When Did Republicanism Go Bad?

A lot has been posted that's unrelated to "When Did Republicanism Go Bad?" which is the topic of this thread. We know when and we know why "Republicans" went bad.

Since the Civil War it was the Republicans that were generally the "good guys" advocating for civil rights while the "bad guys" were the racist Democrats of the South that advocated segregation and denial of civil rights for blacks and other non-whites in America. This held true through the 1950's and early 1960's where minorities, predominately blacks, supported the Repubican Party. In the 1960's things began to change. While opposed by the racist Democrats the Democratic presidencies of Kennedy and Johnson joined the Republicans in advocacy for civil rights.

After Johnson the Republican Nixon adminstration took over and while Nixon had been pro-civil rights in the 1950's he abandoned that stance when he became president in 1968.

The "presidents" set the agenda of the parties and with this flip-flop by presidents it lead to the abandonment of the "racists" Democrats that fled in droves the the Republican Party when Carter, carrying forward the civil rights agenda of JFK and LBJ, was elected president. By about 1980 the racist Southern Democrats had all switched political hats and became racist Republicans. As mentioned before the political history of David Duke, a former Grand Wizard of the KKK, clearly reflects this change from racist Democrat to racist Republican in 1980 and he was far from being alone.

When the Republican Party became the Party of Racism in around 1980 it became the "bad guys" in American politics and it has not reversed course from it's anti-civil rights agenda since that time.

 

actually, this is a great 'begging the question' thread. Another one could be,

'Why are all white people racists?'

Why do democrats want to exploit the working man?

It makes great drama, but not much for substance or logic. Still, over 41 pages & still going strong! I have to admire the dedication to propaganda that the progressive left has for their false narratives!

 

On the contrary, there has been a perfectly good answer for more than two centuries:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...​

 

Once upon a time when I was less informed, I too thought that with a few amendments, we could get this country back on track. Then came this supposition that an Article V convention should be called by the states and that sounded good. But then I started to study the constitution and law in earnest and I found that I had been very foolish indeed. Why?

Well, once upon a time during February of 1787, a convention was convened in Philadelphia in order to amend the Articles of Confederation. And then from May to September of that year, they again met to devise a completely new constitution, not the purpose for which they met.

Now, considering that the Articles of Confederation did allow alteration, hence:

"Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determinations of the united states, in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them, unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards con-firmed by the legislatures of every state."

So here we have the founders defying the very document they founded and writing a constitution that only required nine states to ratify to replace a written constitution (yes, the articles of confederation are a constitution) by another without the required complete unity as per Article XIII.

Now, with the outright crooks and vandals we consider our "masters" in government, just how can you even remotely think that once convened there will be any control whatsoever?

At this point I would have to ask at just how voting would help? While most people are under the false premise that voting entails a free election, that is not the case. Voting is nothing more than a false illusion based on prescreened selections. Another false premise that most believe in are the "political parties" with there extreme differences. What most fail to understand is there are no differences just little diversions to create the division of the populace and maintain power, not for the elected, but their puppet masters.

What such a small percentage of Americans even have a clue much less know are the original checks and balances of that infamous four pieces of parchment. It was tuning that magnificent idea that has created the issues, the amendments, specifically 12 and 17. There is also a strong issue with Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8. Strong enough to instill an amendment that was ratified in 1819 and totally denounced by Lincoln in 1856 in New York, wherein it disappeared. I'm being vague on purpose here as probably less than three people on this forum would even look it up, so sad.

Sir, here you have two absurdities, first trying to clarify anything with a convention in accordance with Article V (see above) and second that you could even hope to wake that which even when awake have little knowledge of that which is around them but trivia. Just look at those that now believe they are awake, it's always that the problem is because of the other people. And if they were to sense they were going to lose their benefits, there would be riots in the streets, not FOR change but AGAINST it.

Really, of course there is an answer, they stole it from the ignorant. It all happened way back in 1850 when "Civics" was replaced by "Government" and the masses where taught to be good little citizens and obey the government "authority". After 165 years, look at the outstanding results they have achieved. They even have you, a supposedly awake person (look up person) believing it is something that can't be described. What chance are there for the other 98%?

Remember, this is supposedly a "government" by the consent of the people. Then ask yourself, do you have authority on any other than yourself? Then how can one delegate a power they don't possess to another to act in their stead?

 

... their cognitive dissonance between spending and financing while complaining about the left having to justify taxes before spending.

 

"We", did you have a mouse in your pocket? But it would seem from your post that the when and why would not be known by yourself that seems to have a very slanted view of things. By the way, do you understand the difference between Repugantcons and Republicanism?

