The process of tearing down conservative women

Michelle Malkin describes the stages of leftist treatment of conservative women, drawing on her own experience, that of Condoleeza Rice, Laura Bush, Anne Coulter, and others, as being currently played out with Sarah Palin:

The first stage of Conservative Female Abuse by the Left is infantilization. Right-wing women can’t possibly believe what they believe about the sanctity of life, self-defense, free markets, or foreign policy. They must be submissive little dolls of the White Male Hierarchy. . . .

The second stage of CFA is sexualization. A conservative woman is not merely a sellout. She is an intellectual prostitute. Unable or unwilling to argue with them on the merits, detractors resort to mocking the physical appearance of their ideological opponents in skirts and denigrating them with vulgar epithets. . . .

The third stage of CFA is demonization. When the Left tires of hurling whore insults, it turns conservative women in the public eye into nefarious creatures. . . .

And the final stage of CFA is dehumanization. Conservative women aren’t real women according to the liberal feminist establishment’s definition.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • surfergal

    Now, don’t misunderstand, I’m NOT a Hillary fan-I would never vote for her. But, republicans did/do the exact same thing to Hillary that democrats are doing to Sarah Palin- as far as mocking her appearance/intellect, criticizing her family, and the demonization/dehumanization goes. It’s not a purely democrat or republican problem-no one is immune from this nonsense. It’s a human thing-depravity of man. period.

  • surfergal

    Now, don’t misunderstand, I’m NOT a Hillary fan-I would never vote for her. But, republicans did/do the exact same thing to Hillary that democrats are doing to Sarah Palin- as far as mocking her appearance/intellect, criticizing her family, and the demonization/dehumanization goes. It’s not a purely democrat or republican problem-no one is immune from this nonsense. It’s a human thing-depravity of man. period.

  • WebMonk

    Exactly surfergal.

  • WebMonk

    Exactly surfergal.

  • Joe

    If you haven’t read this yet you should. It is a very interesting piece that discusses Palin, feminism and liberalism.

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin/

  • Joe

    If you haven’t read this yet you should. It is a very interesting piece that discusses Palin, feminism and liberalism.

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin/

  • Kirk

    I’m going to back surfergal on this one too. Sure, the feminists hate Palin. She’s a white woman, married all her adult life, has kids, wears make up, beleives in God, etc etc etc.

    But don’t conservative women hate liberal women for the opposite reasons? Hillary wants a leadership role, she’s not close with her husband, she was involved in rallies in the 70′s, etc etc etc.

    The thing that I find interesting is that during the primaries, before anyone knew Palin existed, conservatives and pundits were saying that Hillary couldn’t play the woman card when she got asked tough questions. Now they’re playing the woman card in Palin’s defense. I’m not coming down one way or another on whether these questions or legitimate, I’m just getting frustrated with the double stadard on both sides.

  • Kirk

    I’m going to back surfergal on this one too. Sure, the feminists hate Palin. She’s a white woman, married all her adult life, has kids, wears make up, beleives in God, etc etc etc.

    But don’t conservative women hate liberal women for the opposite reasons? Hillary wants a leadership role, she’s not close with her husband, she was involved in rallies in the 70′s, etc etc etc.

    The thing that I find interesting is that during the primaries, before anyone knew Palin existed, conservatives and pundits were saying that Hillary couldn’t play the woman card when she got asked tough questions. Now they’re playing the woman card in Palin’s defense. I’m not coming down one way or another on whether these questions or legitimate, I’m just getting frustrated with the double stadard on both sides.

  • Bryan Lindemood

    Joe, thanks for pointing us to that article. Really, you gotta read it. It is the sort of article we should try to share with our neighbors right now. Again, thanks Joe.

  • Bryan Lindemood

    Joe, thanks for pointing us to that article. Really, you gotta read it. It is the sort of article we should try to share with our neighbors right now. Again, thanks Joe.

  • kerner

    Nah! I don’t oppose Hillary because I find her personally repugnant. I oppose her because she promotes a paternalistic socialist program that would wipe out everything that makes America great.

    As for the comparitive personal accomplishments of Senator Clinton and Governor Palin, it is simply clear as can be that Gov. Palin is the more talented politician of the two. Sarah Palin got elected Governor on the strength of her own political skills. Hillary Clinton got political power the old fashioned way: she married it.

    Senator Clinton may have been the brains of the Clinton operation sometimes, but she was never the front person. She always needed Bill for that, and you could say that she still does. This is not a knock on her personally so much as it is an observation. Its a little like the movie “Broadcast News”, in which a brilliant news writer can’t be anchor because he has a poor screen presence. The thing is, to be effective, an anchor NEEDS screen presence. Likewise, a president NEEDS personal skills that Sen. Clinton lacks.

