Reader Emails

Five Rules to Remember About “Liberals”

by J-Dub

This is Part I of what will be a series where I take a non-partisan and brutally honest approach to examine the governing traits for the three major political labels in this country; Liberal, Conservative, and Libertarian.

With all this misguided cacophony going on over the Confederate Flag, this seemed like as good a time to start with Liberals.  As much as I said this would be a non-partisan examination, I cannot ignore that there is a close association with Liberalism and the Democratic party; the same symbiotic relationship exists between the Republicans and Conservatism.

It is also important to note that as we go through this examination that I will be largely ignoring the factor of “political drift.” This means that as societal and cultural mores changes, the platforms of political parties float like a raft on those currents. Rather, this series is more about constants which parties maintain regardless of societal whims.

That’s a crucial distinction because in a two-party system, each party is supposed to provide the antagonist to the other, so long as they remain true to the core beliefs of their party members, In America today, this is not true of either the Democrats or the Republicans. The fundamental problem is this: “Conservatives” believe that facts frame any discussion, and “Liberals” believe ideals trump facts. Like it or not, “Libertarians” tend not to matter in terms of this distinction; they tend to treat the full spectrum of current events and political discourse like some sort of  “civics buffet;” they amble along it and pick only what they wish to put on their plate, leaving the “undesired” courses for somebody else.

In any event, regardless of political or ideological stripe, it is ideals that frame discussions, and facts that prove or disprove them.  It is both the misunderstanding of this truth and/or the deliberate twisting of it which give all sides the ability to legitimately believe they can claim the “moral” high ground.

Since I could never really tell what Mitt Romney was, I thought the best recent example of this divergence amongst presidential candidates happened in 2008.  Say what you will, Barack Obama was then and will always be an economic illiterate and a classic Marxist ideologue. But to be honest, he’s never tried to be anything than that.  On the other hand, “Conservatives” bashed John McCain because he reached out to the other side.  Well guess what? That’s called leadership, and it’s the only way you can make progress, especially in the hyper- polarized environment of today’s politics in America.

That sets the stage for where we are headed in 2016.  The Republicans still have a Romney-esque feel to them; I really don’t know what they are.  However, I do know their field of already-declared candidates is far more ethnically and demographically diverse than what the Democrats are offering, which reminds me of a stale loaf of Wonder bread.  Regardless, I still don’t know what the Republicans really represent, but I do know the Democratic party dominated by the New American Left which brought us Obama has a complete lack of understanding of complex issues and a  blind devotion to left-wing causes.  It’s forgotten it’s entire history, and that means the “Liberals” are going to find generating a leader who can achieve even the most basic level of accepted leadership problematic.

Having said that, I’m going to state some inviolable rules concerning modern American liberalism.

1) Liberalism depends on the perception that Liberals care about “the middle class.”

The union between Democrats and Liberalism I like to call the “New American Left” is all about the pretense they care about the “middle class.” Nothing could be further from the truth.  There’s a reason why during every election cycle you hear so much from Liberals about the plight of the disadvantaged in America.  There’s also a reason why that never dies as a campaign drum beat.

The reason is actually rather simple.  The New American Left has hijacked the Democratic party for purposes of maintaining their “pet” causes, which are then used to “devise solutions,” all of which are intended to get into the pockets of the middle class. Catering to these causes is largely why the Democrats haven’t had an original idea in 40 years, and they haven’t had a good idea in 60.

Make no mistake…it is the middle class that pays for Liberalism, which is what makes the eternal “class envy” argument one of the New American Left’s principle tenets.  We’ve all heard the argument, and too many of us have fallen for it.  We can play with the accounting of what the IRS hauls in every year, and break it down by who pays what, but that really misses the point.  The tax code in this country is a 70,000 page document, and every single line in it exists for a political reason.

When you stop to consider that didn’t happen overnight; the massing of such a gargantuan chunk of law has been a continual process since the inception of the Income Tax in 1913.  That means all sides in the American political landscape have had a hand in it’s construction.  That also means the New American Left’s demonization of the rich, corporations, and anybody else who might have a dollar more than anybody else is the epitome of a false narrative.

Think of it this way.  If the New American Left’s narrative of capitalism being a tool of oppression used by “Conservatives”/Republicans is true, then the concentration of wealth in this country should belong exclusive to those “Conservatives.”  However, if you take a look at the list of the 20 richest members of Congress, that concept dies very quickly.  The person on this list with the smallest net worth is still worth over $20 million.  While the 3 richest members of Congress are Republicans, out of those 20 richest Senators and Representatives, 11 are Democrats.

If you needed a better reason to understand why the “loophole” tax code the New American Left loves to decry exists as it does, it’s because it’s been created by these very same rich people who surely are not going to create a tax code punitive to themselves or their political contributors. You can’t tax the poor, because they have nothing to tax. That leaves the middle class. The only way not to see that is to be deliberately blind to it.

