tend to take opposite stands on all the issues above to conservatives, and favor carefully restraining the power of the state to directly impose itself on people's private lives. Of course, there are also areas where liberals favor more government than conservatives do; neither one is consistently either for or against "big government" because that is not, for either, the true defining issue (although conservatives sometimes pretend it is for them).

Reminder bud -- I'm NOT a Repub or even a Conservative. I am a "True Liberal" libertarian. The kind that believes in individual rights and sovereignty and has a basic distrust of Govt. So I have to agree with your brilliant analysis of what the Conservatives lack. But I doubt the DEM conviction to "restrain" Govt from meddling in every daily of our lives.. On the local/state level, these "social justice" phoneys motto is "there ought to be a law". A law to restrain chefs from using salt. A law to force flower vendors, hair braiders and taxi cab drivers to comply with crony cartels. A law to chose paper over plastic. A law to prevent kids from having lemonade stands. These are not libertarians or Conservatives with a never ending list of freedom destroying demands. So the "social freedom" image of TODAY'S DEM party member is ENTIRELY tarnished in the same manner as the "economic freedom" of TODAY'S REP party member is.

In fact -- if a war broke out and I HAD to choose which foxhole to jump in.. I'd have to take my chances with the abortion/marraige deniers. Because at least -- THAT penchant to run my life wouldn't really apply..

And I guaranDAMNteeya that over at the LEFTIST foxhole there'd be some little dweeb in a Che Guevara tee shirt taking racial, sex preference, and income data from all the applicants and handing out Green shopping bags.