Sam Tanenhaus says that the party of Lincoln has become the party of Calhoun. I wonder whether that is fair to Calhoun. He was, after all, by all accounts a very intelligent man. Either way, the Democrats have clearly become the stewards of Lincoln’s policies. The last connection between the modern GOP and the Republican Party of Lincoln’s day is support for rich northern industrialists and financiers. But that connection is eroding daily as the Republicans refuse to finance infrastructure projects and let their anti-tax ideology get in the way of sound cyclical economic policy. Once the sequester kicks in, even the defense industry is going to break with the Republicans.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
18 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
Maybe a little unfair to Calhoun, but you have to admit this dude would fit right in at a Tea Party rally.
You can have my beard when you pry it from my cold, dead neck.
hey, it was really, really hard to get good shampoo products back then.
Sheesh, guys, give a little.
Either way, the Democrats have clearly become the stewards of Lincoln’s policies.
You know, Democrats really shouldn’t have to take on the role of the party of steady, responsible, growth-oriented industrial capitalism. We should have another party that does that.
But we don’t. They’re too busy standing by the side of the road, yelling “Look at me!” and biting the heads off live chickens, so now the Democrats have to do their job, too.
The repubs are turning themselves into the Party of Tax Collectors. They collect taxes from the middle and lower classes, pay themselves salaries, healthcare, and pensions. Since they do not believe in government none of the revenue collected is directed back to the people who paid the taxes.
Great link. I think the answer to your question is “yes”.
Just to elaborate on this: just because Calhoun was a more systematic thinker than most of today’s Republicans doesn’t mean they’re not following his lead. In the mid-19th century, it was fair to call the Democratic Party (particularly in the South) the “party of Calhoun” because he was their intellectual leader.
Regarding Philips’ prediction that white people would “leave the Party in droves when it becomes perceived as a black Party”, aren’t we seeing that? And not all voluntary leaving either. The chorus decrying “old white men” here and especially at dKos has the flavor of kicking us out as unneeded in the big tent. Is that why SS is under attack by Democrat’s? Because the bulk of the money goes to old white men?
First, the percentage of white voters voting Democratic has remained relatively constant (around 40%) for over a generation.
Second, Democrats basically split the white vote with Republicans in all areas of the country except the South…where Democrats lose badly (in the presidential vote—again, this has been true for a generation or so).
Third, what evidence is there to support your claim that “Social Security is under attack by Democrats”? (And what evidence is there that Republicans are now or ever have been stronger supporters of Social Security?)
Fourth, the bulk of Social Security payments go to old white women, not old white men.
I guessed that because of the widow’s pension, but I wasn’t sure.
Erskine Bowles – Democrat
Richard Durbin – Democrat
Barack Obama – Democrat
Durbin recently (last two months) in which he stsated strongly “Social Secuity benefits must be reduced or the whole system will fail.” Not just cutting COLA’s as Obama wants to do, actual benefit cuts including means tests.
Never said Republicans were any better, Without major Party support, SS is as good as dead. A dream that my parents and grandparents had, but will soon be snatched from me. My daughter and her children will not even come close enough to smell it.
Would it be all right until we saw a policy – and policy – adopted by, or even seriously attempted by, the Democrats to reduce Social Security before we started declaring that they were waging war against it?
While I don’t say that the Democrats are waging war against Social Security, I also recognize that the lack of strong opposition to cuts or mealy-mouthed acceptance of “difficult choices” will have the same results in this political era. The Republicans are playing a game of lowering public expectations, because once we as a people have lost our expectation of being able to live on or even collect Social Security benefits, the demise of the program will quickly follow. So the time to wage war to protect Social Security is now.
If they’re playing that game, they’re losing.
Any time the subject comes up, there is a huge backlash from the retiree lobby and huge sections of the Democratic base.
I think you omitted a phrase, do you mean
“all right to wait until we saw …”
Agree with you completely, but it’s been pointed out that this is part of Obama’s negotiation strategy that some of his presumed supporters think he’s serious about this reducing soc sec benefits or increasing age [of course he’s said he’s committed to retaining benefits]
If Obama is deliberately faking out the public, how can the public be faulted for not trusting him? This chess playing is a neat trick in a dictatorship but runs into some problems in a democracy, no?
From Wikipedia:
“Devoted to the principle of liberty and fearful of corruption, Calhoun built his reputation as a political theorist by his redefinition of republicanism to include approval of slavery and minority rights–with the white South the minority in question. To protect minority rights against majority rule, he called for a “concurrent majority” whereby the minority could sometimes block offensive proposals.”
Now if that don’t sound like the Repuke strategy in the Senate!
The GOP has become a tussle between the party of Calhoun (states rights) and the party of Robert Rhett.
The first name for the character in Gone with the Wind honors one of the Rhetts, likely Robert.
I grew up near Calhoun’s mansion Fort Hill. Our school classes took a field trip there every time we studies American history or South Carolina history. To cap it off, my freshman year as I was mulling my position on civil rights, I could look out the dorm window and see his mansion across the street and behind it his little law office, which had been moved from the square in Pendleton. Calhoun’s daughter Floride married Thomas Green Clemson, who made a land grant for an agricultural and mechanical college. Was that not a Lincoln initiative? The college was founded in 1889, the year after Clemson’s death.
Lincoln was a staunch believer in enjoying the fruits of the sweat of one’s brow, that hard work should be repaid. In current political discourse, this principle gets distorted to mean anti-tax. Actually, it has a very progressive meaning, because it underlay Lincoln’s opposition to slavery and by extension to unfair labor practices and the benefits that accrue as the result of employment. When Democrats can really learn to speak in these terms, they’ll have a much more powerful moral argument for regulation, unions, and tax reform.