2) Liberals often claim “Conservative”/Republican actions as their own while denying things they did. 

Here’s another example of the “Savior” mentality of the New American Left. Again, two of the lynch-pins Liberal beliefs is that they are the only people who can help minorities and the environment.  Later in this piece, I will explore the deep history of hypocrisy on the matter of racism by the Democratic party, but for this section, I’m going to stick to a couple of specific points.

On the matter of minorities, it’s obvious the Democrats don’t want you to remember that it was a Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, freed the slaves. On the inverse, the Democrats also don’t want you to remember that two laws which are playing a bit of a problem with the new narrative about the tolerance of sane-sex marriage, the federal Restoration Freedom Restoration Act and the federal Defense of Marriage Act were both both into law by Bill Clinton.  That’s the same President Clinton who signed the Welfare Reform Act, for which Democrats constantly blame “Conservatives”/Republicans.

When it comes to the environment, nobody on the New American Left wants you to remember that the Environmental Protection Agency was started by, of all people, the despised Richard M. Nixon.

3) Liberals have no ability to learn.

This is ironic given that so many of the New American Left come from academia. But when you stop to consider they have been making the same mistakes for years, it becomes rather obvious. For example, a major constituency for the Democrats has historically been the blue-collar union vote, which tends to be predominantly male and white. Since the New American Left hijacked the Democratic Party in the 1960’s they have systematically alienated this demographic. Most autoworkers that spend eight hours a day pounding sheet metal don’t go for beers after work to praise the Democrats’ stand on the environment or (insert New American Left cause here).

Whether anybody likes it or not, middle America decides who becomes President, and most Liberal stances don’t score points there. The only hammer the New American Left have is to scare people into voting for them, and they do this by demonizing the opposition usually through the use of “single-issue” politics. You’ve heard them all before; it’s the only tool they’ve used successfully in the last 50 years.

The aforementioned “class envy” argument plays best in times of slow economic growth.  When times are good, everything is about what the “Conservatives”/Republicans are going to take away.

The problem is the New American Left hasn’t learned the “scare mongering” tactic is really not very effective.  Despite their current grip on the White House and the Senate, one has to notice there is a repeat of 1994 brewing; the year in which the Republicans broke 40 years of Democratic control of the U.S.House and began their trend of becoming the majority party in both houses of congress, in governorships, and making significant gains in state legislatures. It took an unpopular Bush presidency to break that trend, but since Liberals can’t learn, an even more unpopular Obama presidency looks like a likely bet to restore it.

Another example of this Liberal inability to learn comes from their need for you to know what is best for you, even if they have to force you to do it. The decades-long struggle to enact some sort of National health care exemplifies that.  It’s another example of the New American Left sticking it to one of the core constituencies for purposes of advancing an agenda.

Again, if you are a union member in this country, you already have health insurance.  In fact, some of the best plans belong to unionized government employees. But the New American Left has been after your middle class status for years.  If you doubt that, allow me to remind you about Bill Clinton’s health care plan.

This was a 1300-page abomination that offered such amenities as no ability to choose your own provider and lengthy jail sentences for providers who did not abide by the dictates of the plan. It amounted to little more than nationalizing nearly 10% of the U.S. gross domestic product in 1993.  The money part is important to note. Not only did the New American Left have a chance to dictatorially grab such a large portion of the economy, but they had a Democrat-controlled House and Senate at the time.

So why didn’t we have government health care 20 years ago? There are two major reasons. First, this was a model of Democratic inefficiency. Few administrations in recent history had a better ability to trip over their own feet, but that’s not the main reason Clinton’s plan never saw the light of day.

The Clinton Health Care plan was really the genesis of the so-called “Republican Revolution” of 1994.  This was when Clinton and the Democrats lost control of both houses of congress in the mid-term elections during Clinton’s first term. The reason why that happened is historically, Americans don’t like being forced into doing things, at least not in broad leaps.  Clinton’s plan did exactly that; not only did it force you into a nationalized health-care model, but it was simply far too “Soviet”-like in its approach.

Another big problem was at the time, the New American Left ignored an ironclad rule of human nature: All people are basically capitalists. What this means is everybody wants to get what they can out of life. Liberals play to this by playing some sort of political Santa Claus, always promising to give you this, and pay for that. However, this rule applies to them as well.

In the case of health care, it’s no coincidence that the Trial Lawyer’s Association became a major Washington lobby at the time Clinton was driving his health care plan.   See, there are far too many “ambulance chasers” in this country who were then and still are making fortunes off suing healthcare providers. If that source of revenue were cut off, as it would be under a government-run system, the lawyers stood to lose billions in settlement dollars.  So the Trial Lawyer’s Association flooded Washington with lobbyist cash, and Clinton’s plan died, leaving the civil litigation lottery system untouched.