    We know that Gov. Palin has the personal/political skills to get elected to high office without her husband’s coattails. We don’t know everything about her talents as an administrator, but we do know that she negotiated the Trans-Alaska gas pipeline, which required her to bargain with the big oil companies, the federal government, the Canadian government, several Canadian provincial governments, and Inuit tribal governments. In the end, Gov. Palin got the project in place, and private industry (rather than the tax payers of Alaska) is paying for it. Compare that with Sen. Clinton’s old health care fiasco, and it should be pretty clear that Gov. Palin has some skills in the area of getting things done as well.

  • kerner

    Nah! I don’t oppose Hillary because I find her personally repugnant. I oppose her because she promotes a paternalistic socialist program that would wipe out everything that makes America great.

    As for the comparitive personal accomplishments of Senator Clinton and Governor Palin, it is simply clear as can be that Gov. Palin is the more talented politician of the two. Sarah Palin got elected Governor on the strength of her own political skills. Hillary Clinton got political power the old fashioned way: she married it.

    Senator Clinton may have been the brains of the Clinton operation sometimes, but she was never the front person. She always needed Bill for that, and you could say that she still does. This is not a knock on her personally so much as it is an observation. Its a little like the movie “Broadcast News”, in which a brilliant news writer can’t be anchor because he has a poor screen presence. The thing is, to be effective, an anchor NEEDS screen presence. Likewise, a president NEEDS personal skills that Sen. Clinton lacks.

    We know that Gov. Palin has the personal/political skills to get elected to high office without her husband’s coattails. We don’t know everything about her talents as an administrator, but we do know that she negotiated the Trans-Alaska gas pipeline, which required her to bargain with the big oil companies, the federal government, the Canadian government, several Canadian provincial governments, and Inuit tribal governments. In the end, Gov. Palin got the project in place, and private industry (rather than the tax payers of Alaska) is paying for it. Compare that with Sen. Clinton’s old health care fiasco, and it should be pretty clear that Gov. Palin has some skills in the area of getting things done as well.

  • Don S

    With respect to Hillary, we conservatives never liked her, as a candidate because she promotes liberal politics. It started with her health care initiatives back in 1993 and 94. Generally, we support candidates of any race, gender, etc. who are conservative, and oppose those who are liberal. We are policy-driven.

    On the other hand, liberals tend to be about identity politics. If a candidate of a certain race or gender has the right political views (meaning leftist political views), then they should be elected because it will be a “breakthrough” in overcoming racist, sexist, or whatever “ist” American hang-ups. In other words, don’t worry about Obama being the most liberal senator, or associating with extreme radicals. You need to vote for him because we need to have a black president. The problem with identity politics is that politically they cannot support a conservative candidate who is a minority or woman. So they are forced to somehow exclude them from the favored identity. There is a history of this, as it has actually been Republicans who have advanced more minorities and women into positions of power than Democrats (Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Bobby Jindal, etc.). But, in each case, these candidates, because they are not in lockstep with liberal views, are demeaned as tokens of the white power establishment.

    This is what is happening to Sarah Palin now. She is being de-feminized by the left because she doesn’t have the right views.

  • Don S

    With respect to Hillary, we conservatives never liked her, as a candidate because she promotes liberal politics. It started with her health care initiatives back in 1993 and 94. Generally, we support candidates of any race, gender, etc. who are conservative, and oppose those who are liberal. We are policy-driven.

    On the other hand, liberals tend to be about identity politics. If a candidate of a certain race or gender has the right political views (meaning leftist political views), then they should be elected because it will be a “breakthrough” in overcoming racist, sexist, or whatever “ist” American hang-ups. In other words, don’t worry about Obama being the most liberal senator, or associating with extreme radicals. You need to vote for him because we need to have a black president. The problem with identity politics is that politically they cannot support a conservative candidate who is a minority or woman. So they are forced to somehow exclude them from the favored identity. There is a history of this, as it has actually been Republicans who have advanced more minorities and women into positions of power than Democrats (Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Bobby Jindal, etc.). But, in each case, these candidates, because they are not in lockstep with liberal views, are demeaned as tokens of the white power establishment.

    This is what is happening to Sarah Palin now. She is being de-feminized by the left because she doesn’t have the right views.

  • Sam

    Don S @7 -
    A fact check.
    Correct me if I am wrong here, but except for Jindal, every Republican senator, congressman and governor is a white man or woman.
    Also, why do think it’s wrong that liberals don’t support minorities with conservative views? Aren’t liberals and conservatives more interested in supporting candidated who share their views, rather than supporting minorities who do not? It’s simply true that ethnic minorities, generally, find more acceptance among liberals.

  • Sam

    Don S @7 -
    A fact check.
    Correct me if I am wrong here, but except for Jindal, every Republican senator, congressman and governor is a white man or woman.
    Also, why do think it’s wrong that liberals don’t support minorities with conservative views? Aren’t liberals and conservatives more interested in supporting candidated who share their views, rather than supporting minorities who do not? It’s simply true that ethnic minorities, generally, find more acceptance among liberals.

