So, as I noted the other day, I am doing some archival research, and today I came across this from 1962.
Headline: “Lincoln Day Speaker Asserts Socialists Have Taken Over Control of Democrats” from Valentine’s Day in 1962 on theTipton Tribune‘s front page. The speaker was Indiana Secretary of State Charles Hendricks.
We have:
“A republic, not a democracy.”
“Democrat Party.”
Democrats are “socialists.”
I have nothing profound to say, but I do find the consistency over the years to be noteworthy.
Steven L. Taylor is a retired Professor of Political Science and former College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog).
Follow Steven on Twitter and/or BlueSky.
Fox edited Trump’s rambling comments and false claims
Who among us at this point is shocked to find out Fox had to edit lots of footage [sometimes 7 minutes from audience member asked question to a direct answer] to make Trump seem mentally sharp?
Fox is doing precisely what Trump accuses CBS of doing.
I swear to god Trump is the perfect embodiment of EAIAC.
You would think decades of calling Democrats socialists would result in the party running a candidate who consistently praises Stalin. It’s puzzling to me, a normal person, why that didn’t happen.
I think this goes back even further, like to the XIX century, though not necessarily directed at Democrats. Its puzzling because there were no socialist or communist countries then. I figure it was the bad press the Paris Commune got at the close of the Franco-Prussian war in the 1870s.
Socialism properly speaking means state ownership or control of the economy. Seen this way, the nazis were socialists, as stated in the name National Socialist Workers Party.
Anyway, I know of no Democrats in serious positions of power who’ve ever advocated for this, even self-described socialists like Bernie Sanders. Mostly the American right cries “SOCIALISM1!!1!” at any and every attempt to implement any kind of government funded social program that includes minorities. Or lately any government funded program at all.
El Felon, now, hurls that word, along with “COMMUNIST111111111!1” at just about everyone he doesn’t like, hates, or who criticizes him in any way (but I repeat myself).
It’s like the unimaginative boy who cried “wolf,” because it’s the only word he knows.
Socialism properly speaking means state ownership or control of the economy
And the word “control” here does a lot of heavy lifting. How much “control” is Socialism and how much is just normal regulation? Here is something else to ponder, Corporations are legal fictions that are conjured out of whole cloth by … wait for it … government.
Does that mean that all corporations are socialist by default? After all, the government does have the power to revoke the charter of a corporation and blink it out of existence as fast as they midwifed it, although it been a while since anyone did that. The last time a state even threatened was in the 1970’s, but is still a thing. But that sounds like a lot of control to me.
I think that originally the idea was that socialism was defined as the government owning the means of production. The federal government is the one in exclusive control of interstate commerce according to the US constitution (you know, the document written by the hand of the almighty himself). So is that enough control to have it slip into socialism? What about farm policy… for crying out loud that’s just Moscow on the Mississippi if we are being honest. Our entire approach to agriculture is as socialists as you get. Ever you ever heard anyone from Iowa denouncing corn subsidies? Is Iowa the most socialist state in the union?
And the word “control” here does a lot of heavy lifting. How much “control” is Socialism and how much is just normal regulation?
I know. I’m past being surprised or shocked at finding gray areas in any kind of policy
For that matter, the defense production act allows the US government, not exactly a socialist stronghold*, to control parts of the economy.
So, yeah, it’s complicated. But plain fact is that most western governments, including those with mixed economies (aka with full or partial state ownership of productive enterprises), are not socialist, much less communist, and don’t control economic production.
Re: the Democrats being socialists has always been the set-up for a punchline along the lines of: who gave us the New Deal, the Fair Deal housing act, the Great Society, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
There’s just a component of what are you even doing if you find this to be that bad. Not a few things here or there, or as a Jim Crow racist sputtering with fury, but like how is it a political program to offer fierce opposition to the domestic policy of the years of 1932 – 1964, a policy which created the golden years of American life? Unless you are an actual Marxist, what the fuck have you done to end up in this position?
@TheRyGuy: I don’t recall Romney specifically being called racist, though it was noted he belonged to a religion that discriminated against Black people until 1978, and then only disavowed their racism in 2013. A little late for Romney’s run at the White House. Nor do I recall that accusation leveled against McCain. And GWB doesn’t think much of Trump’s racism. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/george-w-bush-trump-name-calling-racism-235487
@Rick DeMent: so actually are property rights. No government, no property rights.
