The DNC, and it's glaring omission of it's party's history

[miyi]

I've already revealed my opinion on this topic in another thread -- that the Republicans have been demonized as racists, when historically, they have been the primary opponents of slavery.

Whenever I ask so many young people what political party Abraham Lincoln was from, they are stunned when they discover, that he was in fact a Republican. I kid you not.

If Democrats want to truly address the race issue in America, the least they can do, to initiate this process, is be honest about their party's history.

Lo and behold, the Democratic National Committee (or DNC), decided it can get away with it, by omitting their party's lengthy record of pro-slavery and pro-segregation positions.

Read belows Op-Ed piece by the WSJ:

The Democrats' Missing History, By JEFFREY LORD

I'm sure there are a few U.S. History majors here in this forum, who are familiar with this topic. If you visit the DNC website under the sub-section called history, (see here), skim through it.....the way they've completely failed to mention anything related to slavery, of which the Democratic Party was in favor of, is simply put....laughable.

It's so sickeningly disingenuous, it makes Fox News look incredibly "Fair and Balanced".


It's time for African American conservatives to speak out, and reveal the truth, because frankly I'm so sick and tired that the Republican Party is constantly being vilified for being racists.

[redcometfm]

Haha I was having this very discussion today with my new roommate, totally agree.

Fox News isnt fair and balanced? I mean, I know they have a slight slant but I thought they keep it pretty even (unlike CNN who just has people come on who agree with everything they say).

[magicbulletgirl]

The Democratic Party is nothing like it was a hundred years ago, as is the same for the republican party.
The republican party then was for federal rights and the democratic party was for state rights.
These days state and federal rights aren't the huge issue they were a hundred years ago because they've been defined.
The civil war's focus may have fell on slavery but the issue that made that the focus was the south's right to secede from the union.

Vote for what you most agree with and you'll be okay.

Of course I agree with you that labeling a whole party as racists is incorrect. Everyone has their own opinions and pushing for civil rights might have indeed started with people who believed in it but when it comes down to it, some might have joined just to look good. Politics is about making the right choices without hindsight to win the game.

Off topic example: Obama and the few that voted against the Iraq war won in that case, but I don't believe that anyone should get bragging rights for a lucky choice.

[miyi]

The Democratic Party is nothing like it was a hundred years ago, as is the same for the republican party.
The republican party then was for federal rights and the democratic party was for state rights.
These days state and federal rights aren't the huge issue they were a hundred years ago because they've been defined.
The civil war's focus may have fell on slavery but the issue that made that the focus was the south's right to secede from the union.

Vote for what you most agree with and you'll be okay.

Of course I agree with you that labeling a whole party as racists is incorrect. Everyone has their own opinions and pushing for civil rights might have indeed started with people who believed in it but when it comes down to it, some might have joined just to look good. Politics is about making the right choices without hindsight to win the game.

Off topic example: Obama and the few that voted against the Iraq war won in that case, but I don't believe that anyone should get bragging rights for a lucky choice.

It was Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Party that was in favor of federalist rights, or some would say, pro-big government. As opposed to Thomas Jefferson's Democratic Party, like you said, who's pro-small government.....I'd say the closest thing that resembles this today, are the libertarians (Ron Paul).

But the Federalist Party was long dead by the time the Republican Party came along...in fact, previous to this, was the Whig party, which was already in decline, and so the Republican party sort of took over and absorbed the Whig people, and a couple others, such as the Free soilers, etc. But mainly, the Republican party started out as strong opponents of expanding slave-holding states. More or less, they were in favor of, or at least they leaned towards, abolishing slavery. Only the radical republicans, were in fact, in favor of absolute abolition of slavery, and when Abraham Lincoln fought the Civil War in 1860, he eventually yielded to political pressures to adopt abolition as a goal of the war itself. But by no means was he an absolute anti-slavery guy. Far from being a moral hero, he was more than anything, a practical, or pragmatic leader, who's primary ambition was to try to keep the "union" together.

I believe what prompted the shift of African American voters to vote more and more Democrat, began with FDR with the "new deal", which was the beginning of the government acting as a "welfare state". Then in the 60s, you have JFK (a Democrat) who was widely perceived as being the first President to have approved Civil Rights legislation, or at least the first President to have been instrumental in that regard...when in fact the previous President, Republican Eisenhower, was by comparison, far more active in pushing for Civil Rights legislation. LBJ, far from being supportive of Civil Rights, supported it anyway as part of accomplishing what his predecessor, JFK, has started. Then you have Republican Nixon, who surprisingly, was supportive of affirmative action. He applied what is called the "Southern Strategy", to try to appeal to Southern voters and absorb them towards the Republican fold.

A lot of Democrats would argue that the Southerners started voting Republicans, and northerners starting to vote Democrat, because of this. In other words, the electorate has been switched.

I've read many different sources, and I'm not convinced that the above argument holds true. Perhaps there's some truth to it, but if there is any electorate swapping going on, it's probably not all that significant.

The last 50 years, Republicans on the whole have lost grip on the monopoly of African American voters that they once enjoyed. The truth is, there's a lot of conservative African Americans, more than is conventional wisdom. The problem is, they commonly vote Democrat, even though most would claim they are conservatives.

I think a lot of that can be attributed to the fact that, Democrats have been so successful in demonizing Republicans, as racists. It's no wonder so many young people I encounter, are clueless about the history of either political party. All they are aware about, is that Republicans are greedy, elitists, power hungry, war mongering, bigoted or racists.

And to be fair, Republicans can say a lot of nasty things towards Democrats, as well. There will always be hardliners on both side of the party.

But seriously though....in this presidential campaign, McCain has been accused by Obama of playing the race baiting tactic, twice, without citing any evidence. (they think the celebrity ad with Paris Hilton and Brittney Spears juxtaposing Obama was a "racist" smear ad).

And now, the DNC thinks they can get away with re-writing history? Are they serious?

Fox News isnt fair and balanced? I mean, I know they have a slight slant but I thought they keep it pretty even (unlike CNN who just has people come on who agree with everything they say).

Actually, CNN is tolerable. At least they often allow Stephen Hayes, a prominent writer at the Weekly Standard, a conservative publication, to speak on there.

It's Keith Olbermann who allows only guests who agree with him....like a bunch of bobble heads.