  • Don S

    Sam @ 8: I’m not big on quotas, so I’m not sure of the current status of Republican minorities in federal Congress or governorships. I did a little research on Info Please, and it looks like there are at least 5 Republican hispanics and 1 Republican native american serving currently in Congress, so I guess I do need to correct you on that. A number of women as well. No blacks currently, though there have been in the past. I guess all four of the Republican blacks are currently serving in the Administration or on the Supreme Court :)

    I don’t think it’s wrong that liberals don’t support minorities with conservative views. I think it is wrong that they engage in identity politics at all, and that they accuse Republicans of racism or sexism if they do not support liberal minority or female candidates. Because they constantly put forward the idea that we have to put more women and minorities in office, it looks really hypocritical when they then oppose female and minority candidates because they have the “wrong” views, essentially taking the position that all minorities and females have to think alike, in lockstep.

    Here’s an idea — why don’t both parties simply put forward the best candidate they have, regardless of race or gender, and run on their records and their political policies? How refreshing that would be!

  • Don S

    Sam @ 8: I’m not big on quotas, so I’m not sure of the current status of Republican minorities in federal Congress or governorships. I did a little research on Info Please, and it looks like there are at least 5 Republican hispanics and 1 Republican native american serving currently in Congress, so I guess I do need to correct you on that. A number of women as well. No blacks currently, though there have been in the past. I guess all four of the Republican blacks are currently serving in the Administration or on the Supreme Court :)

    I don’t think it’s wrong that liberals don’t support minorities with conservative views. I think it is wrong that they engage in identity politics at all, and that they accuse Republicans of racism or sexism if they do not support liberal minority or female candidates. Because they constantly put forward the idea that we have to put more women and minorities in office, it looks really hypocritical when they then oppose female and minority candidates because they have the “wrong” views, essentially taking the position that all minorities and females have to think alike, in lockstep.

    Here’s an idea — why don’t both parties simply put forward the best candidate they have, regardless of race or gender, and run on their records and their political policies? How refreshing that would be!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@7), I’d be interested to actually measure your claim that “it has actually been Republicans who have advanced more minorities and women into positions of power than Democrats”. Let’s look at women first.

    According to the Wikipedia article “List of female state governors in the United States”, there have so far been 19 female Democratic governors and 11 Republican ones. From the Wikipedia article “Women in the United States Senate” (subheading “List of female U.S. Senators”), we learn that there have been 22 female Democratic Senators and 13 female Republican Senators. From the Wikipedia article “Women in the United States House of Representatives”, we learn that there have been 139 female Democratic Representatives and 77 female Republican Representatives. I can’t (easily) find definitive lists of female cabinet members. But going with those three groups, that’s 180 women on the Democratic side, and 101 on the Republican side.

    If you’d like, I can look at minorities later.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@7), I’d be interested to actually measure your claim that “it has actually been Republicans who have advanced more minorities and women into positions of power than Democrats”. Let’s look at women first.

    According to the Wikipedia article “List of female state governors in the United States”, there have so far been 19 female Democratic governors and 11 Republican ones. From the Wikipedia article “Women in the United States Senate” (subheading “List of female U.S. Senators”), we learn that there have been 22 female Democratic Senators and 13 female Republican Senators. From the Wikipedia article “Women in the United States House of Representatives”, we learn that there have been 139 female Democratic Representatives and 77 female Republican Representatives. I can’t (easily) find definitive lists of female cabinet members. But going with those three groups, that’s 180 women on the Democratic side, and 101 on the Republican side.

    If you’d like, I can look at minorities later.

  • Don S

    tODD @ 10: Obviously, Democrats have the advantage in numbers when it comes to women and minorities, so they are certainly going to have more elected officials. That’s a no-brainer. But I think you will find things to be quite different when it comes to appointments. I think Clinton appointed a black to the EEOC, but I can’t recall too many minority appointments to the higher level cabinet positions. Certainly not to match Bush’s record.

  • Don S

    tODD @ 10: Obviously, Democrats have the advantage in numbers when it comes to women and minorities, so they are certainly going to have more elected officials. That’s a no-brainer. But I think you will find things to be quite different when it comes to appointments. I think Clinton appointed a black to the EEOC, but I can’t recall too many minority appointments to the higher level cabinet positions. Certainly not to match Bush’s record.

  • Kirk

    tODD@10, for minorities, there is the Civil War and the Civil Rights movements to consider. Those were technically championed by Republicans. And, in this campaign, Lincoln has often been claimed as the founder of the GOP. In actuality, the politics of both parties have changed drastically since the 1860′s and 1960′s, but, like I said, it was technically the Republicans arguing against slavery and for racial equality.

  • Kirk

    tODD@10, for minorities, there is the Civil War and the Civil Rights movements to consider. Those were technically championed by Republicans. And, in this campaign, Lincoln has often been claimed as the founder of the GOP. In actuality, the politics of both parties have changed drastically since the 1860′s and 1960′s, but, like I said, it was technically the Republicans arguing against slavery and for racial equality.

