Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston





Thursday, October 15, 2015

Conservatives Keep Losing to Progressivism


I found this great post @Infidel753, who in turn got it from The Freethinker.

"While we naturally get very invested in whatever election or issue is most salient at the given moment, it's also of value to take the long view and remember the overall direction of history. The other day I ran across this overview of the last 154 years in the struggle between conservatism and progressivism: 

 • Conservatives tried to retain slavery, but they lost. 
• They tried to block voting by women, but they lost. 
• They tried to prevent couples from using birth control, but they lost. 
• They tried to obstruct Social Security pensions for oldsters, but they lost. 
• They tried to outlaw labor unions, but they lost. 
• They tried to prevent unemployment compensation for the jobless, but they lost. 
• They tried to keep stores closed on the Sabbath, but they lost. 
• They banned alcohol during Prohibition, but they eventually lost. 
• They tried to sustain racial segregation, but they lost. 
• They supported government-mandated prayer in school, but they lost. 
• They tried to continue throwing gays in prison, but they lost. 
• They tried to defeat Medicare and Medicaid, but they lost. 
• They tried to halt the sexual revolution, but they lost. 
• They opposed food stamps for the poor, but they lost. 
• They fought against equal human rights laws, but they lost. 
• They tried to censor sexy magazines, books and movies, but they lost. 
• They sought to jail girls and doctors who end pregnancies, but they lost. 
• They tried to block liquor clubs and lotteries, but they lost. 
• They tried to prevent expansion of health insurance through the Affordable Care Act, but they lost. 
• They tried to halt same-sex marriage, but they lost. 

As long-term readers know, I take a very long view of things -- I would add the conservative campaign against lightning rods, the forced recantation of Galileo, and the centuries of torture and burning of religious dissidents, heretics, and "witches". They scored some successes each time, but in the end, they always lost. 

 And in the end, they always will."


This list explains a lot. Visit any of the right wing blogs and you'll read a litany of what is wrong with America: 

Its best days are over; America has lost its "moral compass;" Men have become spineless, emasculated wimps; women delight in slaughtering their innocent blastocysts; God has been kicked out of schools and replaced by "the gay agenda;" so therefore, our children have become unmanageable beasts. Everything is going to hell and it's all the fault of the godless, immoral progressives/liberals. 

 The list explains their apocalyptic view of America: They keep losing; the country keeps progressing, and they haven't a clue. They don't learn, and they never will. They dream of a stagnant culture where nothing moves forward, where we never improve and grow in understanding and tolerance (they HATE that word) for the other. Also "diversity" they hate that even more.

The Democratic Party was the first party to:

Nominate a woman for U.S. vice president
Appoint a woman, Madeleine Albright, as U.S. Secretary of State
Elect a bi-racial president
Appoint an African-American as U.S. Attorney General
Appoint an African-American woman as U.S. Attorney General
Nominate a Hispanic woman as a Supreme Court Justice
Elect an African-American woman, Shirley Chisholm, to the U.S. House of Representatives
Have TWO women, Shirley Chisholm, the first, and Hillary Clinton, the second, run for POTUS

Also, the overwhelming majority of African-American representatives in the U.S. House are affiliated with the Democratic Party.

I may have left out some other "firsts," but this partial list is posted to counter the inane meme going around that portrays the Democratic Party as running only old white people for the presidency.

This presidential cycle, the TGOP has Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina, years after the Democratic Party led the way. They're still trying to catch up to the trail blazing that the Liberals have made in the "diversity" category. It's about time.

October 16, 2015


I thought Bill Richardson, a Democrat and an American of Hispanic heritage, was the first Hispanic to run for the presidency, but after some research, I found that the first person of Hispanic heritage to run for the presidency was a Republican -- Ben Fernandez.

Benjamin "Ben" Fernandez (February 24, 1925 – April 25, 2000) was an American politician, financial consultant and special ambassador. He was a member of the Republican Party. He ran for President of the United States three times, seriously in 1980 and with more perfunctory campaigns in 1984 and 1988, making him America's first major-party presidential contender of Hispanic origin. 

Fernandez was born in Kansas to Mexican parents who were illegal immigrants.

(Today, the TGOP would kick him and his parents out of this country!) 

Isn't it interesting that the GOP could not claim Mr. Hernandez as their own and as the FIRST American of Hispanic heritage to run for POTUS had his parents not come to the U.S. ILLEGALLY and had him as an "anchor baby?"

Of course, Mr. Hernandez aligned with the Republican Party BEFORE it was taken over by the completely nutty Tea Party wrecking balls. 

