In spite of old Kentucky.
July 9, 2015 10:24 PM Subscribe
Jon Chait, New York Magazine: The Party of Andrew Jackson vs. the Party of Obama
Ed Kilgore: Is The GOP The Party Of Jackson?
Scott Lemieux: The Party of Lincoln Is Now the Party of Jackson, and Vice Versa
Downplaying or ignoring Jackson’s conservatism, while conjuring a liberal ideology on his behalf, served a partisan interest for 20th-century Democrats. But there are also honest reasons that may have led historians like Schlesinger astray. From the standpoint of the 20th century, the United States had evolved into a two-party system in which the more liberal of the two parties had its strongest base in the Deep South. As this felt to many to be the inevitable direction of American politics, it seemed natural to peer back at the 19th century and see those coalitions in protean form. Despite its conservative views on race and suspicion of Washington, the white South probably appeared like a plausible base for the development of a liberal party. From the standpoint of the 21st century, things look very different.
Ed Kilgore: Is The GOP The Party Of Jackson?
Scott Lemieux: The Party of Lincoln Is Now the Party of Jackson, and Vice Versa
Jon Chait, The New Yorker
Chait's in NY Mag...
I still remember when my mom taught me the New Yorker / NY mag distinction. As I remember, she didn't have much to say about what made NY mag worse -- I believe she said it was like People. I think this is also when I learned People is bad.
posted by grobstein at 10:45 PM on July 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Chait's in NY Mag...
I still remember when my mom taught me the New Yorker / NY mag distinction. As I remember, she didn't have much to say about what made NY mag worse -- I believe she said it was like People. I think this is also when I learned People is bad.
posted by grobstein at 10:45 PM on July 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Mod note: Fixed attribution, carry on
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 10:57 PM on July 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 10:57 PM on July 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
This frankly, makes about as much sense as asking if Obama is a Whig or a Tory.
posted by happyroach at 11:09 PM on July 9, 2015 [14 favorites]
posted by happyroach at 11:09 PM on July 9, 2015 [14 favorites]
The modern GOP is clearly the Anti-Masonic Party, what with their love for nominating conventions and their conspiracy theories.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:20 PM on July 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Apocryphon at 11:20 PM on July 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
This frankly, makes about as much sense as asking if Obama is a Whig or a Tory.
Yes! Thank you.
-- Jackson was a genocidal asshole.
-- The contemporary Democratic Party is descended (via a complicated historical chain) from the Democratic Party of Jackson.
-- There are some suggestive resemblances between Jacksonian political culture and contemporary Republican political culture, if you believe Chait.
-- There are some suggestive resemblances between Jackson's politics and progressive Democratic politics, if you believe Arthur Schlesinger, Pulitzer prize winner and tremendously influential political historian.
But: the question of whether the Democrats are "really" the successors of Jackson is basically meaningless.
In a relatively humdrum sense of institutional continuity, they definitely are. In some ways, they are sharply opposed to what Jackson stood for; in others, less so. Hm.
I guess I think the project of kicking Jackson out of the Democratic canon is a good one, cuz it doesn't look good to celebrate perpetrators of genocide. (Ask me about Lyndon Johnson some day!)
posted by grobstein at 11:22 PM on July 9, 2015 [12 favorites]
Yes! Thank you.
-- Jackson was a genocidal asshole.
-- The contemporary Democratic Party is descended (via a complicated historical chain) from the Democratic Party of Jackson.
-- There are some suggestive resemblances between Jacksonian political culture and contemporary Republican political culture, if you believe Chait.
-- There are some suggestive resemblances between Jackson's politics and progressive Democratic politics, if you believe Arthur Schlesinger, Pulitzer prize winner and tremendously influential political historian.
But: the question of whether the Democrats are "really" the successors of Jackson is basically meaningless.
In a relatively humdrum sense of institutional continuity, they definitely are. In some ways, they are sharply opposed to what Jackson stood for; in others, less so. Hm.
I guess I think the project of kicking Jackson out of the Democratic canon is a good one, cuz it doesn't look good to celebrate perpetrators of genocide. (Ask me about Lyndon Johnson some day!)
posted by grobstein at 11:22 PM on July 9, 2015 [12 favorites]
It's almost as if putative ideology was a malleable tool and maintaining the status of the elite was the core identity of (both) parties.
posted by midmarch snowman at 11:52 PM on July 9, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by midmarch snowman at 11:52 PM on July 9, 2015 [11 favorites]
No time like the present! Tell us about Lyndon Johnson, grobstein.
posted by Kattullus at 11:53 PM on July 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Kattullus at 11:53 PM on July 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
Reference to Vietnam, Kattullus. It's dissonant for liberals to celebrate President Johnson for the Civil Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid and the anti-poverty programs because of the War.
