Timeless
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2014
- Threads
- 39
- Messages
- 1,305
- Reaction score
- 633
- Location
- South Carolina
- Vehicle(s)
- 2024 Grand Highlander Hybrid Max Limited
Sponsored
Civil Rights Act of 1964 vote count was not split so much by party lines (overall ~70% Dem; ~80% Repub) as it was by regions. Southern Dems opposed, Northern Dems supported. The few Southern Republicans that existed also opposed; Majority of Northern Republicans supported....President Johnson recognized by signing the Civil Rights Act he would gain the black vote despite the fact that most Democratic members of Congress opposed it.
Assuming that fewer Democrats would have resulted in greater support ignores the important distinction between Southern and Northern Democrats. The numbers you quote amount to about 70% Dem support and 80% Repub support. Almost all of the opposition from both parties was Southern. So no change to the point. It was a North-South thing more than a party thing.That's true, to an extent. Had the Democrats not had such a significant majority of both houses of Congress, the votes in favor of each of the civil rights acts would have been greater.
The 1964 Bill (one of 4 Civil Rights Acts) initially passed in the House 290 to 130 (60% Dem, 78% Rep). It passed in the Senate 73 to 27 (69% Dem, 82% Rep) after a 57-day filibuster by racists southern democrats. After the Senate made changes to the bill, it went back to the House and passed 60% Dem, 76% Rep. As long as we're rounding numbers, the percentage delta between the parties that voted in favor was closer to 20%.
The first Civil Rights Act initially passed in the House 51% Dem, 84% Rep, in the Senate 59% Dem, 93% Rep, and then back again to the House 55% Dem, 75% Rep. Closer to a 30% delta. The 1960 Bill had about a 21% delta.
The point being that Democratic lawmakers (primarily Southern Dems) were consistently opposed to civil rights legislation. Up to this time Blacks largely voted Republican (the party that ended slavery and the primary proponents for enacting civil rights laws). President Johnson recognized that by signing the Bill into law he would secure the majority black vote for the Democratic Party. He was right.
Fascism is not identical to socialism, but it's nearly the same. Fascism removes individual rights. The name comes from the word fasces which means bundle of sticks. Meaning we are stronger as a group rather than as individuals.The thing I really can't understand is why the democratic party wants to be associated so closely the idea of socialism (like those who refer to themselves as democratic socialists). The two do NOT go hand in hand but the fear mongering that is going on these days will have you believe that every democrat is a socialist and that has about as much weight as every republican being a fascist. A fair amount of the rest of the civilized world welcomes socialized government programs (healthcare) but are not Socialist nations (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK and many other eastern European nations).
No one in their right mind should want to be under a Socialist rule. History has proven it doesn't work. But no one should want to live in a fascist world either.
The fascist Nazi's were Socialist, as were IIRC the Italian fascists. Just not communist. So fascism is not Capitalism, not even close. It also is all about the government controlling everything. And you can be a Socialist without being a communist. Though fascists socialist may be worse than communist ones.No one in their right mind should want to be under a Socialist rule. History has proven it doesn't work. But no one should want to live in a fascist world either.
The problem is you can't compare Euro politics to US politics. Fascism is right wing, the right wing of Socialism and Communism is Socialism's left wing.Fascism is not identical to socialism, but it's nearly the same. Fascism removes individual rights. The name comes from the word fasces which means bundle of sticks. Meaning we are stronger as a group rather than as individuals.
Some left-leaning people try to say that fascism is right wing, but it's not. It associated with the left and the idea that the government takes over services and industries because individuals can't thrive without help from the government.
So yes I agree that most people shouldn't want to live in a fascist world. But the left is pushing in that direction and for some reason they are getting support from many people.
The meaning of "right wing" would have to be twisted and warped for Fascism to be right wing. Extreme right wing is anarchy - no government control of individuals or businesses - basically a free for all with everyone doing whatever they want. Not quite so extreme right wing is libertarianism - government only defends people (police and military, but no other assistance) - or at least that's how I understand libertarianism to be defined. It's theoretical because a real libertarian state will probably never happen. Government officials never want to give up power and control. Also, people need roads and an electrical grid, so government has to do more than just protect people from each other.The problem is you can't compare Euro politics to US politics. Fascism is right wing, the right wing of Socialism and Communism is Socialism's left wing.
Just put me in charge and then my heirs and all will be good.I think the thing that is the most scary about socialism and communism is that many people believe that it would work if somehow they found a good and benevolent person to be the head honcho. Reality seems like that never happens. At least in history it never has happened.