  • Sam

    Kirk @12, you say that the civil rights movement was technically championed by Republicans. If you mean the civil rights movement beginning, say, with the 1955 Montgomery bus boycott (led by Rev. King), I’ve got to wonder at your statement. Obviously, everybody, virtually, the south was a Democrat then so the racists were Democrats. But where were the Republicans? Goldwater, Reagan, Bill Buckley, etc., opposed the ’65 civil rights act.
    I’m currently reading about civil rights, and speaking of the bus boycott, there was one white clergyman who got involved in Montgomery – an ALC Lutheran pastor. The man’s still living, and he’s in the ECLA now.
    One question I would love to discuss here is why it seems that only so-called liberal Christians get involved in things like civil rights. You can read about the civil rights movement and the whites are always Quakers, episcopalians, ELCA, etc. Never WELS or LCMS or fundamentalist Baptists, etc. By “never” I don’t mean that such groups opposed civil rights, but there doesn’t seem to be a history of civil involvement among more conservative Christians. We wait to see what happens, I guess. In my family, we did not like segregation but we hated public protests even more. But once the public protests and lawsuits resulted in integration, we supported that. But we should have been involved.

  • Sam

    Kirk @12, you say that the civil rights movement was technically championed by Republicans. If you mean the civil rights movement beginning, say, with the 1955 Montgomery bus boycott (led by Rev. King), I’ve got to wonder at your statement. Obviously, everybody, virtually, the south was a Democrat then so the racists were Democrats. But where were the Republicans? Goldwater, Reagan, Bill Buckley, etc., opposed the ’65 civil rights act.
    I’m currently reading about civil rights, and speaking of the bus boycott, there was one white clergyman who got involved in Montgomery – an ALC Lutheran pastor. The man’s still living, and he’s in the ECLA now.
    One question I would love to discuss here is why it seems that only so-called liberal Christians get involved in things like civil rights. You can read about the civil rights movement and the whites are always Quakers, episcopalians, ELCA, etc. Never WELS or LCMS or fundamentalist Baptists, etc. By “never” I don’t mean that such groups opposed civil rights, but there doesn’t seem to be a history of civil involvement among more conservative Christians. We wait to see what happens, I guess. In my family, we did not like segregation but we hated public protests even more. But once the public protests and lawsuits resulted in integration, we supported that. But we should have been involved.

  • Sam

    Don S. @11 -
    Why do you think that Democrats have the numerical advantage with minorities (I assume you mean ethnic minorities) and women?

  • Sam

    Don S. @11 -
    Why do you think that Democrats have the numerical advantage with minorities (I assume you mean ethnic minorities) and women?

  • Don S

    Sam @ 14: Because the Democrats are willing to pander to them and offer them things they have no intention of delivering. They play identity politics well.

  • Don S

    Sam @ 14: Because the Democrats are willing to pander to them and offer them things they have no intention of delivering. They play identity politics well.

  • Sam

    Don @15, if you’re willing to go further, what do the D’s offer minorities and women? And why don’t the D’s intend to deliver what they offer?
    What do the R’s offer?

  • Sam

    Don @15, if you’re willing to go further, what do the D’s offer minorities and women? And why don’t the D’s intend to deliver what they offer?
    What do the R’s offer?

  • Don S

    Sam @ 16: The D’s offer government benefits, affirmative action, government healthcare, etc. Unfortunately, most of it is not really their’s to offer. They have to take it from someone else (either by taxation or mandates on employers) to give it to the groups they favor. So, they are unable to deliver a lot of what they promise. Generally, during election campaigns they pander to the poor and disadvantaged, promising them everything, then, after they are elected, its back to the liberal white elite world of politics and media — see you again in four years! That’s my observation, anyway.

    R’s (at least conservative R’s) offer equal opportunity. Limited government, we will get out of the way, and let you make of your life what you want to. “Equal opportunity” vs. “equal outcomes” I believe fairly defines the difference between R and D philosophies. So far, unfortunately, minorities seem to prefer equal outcomes. Hopefully, someday, more of them will see the advantage of equal opportunity.

  • Don S

    Sam @ 16: The D’s offer government benefits, affirmative action, government healthcare, etc. Unfortunately, most of it is not really their’s to offer. They have to take it from someone else (either by taxation or mandates on employers) to give it to the groups they favor. So, they are unable to deliver a lot of what they promise. Generally, during election campaigns they pander to the poor and disadvantaged, promising them everything, then, after they are elected, its back to the liberal white elite world of politics and media — see you again in four years! That’s my observation, anyway.

    R’s (at least conservative R’s) offer equal opportunity. Limited government, we will get out of the way, and let you make of your life what you want to. “Equal opportunity” vs. “equal outcomes” I believe fairly defines the difference between R and D philosophies. So far, unfortunately, minorities seem to prefer equal outcomes. Hopefully, someday, more of them will see the advantage of equal opportunity.