...
Yes, people & events are complicated.
posted by JKevinKing at 2:21 AM on July 10, 2015 [4 favorites]
...
Yes, people & events are complicated.
posted by JKevinKing at 2:21 AM on July 10, 2015 [4 favorites]
Reading Chait and Kilgore together is useful; Lemieux not so much (aside from his reference to Daniel Howe.) And, as happens all to frequently when this period is discussed, poor John Quincy Adams is left out of the picture entirely. The which is a shame because, in my opinion, JQA represents the best of both elitist and populist orientations in contention then. And, likewise, his policy tried to stem the worst of both elitist and populist inclinations. (Harlow Giles Unger's short bio is a good introduction to JQA.)
Despite the criticism of all three authors, Schlesinger's Age of Jackson is still worth reading. It has it's flaws, but is otherwise a good bit of scholarship. I'd suggest also reading Edward Pessen's Jacksonian America: Society, Personality, and Politics to counter Schlesinger's perspective.
Insofar as the main thesis is concerned, I agree: large portions of the Jacksonian outlook are now best reflected by the Republican party. I just wish that the authors spent a little more time on party machinery in conjunction with ideology. And not mentioning Nixon's "Southern Strategy" nor Clinton's policy tool of triangulation makes the authors revelations less revelatory than they otherwise might be. The Obama team has tried to reshape both party machinery and coalition-building in the wake of Nixon and Clinton, hence the ever-rightward bent of the Democratic party--at least on economic and national security policy. While I had higher hopes for Obama and would certainly not vote for him again, I don't want to lays charges at his feet that are not warranted. The "party of Obama" is really not that different from either Nixon or Clinton. Now, the party of Sanders, that'd be something.
posted by CincyBlues at 2:24 AM on July 10, 2015 [5 favorites]
Despite the criticism of all three authors, Schlesinger's Age of Jackson is still worth reading. It has it's flaws, but is otherwise a good bit of scholarship. I'd suggest also reading Edward Pessen's Jacksonian America: Society, Personality, and Politics to counter Schlesinger's perspective.
Insofar as the main thesis is concerned, I agree: large portions of the Jacksonian outlook are now best reflected by the Republican party. I just wish that the authors spent a little more time on party machinery in conjunction with ideology. And not mentioning Nixon's "Southern Strategy" nor Clinton's policy tool of triangulation makes the authors revelations less revelatory than they otherwise might be. The Obama team has tried to reshape both party machinery and coalition-building in the wake of Nixon and Clinton, hence the ever-rightward bent of the Democratic party--at least on economic and national security policy. While I had higher hopes for Obama and would certainly not vote for him again, I don't want to lays charges at his feet that are not warranted. The "party of Obama" is really not that different from either Nixon or Clinton. Now, the party of Sanders, that'd be something.
posted by CincyBlues at 2:24 AM on July 10, 2015 [5 favorites]
Well, there is Jacksonian populism in the GOP among some of the Tea Party. But there is the same populism on the Democratic left in Warren and Sanders.
And the idea that Obama's Dem Party is to the right of Clinton's is surely false. And it's a hell of a lot left of Nixon. I think people don't remember either of those presidencies.
posted by persona au gratin at 2:37 AM on July 10, 2015 [4 favorites]
And the idea that Obama's Dem Party is to the right of Clinton's is surely false. And it's a hell of a lot left of Nixon. I think people don't remember either of those presidencies.
posted by persona au gratin at 2:37 AM on July 10, 2015 [4 favorites]
A 1970-vintage history textbook from Alabama seems to agree with the contention that the roots of the American welfare state lie in the institution of slavery.
posted by acb at 3:32 AM on July 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by acb at 3:32 AM on July 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
From that Chait piece: Democratic former Senator Jim Webb has called on the party to "return to its Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Andrew Jackson roots."
He also decried the party's loss of white voters, saying, "The Democratic Party has basically turned into a party of interest groups."
Uh huh.
posted by duffell at 3:57 AM on July 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
He also decried the party's loss of white voters, saying, "The Democratic Party has basically turned into a party of interest groups."
