Discussions on Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. (Split requested by Phi for All)

[Ten oz]

"Johnson signed the fortified Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law on July 2. Legend has it that as he put down his pen Johnson told an aide, "We have lost the South for a generation", anticipating a coming backlash from Southern whites against Johnson's Democratic Party."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson#Civil_rights

 

What followed the Civil Rights Act? The South had been uniformily Democratic. In 1968, first post Civil Rights Act election, George Wallace a racist pro segregation advocate got close to 10 million votes and 46 electoral votes winning 5 southern states. Since then the south has been uniformly Republican. So regardless of what either of the two major parties once stood for and who use to vote for them it is clear that the racist southern vein vote Republican today. It clearly switch following the Civil Rights Act. Today if you fly a Confederate flag, dislike minorities, or think the 1950's was a utopian society you also are very likely to vote Republican.

[waitforufo]

"Johnson signed the fortified Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law on July 2. Legend has it that as he put down his pen Johnson told an aide, "We have lost the South for a generation", anticipating a coming backlash from Southern whites against Johnson's Democratic Party."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson#Civil_rights

 

What followed the Civil Rights Act? The South had been uniformily Democratic. In 1968, first post Civil Rights Act election, George Wallace a racist pro segregation advocate got close to 10 million votes and 46 electoral votes winning 5 southern states. Since then the south has been uniformly Republican. So regardless of what either of the two major parties once stood for and who use to vote for them it is clear that the racist southern vein vote Republican today. It clearly switch following the Civil Rights Act. Today if you fly a Confederate flag, dislike minorities, or think the 1950's was a utopian society you also are very likely to vote Republican.

My favorite part of your above quote is "it is clear that the racist southern vein vote Republican today" To me it says the Democratic party can change by individuals can't. What is it with liberals that you just can't see individuals, but only groups.

Both you and Overtone have a hard time staying on topic. Again, why are conservatives insane and what should be done about it.

 

But since you insist. For your reading pleasure.

 

Democrats fought to expand slavery while Republicans fought to end it.

Democrats passed those discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws.

Democrats supported and passed the Missouri Compromise to protect slavery.

Democrats supported and passed the Kansas Nebraska Act to expand slavery.

Democrats supported and backed the Dred Scott Decision.

Democrats opposed educating blacks and murdered our teachers.

Democrats fought against anti-lynching laws.

Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, is well-known for having been a “Kleagle” in the Ku Klux Klan.

Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 straight hours to keep it from passage.

Democrats passed the Repeal Act of 1894 that overturned civil right laws enacted by Republicans.

Democrats declared that they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than vote for a Republican, because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.

Democrat President Woodrow Wilson, reintroduced segregation throughout the federal government immediately upon taking office in 1913.

Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first appointment to the Supreme Court was a life member of the Ku Klux Klan, Sen. Hugo Black, Democrat of Alabama.

Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s choice for vice president in 1944 was Harry Truman, who had joined the Ku Klux Klan in Kansas City in 1922.

Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt resisted Republican efforts to pass a federal law against lynching.

Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt opposed integration of the armed forces.

Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd were the chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Democrats supported and backed Judge John Ferguson in the case of Plessy v Ferguson.

Democrats supported the School Board of Topeka Kansas in the case of Brown v The Board of Education of Topeka Kansas.

Democrat public safety commissioner Eugene “Bull” Connor, in Birmingham, Ala., unleashed vicious dogs and turned fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators.

Democrats were who Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the other protesters were fighting.

Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox “brandished an ax hammer to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant.

Democrat Governor George Wallace stood in front of the Alabama schoolhouse in 1963, declaring there would be segregation forever.

Democrat Arkansas Governor Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of Little Rock public schools.

Democrat Senator John F. Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI.

Democrat President Bill Clinton’s mentor was U.S. Senator J. William Fulbright, an Arkansas Democrat and a supporter of racial segregation.

Democrat President Bill Clinton interned for J. William Fulbright in 1966-67.

Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright signed the Southern Manifesto opposing the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision.

Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright joined with the Dixiecrats in filibustering the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964.

Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

 

By the way everything after 1959 occurred during my lifetime. Not ancient history. Just yesterday really. How some people choose to forget.

[Ten oz]

Who do the Blacks alive today that lived through racist oppression in the South vote for TODAY?

