2016 Postmortem

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)

193. I agree with you that the issue is cherry-picking.

Thu May 19, 2016, 07:23 PM

May 2016

Let's take the example of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It outlawed many forms of discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. One of the gaps was plugged by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (1967), also passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Democratic President.

As against that, it did nothing about LGBT rights. Back then, that whole issue wasn't on the radar of most Democratic Party leaders (or of most progressives, or of most Americans). One effect of the subsequent growth of the gay rights movement has been that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) has at least been proposed in Congress. This Congress, however, is not very progressive by comparison (that's the OP's point). ENDA has not been enacted and is not widely considered to have good prospects in the near future.

IMO, the Civil Rights Act (coupled with the ADEA) constituted major progressive legislation. It wasn't perfect, which is why we need ENDA, but it accomplished an awful lot.

You haven't addressed the Civil Rights Act. I'm not clear whether you think that it constitutes "cherry-picking" to point to the outlawing of discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. My view is the opposite: It's cherry-picking to seize on imperfections as a basis for denying that the Civil Rights Act was indeed progressive.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

211 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Are you old enough to remember real Dem's? [View all] Go Vols May 2016 OP

Bullshit nostalgia for an economy built for white males only Recursion May 2016 #1

Guess you didn't read the OP Go Vols May 2016 #2

I did. Looks like you didn't think when you quoted it. Recursion May 2016 #5

Think again Go Vols May 2016 #22

It's funny as hell! MADem May 2016 #31

missed that part,could you quote it? Go Vols May 2016 #37

Look downthread--your contributors do not know their American history. nt MADem May 2016 #57

Yes, the pre-1976 Democratic Party was indeed progressive. Jim Lane May 2016 #102

Thanks for that long list of progressive legislation whathehell May 2016 #162

The OP is about the party going back to 1932. Sparkly May 2016 #183

Yes, and I mentioned the racial issues under FDR. Jim Lane May 2016 #185

And half of the Democratic party opposed the Civil Rights Act as opposed to 1/3rd of the GOP Recursion May 2016 #199

I'm with you. Sparkly May 2016 #204

Yes, a big change that's occurred since World War II is the reversal of the parties' roles on race. Jim Lane May 2016 #208

You're imagining a world where Kennedy could win nationally without white southerners. Recursion May 2016 #209

No, you are embarrassing yourself..It's obvious you weren't around then. whathehell May 2016 #127

Wow, you need to learn history. The Dems used to be way more liberal, on so many issues. reformist2 May 2016 #195

And... Recursion May 2016 #196

I want to frame this post and hang it on the wall. wildeyed May 2016 #198

I guess LBJ's Great Society plan was just a vast right-wing conspiracy theory. RepubliCON-Watch May 2016 #6

It certainly didn't raise black incomes like the 1990s did Recursion May 2016 #15

Is it at all possible that Great Society policies bore fruit a generation or two later? merrily May 2016 #35

Yes, they are: that's what traditional Democrats were Recursion May 2016 #43

No, they are not, except in someone's spin. What they want are Democrats who were not merrily May 2016 #54

I'm being literal to help point out *why* the "take the party back" rhetoric Recursion May 2016 #63

Are you? Because the conversation seldom seems to move past berating people about merrily May 2016 #71

The "traditional" Democratic Party okasha May 2016 #69

Brown and Root, the Halliburton of its day! They were all over hell. MADem May 2016 #78

Then there's Box 13. okasha May 2016 #81

The Alan Ladd Box 13? MADem May 2016 #82

Fuck Brown and Root, Go Vols May 2016 #84

Please, be my guest. No one here is in love w/KBR. nt MADem May 2016 #99

Just in thrall to their contemporary equivalents in all fields Armstead May 2016 #148

Well that comment was apropos of absolutely nothing. MADem May 2016 #167

"We loves them huge corrupt banks"- WTF are you imitating with that vernacular? bettyellen May 2016 #211

The ballot box from Precinct 13 in Jim Wells Co., Texas. okasha May 2016 #203

LOL! NOW I remember that story, just did not realize the box NUMBER!!! MADem May 2016 #207

The 1990'a, when high-wage manufacturing jobs left what would become the rust belt... That Guy 888 May 2016 #101

your comment seems to imply that the 1990's raised only Black incomes-all incomes were raised azurnoir May 2016 #103