Uh huh.
posted by duffell at 3:57 AM on July 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
Maybe it's a character feature of Jon Chait that, aside from some obvious presentism, he can write an article that's largely correct but still feels insufferable
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 4:04 AM on July 10, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 4:04 AM on July 10, 2015 [9 favorites]
Jackson was our first American president who was a non-aristocratic populist. What he stood for, many many Americans at the time admired, ie, slavery, killing Indians and driving them off their land, and expanding the American Empire. To dismiss him and what he represents in our history is to dismiss historical fact as though it never existed.
posted by Postroad at 4:34 AM on July 10, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Postroad at 4:34 AM on July 10, 2015 [4 favorites]
Reference to Vietnam, Kattullus. It's dissonant for liberals to celebrate President Johnson for the Civil Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid and the anti-poverty programs because of the War.
The Vietnam War and the associated bombing campaign in Southeast Asia. His policies killed probably millions, and people are still getting maimed by them today.
posted by grobstein at 5:07 AM on July 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
The Vietnam War and the associated bombing campaign in Southeast Asia. His policies killed probably millions, and people are still getting maimed by them today.
posted by grobstein at 5:07 AM on July 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
To dismiss him and what he represents in our history is to dismiss historical fact as though it never existed.
There's a big space between 'dismiss[ing] fact' and saying 'Hey remember the Indian Removal Act? That was shitty and is probably deeply tied in to the things you're lauding.'
posted by PMdixon at 5:12 AM on July 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
There's a big space between 'dismiss[ing] fact' and saying 'Hey remember the Indian Removal Act? That was shitty and is probably deeply tied in to the things you're lauding.'
posted by PMdixon at 5:12 AM on July 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
The postbellum Jacksonians were technically never Democrats, nor are they now Republicans. They simply changed the color of their ties en masse mid-twentieth century over race and civil rights. The Solid South has always been Solid Jacksonian. I watched Texas, that hadn't elected a Republican to a state-wide office since Reconstruction, turn solid red within several decades. And no matter who the Jacksonians affiliate with, they are always an electoral blessing and a political and policy curse on their new best buddies. One of my favorite essays on the topic is The Jacksonian Tradition by Walter Russell Mead...
posted by jim in austin at 5:18 AM on July 10, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by jim in austin at 5:18 AM on July 10, 2015 [9 favorites]
No time like the present! Tell us about Lyndon Johnson, grobstein.
I liked your question on 3MA, by the way! That was you, right?
posted by grobstein at 5:18 AM on July 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
I liked your question on 3MA, by the way! That was you, right?
posted by grobstein at 5:18 AM on July 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
The US has never had a two-party system; the US has always been governed by coalitions of regional parties. And every once and a while, these coalitions realign themselves. Our system is a lot more parliamentary than it seems.
posted by 1970s Antihero at 5:41 AM on July 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by 1970s Antihero at 5:41 AM on July 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
Metafilter: almost as if putative ideology was a malleable tool and maintaining the status of the elite was the core identity
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 5:58 AM on July 10, 2015
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 5:58 AM on July 10, 2015
I'm going to offer up that we should maybe just ignore anything Jim Webb has to say.
posted by lydhre at 6:08 AM on July 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by lydhre at 6:08 AM on July 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm going to offer up that we should maybe just ignore anything Jim Webb has to say.
Why? I'm pretty sure Jim Webb isn't touting the genocide of Native Americans. His description of why he considers himself a Jacksonian Democrat is consistent with the general views of modern progressives.
I think Andrew Jackson said it first, and said it best, when he indicated that you measure the health of a society not at its apex but at its base. You measure the true health of a society not by what the stock market is doing but what the average-wage earner is facing.
I don't think there are too many of us who are over here on the so-called populist side who want to see the American economy stutter; what we want to see is a much fairer distribution of the benefits of this economy.
I respect the hell out of Jim Webb. He's a little too populist for my tastes, but the man is prudent, sensible, and fair minded. He's smart as hell and tough as nails. I'm going to offer up that ignoring anything he has to say would be short sighted.
posted by echocollate at 6:35 AM on July 10, 2015 [4 favorites]
Why? I'm pretty sure Jim Webb isn't touting the genocide of Native Americans. His description of why he considers himself a Jacksonian Democrat is consistent with the general views of modern progressives.
I think Andrew Jackson said it first, and said it best, when he indicated that you measure the health of a society not at its apex but at its base. You measure the true health of a society not by what the stock market is doing but what the average-wage earner is facing.
I don't think there are too many of us who are over here on the so-called populist side who want to see the American economy stutter; what we want to see is a much fairer distribution of the benefits of this economy.