  • Kirk

    @13 Segregation was generally support by the public in the US, but that doesn’t change that fact that if the civil rights movement had any support, it was from the Republican Party. Were the conservative culture (not the ideas, but general culture) of the party today to be transfered back to the 50′s and 60′s, that might not have been the case. But still, that doesn’t change history.

  • Kirk

    @13 Segregation was generally support by the public in the US, but that doesn’t change that fact that if the civil rights movement had any support, it was from the Republican Party. Were the conservative culture (not the ideas, but general culture) of the party today to be transfered back to the 50′s and 60′s, that might not have been the case. But still, that doesn’t change history.

  • Sam

    Don S. @17
    Hmmmm.
    So gov’t benefits (student loans, the GI Bill, social security and veteran’s disability, FDIC insurance, Medicare) really do stoke only “minorities” to vote for the D’s?

  • Sam

    Don S. @17
    Hmmmm.
    So gov’t benefits (student loans, the GI Bill, social security and veteran’s disability, FDIC insurance, Medicare) really do stoke only “minorities” to vote for the D’s?

  • Sam

    Kirk, I don’t follow you. Can you cite sources?
    My reading of history shows that, as a whole, the GOP as a whole was indifferent, if not hostile, to the civil rights movement. (For much the same reason Don S. gives – the R’s don’t believe in imposing govt mandates, like integrating lunch counters). Indeed, when LBJ signed the ’65 civil rights bill, he said that he knew he just lost the South to the Republicans. And it happened.
    I’m not at all saying that R’s today generally oppose all results from the civil rights era, but the D’s were much more supportive.

  • Sam

    Kirk, I don’t follow you. Can you cite sources?
    My reading of history shows that, as a whole, the GOP as a whole was indifferent, if not hostile, to the civil rights movement. (For much the same reason Don S. gives – the R’s don’t believe in imposing govt mandates, like integrating lunch counters). Indeed, when LBJ signed the ’65 civil rights bill, he said that he knew he just lost the South to the Republicans. And it happened.
    I’m not at all saying that R’s today generally oppose all results from the civil rights era, but the D’s were much more supportive.

  • Booklover

    I agree with surfergal (#1). Certain members of the media have been saying horrible things about Hillary, Madeline Albright, Janet Reno, et. al., for years. Most days, all of the right-wing talk shows spew the exact same acerbic vitriol. Of course it is OK, and even good, to critique the *policies and views* of liberal women, or anyone else. It is not OK to lambaste their appearance, “manliness,” “true sexuality,” etc. Why does the right wing media get upset over “lipstick on a pig” when the most famous of them all has been calling Hillary a “Bi—” for years???? I get annoyed with all the right-wing talk show hosts crying about the treatment Sarah Palin has gotten, when they have been mistreating the women on the left for years. Frankly, I never would have heard of the mistreatment of Sarah Palin had it not been on right-wing talk radio 24 hours every day.

    The tongue truly is a vile weapon.

  • Booklover

    I agree with surfergal (#1). Certain members of the media have been saying horrible things about Hillary, Madeline Albright, Janet Reno, et. al., for years. Most days, all of the right-wing talk shows spew the exact same acerbic vitriol. Of course it is OK, and even good, to critique the *policies and views* of liberal women, or anyone else. It is not OK to lambaste their appearance, “manliness,” “true sexuality,” etc. Why does the right wing media get upset over “lipstick on a pig” when the most famous of them all has been calling Hillary a “Bi—” for years???? I get annoyed with all the right-wing talk show hosts crying about the treatment Sarah Palin has gotten, when they have been mistreating the women on the left for years. Frankly, I never would have heard of the mistreatment of Sarah Palin had it not been on right-wing talk radio 24 hours every day.

    The tongue truly is a vile weapon.

  • Don S

    Sam @ 19 — no, the Democrats are quite willing to pander to more than just minorities. And I was not saying that all government benefits are bad. You are conflating earned benefits (veterans benefits, social security (to an extent), veterans benefits, FDIC insurance, Medicare (to an extent)) with redistributionist transfer payments.

  • Don S

    Sam @ 19 — no, the Democrats are quite willing to pander to more than just minorities. And I was not saying that all government benefits are bad. You are conflating earned benefits (veterans benefits, social security (to an extent), veterans benefits, FDIC insurance, Medicare (to an extent)) with redistributionist transfer payments.

  • Sam

    Don @22
    All government benefits redistribute, whether the redistribution is based on conduct (military service) or status (poverty/widowhood). I think the R’s generally dislike the status benefits, but they’re often the most necessary.

  • Sam

    Don @22
    All government benefits redistribute, whether the redistribution is based on conduct (military service) or status (poverty/widowhood). I think the R’s generally dislike the status benefits, but they’re often the most necessary.