Which is why I find it hilarious that Libertarians want to go to the level of “small government” that they claim. Go to the government level of Somalia, you twits, and get the economy of Somalia. Corporations who are actually selling physical objects or well-defined services LOVE regulations because if they are implementing those regulations there’s a legal presumption that they have met the required duty of care to the customer. Otherwise—well, you can get pulled into a lot of long-drawn-out legal battles.
“I have nothing profound to say, but I do find the consistency over the years to be noteworthy.”
Uh-huh. And Trump is Hitler…………..and a rapist, and will sic the brownshirts on his opponents…… Probably draw and quarter them in the town square. Still be president in 20 years after coopting the military..
If it was Trump vs JFK in 1960 I’d vote JFK in a heartbeat. But its not. Its Trump vs a progressive agenda that would be incomprehensible to JFK voters, probably even B Clinton voters, and most sane people.
The progressives have enabled the entire party to shoot their, um, units, off. I think their use by date is about now.
You want to be ruled by the authoritarian, because you want the outcomes the authoritarian is selling. You will accept fascism because you need fascism to achieve the government you want, yet you are too much of a coward to say affirmatively that fascism is the only way you can see to compel on a people the kind of government that will squash the popular, perhaps progressive, policies you fear.
It’s 2024. Anyone who is defensive about Trump being called a rapist has spent the last 8 years letting it be known to everyone around them that they do the same things as Trump, or would if they could get away with it. There’s just an obvious boomerang effect with defending Trump–he’s simply a piece of common shit, and finding yourself defensive about that fact is a tell about your own condition.
@Gavin: I disagree. Fox isn’t doing this to make Biden look good. Fox is only qualitatively doing the same thing, so they’re really only doing a similar thing.
@Jack: Hey now! Biden and Harris policy is exactly the situation I was thinking about when I was criticized a few days back for asserting “the center is where progress goes to die.” If you really think Harris is progressive, you don’t know progressive at all. Fortunately, I know that you’re just saying what you do to justify voting for an obvious imbecile. (That he’s an authoritarian bigot is the least of his faults related to electability. He should be unelectable just on basic principle that we need better leaders than Donald Trump is capable of being.)
El Felon, now, hurls that word, along with “COMMUNIST111111111!1” at just about everyone he doesn’t like
Monday I was working as a Dem greeter at the local early voting site, standing around waving a sign, “Democratic Voting Guide”. An elderly lady rolled down her SUV window to shout at me, “Shame on you. You’re supporting communists.”
As I’ve observed before, the electorate are a box of rocks, one party suffers from that and the other depends on it.
According to his handpicked Republican chief-of-staff John Kelly and his chosen running mate JD Vance.
Its Trump vs a progressive agenda that would be incomprehensible to JFK voters
And what does it say about 78-year-old mentally-deteriorating rapist Trump that most his own chosen conservative cabinet and ex-MAGA White House officials, Republican mayors and assemblymembers across the country, former Republican senators and House members, Cheneys, McCains, and veterans of the Reagan and Bush administrations are all now endorsing that “progressive agenda” instead of MAGA fascism?
So is the German SPD, iirc.
And the Australian Labor Party.
And the Israeli Labor Party … and etc etc.
A lot of paleocons, and now MAGA, seem utterly incapable of differentiating between democratic socialism and absolutist bolshevist Marxism-Leninism.
Silly people.
Furthermore, by most objective standards, the US Democrat Party are not, and never have been “socialist”.
Though some of the “progressive left” factions of the party are possibly mainstream social democrats, they obviously don’t dominate the party.
And still more hilariously, the MAGA platform (insofar is it’s coherent at all) seems to call for state power to direct the economy, and for ongoing welfare programmes on a massive scale, so long as such benefit “our people”.
Definitions of “our people” being pretty obvious.
Of course, all this feeds in to the MAGA/paleocon “We’s been robbed!” nuttery: that the European welfare states are somehow based on American subsidy, and the Europeans are cozy because Americans have been cheated.
Totally ignoring that when the European welfare state social orders were established post-WW2, they ran defence expenditure at around 10% GDP.
A lot of paleocons, and now MAGA, seem utterly incapable of differentiating between democratic socialism and absolutist bolshevist Marxism-Leninism.
Capability is irrelevant here. They have no interest in making such distinctions, because facts are their enemies. They have only rhetorical emotional appeals; the last thing they want is for anyone to suspect that “socialist” or “communist” (or “fascist”) has a denotation, beyond mere connotation.
Kids these days, I’m tellin ya.
Fox edited Trump’s rambling comments and false claims
Who among us at this point is shocked to find out Fox had to edit lots of footage [sometimes 7 minutes from audience member asked question to a direct answer] to make Trump seem mentally sharp?