I respect the hell out of Jim Webb. He's a little too populist for my tastes, but the man is prudent, sensible, and fair minded. He's smart as hell and tough as nails. I'm going to offer up that ignoring anything he has to say would be short sighted.
posted by echocollate at 6:35 AM on July 10, 2015 [4 favorites]
Were it not for the Vietnam War, Johnson would likely be remembered as one of America's great presidents, if for nothing other than his success with Civil Rights. Add the other Great Society programs and carrying on the Space Program, and it would have been an amazing legacy. The Vietnam War is the blight that will forever mar how we remember him.
We can still celebrate the things he did right without celebrating the man.
posted by haiku warrior at 6:40 AM on July 10, 2015 [4 favorites]
We can still celebrate the things he did right without celebrating the man.
posted by haiku warrior at 6:40 AM on July 10, 2015 [4 favorites]
I respect the hell out of Jim Webb. He's a little too populist for my tastes, but the man is prudent, sensible, and fair minded. He's smart as hell and tough as nails. I'm going to offer up that ignoring anything he has to say would be short sighted.
I brought Webb up in the first place because his comments have consistently echoed a yearning for the good old days when the key demographic of the Democratic party was the working-class white vote. He's also made oblique references to the changing demographics of the party--references that can be read, in good faith, as "minorities are ruining this party."
Webb's comments are emblematic of the changes described in these articles. That's why Chait referenced Webb, and why I brought him up here. I'm not interested in debating how smart, tough, or prudent he might be.
posted by duffell at 6:51 AM on July 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
I brought Webb up in the first place because his comments have consistently echoed a yearning for the good old days when the key demographic of the Democratic party was the working-class white vote. He's also made oblique references to the changing demographics of the party--references that can be read, in good faith, as "minorities are ruining this party."
Webb's comments are emblematic of the changes described in these articles. That's why Chait referenced Webb, and why I brought him up here. I'm not interested in debating how smart, tough, or prudent he might be.
posted by duffell at 6:51 AM on July 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
Jim Webb may have some admirable personal characteristics, but his message is way out of tune with the current Democratic Party and he has no viable political constituency. The former "Reagan Democrats" that he hopes to reach are long gone - they're either dead, or GOP voters for decades now.
posted by Nat "King" Cole Porter Wagoner at 7:16 AM on July 10, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Nat "King" Cole Porter Wagoner at 7:16 AM on July 10, 2015 [3 favorites]
I brought Webb up in the first place because his comments have consistently echoed a yearning for the good old days when the key demographic of the Democratic party was the working-class white vote. He's also made oblique references to the changing demographics of the party--references that can be read, in good faith, as "minorities are ruining this party."
I've read Webb pretty consistently over the years, and his critique mostly centers on how Democratic policies have marginalized the white working poor from the party. He's offered this critique from the position that the Democratic party is and has historically been a populist party. He's not pining for the halcyon days of white dominance and minority subjugation.
Jamelle Bouie wrote a piece on this semi-recently for Slate.
I'm puzzled whenever conservatives and progressives, Republicans and Democrats, try to disown problematic figures from the past and pawn them off on their opponent. It smacks of brand management. Hell, even American football fans can acknowledge the skill of a rival's quarterback and still call the guy an asshole. Have you met an American football fan? We're the fucking worst.
posted by echocollate at 7:18 AM on July 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
I've read Webb pretty consistently over the years, and his critique mostly centers on how Democratic policies have marginalized the white working poor from the party. He's offered this critique from the position that the Democratic party is and has historically been a populist party. He's not pining for the halcyon days of white dominance and minority subjugation.
Jamelle Bouie wrote a piece on this semi-recently for Slate.
I'm puzzled whenever conservatives and progressives, Republicans and Democrats, try to disown problematic figures from the past and pawn them off on their opponent. It smacks of brand management. Hell, even American football fans can acknowledge the skill of a rival's quarterback and still call the guy an asshole. Have you met an American football fan? We're the fucking worst.
posted by echocollate at 7:18 AM on July 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
Considering his latest screed denying the inherent racism in the confederate flag and his denial of the very existence of white privilege, Jim Webb's favorite sport remains courting the White Male Vote. The Democratic Party's shift towards making women and people of color a focus of the platform is exactly what his quote references when he claims that the Democratic Party has turned into a "party of interest groups".