"When a reporter asked him why he was a Republican, Fernandez recalled a story from his college days in California when someone told him that the Republican Party was the party of rich people. 'Sign me up!' Fernandez replied. 'I've had enough of poverty. ' " 

You wouldn't be welcome in the TGOP today, Mr. Hernandez. 

The leading presidential candidate in the Republican Party, Donald Trump, says you and your kind are not the best that Mexico is sending over the border, instead, you're criminals and rapists. The second presidential contender, kindly Dr. Ben, suggested that if he were president, he would bomb the caves where you and your family might be hiding.


Rational Nation USA said...

Some understand conservatism not as a a force for stagnation and resisting progress but rather as a rational force for a slower and deliberate measured movement forwad.

Reactionaries, which I now view the tea party movement as being, do wish to stagnate social and scientific progress and actually wish to turn back progress and revert to a bygone era.

America today is a slightly left of center which will result in it continuing to advance socially, politically, scientifically, and rationally. However perhaps not as rapidly as liberal and progressives would like.

There will always be counter balancing political forces at work and in my view that is desirable. Infidel and Freethinkers are right and in the end the tea party will go the way oft

Rational Nation USA said...

... of the Whigs.

C. Johnson the 3rd said...

"the inane meme going around that portrays the Democratic Party as running only old white people for the presidency."

Wait, aren't the Tea Party Republicans tghe first to SCREAM! IDENTITY POLITICS!, when Democrats talk about race, sex, age? And now they're talking about older men and women in derogatory terms? And pushing the laughable idea that they're a "diverse" party? How many more conservative pundits like David Brook have to remind the American people that the modern GOP is completely bonkers?

"Over the past 30 years, or at least since Rush Limbaugh came on the scene, the Republican rhetorical tone has grown ever more bombastic, hyperbolic and imbalanced. Public figures are prisoners of their own prose styles, and Republicans from Newt Gingrich through Ben Carson have become addicted to a crisis mentality. Civilization was always on the brink of collapse. Every setback, like the passage of Obamacare, became the ruination of the republic. Comparisons to Nazi Germany became a staple."

Dave Miller said...

My only bone to pick with this list is that you identify Hillary as the first woman to run for president and Shirley Chishom as the first African American woman.

Ms Chisholm, was the first woman, period, to run for president of this country, as my wife frequently reminds me.

Rational Nation USA said...

The more pundits with moderate voices like David Brook the better. If the number that is willing to state the obvious in reasonable tone increase maybe, just maybe the GOP will return to being a party capable of governing.

Liberals and progressives should welcome and encourage the David Brook types. They are the ones who truely understand the purpose and fuction of both an opposition party and a governing party.

Jerry Critter said...

I would like to see a list of things that republicans have fought for and won. Other than tax cuts for the wealthy, nothing comes to mind.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Dave, you're correct. I will change that. I was listing these "firsts" off the top of my head; and because of the current presidential campaign, Hillary came to mind first. But your wife is absolutely right: Shirley Chisholm was the FIRST WOMAN to run for the presidency, but it is also important to note that as a woman of color, she was welcomed in the Democratic Party, and she chose NOT to align with the Republican Party.

The meme currently making the rounds on far right news sites and blogs implies that the Democratic Party candidates are not reflective of enough diversity (something I've read on many blogs that they HATE -- especially one particular blog that bemoans the fact that white Anglo-Saxon Protestants are becoming a minority in the U.S., and our populace is becoming more diverse). So here come the sillies, trying to make the Democrats and the Democratic Party look like the party that doesn't welcome people of all races?

Rational Nation USA said...

Teddy Roosevelt must be rolling over in his grave along with Abraham Lincoln.

Just sayin Jerry... :-)

Shaw Kenawe said...

Jerry, The TGOP has fought long and hard against civil rights, voting rights, and equality of marriage. Once the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts were passed, the conservative Democrats of the south left the Democratic Party and have been Republicans ever since. There were enough Liberal Republicans in Congress to help LBJ pass those acts, and surprise, surprise, even the mostly conservative SCOTUS ruled in favor of equality in marriage, so there's that.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Interesting study shows African-Americans tend to vote for the Party, not the color of the candidate's skin. Carson will not attract hordes of African-American voters, as the tGOP hopes:

"When it comes to voting, “party matters so much more than race.”
That’s the conclusion reached by David Niven, University of Cincinnati professor of political science who released a study last week looking into whether black Republicans, like Ben Carson, can win black votes. The conclusion reached was a definitive no — black voters are more likely to vote for black candidates, unless the candidate is a Republican.
“There are some very successful African American Republicans, but those folks don’t attract African American votes,” Niven said in a University of Cincinnati press release, contradicting the GOP’s strategy to recruit black and Hispanic candidates as a way to win over those electorates."