Fox is doing precisely what Trump accuses CBS of doing.
I swear to god Trump is the perfect embodiment of EAIAC.
You would think decades of calling Democrats socialists would result in the party running a candidate who consistently praises Stalin. It’s puzzling to me, a normal person, why that didn’t happen.
Apparently this stuff works for them in some way I can’t quite fathom.
Though I am curious now about how far back you can go and find Democrats calling Republicans Nazis.
I mean, there was a time when it was hyperbole.
I think this goes back even further, like to the XIX century, though not necessarily directed at Democrats. Its puzzling because there were no socialist or communist countries then. I figure it was the bad press the Paris Commune got at the close of the Franco-Prussian war in the 1870s.
Socialism properly speaking means state ownership or control of the economy. Seen this way, the nazis were socialists, as stated in the name National Socialist Workers Party.
Anyway, I know of no Democrats in serious positions of power who’ve ever advocated for this, even self-described socialists like Bernie Sanders. Mostly the American right cries “SOCIALISM1!!1!” at any and every attempt to implement any kind of government funded social program that includes minorities. Or lately any government funded program at all.
El Felon, now, hurls that word, along with “COMMUNIST111111111!1” at just about everyone he doesn’t like, hates, or who criticizes him in any way (but I repeat myself).
It’s like the unimaginative boy who cried “wolf,” because it’s the only word he knows.
@Kathy:
And the word “control” here does a lot of heavy lifting. How much “control” is Socialism and how much is just normal regulation? Here is something else to ponder, Corporations are legal fictions that are conjured out of whole cloth by … wait for it … government.
Does that mean that all corporations are socialist by default? After all, the government does have the power to revoke the charter of a corporation and blink it out of existence as fast as they midwifed it, although it been a while since anyone did that. The last time a state even threatened was in the 1970’s, but is still a thing. But that sounds like a lot of control to me.
I think that originally the idea was that socialism was defined as the government owning the means of production. The federal government is the one in exclusive control of interstate commerce according to the US constitution (you know, the document written by the hand of the almighty himself). So is that enough control to have it slip into socialism? What about farm policy… for crying out loud that’s just Moscow on the Mississippi if we are being honest. Our entire approach to agriculture is as socialists as you get. Ever you ever heard anyone from Iowa denouncing corn subsidies? Is Iowa the most socialist state in the union?
What the hell are they even talking about?
@Rick DeMent:
I know. I’m past being surprised or shocked at finding gray areas in any kind of policy
For that matter, the defense production act allows the US government, not exactly a socialist stronghold*, to control parts of the economy.
So, yeah, it’s complicated. But plain fact is that most western governments, including those with mixed economies (aka with full or partial state ownership of productive enterprises), are not socialist, much less communist, and don’t control economic production.
*Not for those of us who live in the real world.
Re: the Democrats being socialists has always been the set-up for a punchline along the lines of: who gave us the New Deal, the Fair Deal housing act, the Great Society, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
There’s just a component of what are you even doing if you find this to be that bad. Not a few things here or there, or as a Jim Crow racist sputtering with fury, but like how is it a political program to offer fierce opposition to the domestic policy of the years of 1932 – 1964, a policy which created the golden years of American life? Unless you are an actual Marxist, what the fuck have you done to end up in this position?
@TheRyGuy: Who was the last Democratic president the right didn’t call racist?
@TheRyGuy: I don’t recall Romney specifically being called racist, though it was noted he belonged to a religion that discriminated against Black people until 1978, and then only disavowed their racism in 2013. A little late for Romney’s run at the White House. Nor do I recall that accusation leveled against McCain. And GWB doesn’t think much of Trump’s racism. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/george-w-bush-trump-name-calling-racism-235487
I don’t recall Mondale, Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Gore, Kerry, or Obama calling their opponent racist.
@Rick DeMent: so actually are property rights. No government, no property rights.
Which is why I find it hilarious that Libertarians want to go to the level of “small government” that they claim. Go to the government level of Somalia, you twits, and get the economy of Somalia. Corporations who are actually selling physical objects or well-defined services LOVE regulations because if they are implementing those regulations there’s a legal presumption that they have met the required duty of care to the customer. Otherwise—well, you can get pulled into a lot of long-drawn-out legal battles.
All,
I would note that Kingddaddy is correct: RyGuy is purposefully trying to derail discussions.
“I have nothing profound to say, but I do find the consistency over the years to be noteworthy.”