  • Don S

    Sam @ 20:

    From Wikipedia, these were the votes for passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

    By party
    The original House version:[9]
    Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
    Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

    The Senate version:[9]
    Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
    Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

    The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]
    Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
    Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

    As you can see, the Republicans were more highly supportive than the Democrats, overall (approx. 80% to approx. 60-70% in favor, depending upon the vote).

    Now, you are probably saying that’s fine and good, but Southern Democrats weren’t really Democrats (or something like that). OK, Wikipedia breaks the vote down this way as well:

    By party and region
    Note : “Southern”, as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. “Northern” refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

    The original House version:
    Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
    Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
    Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
    Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

    The Senate version:
    Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
    Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
    Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
    Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)

    So, even if you exclude all southerners, you have approximately 85% of Republicans in support and 95% of Democrats in support. It’s hardly fair, in view of that, to say that Republicans didn’t support the Civil Rights Act.

    Now this is not to say that there were not problems with the Act. The biggest one is its complete breakdown of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which limits federal government jurisdication to matters impacting interstate commerce. To regulate the local lunch counters, legislators had to advocate that travelers from other states might visit one of those lunch counters, so that impacted interstate commerce. Quite a stretch, and this type of analysis has caused much mischief and a much too expansive and intrusive federal government in ensuing years. Northern Republicans who opposed the bill largely opposed it for this reason, fearing the precedent it would create, rather than because they favored segregation. And they have been proven largely right, on that score.

  • Don S

    Sam @ 20:

    From Wikipedia, these were the votes for passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

    By party
    The original House version:[9]
    Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
    Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

    The Senate version:[9]
    Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
    Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

    The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]
    Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
    Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

    As you can see, the Republicans were more highly supportive than the Democrats, overall (approx. 80% to approx. 60-70% in favor, depending upon the vote).

    Now, you are probably saying that’s fine and good, but Southern Democrats weren’t really Democrats (or something like that). OK, Wikipedia breaks the vote down this way as well:

    By party and region
    Note : “Southern”, as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. “Northern” refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

    The original House version:
    Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
    Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
    Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
    Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

    The Senate version:
    Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
    Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
    Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
    Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)

    So, even if you exclude all southerners, you have approximately 85% of Republicans in support and 95% of Democrats in support. It’s hardly fair, in view of that, to say that Republicans didn’t support the Civil Rights Act.

    Now this is not to say that there were not problems with the Act. The biggest one is its complete breakdown of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which limits federal government jurisdication to matters impacting interstate commerce. To regulate the local lunch counters, legislators had to advocate that travelers from other states might visit one of those lunch counters, so that impacted interstate commerce. Quite a stretch, and this type of analysis has caused much mischief and a much too expansive and intrusive federal government in ensuing years. Northern Republicans who opposed the bill largely opposed it for this reason, fearing the precedent it would create, rather than because they favored segregation. And they have been proven largely right, on that score.

  • Don S

    Sam @ 23: Of course all government benefits redistribute. Every transaction in the economy, public or private, redistributes. But there is a world of difference between redistribution based on merit and redistribution based on status. The latter is socialism. And I question how necessary it is, or at least the immense scope of our current status-based transfer payments, at every level of government.

  • Don S

    Sam @ 23: Of course all government benefits redistribute. Every transaction in the economy, public or private, redistributes. But there is a world of difference between redistribution based on merit and redistribution based on status. The latter is socialism. And I question how necessary it is, or at least the immense scope of our current status-based transfer payments, at every level of government.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@24), good analysis. Thanks.

    Don, earlier you excoriated me for saying (wrongly) that Republicans don’t support health care for the poor. Now you’re saying (@25) that “redistribution based on status” is “socialism”. Isn’t this what Medicaid does, takes from the wealthier and gives to the poor? Do you think Medicaid is “socialism”?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@24), good analysis. Thanks.

    Don, earlier you excoriated me for saying (wrongly) that Republicans don’t support health care for the poor. Now you’re saying (@25) that “redistribution based on status” is “socialism”. Isn’t this what Medicaid does, takes from the wealthier and gives to the poor? Do you think Medicaid is “socialism”?

  • Sam

    Don @24 -
    I’m impressed – and, no, I don’t think that the Southern D’s were not D’s. One R opponent of the Act, however, Tower of Texas, is an example of an early switch from D to R, the first of many as the anti-civil rights Southern D’s found, over time, a more hospitable home among the R’s. This Act did cost the D’s the South. Why?
    But I plainly overstated my case with respect to R’s and D’s at least in 1965, and I appreciate the correction very much. It should also be noted that the Act would not have been passed at all had not LBJ, a well known D, been president. So I stand corrected also on that point.
    Your caveat at the end, however, is interesting. Goldwater, for one, held your view and thus voted No. The man did not have a bigoted bone in his body, but his vote against the Act still is seen as shortsighted. Wm Buckley later regretted his opposition to the Act on the Commerce Clause ground.

