Someone should remind Howard Dean that his Party is the party is segregation, slavery, and Jim Crow.
“The unexamined life is not worth living.”
— Socrates
Howard Dean has recently demonstrated conclusively that historical ignorance doesn’t stop with teenage mall-rats and muscle-bound jocks. In fact, it runs all the way up into the very heart of the DNC. The good doctor (who hopefully knows more about his profession than he does about history) has made the claim that the Republican Party “looks like the 1950s and talks like the 1850s.” The 1950s aside, Dean, of course, is attempting to smear the Republicans as a party of racists who are defending systematic public discrimination. In this he displays a shocking lack of knowledge, not only of the Republicans, but also of the shameful history of his own party.
Most liberals today loudly proclaim the Democrats to be the party of minorities and the Republicans to be the party of racist oppressors. I’m reminded of a ridiculous comment from another less-than-aware liberal icon, Bill Maher. Maher commented on one Republican national convention by saying that “the last time the Republicans had that many black people on stage, they were selling them.” Anyone — Dean or Maher — who can make such a statement with a straight face should be sent to a corner with a good, basic textbook (or at least should limit themselves to commentaries on the failures of the American educational system, of which they are manifestly victims).
So, what do Republicans from the 1850s talk like?
“. . . by the law of nature and of nations, the right of property in slaves falls to the ground; for one who is equal to another cannot be the owner or property of that other.”
— William H. Seward“The white man's happiness cannot be purchased by the black man's misery.”
— Frederick Douglas (technically joined in 1860)“Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.”
—Abraham Lincoln, a somewhat prominent antebellum Republican
The Republican Party in the 1850s was bound together by one thing: No further spread of slavery. I want to be careful not to fall into the same trap as Dean and Maher. The Republican Party was no pure haven of abolitionist idealism; there were quite a few racists in the GOP then. Still the plain fact is that it entered the American political arena dedicated to containing and then later eliminating one of the worst abominations ever inflicted by one American upon another. To quote Lincoln again, they wanted to “place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction.” This dedication to slavery’s destruction become more pronounced as time (and the Civil War) wore on. After the war, the Republican Party remained the party of choice for African-Americans well into the 1900s.
As we see from above, the Republicans of 1850 were saying quite a bit of which we can today be proud. So to Governor Dean, I say that his “historically challenged” statement must translate, on that point, into quite the compliment. And now for the Democrats. What did some Democrats from the 1850s have to say?
“Military power should not be allowed to interfere with the relations of servitude, either by supporting or impairing the authority of the master . . .”
— George B. McClellan, Milquetoast General and 1864 Democratic presidential candidate.“They [Black men and women] had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”
— Justice Roger B. Taney in the Dredd Scott decision in 1857.“[The right of slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God . . . it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts."
— Jefferson Davis, an often conveniently overlooked 1850s Democrat.
These are, of course, only the most obvious and easily available quotes. Though the Republicans in the 1850s had some serious disagreements amongst themselves about how opposed to slavery they should be, they at least were looking in the right direction. The Democrats, on the other hand, were more united. Dominated by a southern wing who promoted radically pro-slavery views and supported half-heartedly by swarms of spineless northern moderates, the Democrats were, without doubt, the party of slavery.
But little things like historical facts are hardly something to get in the way of people like Dean and Maher. In cases like this, they are manifestly more concerned with propaganda than they are with truth. Blatant falsehoods such as these (even accidental ones) serve a very practical purpose: They keep minorities chained to the Democratic bandwagon. They reinforce false stereotypes (i.e. “Republican/conservative”=racist) wielded in a campaign of blantant emotional manipulation, thereby encouraging minorities to support the Democrats out of some mythical “historical” principle and they therefore discourage minorities from asking the hard questions Democratic leaders fear most. The Republicans don’t get a pass on those sorts of issues (nor should they); its time the Democrats faced them too. Frankly, minority voters deserve to be treated as much more than a sure-fire Democratic stepping stone.
“Know thy enemy, know thyself.” Apparently Howard Dean and Bill Maher know neither.
Countering ignorance with the facts is a waste of time when ignorance is the preferred state.
Oh, there’s plenty of ‘racial’ blame to go around. If Dean had kept his comment entirely on the (considerably more recent) 1950s he’d have been on much safer ground. Consider this editorial in William F. Buckley’s National Review from 1957: In some parts of the South, the White community merely intends to prevail on any issue on which there is corporate disagreement between Negro and White. The White community will take whatever measures are necessary to make certain that it has its way…The central question that emerges–and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal–is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes–the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race… National Review believes that the South’s premises are correct.
The more interesting question – one not really touched upon here – is what party, if any, would actually be most reasonable for ‘minorities’ to vote for. I quite agree that the “Republican/conservative”=racist equation is indeed false as a general principle, of course, but that doesn’t automatically mean that Republican policies would be the best choices from a ‘minority’ perspective. That being said, I certainly agree that the Democratic party shouldn’t “get a pass” on such issues, either – which was the main thrust of the essay, I just think it wasn’t argued as strongly as it could have been.
A few days ago I submitted a comment that quoted some of William F. Buckley’s words from the (considerably more recent) 1950′s relevant to the article’s topic, but apparently they were so inflammatory that they were not approved. Certainly I agree that Democratic candidates shouldn’t “get a pass” on these issues (and pointing out their actual past is definitely fair game), but despite the origins of the parties, not that long ago they did, in fact, switch sides on the issue, and the Republican party was on the wrong side of history for a while.
It’s not surprising that there’s lingering suspicion on this topic, though I certainly don’t believe the large majority of today’s Republicans think anything like their predecessors a few decades ago. Buckley himself never totally disavowed his early statements but did come to recognize many of his errors on these lines. But there are still minority voters today who remember the 1950s and 1960s, and not nearly as many who remember the 1850s.
Raymond has a great point. Opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it was bad legislation that has ultimately proven to be even more destructive than it’s opponents imagined it could be is, after all, exactly the same as vehemently supporting slavery as a party platform.