 

Over 90% of Blacks, over 70% of Latinos, and over 70% of Asians voted Democrat in 2012.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/thenextamerica/politics/10-amazing-demographic-percentages-of-the-2012-election-20121109

 

The minorities in this country sure seem to uniformly prefer the Democratic party. Why is that?

[overtone]

 

 

Both you and Overtone have a hard time staying on topic. Again, why are conservatives insane and what should be done about it.

That's not the thread topic, or my topic. My topic is the nature of crazy that has labeled itself "conservative" in the US these days. And discussing your posts is right in the wheelhouse of that topic.

Like this:

 

But since you insist. For your reading pleasure.

{long list of Democratic Party racist politicians and behaviors, ending in the late 60s}

By the way everything after 1959 occurred during my lifetime. Not ancient history. Just yesterday really. How some people choose to forget.

Now the notable feature of that list is its accuracy. It contains nothing that did not actually happen, more or less as described.

So how is it that political conservatives cannot make such lists, or deal with any such matters accurately, involving Republicans after about 1978? It's like a form of senility, in which one's childhood is clear and ready to hand, but yesterday is a blank filled with bad dreams.

[Acme]

 

...

Again, why are conservatives insane and what should be done about it.

That's not the thread topic, or my topic. My topic is the nature of crazy that has labeled itself "conservative" in the US these days. And discussing your posts is right in the wheelhouse of that topic. ...

 

Actually, it is the thread topic, or at least what I intended. Well, the first part woohoo says is more-or-less right, i.e. what does psychological research reveal about political conservatives. His second part is less right, i.e. the question is 'what can be done', not 'what should be done'.

 

Of course woohoo keeps citing the topic while posting not on the topic, or at best making sarcastic suggestions ostensibly as 'what-should-be-done' answers so he's no more on topic than you Undertone.

 

But hey, I have been told in no uncertain terms not to cite the rules and to stop reporting off-topic posts so I'm not even on the boat let alone in the wheelhouse.

 

On the chance -admittedly that of a snowball in hell- that the thread might drift on topic, here once again is the opening salvo from the meta-study. [Bolding mine.]

 

Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition

 

Analyzing political conservatism as motivated social cognition integrates theories of personality (authoritarianism, dogmatism-intolerance of ambiguity), epistemic and existential needs (for closure, regulatory focus, terror management), and ideological rationalization (social dominance, system justification). A meta-analysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychological variables predict political conservatism: death anxiety (weighted mean r= .50); system instability (.47); dogmatism-intolerance of ambiguity (.34); openness to experience (-.32); uncertainty tolerance (-.27); needs for order, structure, and closure (.26); integrative complexity (-.20); fear of threat and loss (.18); and self-esteem (-.09). The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat. ...

PS Seems to me y'all would be on-topic with your...erhm... whatever, over here. >> Has the Republican party lost its collective mind?

Edited March 25, 2015 by Acme

[overtone]

 

 

Actually, it is the thread topic, or at least what I intended.

Fooled me with the title, then. And the first postings. Sorry about that.

 

There is a difference, though, between the question of why conservatives are conservative and the question of why modern US conservatives are crazy. Your study seems to deal with the first why only.

[waitforufo]

Now the notable feature of that list is its accuracy. It contains nothing that did not actually happen, more or less as described.

So how is it that political conservatives cannot make such lists, or deal with any such matters accurately, involving Republicans after about 1978? It's like a form of senility, in which one's childhood is clear and ready to hand, but yesterday is a blank filled with bad dreams.

 

So please, where is your log comparable list of Republican party racist actions. You know, pulled off by the great savior of the Democratic Party Dick Nixon and his successors?

 

Do Democratic voters and politicians simply stop being racists when the become Republicans? You should be able to give some examples.

 

The US will be remembered for at least three great racist epochs.

 

1) Slavery

2) Jim Crow

3) Welfare

 

All three perpetrated by the Democratic party.

 

The insane thing is that Democrats just cant acknowledge the third as racism and all they have to do is read Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Who do the Blacks alive today that lived through racist oppression in the South vote for TODAY?