  • Sam

    Don @24 -
    I’m impressed – and, no, I don’t think that the Southern D’s were not D’s. One R opponent of the Act, however, Tower of Texas, is an example of an early switch from D to R, the first of many as the anti-civil rights Southern D’s found, over time, a more hospitable home among the R’s. This Act did cost the D’s the South. Why?
    But I plainly overstated my case with respect to R’s and D’s at least in 1965, and I appreciate the correction very much. It should also be noted that the Act would not have been passed at all had not LBJ, a well known D, been president. So I stand corrected also on that point.
    Your caveat at the end, however, is interesting. Goldwater, for one, held your view and thus voted No. The man did not have a bigoted bone in his body, but his vote against the Act still is seen as shortsighted. Wm Buckley later regretted his opposition to the Act on the Commerce Clause ground.

  • Sam

    Don @25.
    Why don’t the poor “merit” help? I suspect, kindly, that you question the benefit because you aren’t poor.

  • Sam

    Don @25.
    Why don’t the poor “merit” help? I suspect, kindly, that you question the benefit because you aren’t poor.

  • Don S

    tODD @ 26: I’m not opposed to Medicaid, in principle. I’m not opposed to assisting the truly needy, and I am not opposed to this type of limited socialism. I am opposed to the rampant expansion of government that we have seen since the ’70′s, at all levels, and the increasing tendency of politicians to appeal to the “class envy” argument to win votes, essentially imposing a socialistic worldview on a sizable segment of the population for pandering purposes. As for Medicaid, I oppose the coverage mandates which require these health programs to cover a lot of unnecessary (and some immoral) procedures. This type of coverage should be limited to coverage for catastrophic injury or illness and well coverage for pregnant women and children.

    By the way, thanks for your kind words.

  • Don S

    tODD @ 26: I’m not opposed to Medicaid, in principle. I’m not opposed to assisting the truly needy, and I am not opposed to this type of limited socialism. I am opposed to the rampant expansion of government that we have seen since the ’70′s, at all levels, and the increasing tendency of politicians to appeal to the “class envy” argument to win votes, essentially imposing a socialistic worldview on a sizable segment of the population for pandering purposes. As for Medicaid, I oppose the coverage mandates which require these health programs to cover a lot of unnecessary (and some immoral) procedures. This type of coverage should be limited to coverage for catastrophic injury or illness and well coverage for pregnant women and children.

    By the way, thanks for your kind words.

  • Don S

    Sam @ 27 and 28:

    Thanks for your kind words.

    I would guess that Mr. Buckley was probably more disturbed that his principled opposition to the Civil Rights Act was wrongly interpreted as racist, than that his opposition had actually been wrong. The fear that this legislation would lead to the breakdown of protection of the states from a smothering, intrusive federal government was valid. But, something clearly had to be done to resolve the racism crisis in the South. A conundrum, to be sure.

    As for your question: “why don’t the poor ‘merit’ help”?, I’ll assume you have the best intentions in asking it that way. You presumably know full well that I didn’t mean the poor shouldn’t be assisted, and that I used the word “merit” to mean that someone had earned the benefit they received by making a contribution to the government in either service or money.

  • Don S

    Sam @ 27 and 28:

    Thanks for your kind words.

    I would guess that Mr. Buckley was probably more disturbed that his principled opposition to the Civil Rights Act was wrongly interpreted as racist, than that his opposition had actually been wrong. The fear that this legislation would lead to the breakdown of protection of the states from a smothering, intrusive federal government was valid. But, something clearly had to be done to resolve the racism crisis in the South. A conundrum, to be sure.

    As for your question: “why don’t the poor ‘merit’ help”?, I’ll assume you have the best intentions in asking it that way. You presumably know full well that I didn’t mean the poor shouldn’t be assisted, and that I used the word “merit” to mean that someone had earned the benefit they received by making a contribution to the government in either service or money.

  • Sam

    Don @ 29, you’re using the word socialism like a lot of Americans – to complain about a government program that you don’t like. But the word generally means government ownership of the means of production and a resulting distribution of wealth. Socialism can be selective, i.e., exist alongside some private industry, but I don’t think that a social security disability check imposes a socialist worldview on anyone.

  • Sam

    Don @ 29, you’re using the word socialism like a lot of Americans – to complain about a government program that you don’t like. But the word generally means government ownership of the means of production and a resulting distribution of wealth. Socialism can be selective, i.e., exist alongside some private industry, but I don’t think that a social security disability check imposes a socialist worldview on anyone.

  • Sam

    Don @ 30. I meant no offense. I assumed you meant you opposed all government benefits that were not earned. I once worked years ago for Social Security disabilty; yes, people abuse all systems, but it really opened my eyes to see who depends on SSI disability checks. Those checks aren’t really earned, except with bad luck. And the payment is chicken scratch, something like $400 a month, though with some medical benefits.