But black incomes stayed up, unlike poor whites' incomes Recursion May 2016 #106

No they did not as a nation we rise and fall together azurnoir May 2016 #113

Except that's just not factually true Recursion May 2016 #114

No it is not the only non-white income that is higher is Asian and as a group they are the highest i azurnoir May 2016 #115

Black workers did well in the Clinton years Recursion May 2016 #117

why a chart showing only Black income let's see one that compares it white, Hispanic and Asian azurnoir May 2016 #118

I've in fact done that, and here they are Recursion May 2016 #119

well while I admire the word or powerpoint? work there of those charts albeit they are difficult to azurnoir May 2016 #121

Matlab Recursion May 2016 #122

both are slightly higher today azurnoir May 2016 #124

Black incomes today are nearly double what they were in 1991 Recursion May 2016 #128

In 1991 Blkack median income was $31, 369 per year in 2013 it was $34,598 per year azurnoir May 2016 #130

I'm talking about the poorest two quintiles Recursion May 2016 #131

Do you think that data point was ignored and a different point used ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2016 #174

I think your what you posted, here ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2016 #175

I'm challenging a narrative in which people have cast themselves as the aggrieved heros Recursion May 2016 #179

Aggrieved Heros that they have; but for, an accident of birth, done nothing to earn. 1StrongBlackMan May 2016 #182

Clinton's policies are the reason black incomes declined. JRLeft May 2016 #145

They rose Recursion May 2016 #147

They declined due to prison and offshoring. JRLeft May 2016 #150

Nope. Black incomes at all quintiles are up from 1991 Recursion May 2016 #151

Black people are struggling maybe in your bubble life is good. JRLeft May 2016 #155

JRLeft ... you are better than that ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2016 #176

Wages rose due to the bubble economy, it was a facade. JRLeft May 2016 #187

Okay. 1StrongBlackMan May 2016 #189

Black wages *didn't* collapse after the 1990s though. That's my point. Recursion May 2016 #210

Or fill the prisons with your friends and neighbors. floriduck May 2016 #178

This message was self-deleted by its author redstateblues May 2016 #18

Good grief, get your decades right--that was the SIXTIES. MADem May 2016 #59

Good grief, get your reading comprehension right -- that's within the OP. Jim Lane May 2016 #105

No--the whole thesis was the "OLD DEM'S" (sic) one. MADem May 2016 #112

How about McNamara going from Ford to SecDef (nt?) Recursion May 2016 #133

You're going way beyond the point of the OP. Jim Lane May 2016 #180

And I think we're pretty effectively arguing it was *not* more progressive back then Recursion May 2016 #186

I agree with you that the issue is cherry-picking. Jim Lane May 2016 #193

It is tiring, isn't it? 1StrongBlackMan May 2016 #10

And the willfull deafness that's required to not hear it Recursion May 2016 #50

OMG! Does EVERYTHING have to have a sexist bent? Chasstev365 May 2016 #14

sexist and racist Viva_La_Revolution May 2016 #25

The economy was so fucked up in the seventies. Anyone who thought it was great is blowing smoke. MADem May 2016 #26

Thank god that dark age was swept aside by the mighty hand of Ronald Reagan, amirite? Scootaloo May 2016 #28

Republicans owned the White House for most of the seventies. Carter got 4 years out of ten. nt MADem May 2016 #36

Cool. We're talking about Democrats, though. Scootaloo May 2016 #48

Yes, we are--and once they finally shoved Nixon off the political map, they accommodated Ford, MADem May 2016 #74

So true. Dem2 May 2016 #49

For whom is the economy now built, pray tell? JackRiddler May 2016 #73

Very wealthy white males. 1StrongBlackMan May 2016 #107

Yes exactly. JackRiddler May 2016 #120

White incomes today are about the same as 1970, at least for the bottom 50% Recursion May 2016 #123

"Pre-1970 politics" is a vague term. JackRiddler May 2016 #136

Funny ... I sense you are talking around Recursion's post. ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2016 #141

You know "what gives" Recursion May 2016 #149

No doubt! ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2016 #156

I will agree that the "neoliberal" age ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2016 #137

I KNEW you'd be in this moronic thread! This kind of thing is right up your alley Number23 May 2016 #96

I'm like a moth to a flame Recursion May 2016 #100

Bullshit indeed...Dixiecrats anyone? workinclasszero May 2016 #132

Um, no...The Sixties was the decade of Civil Rights when "Dixiecrats turned Republican whathehell May 2016 #135

