Saying somebody is from "hexbear" or a "tankie" is the new "communist" of American Liberals, deployed just like "communist" was in the old days when the chief of whatever political tribe they support does something which is pretty much Fascism and they can't actually argue or justify it away.
I supposed that because of their position in politics is so much to the right and so far from the center, than American "moderates"/liberals invariably just see one big blob to their left mixing everything up to and including all the variants of Communism.
That said, this case is really special as even Center-Right people are against supporting the Nueu Holocaust being committed by Israel: one needs to be so far to the right to the point of being Nazi-adjacent to support this or those that support it.
"Guys, these hexbear users and tankies people are talking about seem to be obnoxious, reactionary, tribalistic assholes that unironically support oppressive regimes. Clearly people hating them is The Red Scare 2.0"
I never heard of a hexbear before lemmy, and frankly, I don't understand them. They don't really seem to support any thing, they just actively don't support things. They're just negative about everything and basically, just annoying. They're not on any political spectrum I understand
Because they want to sow apathy, accelerating the collapse of society. At least that has been my experience whenever I have to engage in debate with them.
They're essentially a Chapo Trap House fanbase whose main political discourse is antagonizing liberals. Outside of their instance they are probably being sarcastic, trolling, or flaming some generically lib take.
Naturally they're hated by libs and many a story and mythology has been spun about them as the boogeyman.
So: they're intentional assholes on the internet, and people resoundly find themselves shocked and surprised by that.
I didn’t understand them either, at first. The best way I can describe them is genuine, honest people who are passionate about leftist ideas of all kinds, that got caught in their own little socialism shitpost bubble for a time, and have now emerged. Again alive to the world of federated forums, they are either changing minds or pissing people off because they don’t pull their punches, and will argue for extreme action. They do this because they feel there’s no reason to play fair in a system so rigged against the masses.
I, for one, am glad my instance stayed federated with them.
You wanna know Trump's real power? Look at the size of all of those issues on his side. They are all the same fucking size. "Jan 6th" is the same size as "grammer" but they get lumped together. Next week a new piece of bullshit gets thrown on and further distorts the magnitude of an issue like insurrection.
"He's old" is not a valid criticism. "Israel", on the other hand, is a big fucking problem. And if genocide isn't a deal-breaker for Democrats, I have to wonder what is.
You do realize Trump said, he would make the genocide worse right? And also support Putin in Ukraine, because one genocide isn't enough, apparently. You do realize this?
Probably the ongoing femicide that the white left invited onto our country by stanning for Stein to "teach the establishment a lesson"
The establishment can just go to a different state to get the healthcare they need, the working class women who are dying on the other hand, literally don't get to live to point out what should be prioritized as deal breakers right now.
Work to end the two-party duopoly and I might start to believe it matters that Democrats aren't as bad as Trump.
EDIT: So demanding support for actual democratic reforms from "democrats" is beyond the pale now? If the Republicans are so different from Democrats, how come they're the only party Dems are willing to consider governing with?
I think you have that the wrong way around. The reason Democrats can get away with being merely preferable to the GOP is because we have a de-facto 2 party system.
I think you should read a history book and watch a few videos on the statistical consequences of voting systems. Even rudimentary knowledge on the subject should illuminate how that question doesn't really make sense.
Hey it's me your average voter. Over the last four years I've recognized and processed 239 salient points that should inform my choice of president. However. I can only hold two or three ideas in my mind at once and I have no concept of the past or future. Jingle some "border invasion" or "Israel committing genocide" keys in front of me and I'll forget everything else.
Yep it's the same old bullshit from out-of-touch sub-22-year-old revolutionaries who just so happen to intersect the Venn diagram with right-wing wedge-driving astroturfers, conveniently. They tend to stay quiet for 3-4 years, do nothing, then complain loudly about how imperfect the inevitable candidate is, then threaten to do something utterly meaningless and backfiring to their own end-goals like not voting or voting 3rd-party.
Tack on another on that list: Ukraine. Trump pledged zero aid to Ukraine; Republicans are blocking it all. Not only will more blood be spilled in Palestine under Republican leadership, but quantifiable more blood will also be spilled in Ukraine. Talk about a Pyrrhic victory.
If you claim to care about the things on the right side of the scale (and even Palestinians and Ukrainians)
I'm not even sure what this means, except that it seems to suggest that leftists care about right-leaning policies? I've seen a lot of loose usage of the right-left definitions lately, and it's worth pointing out that the two geopolitical topics you specifically called out don't exactly fit a strict 'left-right' political scale (having to deal with hierarchies and egalitarianism, generally). Different branches within the left political thinking have different lenses to judge international conflicts (an ML will look at those conflicts differently than an anarchist). Although we all see those conflicts differently, we all tend to agree that the US has historically never been a benevolent actor in them and we regard the US's involvement skeptically, to say the least.
Yet threaten to let the guy who will do this on a scale orders-of-magnitude worse win…
The US political system simply does not provide egalitarian opportunities for dissent through it's democratic process, so of course we threaten the system that is hostile to our involvement. Political dissent is the only tool available to us. It just so happens that this particular election provides quite a bit of leverage, because while the posture toward existing hierarchical structures is the same between the two parties, one party is desperately in need of support for self-preservation. Moderates have to work with us this time, and boy do they seem pissed about it.
Then you just aren’t thinking logically or with any foresight whatsoever.
Hardly, you just seem to think leftists are on 'your side'. Liberals have always been the largest roadblock to progress, and have always been our target for agitation. We threaten the Liberal coalition by withholding support, and that gives us leverage.
