0 - https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-10-19/trump-...

That's optional though. The modern media, in the interest of money, has done a good job of causing the population of the US to miscategorize themselves into D/R. If it instead focused on human welfare, then we wouldn't be in this mess.

First case, Why so insecure that you constantly need the other to reaffirm yourself? Second, Why do you need to reaffirm your college education was actually worth something? (Many cases, sad to say but they should sue to get your money back)

> "Oh look at those rednecks who voted for Trump, why can't they get a college education."

This right here is an example of why it's so easy. Part of what I'm reading there is fundamental attribution error. A person, anywhere right now, that can't get a college education in the US is dealing with a lot of headwind. Our education system is punitive, starting with an A and stripping you of points all the way through, causing undue stress, knowing that if you fail, you probably won't have the money to move forward, and will have great difficulty. Rich people get a free pass on this. Put a system like this together and the reason that people can't get educations is situational, not dispositional. We as a society must do better.

I mentioned miscategorization already, which is something that our brains naturally do when seeing people different from us, and requires intentional mental unbundling to see all humans as the same category. This is why racism is so common as well; without intentional work, humans will find categories by which to judge outsiders.

Our social media breaks human relationships because far too many interactions are decided publicly, through shame, rather than through communication. An enormous emotional abuse crisis in the US has now reached the highest levels of society, both private and public, and I certainly put enormous amounts of blame not on the companies that make social media sites, but because our brains are simply not well-tasked to deal with it. Further, the end of comprehensive mental health, particularly CBT and emotional withholding and the damages that they cause so many people and relationships.

I have a strong feeling that in the coming decade, there will be studies in cognitive psychology demonstrating the connection between stock markets and wealth and the base level fear/reward circuitry of the brain, delaying and reducing ethical and social cognition. Causing a focus on economic power rather than social conformity, and thus damaging society.

Regardless, I apologize for blathering, I think about this stuff a lot.

I wonder if there is a relationship between the level of competitiveness that a people have for sports with the level of competitiveness that they have in politics and other aspects said people’s lives.

Competitive behavior seems to desire to highlight differences amongst the in-group versus the outgroups. Competitive behavior also excels at drumming up visceral desire to act regardless of whether the desire is rational or whether the act truly and completely satisfies the desire.

Why is it difficult to immediately associate with the largest in-group i.e. all of humanity / all of life itself / the objective truth?

Why not fight a group that has no members i.e. poverty (that which makes and keeps people poor as opposed to the poor), hunger, homelessness, poor health and disease, intolerable / harmful discomfort (difficulty breathing, too much heat, too much cold, too dry, too wet, etc.), pollution, and death (untimely or all death period)?

This is a terrible line of thinking. I'm no Trump fan, but there's a ton of things neither Trump nor Obama should have done as president, and excusing one with the actions of another doesn't make a bad act good.

“The country wasn’t based on executive orders,” Trump said at a South Carolina campaign stop in February 2016. “Right now, Obama goes around signing executive orders. He can’t even get along with the Democrats, and he goes around signing all these executive orders. It’s a basic disaster. You can’t do it.”

I know I'm probably pissing in the wind here, but I was looking forward to a president ceding some of his power back to congress, so this one really sticks in my craw. Oh well.

Generally, if you run the federal government, you don't want states objecting to your agenda. And if the opposition is running the federal government, you insist on your right to do things at the state level.

Watching Democrats and Republicans make the exact same arguments depending on whose in power is absolutely hilarious, and it leads to great soundbites, like those of Trump and McConnell talking about what the President should and shouldn't do... depending who the President is.

Civil Rights Act? States' rights issue. Same–sex marriage? Let the states decide. Abortion? States should be free to ban.

Edit: swapped "Republican" with "Conservative", since the parties' ideologies have shifted over time.

Every law called "the Civil Rights Act" passed with overwhelming Republican support. All but one passed with more Republican support than Democratic support. The landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 received 80% of the republican vote in the house, but only 61% of the democratic vote.

