Those Republicans Refused To Compromise In The 60s

and it’s all been downhill for the US ever since. And the majority of the blame for the refusal to compromise is religion. Yes, Republicans are uncompromising and evil. Yes, religion is uncompromising and evil. And if the Republicans had been willing to compromise back in the 60s, we’d be the better for it.

You see, the Democrats wanted slavery back in the 60s and the Republicans didn’t want it. The Republicans refused to compromise with the pro-slavery desires of the Democrats. And people died. Lots of people. And it’s the Republicans’ fault. And religion. Because they wouldn’t compromise. Actually, the problem began in earnest in ’54. That’s when the Republicans started their religious refusal to compromise. The year the Republicans were founded. That’s right, 1854.

Or so the fact-free Washington Post Leftist columnist Richard Cohen is pushing. Ed Morrissey is on top of things, as per usual, now that he’s back from his European vacation.

I may have read less coherent rants on American exceptionalism than today’s column by Richard Cohen, but I’m not sure I can say when. In attempting to argue that American exceptionalism has somehow become a religious doctrine, Cohen then argues — as near as I can tell — that its “dogma” has killed the art of compromise. Furthermore, Cohen can pinpoint exactly when this started, and to no one’s great shock, it’s when the Republican Party first formed. And then Cohen tells of the dire consequences that followed from the founding of the High Church of Republicanism:

The huge role of religion in American politics is nothing new but always a matter for concern nonetheless. In the years preceding the Civil War, both sides of the slavery issue claimed the endorsement of God. The 1856 Republican convention concluded with a song that ended like this: “We’ve truth on our side/ We’ve God for our guide.” Within five years, Americans were slaughtering one another on the battlefield.

Therein lies the danger of American exceptionalism. It discourages compromise, for what God has made exceptional, man must not alter. And yet clearly America must change fundamentally or continue to decline. It could begin by junking a phase that reeks of arrogance and discourages compromise. American exceptionalism ought to be called American narcissism. We look perfect only to ourselves.

Er … what? Is Cohen seriously arguing that Republicans should have compromised on the issue of slavery? That the Civil War was the fault of Republicans for opposing continuing enslavement of human beings?

Morrissey goes on to quote Ramesh Ponnuru:

Does Cohen really want to maintain that the Republicans of the 1850s should have been more willing to compromise on slavery? Is this what liberalism has come to?

Doug Mataconis adds some histo-fact lumber into the rhetorical beating Cohen is taking for his fact-free “compromise for the sake of compromise” bather.

As Cohen should well know, while the Republican Party was founded on opposition to slavery, and abolitionists were a large segment of the party’s base in that first election, the real motivation behind the formation of the GOP was opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which repealed the Missouri Compromise and would have permitted expansion of slavery into the Kansas Territory if the settlers voted in favor of it. Four years later, in 1860, Abraham Lincoln campaigned not on abolition of slavery, but on opposition to the expansion of slavery into the territories. So, Cohen’s suggestion that it was the GOP’s failure to “compromise” that led to Civil War is, quite simply, absurd.
…
As flawed as it is, he would have actually had a point if, instead of bizarrely attacking the 1856 Republicans, he had turned his attention to those in the South, including Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens, who believed that slavery, and the superiority of whites over blacks, were ordained by God. They’re the ones who were perverting religion toward political ends, and they were the ones who refused to compromise. If the blood of the Civil War is on anyone’s hands, it is theirs.

Because, you see, the Republicans never compromised with the Democrats, and the Republicans don’t compromise with the Democrats, and everyone has to compromise with the Democrats, and the world would be a better place if Republicans compromised with the Democrats who not only wanted to keep slavery in the south but also wanted to expand slavery. Or something.

Do the Democrats ever have to compromise with Republicans? Or is it always a one-way street with the Left? Keep moving left, always move left, the only compromise is in how fast you move left. And we’ve always been at war with Oceana.