Good guys and bad guys, really, how does one tell them apart? Or actually the question should be where are the good guys? If you must speak about political parties, the more appropriate names would be the dumbocraps and the repugnantcons. Sort of along the line of the days of the founders when the one that wasn't claimed to be Federalist so the ones that were were called the Anti-federalist. In case you don't understand, Republic and Democracy. While there is a lot of democracy, where is the republic?

Civil rights, just what rights are those and where did one get them? They became the "bad guys" would imply they were at some time the good guys, when was that? I love the way the things get so twisted and spun by those that refuse to think into some sort of contest with the winners getting to further the slavery sense of both.

 

You are currently posted on page 11, where are the other 30? "Begging the question", how is that?

 

How does that establish authority?

 

Our supreme law of the land. We never needed the frivolity in legal venues of our (senior) elders regarding civil rights or the franchise.

 

We're seeing a prime example of why I left the Republican Party in 1984. Republicans get elected by making the economy the number one issue - which is a good thing. Then, as soon as they they step onto the floor of the legislators, they drop any real attempt to deal with the economy (because, let's face it - it's a difficult task) and start spending their days coming up with inventive ways to go after gay people. Or women. Or minorities. Any shinny penny but the economy and the troubles of the middle class.

I'm not going to defend the Democrats - they have no shortage of their own problems.

But this thread is about Republicans.

 

Yes; the right is still practicing their Communism, in Cuba.

 

You're asking how consent of the governed establishes the authority of government? Really?

You figure maybe there's some other vehicle by which a government may be invested with just powers?

 

I would like to see a Republican President and the Congress to remain Republican in 2016. This wish does not reflect who I am supporting. I am curious if an all Republican Congress and President could stop the gridlock and start legislating. It would be a political experiment to view.

An August 2014 Gallup survey lists government, the economy, and immigration as the top three issues; http://http://www.gallup.com/poll/174809/government-economy-immigration-top-problems.aspx I am not trying to start a debate on what is and is not an important issue, I just chose these three for illustration purposes. I would like to see what an all Republican federal government would do with government, the economy, and immigration if Republicans were in charge.

My hypothesis would be that gridlock would occur. Currently there are 535 members of Congress. The President's staff has twenty-four (including the President and Vice President.) Additionally, each member of the President's staff has their staff. The reasoning behind my hypothesis is the party affiliation is not a factor in the problem. The problem is the Congress, President, and their staff is made up of predominantly politicians.

All the above have titles such as Senator, Secretary,President, etc. No matter what their title is they are all still politicians. My father would often say, "You can't eat a title" in reference to politicians and others that gained confidence from their various titles. My father's reasoning was that even if they have a title they are still people, or in this case politicians.

According to Dictionary.com the original meaning of the word politician is "A man of artifice; one of deep contrivance." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/politician?s=t The words, artifice and contrivance demonstrate that this early definition concluded politicians were unethical people.

When you add judicial review to Congressional and Presidential lawmaking you have a vicious cycle. The three branches of government were meant to be checks and balances by not vesting all powers in any one branch of government. The three branches are meant to keep everything balanced. The reality is that with all these politicians running the government the Congress, The President, and the Judiciary resemble a dog chasing its tail.

The change that has happened to both the Republican and Democratic parties is that they have just became better politicians.

 

Just as the radical left has grown so has the radical right. What we now is a Moderate President. Not Clinton and not a Radical Christian. We need a moderate, libertarian, Centrist. Unless the Democrats come up with someone to run against Clinton, IMO they will lose. Unless the Republicans fail to endorse a moderate Candidate. Then they will have a chance of winning, not because she will be good for the Country, but because she will be seen as the better of two evils. We can not let this happen as we have suffered enough financial under the current President and his socialist cabinet. Good lord, the Senate Majority leader recently admitted to lying about Romney to help Obama get re-elected. And, Clinton just wiped out her emails on her "private" server "after" receiving a request from Congress to turn the email over to them. Our government is corrupt, out of control and too many members of Congress have been their way too long. Stop re-electing them for God sake.

 

When did Democrats become the thought police?

 

I didn't know they had; it is usually the right that prefers to deny and disparage Individual Liberty in favor of morals from an Iron Age.

 

The Republican party became a refuge for racists when, in the 1960's the democrats pushed their far right fringe minority, the Dixiecrats, out of the party. A majority of the Dixiecrats ended up joining up with the far right fringe of the Republican party and become what today is known as the Neocons. The union of the far right democrats and republicans gave the neocons them enough control in the GOP to push aside the moderates and control the party.