This marks the critical difference between the Clinton plan and “Obamacare.” National health care under Obama has taken the same approach to insurance as we took 40 years ago when we required everybody to buy automobile insurance.  Now that Americans are required to buy health insurance, this will swell the coffers of insurance companies. In turn, this will increase the numbers of lawsuits coming from personal injury and malpractice attorneys, which is exactly why the Trial Lawyer’s association never opposed Obamacare.

Clinton paid the political price for his health care vision early in his presidency.  The Democrats and the New American Left face the sobering reality they will pay for Obama’s.  Granted, Obama’s plan will make a lot of money for lawyers and insurance companies, but it also alienated two core Democratic constituencies: middle class people whose existing health-care plans got blown up by “Obamacare,” and the people who wanted a single-payer, completely nationalized health care system.

Now, let’s go from complete hypocrisy to outright failure. This is where Democrats and the New American Left demonstrate once again over the long haul they really don’t know how to get anything done when left to their own devices. By this time next year, every Liberal running for office will be singing that same old song about how many people live under poverty, and how bad life is for Joe Little Guy.  Not only are they saying that now, they’ve been saying that every election cycle for fifty years.

Having said that, let’s look at the signature moves by the New American Left to combat poverty.  Social Security has become a bloated Ponzi scheme which not only has no resemblance to it’s original intent, it is only kept from insolvency by the occasional mass influx of cash.  Obamacare has all the ear-marks of another Liberal boondoggle, time will tell that story.  But to me, when I hear Liberals decrying the lifestyle of the common man, it sounds like the best argument possible for the failure of Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society.” Remember that?

Since the “Great Society” is one of the New American Left’s signature debacles, I won’t be surprised if you haven’t heard about it lately. Let me refresh you. Back in 1965, Lyndon Johnson and a Democrat-controlled congress effectively created the modern welfare system, and blew a lot of trumpets about how they were going to end poverty. They enjoyed precious little Republican opposition. However, since they are always crying about how bad life is for the little guy, doesn’t this mean the “Great Society” failed?

4) Liberals overstate their “victories,” and never tell you those victories required “Conservative”/Republican support.

Nothing entertains me quite as much as when the New American Left tosses out a “laundry list” of wonderful things they’ve done for us. They would have you believing that if it weren’t for Liberals, we would all be drinking brown water, breathing brown air, eating tainted food, and generally living in piles of our own filth. Claiming this sort of unilaterally accomplished triumph for the human condition not only illustrates the “savior” mentality of Liberals, but it completely ignores one of the great truisms of American politics.

Getting anything done politically requires getting a consensus within your own party, and crafting the legislation in such a way as to attract enough members of the opposing side to go along with you. Not only does it smack of the New American Left’s self-idolatry, it completely ignores the history of the Democratic party.

The best example of this is the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 60s.  Liberals love to blather on over how friendly they are to blacks, and can’t wait to tell you all about they are the genesis of tolerance and acceptance in America today. Well, there’s of couple of problems with that construct.

The first big problem here is that this notion completely ignores history, both of ancient and recent variety. The line I will use to differentiate between the two is the history is “ancient” if there is nobody alive today who is morally responsible for or causally effected by said history.

The revisionism or out right perversion of ancient history is exemplified by the current debate over the Confederate flag. I’ve outlined the pointless nature of this debate before, but for purposes of this discussion, we need to focus on the fact this argument was started by Liberals and joined by some opportunistic “Conservatives”/ Republicans because “tolerance” is now the “moral high ground” in American politics.

It saddens me that so many young people today do not know the history of what the Confederate flag debate is really all about.  It concerns me deeply for the future of this country that the New American Left has been able to sanitize the story through the revising of history to ignore completely the role of the Democratic party in all what we are today ascribing to the symbol that is the Confederate flag. As a black man in America today, as much as I find it alarming this situation exists, given the current state of our education system, I don’t find it surprising. There’s a reason for that which I will amplify in the next section; it’s mentioned here because it allows the New American Left to make claims that are patently false.

The one most germane to this point revolves around the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The New American Left consistently fails to mention that without the Republicans, that piece of legislation would have never been passed because most of the southern congressional membership were also segregationist Democrats.

This leads to the most damning point about the relationship between the New American Left and the Democratic party

5) The Democratic Party is now, and has always been the party of racism in America.

So…here we are…right back to this whole Confederate flag debate.  The Liberals who are getting more and more vocal about their opposition to this chunk of cloth because of it’s roots in racism are completely ignoring history.

A painful truth is being told by Dr. Eric Foner, who is the DeWitt Clinton Professor of History at Columbia University. In addition to that, Dr. Foner is only the second person to serve as president of the three major professional organizations: the Organization of American Historians, the American Historical Association, and the Society of American Historians.  Dr. Foner explores the relationship between the Ku Kux Klan and the Democratic Party in his book A Short History of Reconstruction (Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 1990).