In the meantime go ahead and ask a Palestinian and Ukrainian who they’d prefer to have in the White House.
LOL, Biden has been actively supplying the weaponry being used against Palestinians, and Ukraine has nearly been left to defend itself for the last year as Putin's war machine has been slowly gaining momentum. I don't think either group thinks of Biden fondly and you're deluding yourself if you think they give a fuck about the US's presidential race. I actually think they'd be rooting for the political agitators trying to get Biden to deal while he's still in office, but I can't speak for them (and funny that you think you're able to yourself).
Whoa, slow down there slick. I was merely referring in context to the submission meme. Do you or do you not care about the things on the scale?
The US political system simply does not provide egalitarian opportunities for dissent through it’s democratic process, so of course we threaten the system that is hostile to our involvement.
Why of course it does! For starters, they're called Primaries. The problem is your numbers are so tiny that your coalition of course cannot punch above its weight-class. You seem to believe you're the only group in America who matter and don't seem to understand the concept or caucusing or coalitions.
As a result you don't seem to grasp that if Biden pulls too hard to "work with you," he risks alienating more fragile, less-informed, less-educated more gullible parts of the electorate and then it's all for nothing because now we have to deal with the significantly-worse guy and party for 4 years, and everyone including Palestinians and Ukrainians will have nobody to blame but folks such as yourself because you tried to leverage beyond your weight-class.
Hardly, you just seem to think leftists are on ‘your side’. Liberals have always been the largest roadblock to progress, and have always been our target for agitation. We threaten the Liberal coalition by withholding support, and that gives us leverage.
Considering it was those darned liberals who won pretty much every notable piece of advancement and progress in our nation's history, I'm going to call bullshit on that. Thank a liberal for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in Congress. It sure wasn't you or any tankies, now, was it?
LOL, Biden has been actively supplying the weaponry being used against Palestinians, and Ukraine has nearly been left to defend itself for the last year as Putin’s war machine has been slowly gaining momentum. I don’t think either group thinks of Biden fondly and you’re deluding yourself if they give a fuck about the US’s presidential race. I actually think they’d be rooting for the political agitators trying to get Biden to deal while he’s still in office, but I can’t speak for them (and funny that you think you’re able to yourself).
Obvious deflection aside, I'm pretty sure Ukraine recognizes the obstruction in aid is entirely on Republicans. That you seem to muddy the waters suggests even more bad-faith arguing and now leans even more heavily to right-wing wedge-driving. It's getting a bit too obvious for me now. Just go ahead and follow through, will you buddy? Because I've yet to see a Palestinian or Ukrainian say they're rooting for Trump over Biden. Good luck, though.
Pretty sure they give a big fuck about the Presidential race because in Ukraine it determines the outcome of aid, and in Palestine it determines whether they get Biden who is stepping away from Israel, versus Trump who has openly embraced steam-rolling Gaza. Quite foolish really to believe otherwise.
LMAO, I stopped reading after you said I should thank a liberal for the Civil Rights Act
If leftists were such a small demographic then our voting patterns should be of no concern to your precious coalition, dipshit. But I'll take that as an admission that your ire at us is purely theatrical.
Keep preaching of pyrrhic victories from the comfort of your home as -- checks notes -- not a single Tankie was in Congress who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, now, did they? So yes, thank a Liberal for actually getting shit done. Don't have much to list for winning rights for the American people now, do you...?
If leftists were such a small demographic then our voting patterns should be of no concern to your precious coalition, dipshit. But I’ll take that as an admission that your ire at us is purely theatrical.
LMAO tell me you don't understand zero-sum without saying it. Yes, congratulations: If tankies back out they might throw the election for the true fascist and accelerate the deaths of Palestinians, Ukrainians, and cripple rights on the home front from women to trans -- great job! But now, you've just jeopordized an even LARGER chunk of the electorate in voting against you and now you still lose because you sacrificed the larger voting-bloc for the smaller voting-bloc. Totally wise move there, buddy! Way to think that one through!
Yet who am I kidding -- you seem to blame Biden for the lack of aid going to Ukraine, so there's really no use in discussing any further.
Keep preaching of pyrrhic victories from the comfort of your home as – checks notes – not a single Tankie was in Congress who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, now, did they?
Keep preaching of pyrrhic victories from the comfort of your home as -- checks notes -- not a single Tankie was in Congress who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, now, did they? So yes, thank a Liberal for actually getting shit done. Don't have much to list for winning rights for the American people now, do you...?
I just have to jump in here to point out how utterly, completely, cataclysmically wrong you are about this. First, let's start with the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Yes, it's true that no, "Tankie," was in Congress to vote for it, but attributing it's passage to Liberals shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the parties functioned at the time.
Economically, the party positions were mostly the same, with Republicans promoting fiscal conservatism while Democrats supported labor rights and the social safety net. However, in terms of the Civil Rights movement, the divide was centered around geography, not party; Republicans and Democrats from northern states were far more likely to support the Civil Rights movement than southern states. In fact, more Republicans voted for Civil Rights Act than Democrats (a point disingenuous Republicans will bring up without acknowledging the Southern Strategy, but that's a separate issue), so fiscally, the Civil Rights Act was passed with more conservative than liberal support.
Second, the Civil Rights movement in general was a far-left movement that clashed with Liberal Centrists. Martin Luther King was far more aligned with Socialists and Democrat Socialists than Liberals, and was downright anti-capitalist, saying, "Capitalism has often left a gap of superfluous wealth and abject poverty...[creating] conditions permitting necessities to be taken from the many to give luxuries to the few," and that, "capitalism has outlived its usefulness.”