 

Over 90% of Blacks, over 70% of Latinos, and over 70% of Asians voted Democrat in 2012.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/thenextamerica/politics/10-amazing-demographic-percentages-of-the-2012-election-20121109

 

The minorities in this country sure seem to uniformly prefer the Democratic party. Why is that?

Racist epoch number 3 above.

[Willie71]

So please, where is your log comparable list of Republican party racist actions. You know, pulled off by the great savior of the Democratic Party Dick Nixon and his successors?

 

Do Democratic voters and politicians simply stop being racists when the become Republicans? You should be able to give some examples.

 

The US will be remembered for at least three great racist epochs.

 

1) Slavery

2) Jim Crow

3) Welfare

 

All three perpetrated by the Democratic party.

 

The insane thing is that Democrats just cant acknowledge the third as racism and all they have to do is read Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

This makes me sad. I don't remember a Democrat who has used a racist platform in decades, but there might be some I don't know about. Modern democrat policies include amnesty, minority equality, increasing the minimum wage, decreasing the increasing disparity in the distribution of wealth, and foreign policy based more on diplomacy than war. While democrats do get bought through the legalized bribery that is American Democracy, the policies are not racist.

 

Welfare as racism? Totally laughable and an insult to reality. The welfare system needs an overhaul, but don't forget that there are states where 90+% of food stamp recipients are white. People in poverty are locked into a winless cycle in spite of race, not because of race.

[Acme]

 

Actually, it is the thread topic, or at least what I intended. ..."

Fooled me with the title, then. And the first postings. Sorry about that.

 

There is a difference, though, between the question of why conservatives are conservative and the question of why modern US conservatives are crazy. Your study seems to deal with the first why only.

 

Well, for the umpteenth time I didn't make the title or the thread. Phi split my post from another thread and borrowed the title from an article that referenced the studies. Of course reading the thread would have informed you, though admittedly your in the majority for not doing so.

 

And yet again your post is off-topic because you aren't actually discussing the study(s) and so dragging me along with you by imposing my need to reply. Good grief. I don't particularly agree with your 'difference' comment, but 'crazy' or 'insane' are not terms used in the studies so the point is moot.

 

I won't bother to quote any from the posts that follow yours as they are not on the topic of the studies either and concern issues we have already covered, e.g. the 'Southern strategy'. Again, reading the thread could save us the repetition.

 

At the risk of confusing the issue with facts of the kind I intended we discuss, I'll just pop in a quote from Altemeyer's work. For those of you who haven't read the thread, Altemeyer is a Canadian researcher whose RWA [Right Wing Authoritarian] scale is one -I say one- of the 80+ studies from the meta-study. (Undoubtedly someone is going to whine about labeling people again, but Bob wouldn't know if folks were Republican or Democrat unless they declared to him they were.)

 

The Authoritarians

...

pg. 200

Although the "right-wing" in right-wing authoritarianism refers to a psychological trait that endorses submission to established authority (see chapter 1), not a political ideology, the RWA scale finds different levels of this trait in politicians from the two parties.³ The Republicans scored almost 40 points higher than the Democrats on the average, on the 30-item scale. ...

Continuing a bit more from that quote:

...pg.198

I sent the RWA scale to at least one chamber of forty-two of the state legislatures in the United States (all except Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Rhode Island, and West Virginia), mainly between 1990 and 1993

... pgs. 200-202

Other Issues

I usually included some other measure besides the RWA scale on the surveys I mailed to the state capitols, and accordingly I found that high RWA lawmakers tended to:

- not think wife abuse was a serious issue (a weak relationship; see note 12 of Chapter 1)

- have conservative economic philosophies (a moderate relationship)

- score highly on items assessing racial and ethnic prejudice (a moderate relationship)

- reject a law raising the income tax rate for the rich and lowering it for the poor (a moderate relationship)

- favor capital punishment (a sturdy relationship)

- oppose gun control laws (a sturdy relationship)

- favor a law prohibiting television broadcasts from a foreign countrys capital (such as Baghdad during the Gulf War) when the United States is at war with that country (a sturdy relationship)

- favor a law requiring Christian religious instruction in public schools (a sturdy relationship)

- score high in dogmatism (a sturdy relationship)

- oppose a law requiring affirmative action in state hiring that would give priority to qualified minorities until they caught up (a sturdy relationship)