His overarching theme is the KKK was borne of being the “terrorist” arm of the Democratic party. To support that claim, Dr. Foner provides detailed accounts of atrocities committed by the Klan in the Reconstruction-era south against Republicans, both black and white.

“Founded in 1866 as a Tennessee social club, the Ku Klux Klan spread into nearly every Southern state, launching a ‘reign of terror‘ against Republican leaders black and white.”

“In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy.  It aimed to destroy the Republican party’s infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life.”

“In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy.  It aimed to destroy the Republican party’s infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life.”

“Jack Dupree, a victim of a particularly brutal murder in Monroe County, Mississippi – assailants cut his throat and disemboweled him, all within sight of his wife, who had just given birth to twins – was ‘president of a republican club‘ and known as a man who ‘would speak his mind.’”

“White gangs roamed New Orleans, intimidating blacks and breaking up Republican meetings.“

“An even more extensive ‘reign of terror’ engulfed Jackson, a plantation county in Florida’s panhandle. ‘That is where Satan has his seat,‘ remarked a black clergyman; all told over 150 persons were killed, among them black leaders and Jewish merchant Samuel Fleischman, resented for his Republican views and for dealing fairly with black customers.“

Those selected clips are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Rather than delve even deeper into such examples, let’s move forward in time to the Civil Rights movement, paying particular attention to who provided the vast majority of resistance to that movement.  Granted, the Klan played a major role in that resistance, but it is important to note throughout its own ebbs and flows (usually brought about by Republican-led federal actions such as the Ku Klux Acts of 1871), the KKK was allowed to run rampant throughout the south from Reconstruction up to the Civil Rights movement by state and local governments that were solidly Democratic.

However, this is not about selling the idea that the Confederacy and it’s flag are the soles sources of racism in this country.  In actuality, another weakening of the Confederate flag argument lies in the fact the Klan was not simply a southern institution. During the period known as the “Second Rise of the Klan,” there were hotbed of Klan activity in places well outside of the old Confederacy.

The “Second Klan” of the 1920s and 30s was an organization based in urban areas, reflecting the major shifts of population to cities in both the North and the South. In Michigan, the KKK had 40,000 members in Detroit, where they made up more than half of Michigan’s membership.  Most Klan members were middle-class whites who were organizing in a misguided attempt to protect their jobs from the waves of immigrants coming to the industrial cities of the North.

At that time, these cities were on the receiving end of an influx from Southern and Eastern Europe; the Klan angle rooted in the fact these immigrants tended to be largely Catholic and Jewish.  In addition to that, black and white migrants were streaming in from the South in large numbers,  and as these new people poured in, the rapidly-changing demographics created social tensions, which allowed for the rapid growth of the Klan in the Midwest. The Klan was so-well rooted in the Midwest that it exerted tremendous political power, so much so that in the 1920s, the Democratic Governor and the Grand Dragon of the Indiana Klan was the same person, D. C. Stephenson.

Even in the hometown of this very blog, the Klan ascended to power quickly in Worcester in the 1920s, but also met a rapid decline due to vehement and organized opposition from the Catholic Church. In 1924, the largest gathering of the KKK ever held in the northeast happened in Worcester.  When the rally ended sometime near midnight, the numbers of Klansmen and sympathizers was estimated to be around 15,000 when a riot broke out.  A large group of anti-Klan supporters attacked the Klansmen; their cars were destroyed and the occupants ripped from them and beaten. After this obvious rebuke, the KKK never again made a public showing in Worcester.

It was the segregationist and solidly Democratic South which saw the next resurgence of the Klan. In response to the growing Civil Rights movement, in the 1950s the KKK began a terror campaign the scale of which hadn’t been seen since Reconstruction.  Again, Democratically-controlled state and local governments turned a blind eye the this, largely because many officials in those governments were sympathetic to, if not members of, the Ku Klux Klan. No place better exemplified this than Birmingham, Alabama. There were so many bombings in Birmingham of blacks’ homes by Klan groups the city came to be known as “Bombingham.”

It is crucial to note during this time, the police commissioner of Birmingham was a man named Theophilus “Bull” Connor.  Connor was a Klan sympathizer, and under his tenure as the head of the police department, Klan groups were closely allied with the police and operated with impunity.

Birmingham wasn’t the only place this existed.  Throughout Alabama and across the South, Klan members forged alliances with governors’ administrations, all of whom were Democrats.  This is how the following list of terror attacks went largely unchecked.