A greater % of GOP Congressmen voted for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats Recursion May 2016 #139

Damn those pesky facts again workinclasszero May 2016 #142

Great, but they didn't INITIATE it, did they? Nor have they 'followed up" on it, have they? whathehell May 2016 #143

You try it workinclasszero May 2016 #154

My nostalgia is definitely NOT for white males. I have supported jwirr May 2016 #140

Re-read your post Recursion May 2016 #146

I realize that it sounds like I am supporting your idea but jwirr May 2016 #163

I wasn't aware that economies built for all ethnicities required corruption. DisgustipatedinCA May 2016 #181

God that is one of the most ignorant statements ever phleshdef May 2016 #201

We have few real democrats today, the party has changed so drastically, and not for the better IMO. RKP5637 May 2016 #3

Nah. All I know is an era of centre-right dems. RepubliCON-Watch May 2016 #4

When Raygun took over Go Vols May 2016 #9

Unfortunately not. liberal_at_heart May 2016 #7

Late seventies? The party of NO BLACK PEOPLE and NO WOMEN? MADem May 2016 #8

One parent working Go Vols May 2016 #11

Your black mayor was an exception in public life. MADem May 2016 #20

And we had a dem president who imprisoned more blacks than any president combined. RepubliCON-Watch May 2016 #13

In the late seventies? You need to hit the books because I'm giving you an F in US History. MADem May 2016 #23

clinton did, duh Viva_La_Revolution May 2016 #27

This thread is about the late seventies. Try, do, to stay on topic and follow the conversation. nt MADem May 2016 #29

ok, play stupid, i don't care Viva_La_Revolution May 2016 #30

No, what's stupid is to try and bring Clinton into a thread about the seventies. MADem May 2016 #39

k Go Vols May 2016 #53

Bill Clinton was not in public life during that timeframe. MADem May 2016 #56

correct Go Vols May 2016 #58

You can answer your own "..." you know. MADem May 2016 #66

History Go Vols May 2016 #68

Well, shrieking about pale-skinned penises isn't exactly the heights of intellectualism either Scootaloo May 2016 #32

Huh? What is that in aid of, and what does it have to do with the seventies, which is the thread MADem May 2016 #33

Well, every time someone talks about a time before reaganomics... Scootaloo May 2016 #47

I don't mean to be rude, but did you not observe that the GOP owned six years of the seventies? MADem May 2016 #55

Sure I did. Yet here you are, happily running interference for those policies Scootaloo May 2016 #65

I'm saying--and you're missing, apparently--the fact that the seventies SUCKED. MADem May 2016 #67

No, I catch it. I'm just saying it's not actually relevant to the OP topic Scootaloo May 2016 #70

This is just ugly and nasty, so I'm out. MADem May 2016 #76

This message was self-deleted by its author FuzzyRabbit May 2016 #40

Many States supported Tough on Crime Policies including California, NY,etc, people elected Giuliani JI7 May 2016 #86

Meantime, potentially black men voters were in jail because of the drug war disaster. RepubliCON-Watch May 2016 #88

black men are targeted because of race which includes planting fake evidence JI7 May 2016 #90

But why did Clinton push for policies, incarcerating more black people than any other president? RepubliCON-Watch May 2016 #94

crime is a real issue that needed to be dealt with, that black people get unfairly targeted is JI7 May 2016 #95

But we have to be able to call out those who enabled that climate and Bill was an enabler of it. RepubliCON-Watch May 2016 #97

this happened before clinton and it certainly doesn't help to pretend otherwise JI7 May 2016 #98

^^^ This ^^^ 1StrongBlackMan May 2016 #16

such anti-woman revisionist whitewashing. shocked I tell you. reddread May 2016 #44

How pathetic. MADem May 2016 #168

how hyperbolic reddread May 2016 #169

NO WOMEN? Try telling that to these terrific Dem Congresswomen from the 1970s Lydia Leftcoast May 2016 #159

Out of how many politicians? Your very "exception that proves the rule" reaching, MADem May 2016 #166

accept the F with dignity reddread May 2016 #170

You're trying to create a diversion Lydia Leftcoast May 2016 #190

No, I am not--the sexist, racist "good old days" weren't so good. MADem May 2016 #191

Please stick to the subject, which is NOT "general conditions in the 1970s" Lydia Leftcoast May 2016 #192