King also had no patience for moderate Liberals. In a speech in 1960, he said, “There is a pressing need for a liberalism in the North which is truly liberal...[that] rises up with righteous indignation when a Negro is lynched in Mississippi but will be equally incensed when a Negro is denied the right to live in his neighborhood.” Even in his famous 1963 Letter from a Birmingham Jail he said:
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.
So, in summary, attributing the Civil Rights Act to Liberals is patently wrong. Economically, more members of Congress who voted for the Civil Rights Act would identify as conservative than liberal. Socially, the Civil Rights movement was often at odds with Liberal pragmatists who pushed for slower, more moderate action. Finally, given your comments, I'm pretty sure that if Martin Luther King were alive today, you'd think he was a Tankie.
So let me get this straight: You say I'm, "cataclysmically wrong" about this but in the very next breath confirm precisely what I said that not a single leftist / tankie / social democrat / democratic socialist / socialist / commie in Congress actually moved this to a law...? So I guess I'm cataclysmically correct. I had to read your comment twice over to make sure
What you're discussing is the great ideological-party realignment of the 20th century; a transitioning point beginning in the FDR days and going all the way forward with Goldwater and Nixon's Southern Strategy. I'm painting broad strokes certainly, but it is abundantly-clear that the liberals of today were largely the Republican of yesterday. Does it seem likely that Southern Democrats would be the advocates of Civil Rights when it was the Northern Abolitionists who fought to end Slavery and the Southern Democrats advocating for slavery and issuing the "Southern Manifesto"? Consider a map of WHERE those votes for the 1964 Civil Rights came from, specifically, where the majority of NAY votes came from. In summary: The exact same people who more greatly supported labor rights and social safety nets were also the ones who voted YAY for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Those were neither socialists nor southern conservatives; those were predominantly northern liberals.
Moreover:
Robert Gordon, a legal historian and law professor at Stanford University, told PolitiFact the post’s claim is misleading and pointed to Democratic support of the bill.
“The nay Democratic votes were all from the Southern bloc of the party. The former Confederate states had been effectively one-party states since Reconstruction,” Gordon said. “The Civil Rights Act was promoted by a former Southern Democrat, President Lyndon Johnson of Texas, and passed with the help of Northern Democrats and 27 Republicans.”
At the end of the day I feel my point remains the same: It was those very liberals who turned his words into law. We can be grateful to the grassroots organization, but at the end of the day there is a coalition that needs to be had to get things actually done at the highest level of law creation.
Man I aced reading-comprehension to the point of scholarships; with that I've now read it three times and I'm still no closer to having enough ink to connect those dots.
Isn't it a bit ironic that you quote MLK in 1963 when those very "white moderates" came to be the ones to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964? I'm really trying to understand you here, so help me.
OK, I'll try to make this simple enough for you; the kind of Liberal pragmatists that you're congratulating for Civil Rights Act simply weren't responsible for passing it. Civil Rights leaders were, by and large, much farther left than Liberals, and they often complained that Liberals were obstructing the movement as much as segregationists. Leaders from Martin Luther King to Malcom X identified Liberals who preached incrementalism as a hindrance to Civil Rights.
However, if you were to trying to attribute passage of Civil Rights Act purely based on the vote totals of Congress, you'd still be wrong. Segregationist southerners from both parties opposed the bill while northerners from both parties supported it, and it passed with a bipartisan coalition that was majority Republican. While these Republicans were anti-segregation, they were still free-market, anti-labor, fiscal conservatives, and you don't get to retroactively turn them into Liberals because of the Southern Strategy.
So, the Civil Rights Movement was led by leftists, Liberals were an obstacle to the Civil Rights Movement, and when a bipartisan coalition passed the Civil Rights Act, fewer Liberals voted for it than (what we would today call) moderate conservatives. From the decades leading up to the Civil Rights Act to the passage of the Act itself, Liberals were not the driving force.
Anyway man, I didn't get a, "reading comprehension," scholarship, but one of my scholarships was a work-study where worked as a writing tutor, and I'm pretty sure I've stated this point as clearly as possible. If you still don't get it, I can't really help you.
That guy's entire vibe is r/iamverysmart incarnate, I don't think it matters if you beamed it straight into their head they'd still find a way to get it wrong
Look I can be very direct and note that I explicitly said that white moderate liberals -- not tankies -- were the ones who passed the legislation that effectively turned long-time civil rights grievances into redressed law, and that is precisely what happened. But sure I'll fully acknowledge that without activists across the range from Malcolm X to MLK Jr., (whom Malcolm X basically said he wasn't leftist and aggressive enough) influenced aforementioned white moderate liberals to action. As I said (and as was deflected and ignored by you), MLK made that statement a year prior to the Civil Rights. Put another way, if anyone thinks MLK would be advocating to let Donald Trump in today by voting 3rd party or not voting, then they are out of their goddamned minds.
Nevertheless good luck getting white southern conservatives to be influenced to such action; and therein lies the difference between the two primary ideologies in America. The point being made is: Progress can still occur via liberals; the same cannot be said should you let Republicans get in office.
Segregationist southerners from both parties opposed the bill while northerners from both parties supported it, and it passed with a bipartisan coalition that was majority Republican. While these Republicans were anti-segregation, they were still free-market, anti-labor, fiscal conservatives, and you don’t get to retroactively turn them into Liberals because of the Southern Strategy.