- favor a law giving police much less restrictive wiretap, search-and-seizure, and interrogation rules (a strong relationship)

- favor a law outlawing the Communist Party and other radical political organizations (a strong relationship)

- oppose the Equal Rights Amendment (a strong relationship)

- favor placing greater restrictions on abortion than Roe versus Wade (a strong relationship)

- favor a law restricting anti-war protests to certain sizes, times, and places-- generally away from public view--while American troops are fighting overseas (a very strong relationship)

- have a "We were the good guys, the Soviets were the bad guys" view of the Cold War (a very strong relationship)

- oppose a law extending equal rights to homosexuals in housing and employment (a very strong relationship)

If you have read the preceding chapters, or been paying attention to whats going on in your state capitol lately, none of this will astound you. What surprised me was how strong the relationships usually were. The RWA scale can predict what many lawmakers want to do about a wide variety of important issues.

...

Notably, as is so often pointed out in many other topics here, prediction is a keynote of reliable science. (Substitute your preferred affirmative term for reliable as you see fit.)

[overtone]

 

 

Well, for the umpteenth time I didn't make the title or the thread.

So you will quit complaining about those who are discussing the thread topic as established by the guy who did make the title and the thread - ok?

 

Your studies, fro example, do not in themselves enlighten us as to the sources of the crazy in current US political conservatism. The correlations described are none of them, in themselves, even examples of craziness, let alone clear pointers to its source(s).

 

There was a time when "conservative" covered Eisenhower Republican political ideology, which most here and elsewhere agree was not crazy, regardless of its flaws. I see nothing in Altmeyers correlations that would definitely have changed since then. Do you?

[Acme]

So you will quit complaining about those who are discussing the thread topic as established by the guy who did make the title and the thread - ok?

No, I will not stop correcting the misnomer. I know perfectly well what my point was and is in bringing up these studies, regardless of what you or Phi or others want to try & make of it. Were Phi or any staff member to rename the thread or take my name off it I would gladly leave it to the beavers.

 

Your studies, fro example, do not in themselves enlighten us as to the sources of the crazy in current US political conservatism.

Point of fact, they are not my studies; they are the studies done by others that I wish to explore & discuss. At any rate you seem to acknowledge my intention, so why not respect it? And again, again, again.... the subject is not craziness.

 

The correlations described are none of them, in themselves, even examples of craziness, let alone clear pointers to its source(s).

I suppose you refer to the last list that I quoted, but in any case as I continue to point out the topic is not 'craziness' or 'insanity', both of which are colloquial terms. Many of these correlations I quoted are however associated with pathological behavior, where 'pathological' refers to the psychiatric definition.

...3. Of, relating to, or manifesting behavior that is habitual, maladaptive, and compulsive

3. (Psychiatry) compulsively motivated:

source

 

 

There was a time when "conservative" covered Eisenhower Republican political ideology, which most here and elsewhere agree was not crazy, regardless of its flaws. I see nothing in Altmeyers correlations that would definitely have changed since then. Do you?

Again, in spite of the title stuck on this thread, my topic is not craziness. Moreover, you seem to imply that those few correlations that I have quoted are the sum total of Altemeyer's book and/or that you have read the whole of it. He does in fact discuss and differentiate among & between time-frames as well as cultures, something you can know by actually reading the book. As I have pointed out, we have plenty of other threads suited to the type of discourse you -and so many others here- appear to prefer to engage in.

[Phi for All]

No, I will not stop correcting the misnomer. I know perfectly well what my point was and is in bringing up these studies, regardless of what you or Phi or others want to try & make of it. Were Phi or any staff member to rename the thread or take my name off it I would gladly leave it to the beavers.

 

I can't forge an OP and slip it in ahead of yours; that's the only reason your name is on it. I think everyone knows by now that you didn't start the thread. That's a burden you can drop right away.

 

I can rename the thread.

[waitforufo]

I see little point in giving example after example of the 'insanity' of political conservatives. The issue I introduced in the OP is why they behave the way they do and what can be done about it.

It seems to me that you confirmed the topic name here.

[Acme]

I can't forge an OP and slip it in ahead of yours; that's the only reason your name is on it. I think everyone knows by now that you didn't start the thread. That's a burden you can drop right away.

 

I can rename the thread.