Which initiatives? None of the achievements you mentioned took place in the seventies. MADem May 2016 #194

You keep changing the subject Lydia Leftcoast May 2016 #202

I responded to points YOU brought up. MADem May 2016 #206

Spot On! Chasstev365 May 2016 #12

Not only the middle class, but the poor. Hardly any politician even utters that word anymore. merrily May 2016 #45

it is really sad Go Vols May 2016 #64

Yep. That was before Dems acted like Republicans. HooptieWagon May 2016 #17

Yes, I am. My parents were proud socialists who thought FDR was the greatest human being ever Glorfindel May 2016 #19

+1 Go Vols May 2016 #42

Wow...I identify with every word of your post. Punkingal May 2016 #75

sigh rbrnmw May 2016 #21

What you said. nt MADem May 2016 #41

no shit Go Vols May 2016 #46

Yeah Recursion May 2016 #61

Perfect! wildeyed May 2016 #200

Yes. I remember them and I voted for them. Thirties Child May 2016 #24

There's always SOMEONE I like, but Tip O'Neill was the closeupready May 2016 #34

Yes, he was one of my favorites.. whathehell May 2016 #160

Yup. PFunk1 May 2016 #38

This looks like a job for Apostrophe Man!!... SidDithers May 2016 #51

lol Go Vols May 2016 #60

Apostrophe Man needs a visit from Comma Girl. Scootaloo May 2016 #72

Thread win! nt MADem May 2016 #79

I don't see this on TV since Raygun Go Vols May 2016 #52

now it's "buy local" "support small business" etc JI7 May 2016 #83

In 1972, McGovern delegates were refreshingly diverse RufusTFirefly May 2016 #62

And that diversity was not just at the convention. The office jwirr May 2016 #158

That's what's so sad and pathetic about this laughable "Underground" and its RW posters. nt villager May 2016 #77

Sorry your browser doesn't open to any other page--it's tough being a prisoner of Skinner, then? MADem May 2016 #80

I remember, life was still hard, but a hell of a lot better then 2banon May 2016 #85

FDR, JFK, and LBJ had strong Democratic majorities cheapdate May 2016 #87

Because people liked their ideas? Go Vols May 2016 #89

sadly many thought civil rights were a bad idea and started turning republican JI7 May 2016 #91

. Go Vols May 2016 #92

Ideas like Jobs for All? Peace in our Time? Octafish May 2016 #111

Exactly. jwirr May 2016 #161

Congress makes the law, cheapdate May 2016 #171

interlude Go Vols May 2016 #93

We need a NEW NEW DEAL, and that era of Liberalism was not for white males only. Those are the highprincipleswork May 2016 #104

Yes, the Third Wave of Feminism started (and no, it wasn't just for white women) whathehell May 2016 #138

Nostalgia for a time that never was. baldguy May 2016 #108

*Applause* Recursion May 2016 #109

+10000 auntpurl May 2016 #110

Bull. Shit. Unlike you, I suspect, I actually LIVED and WORKED during those times whathehell May 2016 #134

"comparatively positive"? There's a whole herd of bulls producing shit, you got there. baldguy May 2016 #144

Yes, "comparatively positive" Are the words too big for you? whathehell May 2016 #157

Certainly I'm old enough to remember Bill Clinton Algernon Moncrieff May 2016 #116

I certainly wouldn't have been a democrat back then nt firebrand80 May 2016 #125

Sure do, but their approach is very unlike what Bernie is trying to do. That is why they succeeded tonyt53 May 2016 #126

I know what real Democrats were thanks to history books, but VulgarPoet May 2016 #129

They're all around you. Octafish May 2016 #152

There's a few left.. whathehell May 2016 #165

I remember when the Democrats were the Party of Big Ideas, not Lydia Leftcoast May 2016 #153

Yes, me too. whathehell May 2016 #164

Some of us don't accept the attempted brainwashing around here. nt BootinUp May 2016 #172

I remember when Dem appointees got health insurance The Second Stone May 2016 #173

Not one of them DOESNT go out of their way to show up in November and vote for the Dem Actor May 2016 #177

especially against Trump, for god's sake Fast Walker 52 May 2016 #184

Life was good? onenote May 2016 #188

You're confusing Democrats with non-Dems who tried to hijack the party - Wallace, Nader, Sanders, wyldwolf May 2016 #197

I voted yes. The first Democrat running for President I remember was Mondale, mvd May 2016 #205