(Thread) The history of the GOP

To understand how Lincoln’s anti-slavery, strong federal government party morphed into the party of the Koch brothers & the KKK, I did some reading👇

The Democratic Party was the pro-slavery party of the Confederacy & rural America.
1/ Before the Civil War, Dems had disproportionate control over the federal government.

They had advantages in the electoral college, and the 3/5 rule gave slaveowners disproportionate power in Congress. The courts were packed with pro-slavery judges.
2/ The Democrats wanted a limited federal government because they knew the North, if given the chance, would end slavery.

Democrats vetoed federal funds for canals and highways because they understood such infrastructure would strengthen the industrialized North.
3/ In 1855 the Republican Party, the “Freedom Party,” was born as an anti-slavery, pro-industry, pro-federal government party.

Republicans wanted a strong federal government because industry needed roads, canals, etc. to thrive. For that they needed federal legislation.
4/ Republicans gave us our first income tax.

After the Civil War and the crushing defeat of the South, the Rs had the power to pass pro-industry legislation. As a result, the industrial revolution boomed.

Now the nation’s wealthiest people were railroad and business executives.
5/ Income inequality opened between business tycoons and laborers, who worked long hours in dangerous jobs at poverty wages.

Notice: When slaveowners had power, they voted to consolidate their power. Now industrialists did the same.

Democracy tends to slide to oligarchy.
6/States began segregating blacks & making it harder for them to vote (helped by the KKK) From Paxton: The world’s first fascist group was the KKK.

The GOP, the party of industry and equality, split into to factions: The conservative pro-Industry part and liberal pro-labor part.
7/ When SCOTUS upheld segregation and voter restrictions on blacks, the GOP dropped racial equality and labor issues from its platform and became the conservative party.

By 1920, Democratic Party base consisted of Southern whites, rural America, and laborers.
8/ Neither party championed racial equality: which ushered in a long period of relative harmony between the parties—they respected each other's "differences" because they weren't that different! Both parties were ruled by white men.
9/ In 1920, Harding (a Republican) won the presidency & immediately deregulated business and repealed taxes. More money poured into the hands of the wealthy. Banks freely lent too much money. The gap between the wealthy and laborers widened further. Laborers had no protection.
10/ Only the wealthy could attend college, etc. Then, in 1929, the market crashed & the Depression hit. Republican President Hoover felt the best solution was to do nothing on the grounds that government control was socialist and anti-American.
11/ Democrat FDR promised a New Deal: Protective legislation for laborers.
He drew blacks into the Democratic coalition, who liked his pro-labor stance They called themselves Roosevelt Democrats.
FDR gave us social security, minimum wage, a 40 hour workweek, etc.
12/ GOP fought against the New Deal, calling it socialism and a welfare state.
Dems said the economy recovered because of FDR's economic policies.
GOP said mobilizing for WWII strengthened the economy (but notice that mobilizing for war meant LOTS of government spending)
13/ The GOP wanted to repeal the New Deal.

Evangelicals, too, opposed government assistance & regs: They didn’t want to elevate government over church. Problems, they believed, should be left to God. playboy.com/read/in-billy-…
The culture was patriarchal & authoritarian. . .
14/ . . .women in the home, children must obey.

In 1954, Brown v. Board of Education (declaring racial segregation in schools unconstitutional) shocked much of the US.

People caught the drift. If schools could no longer be racially segregated, what about buses? Lunch counters?
15/ Those opposed to Civil Rights (and the Brown decision) used the same argument as the Confederacy: Federal courts had no business interfering. States should be free to decide. SCOTUS overreached.

Tensions arose when the federal government enforced the no segregation rule.
16/ Liberals celebrated the cultural changes & growing diversity of the 50s and 60s—the women’s and civil rights movements.

The changes alarmed the far right, igniting a powerful backlash,

Another movement arose that also despised all government regulations: Libertarianism.
17/ Libertarians, the KKK, and Birchers, evangelicals found themselves with a common goal: Dismantle the federal government. Return to 1920.