I'm not really sure brand management has anything to do with my contempt for Jim Webb's strategies.
posted by lydhre at 7:32 AM on July 10, 2015 [5 favorites]
I'm not really sure brand management has anything to do with my contempt for Jim Webb's strategies.
posted by lydhre at 7:32 AM on July 10, 2015 [5 favorites]
I don't think that it is problematic to wish that working class whites would vote in their economic interest. That in no way has to say that having a diverse base is a bad thing. It can be saying that, but more evidence is required to support that claim. (lydhre may have just provided that, on preview)
posted by wierdo at 7:44 AM on July 10, 2015
posted by wierdo at 7:44 AM on July 10, 2015
Considering his latest screed denying the inherent racism in the confederate flag and his denial of the very existence of white privilege, Jim Webb's favorite sport remains courting the White Male Vote. The Democratic Party's shift towards making women and people of color a focus of the platform is exactly what his quote references when he claims that the Democratic Party has turned into a "party of interest groups".
Yea, that's the article Bouie quoted from and referenced in the article I linked. When we (Metafilter) discuss "white privilege" it's with regard to the benefits white people accrue by virtue of superficially (by virtue of the color of our skin) belonging to the empowered majority. We're less likely to be stopped by police. We take for granted the generations of economic advantages that were the fruit of institutional racism. But what's lost in those discussions is that those economic advantages weren't distributed evenly among all white people. Generations of poor whites have grown up with economic disadvantages comparable to those of poor minorities, which were exacerbated by the dismantling of the safety net in the 80s.
In other words, saying "Jim Webb doesn't believe in white privilege" belies the complexity and specificity of his critique.
As for the flag, I believe Webb is wrong. I'm a Mississippian with Confederate antecedents and the reality of the flag is that it has, since the beginning, been a symbol of a cause that favored oppression and subjugation, and it has no business flying on public grounds.
I'm not really sure brand management has anything to do with my contempt for Jim Webb's strategies.
That was more a general comment about the weird horse trading parties and ideologies do with historical figures and unrelated to Jim Webb or your comments. I apologize for not making that clear.
posted by echocollate at 7:49 AM on July 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yea, that's the article Bouie quoted from and referenced in the article I linked. When we (Metafilter) discuss "white privilege" it's with regard to the benefits white people accrue by virtue of superficially (by virtue of the color of our skin) belonging to the empowered majority. We're less likely to be stopped by police. We take for granted the generations of economic advantages that were the fruit of institutional racism. But what's lost in those discussions is that those economic advantages weren't distributed evenly among all white people. Generations of poor whites have grown up with economic disadvantages comparable to those of poor minorities, which were exacerbated by the dismantling of the safety net in the 80s.
In other words, saying "Jim Webb doesn't believe in white privilege" belies the complexity and specificity of his critique.
As for the flag, I believe Webb is wrong. I'm a Mississippian with Confederate antecedents and the reality of the flag is that it has, since the beginning, been a symbol of a cause that favored oppression and subjugation, and it has no business flying on public grounds.
I'm not really sure brand management has anything to do with my contempt for Jim Webb's strategies.
That was more a general comment about the weird horse trading parties and ideologies do with historical figures and unrelated to Jim Webb or your comments. I apologize for not making that clear.
posted by echocollate at 7:49 AM on July 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'll add that Web specifically singles out the historical disadvantages of black Americans as requiring economic redress. His hope I think is that economic policies to accomplish that will not alienate or disadvantage poor whites. In other words, he feels economic policy should be class-based rather than purely race based, which is considerably less controversial than the title of that article would make his views seem.
posted by echocollate at 7:54 AM on July 10, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by echocollate at 7:54 AM on July 10, 2015 [3 favorites]
Sarah Palin posted this image unironically.
Now we've just lost the fucking plot.
posted by Talez at 8:20 AM on July 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
Now we've just lost the fucking plot.
posted by Talez at 8:20 AM on July 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
That Webb op-ed is an embarrassment. He acknowledges that black Americans were treated terribly by their government, but argues that that bad treatment ended with Jim Crow, which is patently ridiculous. He argues that lots of southern whites have it bad, but instead of proposing anything that would actually help them, he says we should get rid of all "government-directed diversity programs." How will this help poor Southern whites? He doesn't say. He concludes with this treacle:
"Drop the Procrustean policies and allow harmony to invade the public mindset. Fairness will happen, and bitterness will fade away."
That would be embarrassing if it ran on a high school newspaper op-ed page.
The man's writing op-eds opposing diversity programs in the Wall Street frickin Journal, which should tell you everything you know about how seriously he's trying to win the Democratic nomination. Within two years, he'll be a Fox News "contributor" who will do nothing but whine about how the Democratic party left him.
posted by burden at 8:21 AM on July 10, 2015 [8 favorites]
"Drop the Procrustean policies and allow harmony to invade the public mindset. Fairness will happen, and bitterness will fade away."