 

Wow, complete BS right out of a delusional mind.

 

Totally agree Hossier8 with your comment. Perhaps the Southern Republican party had different beliefs in the 1960's, I will research this; but growing up in northern Illinois, I wasn't exposed to racism as it apparently existed in the South. And, I believe the majority of us living in States that supported human rights, were members of the Union during the Civil War would never have allowed the racism that still existed in the 1960's; as evidenced by the number of Northern individuals that traveled to the Southern States that were still killing minorities, against de-segregation, against the rights all people should be privy to under the Constitution. I was still in Grade School in the 1960's, naturally, I was unaware of what was going on. But my parents and grand parents worked side by side African Americans(or Blacks as they wanted to be addressed as at that time) and they never had a bad word to say against the "blacks". They were Republicans and I lived in Illinois until 1977, attended College there, working my way through other than a State Grant that paid my Tuition because my family earned too little at the time. Once I was able to vote, as my parents and Grand Parents and my fellow students, I voted the majority of time Republican. So I think you post that it was a refuge for racists at the time is nothing more than a pure generalization. Although I agree it may have been for Mississippi, Texas and a few other southern States. Since the time of successful, complete segregation, we have continually been moving forward to a point so very much better. As evidences by the many non-minorities that voted for Obama in 2008. While I didn't vote for him because I felt he lacked the amount of experience he needed on foreign affairs(which I believe has proven to be correct); I was extremely proud that our Country no longer based their votes on race. He had a true opportunity to further defeat racism in this Country. Instead, he surrounded himself with the "wrong" advisers, IMO. Two of which had participated in crimes against the Government, one that got away with it and one that went to prison for it. Then it was discovered that the Minister of the Church his family attended appeared to be a radical against non-African American races and IMO the U.S, States and its Government. Naturally my thoughts on this are based on hearsay and mainstream news reports so I could be wrong about this minister and his church. All I know is the first two years of his presidentcy he gave speech after speech attacking Republicans, he ignored the Republican Voters and their representative when it can to the Health Care PPACA; he did nothing but divide the Country, more so that any President in my adulthood. He told missed an opportunity to further unite the Country, choosing instead to listen to the radical left, known socialist, communist advisers he chose to surround himself with. Sorry, but it was a missed opportunity. And, as far as his promise for a transparent Government, I don't see it. He has not made one comment regarding Clinton using a personal server totally under her control and her recent "wipe" of all of her emails when she and he knew Congress had requested access to them multiple times. And her pitiful testimony on the attack of our Embassy and death of the Ambassador and others. He ignores the majority, blames everyone other than himself for everything. Travels the Country his entire two terms attacking Republicans and giving speeches as if he is still in Campaign mode. I personally can't wait until he is gone. I doubt whomever we elect in 2016 could possibly be worse. I also wish the Republican house would get rid of B and put someone that influence the direction and actions of the Majority. And, I wish the Minority of the House would not have elected Pelosi Minority Leader, enough of her too. As far as Reid goes, good ridden to this admitted liar. If you don't like the current Senate Minority Leader why would you have ever liked puppet Reid?
Both Parties are pitiful, we need a moderate to be elected in 2016, someone that values personal rights, the economic health of "our Country" first before pouring billions of dollars into other Countries, sticking our nose where it doesn't belong other than when it required to protect invasion and threat on our soil, stopping the Fed from printing more money, borrowing money we have no means of paying back without raising taxes or taking from Peter to pay Paul.

So unless someone else enters the race, my choice with likely be Rand Paul, a Libertarian who ran and is running for the Presidency on the Republican Ticket.

We have a good chance and good Candidate that virtually mean electing a 3rd Party. And, if his choice of running mate is a Moderate, I believe he could beat Clinton.

 

I think both major parties are in the pits, the hog swallows, the manure piles. Both are all about party not country.

 

It was when Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House, though it probably has more to do with the Greatest Generation being forced by time to pass the baton to generations that had neither produced great wealth by sheer determination nor shared sacrifice on the basis of principals. It probably happened a little sooner on the democratic side as I would place Mario Cuomo as the last progressive idealist. Elizabeth Warren sometimes gives me a glimmer of hope that she can reignite some sort of principles in the DNC, but I do not see anybody really holding out much promise on the right. Sometimes I think Rand Paul might have that potential, but those moments are very few and fleeting.

 

What is this rambling gobbledygook?

To answer the question you posed in your title - the only (flamingly) cogent thing you wrote - the answer is "when they started emulating Democrats".

/thread.