Interesting study shows African-Americans tend to vote for the Party, not the color of the candidate's skin. Carson will not attract hordes of African-American voters, as the tGOP hopes:


BB-Idaho said...

As a real old fellow, I resemble those remarks.....

Infidel753 said...

Thanks for the link! In addition, notice that most people today -- even conservatives, aside from the most paleolithic ones -- would recognize that in most of the cases on the list, it's a good thing that progressives won. Just imagine what the United States would be like now, if conservatives had won on each of those issues and the progressive changes had not happened! We'd be the Afghanistan of the Americas.

Anonymous said...

So what that our candidates have a few years on them, at least they have experience and leadership in their favor. I mean who would you rather have making critical decisions...a guy with a rug on his head or a proven woman with years of making hard choices?

skudrunner said...

It does seem that the majority of the things you blame the republicans for were actually promoted by democrats. 154 years ago there was no progressive movement. It was actually a third party started by TR.

Shaw Kenawe said...

skudrunner, you deliberately misread this post. This is NOT about Republicans and Democrats, it's about Conservatives and Liberals. The Republican Party at one time included LIBERAL Republicans as well as Conservative Republicans. The present GOP purged everyone who didn't pass their purity test on every issue. There are no liberal Republicans, that I'm aware of, in the GOP leadership. The Democratic Party includes Conservatives as wellas Liberals in its big tent.

There is no "blaming" in this post, just the plain facts. Progressives/Liberals are responsible for all those advances listed.

As for your foolish claim that "there was no progressive movement," in this country until TR, you obviously don't read history.

Here's the definition of "progressive:"

1.favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters:

making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods,

The Founding Fathers of this country advocated enlightened, liberal ideas for the colonies, one of which was to separate from England and the monarchy. Certainly government of the people, by the people, for the people was a new and radical idea at the time they separated from England. The conservative supporters of the King fought against this change/improvement/progress, and many of them fled to Canada.

This country was founded on progressive ideas promoted by radicals who believed in self-government. That you don't get that or even understand it is astounding. All you do is come here and seek to pin blame on political parties.

I'm surprised you didn't fall back on your tiresome trope: "The KKK was founded by the Democrat Party!"

Yes. The KKK was founded by the Conservative SOUTHERN Democrats. LIBERAL northern Republicans AND Democrats did not support it.

Dave Miller said...

Rather than engage the topic, as usual Skud chooses to cruise in, drop some snark, and not return.

Maybe the reason he didn't really engage was because to do so would have laid bare the truth of conservatism... It preaches moving ahead by returning to yesterday...

Franco Aragusto said...

your way to nice to skunkrunner. why let him stink up your blog with his snarky spray? Progressives move this country forward. he just can't handle the truth.

skudrunner said...

Rev Miller,

I pointed out facts that are not supportive of the progressive movement.
I know the I was for it before I was against excuse used by many but the truth is sometimes hard to accept.

In the Kennedy era democrats were actually in favor of less government interference in a persons life but the progressive liberals are supportive of government control of all lives.
What have democrats done for the poor
What have democrats done to increase American jobs
How is the Democrat controlled NEA doing improving education

How is this country moving forward under the progressive movement and their current leader. Fewer good jobs, a stagnant economy and helping the rich get richer while encouraging public assistance. You have a lot to be proud of.

Shaw Kenawe said...

skudrunner, this is what you wrote in response to this post:

"It does seem that the majority of the things you blame the republicans for were actually promoted by democrats. 154 years ago there was no progressive movement. It was actually a third party started by TR."

What facts in the above statement did you point out?

What have progressives done for the poor? See the list
What have progressives done for jobs? See the list

Many education firsts occurred in progressive Massachusetts:

"Tax-supported schooling for girls began as early as 1767 in New England. It was optional and some towns proved reluctant. Northampton, Massachusetts, for example, was a late adopter because it had many rich families who dominated the political and social structures and they did not want to pay taxes to aid poor families. [Some things never change.)

Northampton assessed taxes on all households, rather than only on those with children, and used the funds to support a grammar school to prepare boys for college. Not until after 1800 did Northampton educate girls with public money. In contrast, the town of Sutton, Massachusetts, was diverse in terms of social leadership and religion at an early point in its history. Sutton paid for its schools by means of taxes on households with children only, thereby creating an active constituency in favor of universal education for both boys and girls."

Either you deliberately come here to change the subject with your comment, or you don't understand what the post is about.

This post is about what progressive have done through history to move this country forward. Even Progressive Republicans contributed to it, but nevertheless, Progressive ideas brought about the important changes listed in this post.

As Dave and others observed, you come here with a chip on your shoulder, devoid of facts, and change the subject. IOW, troll behavior.