  • 1951 – The home of  NAACP activists Harry and Harriette Moore is fire-bombed on Christmas Eve in Mims, Florida.  They were both killed.
  • 1957 – A group of Klansmen forced Willie Edwards, Jr. off a bridge to his death in the Alabama River because they thouoght he’d been sleeping with a white woman.
  • 1963 – The assassination of NAACP organizer Medgar Evers in Mississippi. It would be over 30 years before former Klansman Byron De La Beckwith was convicted of the murder.
  • 1963 – The bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, which killed four teenage girls.
  • 1964 – The murders of civil rights workers James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner in Neshoba County, Mississippi. This is the case on which the movie”Mississippi Burning” is based.  Unlike the portrayal in the movie, it would again be over 30 years before Klan member Edgar Ray Killen was convicted of manslaughter in this case.
  • 1964 – The murders of Henry Hezekiah Dee and Charles Eddie Moore, two black teenagers in Mississippi. It wouldn’t be until 2007 until James Ford Seale, a known Klan member and deputy sheriff, was convicted for the killings.
  • 1965 – The murder of Viola Liuzzo in Alabama.  Liuzzo was a native southerner who left for Detroit, but came back to attend a civil rights march. She was transporting fellow civil rights marchers when she was killed.
  • 1966 – NAACP leader Vernon Dahmer Sr. is murdered in yet another fire-bombing attack.  Again, this is another case in which it would take over thirty years to bring Dahmer’s killer to justice. It wouldn’t be until 1998 when Ku Klux Klan wizard Sam Bowers was convicted and sentenced to life in prison.
  • 1967 – A series of bombings in Jackson, Mississippi aimed at local clergy and anti-Klan activists.  One took place at the residence of Methodist minister Robert Kochtitzky, and two more targeted the synagogue and residence of Rabbi Perry Nussbaum.

Those are just the ones that made the news.  The South of the 50s and 60s was a war zone, and it was made that way by Democrats.  There a popular effort to try to portray this problem as the acts of rural southerners, but this went all the way to the Governor’s office in these states. Everybody wants to forget that all those southern segregationist governors were all Democrats.  Allow me to run through some of my favorite examples

Orval Faubus, Governor of Arkansas (1955-1967)

Faubus was an interesting character.  A distinguished veteran of World War II, he was at the same time progressive and traditional.  Faubus served as the governor of Arkansas longer than any other person prior to him, and during his terms, he enacted reforms to such institutions as the state hospitals and prisons, and led Arkansas into a march from agrarianism to industrialism. But that for which Faubus will be best remembered  is far less progressive.  Faubus’ staunch opposition to the court ordered desegregation of Little Rock Central High School in 1957 caused Republican President Dwight Eisenhower to send federal troops into Little Rock to enforce that court order.

George Wallace, Governor of Alabama (1963–1967, 1971–1979,  and 1983–1987)

Even though he renounced segregation from his death bed, George Wallace will forever be the face of racial separation in the American south. In his first inauguration as Alabama’s governor, Wallace stood on the exact spot where 102 years earlier Jefferson Davis was sworn in as provisional president of the Confederate States of America, and delivered the words which made him forever the face of segregation.

“ In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”

Those words weren’t accidentally chosen, and it’s no accident those words made Wallace one of the most popular political figures in Alabama’s history.  Only two people have spent more time in United States’ history as a sitting governor than did Wallace; Alabamians even elected his wife in his stead when the state’s constitution did not allow for him to have a third consecutive term.   Wallace’s popularity saw him make four legitimate runs for the Presidency (three as a Democrat and one on the American Independent Party ticket).

Wallace’s core supporters had a genuine interest in the maintaining of segregation, and he aggressively took up their cause.  Wallace believed desegregation was an instrument of northern tyranny,  and that President John F. Kennedy wanted him “to surrender this state to Martin Luther King and his group of pro-communists who have instituted these demonstrations.”

That antagonism set the stage for Wallace to be yet another Democratic southern governor who played “chicken” with a U.S. president and lost.

In 1963, President Kennedy ordered the U.S. Army’s 2nd Infantry Division from Fort Benning, Georgia to be prepared to enforce the racial integration of the University of Alabama in much the same manner as had happened in Little Rock in 1957.   This order came from the infamous “Stand in the Schoolhouse Door,” a move which saw Governor Wallace himself stand in front of Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama, his intention being to himself halt the enrollment of black students Vivian Malone and James Hood.

Later that same year, Wallace attempted to stop four black students from enrolling in four separate elementary schools in Huntsville.  After intervention by a federal court in Birmingham, the four children were allowed to enter those schools, and Kennedy made it clear to Wallace that further actions of this type would be grounds for the introduction of federal troops.

Lester Maddox, Governor of Georgia (1967-1971)

Out of all the southern governors of this era, Maddox is by far my favorite.  If it weren’t for his days as a staunch segregationist, Maddox would be one of the most interesting characters in all of American political history.  In one man, he’s part Colonel Sanders, part stand-up comedian, he showed an amazing amount of political savvy for a guy who with no education, and was a walking contradiction.  The New York Times called Maddox an “Arch-segregationist,” Randy Newman wrote the song “Rednecks” about him.