The Naked Truth About Robert Stacy McCain

It’s time for Robert Stacy McCain to admit to the naked truth. If you have a picture of Robert Stacy McCain as being completely forthright, well, he has some coming out to do. Let me provide you with some of the reams of evidence and you can see for yourself.

He wrote an article entitled Start the War From Right Here where Robert Stacy McCain nakedly and proudly recounts killings and other violent acts. And he does so specifically to throw his support behind “one of them,” a Conservative of other-than-white color. (I think Palin should head east and take West with her.)

Robert Stacy McCain writes an article viciously attacking Ed Schultz by deceptively editing a video to make it look and sound like Ed Schultz is saying outrageously outrageous things. And then McCain purportedly quotes Schultz:

“The Republicans lie! They want to see you dead! They’d rather make money off your dead corpse! They kind of like it when that woman has cancer and they don’t have anything for her.”

Robert Stacy McCain cannot stay away from the violent rhetoric, even when writing about the President of these here United States. McCain wants to beat President Obama.

Robert Stacy McCain writes an article mocking the terrible housing situation, giddily laughing like a schoolgirl as poor families are tossed out on the streets. He put the dogwhistle “plummets” in the title of his article. Plummets what, Mr McCain? Plummets to their death?

And there we have it, folks, evidence galore. The Naked truth about Robert Stacy McCain is that he’s a Right-Wing Extremist™ blogger. Isn’t it about time he came out of the closet and admitted it. Isn’t it about time he became a Self-Proclaimed Right-Wing Extremist™ blogger instead of just one in hiding? Come on, Mr McCain, you can do it. To admit a thing is the first step in curing the thing.

(For those who don’t read the categories to see the humor category… HUMOR.)

Attention All Race-Traitors, Gender-Traitors And Self-Proclaimed Right-Wing Extremist™ Bloggers

You know who you are. But if you don’t, let me explain.

Two years ago, in April 2009, Barack Obama’s Department of Homeland Security (where Janet Napolitano is allowed to run free in a nakedly partisan manner) came out with a completely laughable report about dangerous right-wingers. Sharon wrote an article about it at Common Sense Political Thought where she quoted from the laughable and nakedly partisan report and mocked it derisively.

In the interests of helping the Leftists monitor us, some of us decided to create a list of Self-Proclaimed Right-Wing Extremist™ bloggers. And on April 15, 2009, I sent out the invitation. Any of us who wanted to help the Leftists monitor us were welcome to self-nominate.

Are you a Right-Wing Extremist™?
Do you want to become a Self-Proclaimed Right-Wing Extremist™?
Let me know in the comment section and I’ll see what I can do to help the Left monitor you.

On March 27, 2010, I decided we should further help the Leftists in their monitoring of our actions so I added a new blog list: the “Race Traitors” blog list. If you are an Uncle Tom, a House Boy, an Oreo, a Token Black who “never gets his hand shaken at Republican gatherings” you qualify. In fact, you qualify if you are a Conservative and you are not white. We all know how the Leftists need to keep their minorities corralled within the Democrat Machine, so we should help them locate the ones who strayed over to our side of the aisle.

Are you a Race Traitor?
Do you want to help the Left find and monitor you?
Let me know in the comments and I’ll see what I can do to help them out.

I think now might also be a good time to help the Leftists locate, identify, and monitor the Gender Traitors. I had thought of this earlier when Lori Ziganto at Snark And Boobs linked to an article written by Lori Ziganto at NewsReal Blog who quoted State Rep. Janis Sontany (D-TN):

At a Democratic gathering over the weekend, Sontany said of women Republican state lawmakers: “You have to lift their skirts to find out if they are women. You sure can’t find out by how they vote!” State GOP chairman Chris Devaney quickly issued a press release calling her comment “inappropriate and disrespectful” and demanding that various Democrats denounce Sontany.

So, I think now might be the time to provide more help to the Leftists. Conservative ladies, if you want to help the Leftists find, identify, and monitor you but you want to keep your skirts down — or your Lees up (this is the 21st Century after all, Janis) — let me know in the comments and I’ll see what I can do to help them out.