Acknowledge no slip forge. As to burden, every time I drop it someone sees fit to re-saddle me with it. Like a damn booger on a finger I tells ya.

 

How about using the meta-study title and add 'discussions on'? As in, Discussions on Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition.

.

PS Well, I see the new title but I don't see that it helps anything inasmuch as it still has the term 'insane'. I do have to say it's disheartening that so few find the sociological aspect of little to no interest, but whatever. Stick a fork in me.

[Phi for All]

Acknowledge no slip forge. As to burden, every time I drop it someone sees fit to re-saddle me with it. Like a damn booger on a finger I tells ya.

 

How about using the meta-study title and add 'discussions on'? As in, Discussions on Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition.

 

Well, thanks for shouldering the burden. I respect that you wanted to do this right since it looked like you started it.

 

I'd shake your hand, but... well, boogers.

[Ten oz]

@ Waitforufo, I asked why every minority group overwhelming votes Democrat and your response is welfare? That response demeans minority groups. It implies they collectively are being minipulated. That their voice isn't worth listening to. Democrat congressman John Lewis who was beaten over the head on Bloody Sunday in Selma is only a Democrat today because of Welfare? Never mind what he might say you already know it is all about food stamps.

[waitforufo]

@ Waitforufo, I asked why every minority group overwhelming votes Democrat and your response is welfare? That response demeans minority groups. It implies they collectively are being minipulated. That their voice isn't worth listening to. Democrat congressman John Lewis who was beaten over the head on Bloody Sunday in Selma is only a Democrat today because of Welfare? Never mind what he might say you already know it is all about food stamps.

You don't think money in politics is a problem? Who has deeper pockets than Uncle Sam?

 

John Lewis was in Selma on Bloody Sunday fighting for civil rights. Something Republicans had been fight for since it's founding. He was fighting Democrats and their terrorist arm the KKK.

Edited March 25, 2015 by waitforufo

[Ten oz]

You don't think money in politics is a problem? Who has deeper pockets than Uncle Sam?

 

Meaning what? Are you saying that minorities are not making choices based on their personal experiences, beliefs, and political understanding?

Money is a terrible problem in politics. Billionaires like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson throw hundreds of millions of dollars into campaigns to buy politicians. What does that have to do with welfare?

[overtone]

 

 

Something Republicans had been fight for since it's founding. He was fighting Democrats and their terrorist arm the KKK.

The KKK faction has been allied with the Republican Party in US national politics since 1968. Lyndon Johnson drove them out of the Democratic Party, Nixon welcomed them into the Republican Party. Forty seven years now. They've been calling themselves the "Tea Party" lately - check 'em out: http://aattp.org/20-of-the-most-racist-teapublican-political-signs/

 

The Republican Party evicted Lincoln, and became the Party of Jefferson Davis, almost fifty years ago.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Thread title changed.

[MigL]

Thank you Hyper.

 

Since all my objections have now been addressed, I will attempt to read the study in question.

And if I have any insights , shall certainly share them.

 

I wouldn't want Acme to stay mad at me.

[Ten oz]

Below are key aganda points from the current Confederate Party's home page:

 

 

"CONFEDERATE PARTY PLATFORM

We believe that our nation was founded on Christian ethics and principles and that our forefathers acknowledged God and called on Him for His guidance in creating this country for themselves and their posterity. We welcome all persons who hold these same beliefs and encourage the free expression of those beliefs.

 

Having set forth those principles of our beliefs above, we have determined the following items to be key goals of our national agenda.

 

1. New Amendment to Constitution which repeals 14th, and 15th Amendments.

 

2. An Amendment to the Constitution which states that nullification and secession are inalienable and irrefutable rights of the States.

 

3. A law and eventual Constitutional Amendment declaring English as the official language of these United States.

 

4. Removal of all powers at the Federal level that are not explicitly given to the Federal government by the Constitution.

 

5. Immediate withdrawal from the United Nations and eviction of all United Nation agencies and organizations from United States soil.

 

6. Abolition of the Federal Reserve Bank.

 

7. Planned, gradual withdrawal of all U.S. military forces from all foreign nations and territories.

 

8. Federal income tax abolished and replaced by a system of funding through a direct levy on the states in proportion to the population of those states and established by convention of the states.