He’s also the best example of how the Democratic machine controlled the South of the 1960s.

Maddox comes to prominence in 1950s Atlanta as a restaurant owner.  The Pickrick Restaurant was the typical southern, family-style eatery; Maddox’s wife and children worked alongside him. Hence, the Pickrick was known for the usual local fare, it’s shouldn’t surprise anybody the Pickrick’s specialty was southern fried chicken. The Pickrick soon became a thriving business.

However, Maddox was also a a want-to-be politician, and the Picrick provided Maddox with his first political forum.  Maddox was known for his advertisements featuring cartoon chickens in the Atlanta newspapers. After the 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education which called desgregation of schools, Maddox’s ads took on a decidedly political flavor, echoing the unpopular nature of the decision in Georgia.

This escalated Maddox from restaurant owner to perennial mayoral candidate.  He had two unsuccessful runs against legendary Atlanta mayor William B. Hartsfield, but Maddox didn’t have the base to knock of a guy who eventually have one of the biggest airports on the planet bear his name.

But it was Maddox’s refusal to adjust to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that would launch his rise to national infamy.  He filed an unsuccessful lawsuit claiming he had the right as a businessman to continue his segregationist policies.  Maddox said that he would close his restaurant rather than serve blacks.  When a group of blacks attempted to enter the Pickrick,  Maddox confronted them wielding an ax handle.

This was the beginning of Maddox’s ascent to the national stage. The want-to-be politician used his new found notoriety to seek the Democratic nomination for governor of Georgia 1966.  Maddox found himself pitted against former Governor Ellis Arnall.  This election was still in the era of Democratic Party dominance in Georgia; an era in which winning the Democratic primary really meant winning the election.

There was no Republican primary at the time, and no real Republican opposition, despite the fact there were voters who had Republican leanings. This meant it was a common practice for Republicans to vote in the open Democratic primary; they would choose the Democrat they felt had the best chance to lose to their candidate in the general election, in this case a man named Howard “Bo” Callaway.

The Democratic primary was won by Ellis Arnall, but he failed to capture a majority of the vote.  Under Georgia law at the time, this required a run-off election, which 2nd-place candidate Maddox eagerly entered.  Being overconfident that a former governor couldn’t lose to an upstart like Maddox, Arnall barely campaigned in the runoff.  Maddox emerged victorious in the run-off, and went on to face Bo Callaway in the general election.

Callaway was the first Republican member of the United States House of Representatives elected from Georgia since the close of Reconstruction, which made him a perfect candidate for a smear campaign from the Maddox camp.  Maddox compared Callaway and his supporters to General Sherman and alluding to the fact they would “give Georgia another March to the Sea.”  The segregationist Maddox falsely accused Callaway of hiring off-duty police officers to maintain segregation at the tourist park he owned.

Meanwhile, Arnall supporters started a write-in candidacy for the general election, insisting that Georgians must have the option of a moderate Democrat besides the conservatives Maddox and Callaway.

Callaway won a plurality of votes in the general election, Maddox finished second, and there were more than 52,000 write-in votes for Arnall.  Again, Georgia election law at the time stipulated that if no candidate garnered a majority of votes, the state legislature was required to elect one of the two candidates with the highest number of votes.  Being the third-place finisher meant Arnall was excluded.  So, now a legislature dominated by Democrats, all of whom had been required to sign a loyalty oath to the Democratic party, now had to choose between the Republican Callaway and the Democrat Maddox.

Hence, the ax handle-wielding fried chicken king of Atlanta became the governor of Georgia.

Many of today’s Liberals either want you to believe that is all “ancient” history or that “times have changed.” First of all, go back to my definition of “ancient” history.  There’s plenty of people alive today who lived through the Civil Rights movement.  As far as  the “times change” argument…explain this.

clinton gore confederate campaign pin

If the narrative about the Confederate flag is about a heritage of racism, then why would any right-thinking politician use it in modern America?  Both Bill Clinton and Al Gore are sons of the South, being from Arkansas and Tennessee respectively.  They knew damn good and well what this was supposed to evoke.  Can you think of a better example for the “times have changed” argument being completely invalid?

I can.

I already mentioned the Presidential race of 2008 at the beginning of this piece.  If you go back to the race for the Democratic primary, you can see the perfect example of the New American Left attacking itself over race.

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton had taken a racial jibe at Barack Obama in 2008, saying “this guy would have been carrying our bags,” a report claimed on Monday.

Mr Clinton allegedly made the racially insensitive remark to Senator Ted Kennedy as he tried to convince the liberal to endorse his wife, Hillary Clinton, Mr. Obama’s rival, for the Democratic nomination, according to The New Yorker.