The realignment of southern democrats is due more to the fact that, once segregation--which democrats tolerated and republicans didn't--was off the table, they were more aligned with republicans on other issues, such as religion, gun control, abortion, business regulation, taxes, etc.

Looking at the union numbers, DNC had 46 senators of whom 45 voted for the act while the GOP had 32 of which 27 voted for it. So in union numbers the DNC senators voted 98% for it, while GOP did so with 84%.

Here is a longer article with this information: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republ...

As a result of this both parties changed. The DNC took a stand for civil rights and the southern democrats left. At the same time the GOP got a lot new members that influenced the party and created the new power base for it. Later GOP close victories all relied on the previous southern democrats.

Bigger picture, it is clear that the party depending on the south needs to cater to a voting base that is not very positive to civil rights movement, and the opposite for a party that wants to hold the north. It is important to understand that the DNC took a stand here that lost them the south long term because it was the right thing to do (in their minds).

You are also not really correct in claiming that "later GOP close victories all relied on the previous southern democrats." The 1976 Carter-Ford election was pretty close, with Carter winning by 2% overall. In North Carolina, Carter won by 10 points, while he won New York by less than 5 points. Regan won North Carolina by 2 points and New York by 3 points 1980.

It's no doubt that Republicans gained a decisive advantage in the south eventually, but that happened decades later.

Contrary to your statement, the Civil Rights Acts were not a "precipitating event for politicians switching parties." That doesn't even make sense--why would politicians who were against civil rights join the party that much more strongly supported every Civil Rights Act from 1957 to 1968?

The realignment of southern democrats actually occurred much later. Nixon did not win a majority in any southern state--to the extent he won with a plurality, it was only because the Democratic vote was split between Humphrey and Wallace. In 1976, Carter won with the same east-coast south/north coalition that long voted Democrat; with Ford winning the west coast and mid-west. Reagan won almost every state, but his margins in New York were larger than his margins in Alabama or the Carolinas. Reagan did blow out Mondale in the south in 1984, but I'm not sure how much that tells us. Even by the time of Clinton, he won Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Georgia, not to mention Arkansas.

I think the more accurate take is that the political realignment of the parties on "civil rights" issues happened more in the mid-late 1980s through 1990s. And it happened because the nature of the "civil rights" debate morphed over that time. The battle fronts during the 1980s and 1990s was not eliminating de jure and overt discrimination (the aim of the 1950s and 1960s legislation republicans supported), but measures like affirmative action, which sought to use the power of government to shape private conduct to eliminate existing inequities. That of course maps very cleanly onto longstanding republican versus democrat positions.

(I'll give another example of situations where political alignments change because the issue has changed rather than the "mix of platforms" of the parties. On the abortion front, for example, a significant amount of the debate has moved from talking about whether it should be legal at all, to talking about whether religious organizations should be required to provide healthcare coverage for them, whether the government should support them with public funding, etc. If you're a consistent libertarian, you might have found yourself more aligned with Democrats back in the early 1990s, but more aligned with Republicans today.)

You normally have the facts on your side, or else you make generous and clear concessions. What is happening here? You are saying such incorrect (or confusing) things.

In point of fact, Democratic presidential candidates began to lose in Southern states because of integration well before the 1970s. Formerly-Democratic Southerners splintered from the Democratic party for explicitly segregationist reasons, and carried several Southern states under a third-party banner, in two different presidential elections (1948 and 1968).

(One of them, Strom Thurmond, is a direct counterexample to your argument that the Civil Rights Acts were not a "precipitating event for politicians switching parties." At least according to Wikipedia, he switched his affiliation to Republican because of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.)

Is this, like, something you haven't read about yet? Or do you have a strong argument that explains the above, which I don't get yet?