You prove the point that geography made the difference and as the realignment completed these northern Republicans and Democrats consolidated into a unitary Democratic banner. Also I do not understand what you're referring to when you write the coalition was majority Republican; it was majority Democrat. - 46 Democrats, and 27 Republicans in the Senate and 152 Dems to 138 Republicans in the House For. This makes the total For 198 Dems 165 Republicans. Nevertheless it almost doesn't matter, for as we noted these Republicans, the party of Lincoln still in transition of the party realignment as the Dixiecrats abandoned their coalition, effectively became the liberals of the modern Democrats. It really doesn't matter how one slices it; the overarching premise is that the North of Then voted in favor, and just so happens to split along the Mason-Dixon line just as it does today after the realignment. I sure as shit am not thanking a Southern confederate-adoring conservative, that's for sure; thus it must be predominantly the Northern Liberal amidst both parties during this transitional period who was more predisposed to abolition, more pro-union/labor, and anti-segregation.
Perhaps you're writing from a false premise; have you tried entertaining some humility? I'm open to being wrong, but let's work through this together, shall we?
I'm just in disbelief you're still parading around like an idiot making heros out of libs for eventually taking a minimum of action after a decade of protests and sit-ins by activists.
I'm just in disbelief that when the wise man points at the moon, you're still looking at the finger and missing the entire point, which is to say that as much as you complain about those big bad liberals, they're still the ones who actually end up passing the major laws that set the foundation for progress; and alllllllllllllllllllllllllllll the decades of cute sit-ins and protests by activists against fascist Republicans (of the modern day) would NEVER, EVER achieve a modicum of change.
Without those southern pro-slaver conservative Confederates, the protests wouldn't have been necessary.
FTFY.
And do tell me — which ideology and which party did all those Civil Rights activists from James Clyburn to John Lewis end up joining in Congress...? And which party does MLK Jr.'s descendants , and the vast majority of the black community continue to caucus with today...?
Lol yea I'll give you that, because the worst thing that can happen to a lib is being accused of perpetuating an oppression that they consider themselves to be fighting against. It's the quality that both makes them stand in the way of progress and also receptive to agitation
The White liberal is a person who defines themselves as White, as an oppressor, in short, and retreats in horror from that designation. However, they only retreat halfway, disavowing the title without giving up the privileges or tearing out, as it were. The fundamental trait of the White liberal is their desire to differentiate themselves psychologically from White Americans on the issue of race. The White liberal wants to think and wants others, namely people of color, to embrace brotherhood. White liberals have two basic aims: to prevent polarization and prevent racial conflict." - Lerone Bennet Jr
So it's said, we shouldn't let perfection be the enemy of progress. These purity tests and Gatekeeping only work insofar as they have someone open to change from the inside where the laws are made.
Thank a White Liberal for the passage of the Civil rights act and for being a pathway to change; for, therein again lies the difference that you so whimsically continue to dodge. Liberals have always been the gateway for change. Hence why the aforementioned activists joined their banner.
Never once conservatives.
And for what it's worth, I'm significantly left of the average Democrat and modern liberal.
Look I can be very direct and note that I explicitly said that white moderate liberals -- not tankies -- were the ones who passed the legislation that effectively turned long-time civil rights grievances into redressed law, and that is precisely what happened.
It really isn't.
But sure I'll fully acknowledge that without activists across the range from Malcolm X to MLK Jr., (whom Malcolm X basically said he wasn't leftist and aggressive enough) influenced aforementioned white moderate liberals to action.
Thank God those poor Civil Rights leaders had such benevolent white saviors to help them.
if anyone thinks MLK would be advocating to let Donald Trump in today by voting 3rd party or not voting, then they are out of their goddamned minds.
No one thinks that, no one said that, you're just making up people to be mad at.
You prove the point that geography made the difference...
Yeah, this was always my point. It's in the second paragraph of my original comment. Nice reading comprehension.
...and as the realignment completed these northern Republicans and Democrats consolidated into a unitary Democratic banner.
for as we noted these Republicans, the party of Lincoln still in transition of the party realignment as the Dixiecrats abandoned their coalition, effectively became the liberals of the modern Democrats.
OK, now we're starting to get into where you actually don't understand history. You seem to believe that the Republicans said, "actually, we want to do racism now, let's start the Southern Strategy!" and all the good Republicans that voted for the Civil Rights Act became Liberal Democrats. In reality, the Republican/Democrat party switch took decades and involved very few members actually switching parties (aside from the Dixiecrats). Most Republicans who supported the Civil Rights Act didn't become Democrats or Liberals, they just saw their party gather more racist members over the years until they retired. They didn't, "consolidate under a unitary Democratic banner," they were still Republican and fiscally conservative.
I do not understand what you're referring to when you write the coalition was majority Republican; it was majority Democrat. - 46 Democrats, and 27 Republicans in the Senate and 152 Dems to 138 Republicans in the House For. This makes the total For 198 Dems 165 Republicans.
OK, I get it. You're looking at raw numbers without factoring in who controlled the House and Senate and how they voted. Only 153 out of 244 Democrats (63%) supported the Civil Rights Act vs. 136 out of 171 (80%) of Republicans. 46 out of 67 Senate Democrats (69%) vs 27 out of 33 (82%) Republicans. These white Liberals you keep praising weren't the reason it passed, they were the opposition. The same white Southern Democrats that backed the New Deal also fought tooth and nail against the Civil Rights Act, more than their conservative peers.
You're taking a modern understanding of Liberals and applying it to the Civil Rights Era. You're congratulating good white Liberals for passing the Civil Rights Act, when many of the major supporters would be considered conservatives and most of the opponents would be considered Liberals by most metrics. Beyond that, you're pretending that the Republican conservatives could retroactively be counted as Liberals because you fundamentally don't understand the party swap.