Only days before he will nominate President Obama for re-election in the November 6 presidential polls, the report claimed that in 2008 the former President had reportedly said: “A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags.”

The reported comment was similar to the one attributed to Mr. Clinton in a 2010 book.

“A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee,” Mr Clinton was quoted as saying in Game Change, by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin.

So, we’ve explored “ancient” history, and we are through “recent” history, and yet all the signs of racism coming from the Democratic party are still coming.  Maybe we need to consider the source when we are getting lectured on matters of race.

Part II of this series can be seen here.

19 Comment(s)
  • Steve Gambone
    June 27, 2015 at 6:26 am

    Well J-Dub it’s a bit long-winded but you needed to back up your claims with lots of facts. I get that your dealing with the Democrats first but your rules can be made more compact and more even-handed.

    Rule 1: Democrats take from the middle class to give to the poor. Republicans take from the middle class to give to the rich.

    Your rules 2, 3 and 4 are based on rules governing human bias. Scientists know how it works. When new info comes in people give greater credibility to things they agree with and less to the things they disagree with. So a biased learning is going on.

    As for the Confederate Flag thing the quote from the Articles of Confederation could be noted,

    “The style of this confederacy shall be ‘The United States of America.'”

  • Maggie the Cat
    June 26, 2015 at 5:54 pm

    This is one of the best political essays I have ever read. Well done, J Dub.

    And yes, it is necessary to remind readers of history, for those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it.

    Also, I agree with StickinToMyOpinion.

    • StickinToMyOpinion
      June 26, 2015 at 7:17 pm

      Well, thank you Maggie the Cat. You are a highly intelligent feline.

  • Jack
    June 26, 2015 at 5:53 pm

    Many are hypocrites as one can see. Obama used the Confederate flag himself, on a 2012 campaign button. No surprise, google it yourself.

  • StickinToMyOpinion
    June 26, 2015 at 4:38 pm

    Liberals, imho, are nothing but two bit, silver tongued, masters of deceit.

  • Dude
    June 26, 2015 at 3:56 pm

    Sure, let me clarify that a little. My statement was not meant to say that republicans were democrats in the late 1800s and vice versa (which is probably what you are used to hearing from the far left). It was meant to say that the party had a diffrent ideology than it does today. Some topics have stayed fairly steady throught the history of the party like its pro-business stance. Others, such as its stance on social services, has flopped back and forth depending on the decade.

    The point of my statement was you cannot give the freeing of slaves out as a victory to the republicans (or any political party) because it was not the same political party that freed the slaves. Heck, on the ticket for Lincoln’s second term he wasn’t even listed as a republican, but rather listed under the National Union Party (which was a coalition of republicans, pro-war democrats, and the remnance of the whig party amd the Know Nothings). You really can’t attribute any political victory to either of the two major parties pre-1960s. From the 60s on, however, the parties pretty much settled into thier current forms. So, you can mark down the formation of the EPA as a win for republicans if you’d like.

  • Dude
    June 26, 2015 at 8:14 am

    This is a very long entry. I’m going to have to read it in chunks. I have seen some “inaccuracies” so far though. You mention in section #2 that democrats blame republicans for the Defense of Marriage Act and the Welfare reform act even though a democratic president signed off on them. You fail to mention that the reason republicans are blaimed is that republicans were the ones that proposed the bills in the first place. Also, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act might have been proposed by a democrat but was found uncomstitutional by the supreme court and now only applies to the federal government. The recent push for the state level equivalent has largely been lead by the republican party.

    I must also mention that even though you are correct that Abe Lincoln was a republican, republicans did not mean/represent the same values/view points they do today. It was the liberal party of the time and more closely represented today’s democrats. You did say you were going to ignore the “political drift” in this opaper, but you can’t say that and then use a “fun fact” incorrectly like that. It shows that you understand you were wrongly representing his political stance, but you don’t care cause it helps your argument.

    • clives doorag top convertable
      June 26, 2015 at 2:00 pm

      “I must also mention that even though you are correct that Abe Lincoln was a republican, republicans did not mean/represent the same values/view points they do today.”
      Now here is another lie repeated by the left on a daily basis
      Please sir, feel free to clarify what the hell you mean by this and feel free to give some examples. A little hint, you can’t so you wont!

  • well
    June 26, 2015 at 4:59 am

    For the record, the image of the Clinton Gore button was not “official” in any manner. The internet has debunked this. I could put the turtleboy logo on anything.

    • June 26, 2015 at 5:53 am

      That’s the classic example of a distinction without a difference. Official or not, it demonstrates that racism was alive and well in the Democratic party at the time. Not to mention, we all know that if somebody other than Democrats had used a similar tactic, they would have been crucified.