That would be embarrassing if it ran on a high school newspaper op-ed page.
The man's writing op-eds opposing diversity programs in the Wall Street frickin Journal, which should tell you everything you know about how seriously he's trying to win the Democratic nomination. Within two years, he'll be a Fox News "contributor" who will do nothing but whine about how the Democratic party left him.
posted by burden at 8:21 AM on July 10, 2015 [8 favorites]
I didn't realize that the Webb op-ed was from 2010, not this year, so my last paragraph probably doesn't hold. Still, he's badly out of step with the Democratic party, and thank goodness that the Democratic party, for all its serious shortcomings, is out of step with his views.
posted by burden at 8:24 AM on July 10, 2015
posted by burden at 8:24 AM on July 10, 2015
The Webb op-ed criticizes the expansion of affirmative action to benefit recent immigrants, when the original goal of the program is to help descendants of slaves. He appears to favor affirmative action to help African-American descendants of slavery who are 'still in need'.
posted by zipadee at 8:38 AM on July 10, 2015
posted by zipadee at 8:38 AM on July 10, 2015
Webb's specific proposal is vague, but I read it as a wholesale replacement of race-based diversity programs with class-based programs. In any event, the idea that the fraction of affirmative action benefits (which are as a whole fairly trivial in the scheme of things) that goes to recent immigrants is somehow keeping poor southern whites in poverty is laughable. And trying to limit affirmative action to descendants of slaves would require setting up a new bureaucracy to check the genealogies of college applicants, which would require substantial expenditure of funds that would benefit nobody.
I mean, if you really want to improve the plight of Southern whites, why not propose something that would actually help them, like increased funding for Southern schools, better rural internet, universal health care, or easier labor organizing rules? Poor Southern white people (like all poor people) have legitimate claims to more than they are getting. Webb's proposal doesn't give them anything, it just tries to satiate them by taking something away from black people. In that way, it's not so different from the Jim Crow laws that Webb decries.
posted by burden at 8:53 AM on July 10, 2015 [3 favorites]
I mean, if you really want to improve the plight of Southern whites, why not propose something that would actually help them, like increased funding for Southern schools, better rural internet, universal health care, or easier labor organizing rules? Poor Southern white people (like all poor people) have legitimate claims to more than they are getting. Webb's proposal doesn't give them anything, it just tries to satiate them by taking something away from black people. In that way, it's not so different from the Jim Crow laws that Webb decries.
posted by burden at 8:53 AM on July 10, 2015 [3 favorites]
In any event, the idea that the fraction of affirmative action benefits (which are as a whole fairly trivial in the scheme of things) that goes to recent immigrants is somehow keeping poor southern whites in poverty is laughable.
It's more a matter of perception, I think, than actual benefits accrued. Webb's point is that race-based initiatives are divisive and effectively alienate a huge bloc of poor whites who would otherwise be a natural part of the Democratic base. Class-based initiatives rather than race-based would raise the most needy boats regardless of race and remove one of the planks in the culture war driving whites out of the Democratic party.
To the segment of progressives who envision a majority-minority Democratic party who say "fuck those poor white racists, we don't need them to win elections" the point is moot. But there it stands.
posted by echocollate at 9:10 AM on July 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's more a matter of perception, I think, than actual benefits accrued. Webb's point is that race-based initiatives are divisive and effectively alienate a huge bloc of poor whites who would otherwise be a natural part of the Democratic base. Class-based initiatives rather than race-based would raise the most needy boats regardless of race and remove one of the planks in the culture war driving whites out of the Democratic party.
To the segment of progressives who envision a majority-minority Democratic party who say "fuck those poor white racists, we don't need them to win elections" the point is moot. But there it stands.
posted by echocollate at 9:10 AM on July 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
Personally, I'm unconvinced that at this point poor whites would return to the fold. I think the damage has been done and Webb's critique serves more as a post-op than a prescription for the party. But maybe there are useful lessons to learn from this moving forward.
posted by echocollate at 9:22 AM on July 10, 2015
posted by echocollate at 9:22 AM on July 10, 2015
It's more a matter of perception, I think, than actual benefits accrued. Webb's point is that race-based initiatives are divisive and effectively alienate a huge bloc of poor whites who would otherwise be a natural part of the Democratic base. Class-based initiatives rather than race-based would raise the most needy boats regardless of race and remove one of the planks in the culture war driving whites out of the Democratic party.