Besides that, your ranting about how tankies (which, by the way, you're incorrectly using to mean, "Socialists, Marxists, or other Leftists," but that's a whole other issue) didn't cast any votes in the Civil Rights Act, while ignoring that some of the most prominent voices in the movement where Democratic Socialists, Socialists, or other forms of, "tankie." Sure, they spent years getting beaten by police, attacked by segregationists, and told to slow down by incrementalisy Liberals, but they weren't in Congress, so according to you their not as important as white Liberals!
And then, after building this white-savior Liberal fantasy for yourself, you have the audacity to tell me entertain some humility? Sorry buddy, you're going to have to work through this one on your own.
To pass a civil rights bill in 1964, the Senate proponents of that bill developed a three-part strategy. First, Majority Leader Mike Mansfield maneuvered the bill away from the Judiciary Committee and made it the Senate’s pending business. Second, a bipartisan legislative team of senators and staff, led by Majority Whip Hubert Humphrey and Minority Whip Thomas Kuchel, developed a plan to defeat a well-organized filibuster. Finally, they enlisted the aid of Minority Leader Everett Dirksen. Only Dirksen could provide the Republican votes needed to invoke cloture and bring about passage of the bill. “The bill can’t pass unless you get Ev Dirksen,” President Lyndon Johnson told Hubert Humphrey. “You get in there to see Dirksen. You drink with Dirksen! You talk with Dirksen. You listen to Dirksen.”
In an era when there were many factional divisions within both political parties, the biggest headaches for Democratic leader Mike Mansfield often came not from Republicans but from the conservative bloc of his own party caucus. The filibuster that threatened to derail the civil rights bill in 1964 was not led by the opposition party, but by an opposing faction within the majority party. To invoke cloture on the civil rights bill, Democratic proponents of the bill needed strong Republican support. If the bipartisan team could gain the support of Dirksen, a small-government conservative from Illinois, they might win over other conservatives.
This presented Everett Dirksen with a dilemma. It was a presidential election year and, as one historian commented, Dirksen was asked “to deliver Republican votes in support of a Democratic president who could not bring along enough of his own party to seal the deal.” As the long civil rights debate unfolded, it did so with the backdrop of presidential primaries. The last thing the Senate’s Republican leader should be doing, many argued, was to provide the Democratic administration with a major legislative victory, but Dirksen, a proud Republican from the Land of Lincoln, was determined to preserve the Republican legacy inherited from the Great Emancipator. In addition, there were liberal and moderate Republicans who were deeply committed to the cause of civil rights, and senators such as Jacob Javits of New York urged Dirksen to take immediate action. On the other hand, staunch conservatives like Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa fought Dirksen every step of the way. Dominating the GOP caucus, many conservatives believed the civil rights bill represented an unprecedented intrusion by the state into the daily lives of Americans.
By late February 1964, as the bipartisan team set to work, Dirksen began tinkering with the bill. Over the next three months, the Republican leader, meeting daily with Humphrey or Kuchel but largely avoiding his caucus, suggested a host of amendments divided into categories of technical and substantive. The lesser amendments corrected or clarified language, while substantive amendments brought compromise among competing views. Throughout the negotiations, Dirksen kept his own counsel. “What is Ev Dirksen up to?” asked the Los Angeles Times. Dirksen is “the master of obscure intention,” wrote the Washington Post, which will be “revealed only in his own good time.” While Dirksen worked with the bipartisan team, key staff negotiated with individual Republican senators.
In early April Dirksen attended the Republicans’ weekly policy luncheon and presented a set of 40 draft amendments. Conservatives, suspicious of the leader’s behind-the-scenes deal-making, expressed only reluctant support. The liberals simply rebelled, accusing Dirksen of watering down the House-passed bill. As the meeting broke up, it was clear that the Republican caucus remained divided. Reassuringly, Senator Humphrey expressed optimism. Dirksen’s “not trying to be destructive,” Humphrey commented. “He’s trying to be constructive.”
The debate in the Senate Chamber continued, as Dirksen produced more amendments while constantly testing the waters looking for support. Details were discussed, agreements were made, and deals were struck as Dirksen worked to gain votes for cloture while maintaining the integrity of the House-passed bill. As Kentucky senator John Sherman Cooper saw it, Dirksen’s proposal would not weaken the bill, but would be “a substantial amendment in developing sentiment for the bill, not only here, but throughout the country. It is going to have appeal.”
Lawrence F. O'Brien, President Kennedy's and later President Johnson's chief of liaison with the Congress, recalled it this way:
[Y]ou had a battle on two fronts simultaneously. You had a battle with the conservatives on the committee, the southern Democrats, conservative Republicans, but you had just as tough a battle with the liberals. Their position was the old story of the half loaf or three-quarters of a loaf, and [now they were saying] "we'll settle for nothing less [than the whole loaf.]" . . . We shared their views, and we'd love to do it their way.
We were accused by some of being weak-kneed but, my God, are you going to have meaningful legislation or are you going to sit around for another five or ten years while you play this game? Those liberals sat around saying, "No, we won't accept anything but the strongest possible civil rights bill, and we won't vote for anything less than that." To kill civil rights in that Judiciary Committee was an appalling possibility! And it was not only a possibility, it came darn close to an actuality.
Curse those liberals for demanding a stronger civil rights bill, right!?
Ergo: Liberals supported; conservatives resisted. No tankies in Congress. Thank a liberal. Yes, I'm aware that what is progressive for the time is comparatively conservative by today's standards; that doesn't change the point.