Rational Nation USA said...

skud, there is some truth in what you say about Kennedy era government. The rest? Mostly hyperbole unsupported by reality.

Things started to unravel with the repeal of Glass Steagall and accelerated until the financial crisis under GWB began. And... now we have Citizen United helping to corrupt our system further.

Simplicity works for some obviously as witnessed by rise of Trump and Carson. Too much tea must be hazardous to the mind.

Franco Aragusto said...

How is this country moving forward under the progressive movement and their current leader. Fewer good jobs, a stagnant economy and helping the rich get richer while encouraging public assistance. You have a lot to be proud of."

Hey, skunkrunner, My Man! Pig here to answer your question! Our "current leader," otherwise known as President Obama, has done a damn good job in shoveling out this country from the pit the last Republican left it in. Here's some facts on jobs that you probbly forgot to read about before you came here with the ridiculous suggestion that this administration hasn't moved the country forward. Read it and then come back here and try to say with a straight face that this country hasn't moved forward.

Also, it's very funny of you not to notice that the Republican dominated House has not passed job-related legislation to improve anything has it? It's amazing that Obama has been able to accomplish as much as he did with the clowns in the Republican House who can't even find someone to lead them.

Helping the rich get richer? you got a tiny memory cuz it was Dubya who gave the richest of the rich all those delicious tax cuts, and it's obama who tried to increase the minimum wage for the poorest, andthe TeaPublicans won't hear of it. Hey, what about getting pissed off ovefr the billions of $$$ subsidies the fat corporations get? and the tax laws that allow fat corporations and billionaires like Mittens Romney to hide their money off shore?

Let's see the people who use food stamps the most are the elderly, poor families with children, and veterans. You know, the people you and your friends like to call "moochers."

Anyone ever tell you what a comedian you are?

Jerry Critter said...

This country owes its very existence to progressives. Conservatives wants to remain British citizens. skud, you should be thanking progressives, not critizing them.

Dave Miller said...

Again Skud, you refuse to acknowledge the difference between labels like Democrat, Republican, Conservative and Progressive.

The terms conservative and progressive have remained relatively static for many years, thus enabling someone like Republican Teddy Roosevelt to be labeled both a Republican and a progressive. The same is true today in the case of Hillary, she being both a Democrat and a progressive.

Both of those people were pushing against the conservative tide that wanted, or wants, to return to the "good old days."

Did the Dems at one time have racist people as leaders in their parties, yes, of course they did, but that has now changed. And they at one time were more conservative than the GOP, but that is not true today.

A simple reading of the facts, and history explains that, so either you failed to notice that, or are choosing to just ignore it.

Was JFK for a more restrained federal government? Sort of. After all, who championed the space program, increased involvement in Vietnam, the Cuba debacle, the Peace Corps and more? Those are not the programs of a fully restrained government.

Besides, if you want to stick only to party labels, Dems in the WH have been way better for the economy and balanced budgets overall. It was Reagan, who ran against the Elder Bush, who started the trend to explode the deficits. Bush correctly called that approach Voodoo Economics, and took steps to fix it once he was in office.

In closing, thanks for the promotion, but I am noit a reverend, never having been ordained. I am a missionary in Mexico and a missions pastor at my local church in Las Vegas.

skudrunner said...

Pastor Dave,

If you recall it was TR who tried to start the progressive party because he couldn't run for another term.

The next president needs to be a strong leader and there is a slim pickins. On the republican side the two at the top are carnival barkers and 7 of the other ten are not what the country needs. The democrats need to go back to the well because their nominee will be obama term 3. ACA has been a disaster and there is no way to adequately fund it. Twenty five percent of ACA funding comes from medicare funds, that's the one we pay for. Jobs a leaving the US because of high taxes and overly restricted regulations yet no one seems to be interested in tax reform. Just because you lower taxes doesn't make them richer, it just means the can keep and spend more of the money they earn. Spending creates jobs, jobs creates taxes and we are all better off, of course you have to be willing to work which for almost 37% that is an issue because they choose not to participate in that work thing.

The democrats are promoting their motto More Free Stuff and we will figure out hwo will pay for it. The republicans are promoting less government control while they fight to control abortion and gay marriage. Neither side makes any sense and they are in it for them only. Few congressmen go into office millionaires and few go out not.

Rational Nation USA said...

skud, you get an A for reciting conservative boilerplate and a 0 for original thought.

skudrunner said...

Thanks les,

What is the part that is conservative boilerplate. Can you deny that the hillary/sanders debate was all about give away's? That the H is a mirror of BHO in blaming everything on the GOP. That 37% of potential workers choose not to participate. Maybe you feel ACA is a success instead of a disaster, for those 92% who have to pay for it.
Specifically what is it that was not true and boilerplate.