To the segment of progressives who envision a majority-minority Democratic party who say "fuck those poor white racists, we don't need them to win elections" the point is moot. But there it stands.
Personally, I'm unconvinced that at this point poor whites would return to the fold. I think the damage has been done and Webb's critique serves more as a post-op than a prescription for the party. But maybe there are useful lessons to learn from this moving forward.
I think the biggest problem is that in a lot of states, even in "socialist" California, black areas are still greatly excluded from middle class society and are unfairly targeted by racist authorities from outside the immediate community. Take Ferguson for instance, police giving out $321 in fines and fees and 3 warrants per household? Poor white communities may be dirt poor but they don't deal with that additional shit because it's mostly out of racial spite.
A lot of the policies that Democrats (and presidential candidates like Bernie) have are built to bring up the lowest classes. But there's still a deep racial undertone in everyday life in America. Until we start to bring that under control the minority underclasses are still going to be in the biggest heap of shit and it's one that even the most determined would struggle to dig themselves out of.
posted by Talez at 9:34 AM on July 10, 2015 [3 favorites]
To the segment of progressives who envision a majority-minority Democratic party who say "fuck those poor white racists, we don't need them to win elections" the point is moot. But there it stands.
Personally, I'm unconvinced that at this point poor whites would return to the fold. I think the damage has been done and Webb's critique serves more as a post-op than a prescription for the party. But maybe there are useful lessons to learn from this moving forward.
I think the biggest problem is that in a lot of states, even in "socialist" California, black areas are still greatly excluded from middle class society and are unfairly targeted by racist authorities from outside the immediate community. Take Ferguson for instance, police giving out $321 in fines and fees and 3 warrants per household? Poor white communities may be dirt poor but they don't deal with that additional shit because it's mostly out of racial spite.
A lot of the policies that Democrats (and presidential candidates like Bernie) have are built to bring up the lowest classes. But there's still a deep racial undertone in everyday life in America. Until we start to bring that under control the minority underclasses are still going to be in the biggest heap of shit and it's one that even the most determined would struggle to dig themselves out of.
posted by Talez at 9:34 AM on July 10, 2015 [3 favorites]
He appears to favor affirmative action to help African-American descendants of slavery who are 'still in need'.
In other words, all of them, with the exception of a handful of millionaires. Right?
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:40 AM on July 10, 2015
In other words, all of them, with the exception of a handful of millionaires. Right?
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:40 AM on July 10, 2015
I'm sure the southern and white working class would be happy to partake of populist, economically just politics, if only they didn't have to share the endeavor with blacks, latinos and gays. But since they would have to share, they'd rather support the oligarchs in exchange for illiberal resentment-based politics.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 11:49 AM on July 10, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 11:49 AM on July 10, 2015 [3 favorites]
I am a southern Scots-Irish Protestant from a ruralish area, i.e., the demographic that Webb claims to speak for (well, except that I'm a woman, and he's not really okay with that). Along with most of my similarly southern Scots-Irish Protestant relatives, I support Bernie Sanders, and wish Webb would sit down and quit claiming to speak for us.
posted by hydropsyche at 12:08 PM on July 10, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by hydropsyche at 12:08 PM on July 10, 2015 [5 favorites]
We can still celebrate the things he did right without celebrating the man.
In the case of LBJ, it's not that clear cut. There's a very real argument that he sacrificed all of the things you put in the Pro column for the thing you put in the Con column. At very best, he gambled those things and lost. In either case, Johnson's positive legacy is tied directly to his negative one.
posted by absalom at 12:44 PM on July 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
In the case of LBJ, it's not that clear cut. There's a very real argument that he sacrificed all of the things you put in the Pro column for the thing you put in the Con column. At very best, he gambled those things and lost. In either case, Johnson's positive legacy is tied directly to his negative one.
posted by absalom at 12:44 PM on July 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
I caught a recent pop history bit about Jackson as a badass and kept getting irate about yeah, he fought duels (badass) he also massacred thousands of Native Americans and sent us headlong into the worst economic disaster prior to the Great Depression. 'Badass, but a corrupt fucking racist and hypocrite' doesn't meet the rah-rah remit. (Plus, Jacksonian democracy is just Jeffersonian democracy drunk on cider.)
posted by klangklangston at 3:51 PM on July 10, 2015
posted by klangklangston at 3:51 PM on July 10, 2015
I'm trying to think of a President between 1775 and the closing of the frontier who didn't preside over the systematic destruction of some proportion of the native American population.