      • well
        June 26, 2015 at 5:12 pm

        You seem to miss my point. I for one do not refute the civil rights movement and the role of democratic segregationists. But it makes a lot of difference if it was official or not. You see, you tried using this imagery as the base-point for your article. It was even the opening image, pretty much clickbait. “Wow those names and the confederate flag” “I didn’t know Clinton was a klan member, let me look”

        Joe Smoe can always print on anything he/she wants and put it out there. The fact that turtleboy sports can be put on anything, shows how anyone can have an opinion and tie it to turtlleboy. Even is it does not reflect the core ideology.

        Politicians have always crossed any line to get the vote. Truman for example was all about the klan to get the votes. I am not sure how that symbol represents that a collective was at whole racist. one locality drummed up a niche support by infusing imagery with campaign aims. This happens in a million different scenarios.

        Your article was fine, had insight not known to many that don’t have a passion for US history, but the chosen image was not correct.

        • June 26, 2015 at 6:25 pm


          I never once tied the aforementioned Confederate “Clinton-Gore”campaign pin to any specific individual…official or not. All I’m saying in terms of the image to which you object, the very same Democrats who recoil in horror at anything perceived to be “racist” don’t want to admit their own party plays to the same bullshit they accuse everybody else of.

  • Waaaaay back Wasdin
    June 25, 2015 at 7:57 pm

    Somewhat thought out…dragged down by pointless drumming of the past. I jist have two issues. You fail to mention how post 60s south and north flipped. All those Democrates in the pre johnson era are now Rep. Lincoln might have freed black; Johnson made them human. The three largest civil rights bills ever past were lead by A Democrat (LBJ). As for Nixon the only reason he went ‘green’ was to tale pressure off of his struggles in Vietnam.

    The issue for the Democrats is they did lose their way. They went from being the hand up to the hand out party. I will always be a D because I believe everyone deserves a hand up when they are down. We just need to learn when enough is enough

    • Waaaaay back Wasdin
      June 25, 2015 at 7:58 pm

      Note..I’m not bashing your article. It was well reasoned. I just think sometimes overly obtuse

      • June 26, 2015 at 5:48 am


        I’ve clearly raised the level of discourse on this blog.

    • clives doorag top convertable
      June 25, 2015 at 11:32 pm


      Dixiecrat – Senators

      (D)VA Harry F. Byrd, 1933-1965
      (D)VA A. Willis Robertson, 1946-1966
      (D)WV Robert C. Byrd, 1959-Present
      (D)MS John C. Stennis, 1947-1989
      (D)MS James O. Eastland, 1941-1941,1943-1978
      (D)LA Allen J. Ellender, 1937-1972
      (D)LA Russell B. Long, 1948-1987
      (D)NC Sam Ervin, 1954-1974
      (D)NC Everett Jordan, 1958-1973
      (R)NC Jesse Helms, 1973-2003
      (D)OK Thomas Pryor Gore, 1906-1921,1931-1937
      (D)AL J. Lister Hill, 1938-1969
      (D)AL John J. Sparkman, 1946-1979
      (D)FL Spessard Holland, 1946-1971
      (D)FL George Smathers, 1951-1969
      (D)SC Olin D. Johnston, 1945-1965
      (D,R)SC Strom Thurmond, 1954-1956,1956-2003
      (D)AR John McClellan, 1943-1977
      (D)GA Richard B. Russell, Jr., 1933-1971
      (D)GA Herman E. Talmadge, 1957-1981
      (D)TN Herbert S. Walters, 1963-1964
      Dixiecrat – State governors

      Benjamin Travis Laney, Arkansas Governor
      Fielding Wright, Mississippi Governor
      Frank M. Dixon, Former Alabama Governor
      William H. Murray, Former Oklahoma Governor
      Mills E. Godwin Jr. governor of Virginia
      Only one switched parties – Strom Thurman AFTER the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act were passed. Ask yourself why would Strom Thurmond move to a party that pushed for civil and votings rights if he was so much of a hard line racist? Can you tell me why then do the Democratic/Liberal voters/historians never point to this. For convenience, they look over this with dark blinders on and it’s nauseating.

      • June 26, 2015 at 5:51 am

        Remember how much fun the media had pointing out that Strom Thurmond had a bi-racial love child?

    • June 26, 2015 at 5:47 am

      I will agree the “drumming” of the past is a bit long, but I felt it was necessary because there are too many people in this country who want to engage in political debate without knowing the history of what they are debating.

Comment on this Post


Guest Blog: Janay Rice Can’t Stop Tweeting About Adrian Peterson Kicking The Shit Out Of His Kid
Guest Blog: Minnesota Moron Wears Worst Adrian Peterson Outfit Ever
This Ice Dancing Guy Hates Turtleboy Sports So Much I Can’t Help But Respect Him