Some Democrats like Thurmond did switch in 1964, because once Democrats abandoned their support for segregation, they found they shared other principles with Republicans. But focusing on those isolated instances overlooks and downplays the deep alliance between Democrats and segregationists. Woodrow Wilson, a pioneer of modern progressive “governance by expert bureaucracy” re-segregated the federal workforce. Segregationist Democrats were a key pillar of support for FDR’s New Deal. George Wallace was a segregationist, and also a New Dealer, a champion of labor who called for expanding Social Security. From 1930-1970, the Democratic coalition was glued together by the New Deal, with northern Democrats agreeing to look the other way at what southern Democrats were doing. (I use 1970 as the end date, because those alliances were in place even by Carter’s time: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/jimmy-carters-racist-camp.... Carter would not have won without the South.)

In fact, a minority of Republicans in the 1960s, like Barry Goldwater, did make overtures towards anti-integration forces, in an effort to win southern votes. But they never managed to dismantle the Democratic New Deal coalition in the south. That didn’t happen until much later. And at that point, two major things had happened. Southern states has transitioned from agricultural to industrial. The economy of places like Georgia had boomed by drawing businesses from northern states with lower taxes and less regulation. At the same time, the focus of the “civil rights” movement changed. It moved onto very different issues like affirmative action. I happen to support affirmative action, but it’s hard to deny that it’s an ideologically very different thing than the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Its the class “negative right” versus “positive right” dichotomy that’s always divided conservative versus liberal thought.

The reason I take an exception to the characterization above is that through omission framing, it attempts to tarnish Republicans for something they were on the right side of, while absolving Democrats of something they were for a long time on the wrong side of. It also falsely equates very different civil rights policies. It goes to Biden’s “[Romney] wants to put y’all back in chains” rhetoric. No, it was Democrats who wanted to do that. Romney, and modern Republicans, don’t want to use the power of government to affirmatively erase historical inequities. But it was the Romney-type pro-business Republicans that were a bulwark of the Civil Rights Acts.

1) Democrats were the party of white ethno-nationalism, starting in the 1800s. 2) Democrats abandon that plank by the 1960s, joining with longstanding Republican efforts and overturning Jim Crow. 3) Much later, for unrelated reasons, the South becomes Republicans.

Is that about right?

I agree with #1 and #2. I disagree with #3 and I don't see how the facts support it.

First, there's the "much later" part of #3. Here [1] are presidential voting records for the 13 states of the confederacy. In every case but Missouri, there is a) a period of near-uniform Democratic domination from 1880-1944, b) a string of Democratic losses, and at least two Republican victories, by 1972.

(Yes, Carter won several of those states after Nixon's disgrace. To some degree I contest the conclusions you're drawing there: so did Hoover, Clinton, etc to lesser degrees. I acknowledge that many of these states were purple in the 1970s, but I don't think that supports the timeline of #3 in context.)

Second, there is the claim of "unrelated reasons". The idea that "a minority of Republicans in the 1960s" made overtures to segregationist Dems is equivalent to saying "Nixon didn't do anything like the Southern Strategy", right? (Or were you talking about regional races?) Doesn't that assertion, in turn, hinge on the idea that "states' rights" (to pick one example) is not an overture? If so, I would call it a weak argument.

[1]

https://www.270towin.com/states/Alabama https://www.270towin.com/states/Georgia https://www.270towin.com/states/Louisiana https://www.270towin.com/states/Mississippi https://www.270towin.com/states/Missouri https://www.270towin.com/states/North_Carolina https://www.270towin.com/states/South_Carolina https://www.270towin.com/states/Tennessee https://www.270towin.com/states/Texas https://www.270towin.com/states/Virginia

The question is: if the 1964 Civil Rights Act caused a mass exodus from Democrats to Republicans, why was a Democrat outperforming in Alabama compared to New York even by 1980? Democratic support for the Civil Rights Acts May have broken the “solid south” but that doesn’t mean those people became Republicans—who also supported civil rights. Other things needed to happen.

What those things were: they’re related but not the same as “civil rights.” “Civil rights” isn’t a single policy, but a range of policies with different ideological implications. Republicans strongly opposed de jure discrimination, and supported civil rights laws that eliminated such discrimination. But by the 1970s, the fight had moved to different issues: forced bussing, affirmative action, etc. And the race riots of the 1960s, and skyrocketing crime in cities, made “law and order” hot-button issues. Nixon and Reagan capitalized on southern views on those policies.