Uh-huh. And Trump is Hitler…………..and a rapist, and will sic the brownshirts on his opponents…… Probably draw and quarter them in the town square. Still be president in 20 years after coopting the military..
If it was Trump vs JFK in 1960 I’d vote JFK in a heartbeat. But its not. Its Trump vs a progressive agenda that would be incomprehensible to JFK voters, probably even B Clinton voters, and most sane people.
The progressives have enabled the entire party to shoot their, um, units, off. I think their use by date is about now.
@Jack:
You’d vote for JFK, my ass.
You want to be ruled by the authoritarian, because you want the outcomes the authoritarian is selling. You will accept fascism because you need fascism to achieve the government you want, yet you are too much of a coward to say affirmatively that fascism is the only way you can see to compel on a people the kind of government that will squash the popular, perhaps progressive, policies you fear.
@Jack:
As I noted, his rhetoric is quite similar. And you have not demonstrated otherwise.
Both by his own admission and so has declared a judge in a legal proceeding.
We saw a version of it on Jan 6th.
And please try harder to stay on topic. This was perilously close to being deleted.
@Jack:
And, BTW, I don’t believe that for a second. You would have fit right in with people like the Birchers and Hendricks quoted above.
@Jack: Hitler did some good things. That’s what Kelly says Trump said. If you praise Hitler you are a nazi.
It’s 2024. Anyone who is defensive about Trump being called a rapist has spent the last 8 years letting it be known to everyone around them that they do the same things as Trump, or would if they could get away with it. There’s just an obvious boomerang effect with defending Trump–he’s simply a piece of common shit, and finding yourself defensive about that fact is a tell about your own condition.
@Steven L. Taylor:
He might be literally not lying.
El Felon would have been around 14 in 1960. He would have literally cried after debating Kennedy.
@Kathy: Saved by a loophole!
@Gavin: I disagree. Fox isn’t doing this to make Biden look good. Fox is only qualitatively doing the same thing, so they’re really only doing a similar thing.
@Jack: Hey now! Biden and Harris policy is exactly the situation I was thinking about when I was criticized a few days back for asserting “the center is where progress goes to die.” If you really think Harris is progressive, you don’t know progressive at all. Fortunately, I know that you’re just saying what you do to justify voting for an obvious imbecile. (That he’s an authoritarian bigot is the least of his faults related to electability. He should be unelectable just on basic principle that we need better leaders than Donald Trump is capable of being.)
@Kathy:
Monday I was working as a Dem greeter at the local early voting site, standing around waving a sign, “Democratic Voting Guide”. An elderly lady rolled down her SUV window to shout at me, “Shame on you. You’re supporting communists.”
As I’ve observed before, the electorate are a box of rocks, one party suffers from that and the other depends on it.
@Jack:
According to his handpicked Republican chief-of-staff John Kelly and his chosen running mate JD Vance.
And what does it say about 78-year-old mentally-deteriorating rapist Trump that most his own chosen conservative cabinet and ex-MAGA White House officials, Republican mayors and assemblymembers across the country, former Republican senators and House members, Cheneys, McCains, and veterans of the Reagan and Bush administrations are all now endorsing that “progressive agenda” instead of MAGA fascism?
Where’s Melania and Ivanka? Ouch.
The British Labour Party is self-defined as socialist.
So is the German SPD, iirc.
And the Australian Labor Party.
And the Israeli Labor Party … and etc etc.
A lot of paleocons, and now MAGA, seem utterly incapable of differentiating between democratic socialism and absolutist bolshevist Marxism-Leninism.
Silly people.
Furthermore, by most objective standards, the US Democrat Party are not, and never have been “socialist”.
Though some of the “progressive left” factions of the party are possibly mainstream social democrats, they obviously don’t dominate the party.
And still more hilariously, the MAGA platform (insofar is it’s coherent at all) seems to call for state power to direct the economy, and for ongoing welfare programmes on a massive scale, so long as such benefit “our people”.
Definitions of “our people” being pretty obvious.
Of course, all this feeds in to the MAGA/paleocon “We’s been robbed!” nuttery: that the European welfare states are somehow based on American subsidy, and the Europeans are cozy because Americans have been cheated.
Totally ignoring that when the European welfare state social orders were established post-WW2, they ran defence expenditure at around 10% GDP.
@JohnSF:
Capability is irrelevant here. They have no interest in making such distinctions, because facts are their enemies. They have only rhetorical emotional appeals; the last thing they want is for anyone to suspect that “socialist” or “communist” (or “fascist”) has a denotation, beyond mere connotation.
@JohnSF:
To put it very kindly.