The Dixiecrat Myth

Bob Parks of Black&Right (pictured, right) quoted the Democrat Party:

Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws, and every law that protects workers. Most recently, Democrats stood together to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act.

On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight. We support vigorous enforcement of existing laws, and remain committed to protecting fundamental civil rights in America.

Then Mr Parks proceeded to provide a very long list of Republicans leading the fight on all those civil rights issues and Democrats actively leading the fight to prevent the passage of those civil rights issues. Arlenearmy added a video — which is well worth the watch — in the comment section of my article on the subject.

I have noted this many times over the past couple years, but then the Liberals start talking about the Dixiecrat myth. First off, Liberals have to completely ignore what the Democrat Party said. “Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws, and every law that protects workers.” That quote is a Democrat lie. The histo-facts bear witness to that quote being a Democrat lie. And that’s why Liberals have to completely ignore the statement in pushing the Dixiecrat myth.

The Liberals’ Dixiecrat myth goes something like this: In 1964 and 1965, southern Democrats were racist segregationists. In 1968, the racist segregationist southern Democrats became Dixiecrats. By 1980 all the Dixiecrats had already become racist segregationist southern Republicans. During this same time, the integrationist race-blind southern Republicans up and decided to become southern Democrats. It had to be completed by 1980 because Ronald Reagan.

You have to be outside your mind to believe a wacked out myth like that. Even in the 1960s and 1970s, people weren’t single-issue race-issue partisans — or more accurately, especially in the 1960s and 1970s as the anti-war crowd and counter-culture “free love and drugs” crowd were so boisterously center stage.

Hey, I have an idea! How about every New Yorker up and move to Los Angeles and every Los Angelino up and move to New York! Hurry up, folks. You have about 12-14 years to make the switcheroo!

Bob Parks more forcefully destroys the Dixiecrat myth, with professorial source material. (His source material are words from professors.)

From University of Dayton Professor Larry Schweikart:

The idea that “the Dixiecrats joined the Republicans” is not quite true, as you note. But because of Strom Thurmond it is accepted as a fact. What happened is that the **next** generation (post 1965) of white southern politicians — Newt, Trent Lott, Ashcroft, Cochran, Alexander, etc — joined the GOP.

So it was really a passing of the torch as the old segregationists retired and were replaced by new young GOP guys. One particularly galling aspect to generalizations about “segregationists became GOP” is that the new GOP South was INTEGRATED for crying out loud, they accepted the Civil Rights revolution. Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter led a group of what would become “New” Democrats like Clinton and Al Gore.

“So it was really a passing of the torch as the old segregationists retired and were replaced by new young GOP guys.”

From University of Washington, Tacoma Professor Mike Allen:

[I]t was the southern Democrats who were the party of slavery and, later, segregation. It was George Wallace, not John Tower, who stood in the southern schoolhouse door to block desegregation! The vast majority of Congressional GOP voted FOR the Civil Rights of 1964-65. The vast majority of those opposed to those acts were southern Democrats. Southern Democrats led to infamous filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
…
By 1972, however, Wallace was shot and paralyzed, and Nixon began to tilt the south to the GOP. The old guard Democrats began to fade away while a new generation of Southern politicians became Republicans. True, Strom Thurmond switched to GOP, but most of the old timers (Fulbright, Gore, Wallace, Byrd etc etc) retired as Dems.

Why did a new generation white Southerners join the GOP? Not because they thought Republicans were racists who would return the South to segregation, but because the GOP was a “local government, small government” party in the old Jeffersonian tradition. Southerners wanted less government and the GOP was their natural home.

“[T]he GOP was a ‘local government, small government’ party in the old Jeffersonian tradition [as the modern-day TEA Party movement is]. Southerners wanted less government and the GOP was their natural home.”

That should pretty well settle the issue of the Dixiecrat myth, but it is unlikely to, as Liberals believe their own lies and are impervious to the arrows of histo-fact and reason.