Congrats on completely ignoring everything I said about the nuances of Civil Rights Era politics and instead finding sources that only uses, "liberal," and, "conservative," as they refer to socal policies of the time. Don't think too hard about the fact that Dirksen was a staunch fiscal conservative who supported the Vietnam War, or that Strom Thurmond was a New Deal Democrat who supported public spending on the working class. I wouldn't want you to disrupt the ahistorical dichotomy you've created for yourself! Maybe Google, "tankie," before you use that word again, because you have no idea what it means! Good luck with the scholarships!
Pardon me, but I thought it best to cut through the noise (e.g., patent finger-in-ears denial akin to, "Nuh-uh!") and go straight to citing primary sources of which you curiously deflected; you see, you learn to do that with those fancy scholarships :)
To the contrary I'm pretty sure I pinned you into a corner after trying to claim it was conservatives not liberals who were the standard-bearers of the change. Here you're not trying to play games of equivocation and move the goalpost by essentially allegings, "buT LiBeRals AREn'T ReEallY LibERals!" I mean — what?
I really don't need to go any further, and it's a remarkable reality of your position that you cannot rummage up a single academic source to counter what I had already provided. However, it's a new day and I've got my coffee so let's address some bullshit:
You seem to believe that the Republicans said, “actually, we want to do racism now, let’s start the Southern Strategy!” and all the good Republicans that voted for the Civil Rights Act became Liberal Democrats
Straw-man. No, that is not what I'm saying at all. If you would've read more closely what I wrote a couple responses back, you would've recalled that I noted the transition took time and didn't complete really until the '70s or even arguably Reagan. Considering
You’re congratulating good white Liberals for passing the Civil Rights Act, when many of the major supporters would be considered conservatives and most of the opponents would be considered Liberals by most metrics.
You're just not making any sense, here. (1) All the union strength and support was in the North. (2) YOU said it was a regional differentiation, with northerners voting in greater numbers. (3) Ergo, the vast majority of support came from districts and states predominantly pro-Union. So... ??? Or what, do you think the southern state's rights anti-union confederates suddenly decided to turn out in great numbers to support the bill...? Let me again remind you what actual historians have to say:
the biggest headaches for Democratic leader Mike Mansfield often came not from Republicans but from the conservative bloc of his own party caucus
Dominating the GOP caucus, many conservatives believed the civil rights bill represented an unprecedented intrusion by the state into the daily lives of Americans.
You had a battle with the conservatives on the committee, the southern Democrats, conservative Republicans, but you had just as tough a battle with the liberals. Their position was the old story of the half loaf or three-quarters of a loaf, and [now they were saying] “we’ll settle for nothing less [than the whole loaf.]” . . . We shared their views, and we’d love to do it their way.
... But hey, why don't you go tell those scholars they're using the ideological labels incorrectly ;)
There really isn't much more to say. My original claim was: "not a single Tankie was in Congress who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, now, did they? So yes, thank a Liberal for actually getting shit done." From that:
I PROVED:
Liberals of the time among BOTH parties — predominantly in the North — supported Civil Rights in greater numbers
Liberals were the majority of its YES votes
Liberals wanted a STRONGER Civil Rights bill
Conservatives among BOTH parties — predominantly in the south — opposed the bill in greater numbers
Conservatives sough ta WEAKER Civil Rights bill
No Tankies passed the Civil Rights Act. (I have to note this as part of my original claim).
I REMINDED YOU:
That because the parties were still in transition and the great realignment incomplete, there were lingering liberals and conservatives on both sides.
But that doesn't change the fact that the majority of ardent support for the bill came from those further to the left on the political-spectrum and were ostensible liberals for the time-period. (Again, proven by quoted sources).
Liberals of today are less conservative than then, sure.
But Liberals of then were still more progressive than their conservative counter-parts.
Such Liberals who would become demographically-identical to the modern-day liberals (as proven by mere geographical region alone and the fact that Civil Rights leaders of then eventually JOINED the ranks of Democrats of today (e.g., James Clyburn, John Lewis).
You keep referencing party banners without looking at the underlying ideology, all the while admitting yourself that the parties were still in ideological realignment.
I therefore entirely reject the notion I'm, "cataclysmically wrong." Seems I'm actually right on the money.
Finally isn't it funny you quote MLK's "White Moderates" remark in 1963 who is ostensibly speaking of what we'd consider centrist liberal Dems today and those very white moderates did end up passing the bill in 1964? You still continue to deflect this amusingly.
Buddy, I can't help you. If don't want to acknowledge how much of the Democrats economically Liberal coalition were segregationists, I can't help you. If you want to believe that the Conservatives who supported Civil Rights legislation were actually Liberals, I can't help you. If you want to pretend that the leftist Civil Rights leaders who were beaten, jailed, and lynched did less for Civil Rights than the Congressmen they pressured into adopting their movement, I can't help you. If you want to say, "mLk ShAmEd CeNtRisTs BuT a YeAr LaTeR tHeY vOtEd FoR CiViL rIgHtS! HoW oDd!!!" WITHOUT EVER QUESTIONING IF THOSE TWO EVENTS WERE RELATED, I can't help you.
Anyway, I can't help you with the substance, but maybe I can help you with the style. The overly formal language you're using? ("Ergo," "I therefore entirely reject," "you continue to deflect this amusingly.") It may make you sound smart to dumb people, but it makes you sound dumb to smart people. It's unnatural and reeks of somebody who's trying to hard. It's why that other guy keeps posting that little meme of a smug guy under your comments. He's making fun of how cringey you sound.