(Plus, Jacksonian democracy is just Jeffersonian democracy drunk on cider.)
Jackson's presidency was the moment at which the Jeffersonian model of populist democracy established itself over and against the formerly presiding elitist model of rule by the "prominent" citizens (propertied, of good family, probably of English descent), although it has always seemed to me debatable that Jackson himself can be seen as the cause. More like he rode that model to power and his repeated electoral successes made it gospel. Lincoln was a quintessential "Jacksonian" political figure, portraying himself as a man of the people and as one of the people, a "rail-splitter", a frontiersman, a self-made man.
In that very specific sense, both of the parties are "parties of Jackson", but that's kind of like saying that both parties are "parties of Lincoln" because neither espouses slavery. There wasn't much else unique to Jackson, and the positive bits of his legacy have made their way too deep into the political consensus to be argued with.
posted by AdamCSnider at 4:20 PM on July 10, 2015
(Plus, Jacksonian democracy is just Jeffersonian democracy drunk on cider.)
Jackson's presidency was the moment at which the Jeffersonian model of populist democracy established itself over and against the formerly presiding elitist model of rule by the "prominent" citizens (propertied, of good family, probably of English descent), although it has always seemed to me debatable that Jackson himself can be seen as the cause. More like he rode that model to power and his repeated electoral successes made it gospel. Lincoln was a quintessential "Jacksonian" political figure, portraying himself as a man of the people and as one of the people, a "rail-splitter", a frontiersman, a self-made man.
In that very specific sense, both of the parties are "parties of Jackson", but that's kind of like saying that both parties are "parties of Lincoln" because neither espouses slavery. There wasn't much else unique to Jackson, and the positive bits of his legacy have made their way too deep into the political consensus to be argued with.
posted by AdamCSnider at 4:20 PM on July 10, 2015
"I'm trying to think of a President between 1775 and the closing of the frontier who didn't preside over the systematic destruction of some proportion of the native American population."
Which only makes the fervor with which Jackson prosecuted it all the more noteworthy. He was an exemplary asshole among his peers of genocidal assholes.
posted by klangklangston at 4:53 PM on July 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
Which only makes the fervor with which Jackson prosecuted it all the more noteworthy. He was an exemplary asshole among his peers of genocidal assholes.
posted by klangklangston at 4:53 PM on July 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
"I'm trying to think of a President between 1775 and the closing of the frontier who didn't preside over the systematic destruction of some proportion of the native American population."
There were none under your criteria, though, John Quincy Adams took a somewhat different approach.
posted by clavdivs at 4:56 PM on July 10, 2015
There were none under your criteria, though, John Quincy Adams took a somewhat different approach.
posted by clavdivs at 4:56 PM on July 10, 2015
The democrats controlled the South from the end of the Civil War until after the Civil Rights Act in '64? Wow, learn something new everyday. Have they apologized?
posted by Homer42 at 7:14 PM on July 10, 2015
posted by Homer42 at 7:14 PM on July 10, 2015
You forget those radical republicans.
So, a few republicans held office in the south just after the civil war.
"The deployment of the U.S. Army was central to the survival of Republican state governments; they collapsed when the Army was removed in 1877 as part of a Congressional bargain to elect Republican Rutherford B. Hayes as president."
posted by clavdivs at 7:40 PM on July 10, 2015
So, a few republicans held office in the south just after the civil war.
"The deployment of the U.S. Army was central to the survival of Republican state governments; they collapsed when the Army was removed in 1877 as part of a Congressional bargain to elect Republican Rutherford B. Hayes as president."
posted by clavdivs at 7:40 PM on July 10, 2015
"Plus, Jacksonian democracy is just Jeffersonian democracy drunk on cider."
This is good coin, a well hung string of cash. (Who made that cheerleader coin operated horse GIF circa 2003)
For example, both men had pillars...for thier home. I believe a sign of wealth in the ante bellum era was the amount of pillars one had.
My bet is Jackson had more pillars creating a pillar gap in the cider house rules.
posted by clavdivs at 8:07 PM on July 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
This is good coin, a well hung string of cash. (Who made that cheerleader coin operated horse GIF circa 2003)
For example, both men had pillars...for thier home. I believe a sign of wealth in the ante bellum era was the amount of pillars one had.
My bet is Jackson had more pillars creating a pillar gap in the cider house rules.
posted by clavdivs at 8:07 PM on July 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
« Older What We Comment About When We Comment About... | KFCosplay Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Off to read!
posted by persona au gratin at 10:33 PM on July 9, 2015 [1 favorite]