  • Sam

    Don @ 30. I meant no offense. I assumed you meant you opposed all government benefits that were not earned. I once worked years ago for Social Security disabilty; yes, people abuse all systems, but it really opened my eyes to see who depends on SSI disability checks. Those checks aren’t really earned, except with bad luck. And the payment is chicken scratch, something like $400 a month, though with some medical benefits.

  • Don S

    Sam, perhaps a better word for me to use would be “entitlement”. I don’t like the way folks are encouraged to assert their “right” to health care, “right” to higher education, “right” to housing, etc. I don’t begrudge a truly disabled person their SSI disability payment, to be sure. But I want people to understand that their primary responsibility as a citizen is to do everything they reasonably can to be productive and to support themselves. I want them to be grateful for the assistance they do receive, and to understand that it comes out of the pockets of another citizen. It is not “free money”. I would like to see an emphasis placed once again on the concept of citizens directly helping one another, through charity, churches, etc., in a Biblically oriented way, rather than through huge, wasteful, impersonal government programs.

  • Don S

    Sam, perhaps a better word for me to use would be “entitlement”. I don’t like the way folks are encouraged to assert their “right” to health care, “right” to higher education, “right” to housing, etc. I don’t begrudge a truly disabled person their SSI disability payment, to be sure. But I want people to understand that their primary responsibility as a citizen is to do everything they reasonably can to be productive and to support themselves. I want them to be grateful for the assistance they do receive, and to understand that it comes out of the pockets of another citizen. It is not “free money”. I would like to see an emphasis placed once again on the concept of citizens directly helping one another, through charity, churches, etc., in a Biblically oriented way, rather than through huge, wasteful, impersonal government programs.

  • Kirk

    @ 20, Eisenhower and the Little Rock Nine would be the most obvious example, but you’re absolutely right that the republican party was marked largely by indifference when it came to race relations. By the same token, it was the democrats that were actively working to defeat desegregation and preserve the “old south.”

    If you look further back in history, perhaps the largest scale integration of blacks and whites took place during the Republican controlled reconstruction period. But, like I’ve been saying, the parties are extremely different these days.

  • Kirk

    @ 20, Eisenhower and the Little Rock Nine would be the most obvious example, but you’re absolutely right that the republican party was marked largely by indifference when it came to race relations. By the same token, it was the democrats that were actively working to defeat desegregation and preserve the “old south.”

    If you look further back in history, perhaps the largest scale integration of blacks and whites took place during the Republican controlled reconstruction period. But, like I’ve been saying, the parties are extremely different these days.

  • Don S

    Kirk @ 34: I would challenge your statement that the Republican party was “marked largely by indifference when it came to race relations”. Certainly, as I showed above in post #24, that was not the case when it came to passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which would not have passed but for republican votes. There were at least two Republicans on the Court when Brown v Board of Education came down in 1954, which was a unanimous ruling. President Eisenhower was assertive in forcing the issue in Little Rock in 1957. As for activists marching in the deep south, I suspect, although it can’t be proven one way or another, that there were more Democratic than Republican activists during that time. But what else is new? Republicans have never been the activist sort — it’s not our personality. :)

  • Don S

    Kirk @ 34: I would challenge your statement that the Republican party was “marked largely by indifference when it came to race relations”. Certainly, as I showed above in post #24, that was not the case when it came to passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which would not have passed but for republican votes. There were at least two Republicans on the Court when Brown v Board of Education came down in 1954, which was a unanimous ruling. President Eisenhower was assertive in forcing the issue in Little Rock in 1957. As for activists marching in the deep south, I suspect, although it can’t be proven one way or another, that there were more Democratic than Republican activists during that time. But what else is new? Republicans have never been the activist sort — it’s not our personality. :)

  • Sam

    Kirk @34, I now see your point. The post-civil war GOP was much more active in ameliorating civil rights abuses than were the Democrats of that era.
    Don S. @35 is right in this respect, Republicans currently are not the activitist sort. In this country, social improvements for oppressed or marginalized people, e.g., women, handicapped, minorities, can be traced to liberal activism. For good or ill, it’s just the way it is.

  • Sam

    Kirk @34, I now see your point. The post-civil war GOP was much more active in ameliorating civil rights abuses than were the Democrats of that era.
    Don S. @35 is right in this respect, Republicans currently are not the activitist sort. In this country, social improvements for oppressed or marginalized people, e.g., women, handicapped, minorities, can be traced to liberal activism. For good or ill, it’s just the way it is.

  • Don S

    OK, but to clarify Sam @36 and my prior comment, it’s because we Republicans are at home raising our families and paying most of the taxes, not because we don’t care. :)

  • Don S

    OK, but to clarify Sam @36 and my prior comment, it’s because we Republicans are at home raising our families and paying most of the taxes, not because we don’t care. :)

  • Sam

    Don@37 -
    I think I got the GOP figured out – do nothing, but claim credit anyway. :)

  • Sam

    Don@37 -
    I think I got the GOP figured out – do nothing, but claim credit anyway. :)


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X