Anyway, that's the best I can do for you. Go be wrong at someone else.
If I can't get through with direct quotes from those who were a part of that era, specifically noting liberals FOR and conservatives OPPOSED
If I can't cite primary historical sources from Senate.gov and Archives.gov detailing the same.
If you can't muster a single source to support your position that contrasts what I already cited, as you simultaneously ignore these direct quotes...
... Then I believe we are done here.
It may make you sound smart to dumb people, but it makes you sound dumb to smart people. It’s unnatural and reeks of somebody who’s trying to hard. It’s why that other guy keeps posting that little meme of a smug guy under your comments. He’s making fun of how cringey you sound.
Buddy, if you can't actually remark on exactly where I'm using language wrong, then it's FAR more probable that my word-choice might just strike above what you're used to and this a desperate attempt to sling shade.
Besides, if I "dumbed down" my language to my Appalachian roots, then you'd try condescension with me and espouse how much more educated and academic you are to me. Apparently I beat you to the punch, and that upsets you. Who knows -- maybe there's a bit of personal insecurity and projection going on here. All I know is that it's a pretty fucking pathetic low-blow. Should be noted that I tend to reflect the tone and let them stoop to a lower level. So maybe look in the mirror. If you can't take it, then don't dish it out, buddy.
As for the other user, I don't really care — that kid's frankly not that bright or informed on the issues. At least you presented a cogent argument by contrast. If you think I'm being smug, go join the fucking Trumpers who cry about elitism and feeling insecure around people who are educated — I really don't care, buddy. Now until you actually respond to my sources, my logic, instead of hopping around more than the Easter bunny, then kindly stay down.
Frankly because now your argument has descended into personal attacks on me it sounds like you're — as you said — "cataclysmically" desperate.
I think for fun I'll just re-quote the primary sources:
the biggest headaches for Democratic leader Mike Mansfield often came not from Republicans but from the conservative bloc of his own party caucus
Dominating the GOP caucus, many conservatives believed the civil rights bill represented an unprecedented intrusion by the state into the daily lives of Americans.
You had a battle with the conservatives on the committee, the southern Democrats, conservative Republicans, but you had just as tough a battle with the liberals. Their position was the old story of the half loaf or three-quarters of a loaf, and [now they were saying] “we’ll settle for nothing less [than the whole loaf.]” . . . We shared their views, and we’d love to do it their way.
Speaking frankly: you're just not worth responding seriously to. You treat every interaction as if it's the worst type of performative debate, and every point is argued antagonistically and purposefully misrepresentative of the comment being responded to.
I learned a long time ago that being earnest with anyone so eager for 'debate' online is pretty pointless.
I'm not worth it, but boy do you go around replying to all my comments obsessively! What's wrong with taking serious discussions, well, seriously? Sorry, I'm just not a meme person, and I frankly don't believe I remotely approached the pettiness as you and the other user in striking low to substitute a lack of substantive rebuttal.
Have you entertained the humbling possibility you're just being out-classed and that's making you uncomfortable? I mean when you make legitimate points I'm willing to yield, such as when you gave me that link to a more recent poll on US perception of Israeli actions.
I know Trump speaks and writes at a 4th grade level and with more memes though — maybe that's more your speed?
You've been active in exactly the same post comments as I have been, I've seen you everywhere this week and I find it difficult not to mock you because you make it so goddamn fun.
Have you entertained the humbling possibility you’re just being out-classed and that’s making you uncomfortable?
This is exactly the 'performative debatelord' behavior I'm talking about. It would be one thing if we were having a disagreement we were working through, but you treat it like it's boxing match. I'm under no obligation to speak with you, let alone enter into some strange sparring match where positions are just weapons to wield against an opponent that you pick up and put down when it's convenient. Even your use of the word 'yield' is reflective of this weird adversarial behavior that is hard not to regard as incredibly adolescent and worthy of scorn.
Ok, Formal Frank is going back to bed now, here comes Silly Willy. I'm turning my meme-mode setting back on, just as a fair warning that any further attempts at defeating me in the marketplace of ideas will be met with unrelenting mockery.
I feel I've done nothing of the sort. I'm entirely supportive of engaging in the mutual pursuit of truth, but when my opposition first engages in bad faith arguments, deflections, fallacies, then snarky adolescent memes followed by personal attacks then you open the door to me responding however I wish. It's not my fault you lack the capacity to discuss formally and maturely.
If you go back to the beginning you'll find you engaged in these downward-spiraling antics first.
In other words you're holding me to a higher standard then you hold yourself. Embrace some humility and learn from your mistakes.
Just let me know when you have a solution for the:
1/3 of independents who support Israel
1/3 of independents undecided on Israel's actions
In addition to:
The ~7 million Jewish Americans who predominantly lean to supporting Israel in a time of rising antisemitism and how much Biden must toe the line with these groups.
Biden is quite clearly trying to cater to all these very large impactful groups while throwing a bone to the fringe tankies. Among these groups, tankies are most certainly NOT the most impactful to the outcome of the election, but sure -- he'll take every vote he can get. But your efforts would be better made trying to convince swing-voters and Jewish Americans to stop supporting Israel.
Nah, I was referring to this but I'll yield that this newer poll shows promising shifts... Which is ultimately why we're seeing a shift in Biden's position against Israel accordingly.
So as I said: your efforts would be better made trying to convince swing-voters and Jewish Americans to stop supporting Israel and you'll see Biden continue to take a harder line. Yelling insults to liberals isn't really doing much good, buddy.