 

9. Reform of the federal judicial system removing many of the federal judiciary’s powers over the states.

 

10. A reaffirmation of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. If necessary, a new amendment which restates the basic principles in such a way that cannot be mis-interpreted.

 

11. A limit on the salaries of elected officials. No elected official will ever receive a salary more than the median salary of the nation.

 

12. Legislation to insure that no elected official will ever serve more than two consecutive terms."

http://www.confederateamericanpride.com/CNP.html

 

 

Starting with the Christian nation and continuing through the points; 3-6, 8 & 9, and 11 & 12 are all political stances various Republicans have advocated in recent years. The ideology of Confederates and modern conservatism (Tea Party, Republican, Libertarian) are clearly in line. The Modern Democratic party no longer supports or placates the above stated ideas.

[waitforufo]

Below are key aganda points from the current Confederate Party's home page:

 

 

"CONFEDERATE PARTY PLATFORM

We believe that our nation was founded on Christian ethics and principles and that our forefathers acknowledged God and called on Him for His guidance in creating this country for themselves and their posterity. We welcome all persons who hold these same beliefs and encourage the free expression of those beliefs.

 

Having set forth those principles of our beliefs above, we have determined the following items to be key goals of our national agenda.

 

1. New Amendment to Constitution which repeals 14th, and 15th Amendments.

 

2. An Amendment to the Constitution which states that nullification and secession are inalienable and irrefutable rights of the States.

 

3. A law and eventual Constitutional Amendment declaring English as the official language of these United States.

 

4. Removal of all powers at the Federal level that are not explicitly given to the Federal government by the Constitution.

 

5. Immediate withdrawal from the United Nations and eviction of all United Nation agencies and organizations from United States soil.

 

6. Abolition of the Federal Reserve Bank.

 

7. Planned, gradual withdrawal of all U.S. military forces from all foreign nations and territories.

 

8. Federal income tax abolished and replaced by a system of funding through a direct levy on the states in proportion to the population of those states and established by convention of the states.

 

9. Reform of the federal judicial system removing many of the federal judiciary’s powers over the states.

 

10. A reaffirmation of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. If necessary, a new amendment which restates the basic principles in such a way that cannot be mis-interpreted.

 

11. A limit on the salaries of elected officials. No elected official will ever receive a salary more than the median salary of the nation.

 

12. Legislation to insure that no elected official will ever serve more than two consecutive terms."

http://www.confederateamericanpride.com/CNP.html

 

 

Starting with the Christian nation and continuing through the points; 3-6, 8 & 9, and 11 & 12 are all political stances various Republicans have advocated in recent years. The ideology of Confederates and modern conservatism (Tea Party, Republican, Libertarian) are clearly in line. The Modern Democratic party no longer supports or placates the above stated ideas.

Your list above matches up nicely with mine listed in post 327. So the KKK, created by the Democratic party, continues with the traditional Democratic party positions. Are you surprised? The Democrats made the KKK. They own the mess they created. Nice try, but the Republican party will never own that stink or shame.

Edited March 29, 2015 by waitforufo

[overtone]

The Democrats made the KKK. They own the mess they created. Nice try, but the Republican party will never own that stink or shame.

The Republican Party invited the KKK faction of the US population into its ranks in 1968; they accepted, and they have been Republicans ever since. They are Republicans , and the Republican Party represents them in Congress - right now, and for the past fifty years. If the Republican Party wants to avoid the stink and shame of them, it needs to clean house.

 

It won't, because it would never win another national election again - the heirs of the Klan (Birchers, Tea Party, "conservatives") are its electoral base.

Edited April 1, 2015 by overtone

[iNow]

On 3/18/2015 at 6:10 PM, Ten oz said:

Once Republican got control of the senate they made James Inhofe (Republican Senator from Oklahoma) the Chairman of the Senate Enviroment Committee. What are his qualifications for such a prestigious chairmanship? Well, he is the foremost Climate Change denier in the Senate. In 2012 he authored the book " The Greatest Hoax: How Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future". In his book Inhofe presents such evidence as "God is still up there" and "it is arrogance to assume we can undue what he has done". Recently Inhofe made news for throwing a snowball on the Senate floor to disprove Climate Change.

After a stroke, he died today. Good riddance to his bad governance