Saying that Nixon’s “southern strategy” was rooted in opposition to “civil rights” is a very Democratic way to look at the issue. Nixon helped champion the 1957 Civil Rights Act through Congress. He never backtracked on that. What he did was promise disaffected southern Democrats that he would not use the force of government to integrate private society, and would maintain law and order. (So did Carter, by the way.) It’s maybe fair to say it was an appeal to southern racism, but it was not ideologically inconsistent with his support for the civil rights act, and ideologically consistent with conservatism in general. (I happen to agree that you need affirmative action to erase previous discrimination. But I think it’s not intellectually honest to pretend that opposing affirmative measures to equalize society is on a continuum with opposing measures to eliminate de jure discrimination. They’re categorically different things.)

Apart from that, some reasons were in fact unrelated. Starting in the 1970s, the southern economies moved from agricultural to commercial. Southern states realized they could outbid northern states for business though low taxes and low regulation. Southern cities like Atlanta and Charlotte boomed during this period. That dissipated the New Deal sentiments that had previously tied the south to Democrats.

If you asked me what caused the modern Republican “solid south,” I would not say “the civil rights acts.” I think that an unwarranted attempt to tar modern conservatism in with segregationism, which is especially galling because New Deal liberals were in an alliance with segregationists at that time. I would say the proximate cause is the culture wars of the 1980s and 1990s, and the economic development of the south as being reliant on low taxes and regulation as a way to outcompete the north.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Party_System [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Party_System

Second, we're talking about the 1960s, not the 1860s. By that time, the Democrats were already the party of FDR and JFK, and Republicans were already the party of Richard Nixon. JFK won the Carolinas, Georgia, Arkansas, Louisiana, and beat Nixon in Alabama and Mississippi, because it was perceived that he had a poor record on civil rights.

The idea that the “party labels flipped” is just blatant historical revisionism. By the 1950s and 1960s, Democrats were the party both of African Americans (who switched from Republicans during the FDR era), the War in Poverty, and southern segregationists. What happened is that, at some point, support for outright discrimination became unviable, and the battle front moved to other issues, such as affirmative action. That naturally fit into Democrats’ willingness to use the power of government to address social inequities.

I have since changed it to “conservatives”, which is the ideology that supported Jim Crow and opposed the Civil Rights Act regardless of what the party name happened to be.

> There were conservative tendencies in American politics before the 1930s, but the modern conservative movement was founded on opposition to the New Deal. The segregationist Democrats, on the other hand, were for the most part eager supporters of the New Deal—provided it was administered in a way that would exclude African Americans from most of its benefits. You do not have to take my word for it—consider the votes: on labor reform, on entitlements, on financial regulation, etc. If the southern Democrats were “conservatives,” then the New Deal was passed on conservative support, which is a very odd claim to make.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968

It is also perfectly fair on the Republican side.

And you were expecting that from someone who draws a significant amount of fame from "You're fired!", and "I'm the boss", "I have total authority"??

Probably for Mr Trumps relatives the best way out is hope he dies or have him sectioned - in return for a presidential pardon.

And Senate Republicans have openly asked judges to resign so they can be replaced by conservative judges, and their justification for why it's okay to do this so close to an election but it wasn't okay to confirm Garland so close to an election literally amounts to "Obama's a Democrat, Trump's a Republican."

It's worse than that. There were at least three high ranking Republican Senators who said that if Clinton won the election, they would go her entire 4 (or 8) years without confirming any Supreme Court nominees, keeping any vacant seats open until there was a Republican President again to fill them.

The next time the Democrats control the Senate and the Republicans the whitehouse, I wouldn't expect them be interested in confirming any judges right before a Presidential election either.

But when you're looking at electoral math that says you're about to have even odds of taking the whitehouse and probably won't lose the Senate, that doesn't really apply.