"Two thirds of Americans would probably support withdrawal of support to israel, but you should finish convincing the rest of America before expecting Biden to do anything about it"
Lol nah I'll keep calling obstinate libs silly names, you resplendent nincompoop
How closely are you paying attention, because Biden has certainly shifted from what the polls were then, to now. As I've repeatedly demonstrated:
Conditional aid is now being threatened and likely — this would've been INCONCEIVABLE for literally decades.
Biden is publicly shaming Netanyahu — this would've been INCONCEIVABLE for literally decades.
The USA is no longer vetoing and is not SUPPORTING a ceasefire at the UN — This was inconceivable merely weeks ago.
So yes, keep it up. Crying about Biden and those big bad liberals literally does nothing. Go after the people who are actually supporting Israel and — voila — as the polls continue to oppose Israel more, so too will Biden. It's almost like that's Democracy during an election year in action or something...
Gawd. Do we have to get one of these braindead posts every damn day? You think it's convincing anyone?
Biden's concerns aren't people choosing Trump. Those voters are fixed and committed. Biden has to worry about Democratic voters getting so frustrated with the system that they check out. These posts are practically (if not actually) designed to do exactly that.
Democrats listen up! Bitching at voters is not an effective campaign strategy! Learn something from Hillary or suffer the same fate!
That's the real takeaway. I've said it from the beginning of these posts, making an enemy of disaffected leftists does not make them want to vote for you. Additionally, the drop in support for Democrats is not the fault of leftists, but of Democrats.
Push the Democrats to do better, and leftists will come back. If more leftists see liberals heavily criticizing the DNC and pushing for better, it's more likely that leftists will vote DNC.
Unironically though. If libs gave a fraction of the deference to leftists as they do to center-right moderates, this would be a very different conversation.
I love how those that are typically content with the US's hawkish foreign policies, run-away inequality, and collapse of our planet's habitable ecosystem are the ones labelled moderates.
Oddly enough, RFK Jr is campaigning on fixing all of those, but most people who care about those things still won't vote for him, but will vote for Biden who has no intention of actually fixing those. I'd love to see voters actually vote for what they claim they want, instead of just voting for whatever party they are registered as. Most R and D will just vote along party lines, regardless of whether or not their candidate is actually a flaming bag of poo.
Being opposed to the science of vaccines should tell you he's a guy who won't listen to experts. That's not what we want in a leader, we saw how well that went with Trump.
But even if he was the type to listen to experts, our election process in the US is "first past the post." This makes any third party candidate a spoiler, therefore making it more likely that the candidate opposed to that third party's issues will win.
I hate it, and wish we could do ranked choice or STAR voting to allow viable third party/independent candidates. But we don't. He's a science-denying spoiler and nothing more.
You need to listen to what he says, not what's reported about him. He's not against vaccines. He's fully vaccinated, and so are his kids. He wants vaccines to be safer, and believes that not enough is done to make them safer.
It's in hopes that those idiots realize that their failure to vote in this election of all elections makes them complicit. Just because you don't participate in something that you could have helped stop doesn't make you innocent.
They're going to pay the price just as much as everyone else if Trump is reelected and if they think at all that any of the things they're mad at Biden for won't be done 10 fold by Trump, they're dumber than I already know they are.
If only those other idiots realized that their constant affirmations of fealty during an active protest undercut the effectiveness of the protest, and all but guarantees that Democrats never have to adjust their policies.
There has been no election in the last 50+ years where progressives didn't show up en masse for the Democratic candidate. It never happened. As a reward we get this crap every single election cycle.
The voters who don't vote for the Democrats are voters who have checked out of the process and aren't reading this crap from establishment cucks. You aren't going to reach them with a million stupid political memes.
Aside from a few loudmouths, progressive loyalty to the Democrats has never been at issue. By continuously harping on it like it actually is an issue, you are going to make it one. You are telling progressives that their votes are needed but their input is not. Eventually there actually will be a mass betrayal of the Democrats, and the Democrats will have earned it.
Those voters are also maybe voting for the first possibly second time so that whole being jaded shit is a poor argument. Hope they enjoy their consequences. The rest of us won't.
If progressives turned out as en masse as you insist they have, forget the Dems having dominated the last 50 years of politics, Bernie would have won the primary as the moderate option.
Got some evidence that progressives were the problem? Exit polls have been pretty clear in recent elections as far as I have seen. Without support from the vast majority of progressives, Democrats wouldn't even be relevant. How about Democrats starting to earn that loyalty?
Bill Clinton is largely responsible for dismantling the federal welfare system. Obama let Wall Street use the mortgage crisis (that they caused) to drain even more wealth out of the middle class. He also set in motion the monetization of healthcare that's just now accelerating into a massive disaster. Let's not forget that Bill and Hillary encouraged Trump to run and the media to follow him because they wanted a real asshole to run against. Offering anything of value to the American people wasn't an option, so they needed an opponent that couldn't win, and that turned out great!
Quit trying to shove their failures onto people who have been telling Democrats how to win and have been largely ignored or blamed for their failures.
They aren't going to realize it, but they will blame dems for not stopping Trumps hard right policies and authoritarianism of trump for power again. Even on Israel, you have 1000 times better chance of getting a good result from Biden in the future than you would from Trump, who would gladly bomb Gaza out of existence if he can figure out how to monetize a relationship with Israel.
All of that said, Biden and US should end unconditional military aid to Israel. But not voting for Biden over it will only fuck things up even more.
"I am entitled to demand to speak to the party's manager and you're the one who's making me act like this you stupid ungrateful minority person who's pointing out that you'll be the one who actually gets "punished" if I refuse to engage meaningfully!"