The NRA became a radicalized right wing group. Before the 1970s, hunters and gun enthusiasts were members of both political parties.
18/ NRA undertook a legal and propaganda campaign persuading conservatives that liberty meant unfettered access to guns.

Meanwhile the GOP devised a way to expand its base & bring the white South into the GOP, "The Southern Strategy”. . .
19/ To lure the South and rural America, Nixon talked about being “tough on crime” (code for putting black men in jail). Reagan talked about “welfare queens.”

What happened next in a nutshell: The authoritarians grew increasingly powerful & took over the party.
20/ (More on authoritarians here:
… )

As liberalism and diversity expanded, those who felt they were the “real” Americans felt increasingly frustrated.

Gingrich channelled the anger of the far right in 1994 when he said the GOP mustn’t compromise.
21/ The problem is that democracy requires compromise.
“Our way or we burn the place down” is authoritarian.

The only way to return to the 1920s is to torpedo Rule of Law—because a lot of laws are in the way.
22/ So here we are: In a showdown between liberal democracy and authoritarianism.

[Liberal democracy=representative government in which leaders are constrained by rule of law.]
Mistake: I meant to put the link at the start of this thread, for info on authoritarians v. conservatives.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Teri Kanefield

Teri Kanefield Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Teri_Kanefield

Feb 21
Putin knows how to wield disinformation and he knows that the United States is divided: A large portion of the population, including the most influential voices from a major political party, want the United States to emulate his Russia.

1/
Some background:

After Russia enacted anti-homosexual legislation, Pat Buchanan said Putin was “entering a claim that Moscow is the Godly city of today" because he was stamping out western evils like easy divorce and homosexuality.
buchanan.org/blog/whose-sid…

2/
British right-winger Katie Hopkins, in an article in which she was interviewed with her friend Ann Coulter, said “Putin rocks.”

Katie Hopkins then went on to praise Russia as being “untouched by the myth of multiculturalism and deranged diversity."

rt.com/uk/429777-kati…

3/
Read 4 tweets
Feb 18
Trump lost in court THREE MORE TIMES today.

Trump tried to get all three of these cases⤵️ dismissed and lost. I analyzed one of the cases last April, Blassingame, here: (Transcript on my blog.)

He tends not to do well in court, where facts matter.

1/
The defendants made the following arguments (screenshot #1)

Trump also claims, among other things, that he has absolute immunity. (#2)

It turns out that the absolute immunity question isn't as easy as you might think (but Trump still lost).

2/
If you want to get caught up on one of the cases, my analysis from last April is here:terikanefield.com/blassingame-v-…

And here:

You can read the court's decision here: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

3/
Read 8 tweets
Feb 16
Um . . . this isn't the defense Trump thinks it is.

Trump published a letter he received from Mazars dated (it looks like) 2014. He then summarized the letter.

#1: What Mazars said
#2: What Trump says Mazars said

Me = 🤦‍♀️

Does he think nobody can or will actually read it?
Mazars said, "Trump is responsible for preparing the financial statement."

Also Mazars does not "undertake to obtain or provide any assurance that there are no material modifications that should be made . . . "
Trump posts the letter and says Mazars "strongly states that all work was performed in accordance with professional standards and that there were "no material discrepancies in the financial statements."

There is no "I don't know how to read" defense.
Read 7 tweets
Feb 13
For this week’s blog post, I edited and combined a few of my recent threads.

I started with a reading of the newly unredacted sections of the Mueller report, then talked about some of the responses on Twitter . . .

terikanefield.com/is-social-medi…
. . . and concluded with thoughts about how social media brings out authoritarian instincts in large swaths of people who ordinarily would not be given to authoritarian impulses.



It's too easy for truth to lose, and when truth loses, democracy loses.
Right. And not all "manipulators" are bad actors, but all people need to learn to evaluate sources.

Reflectively saying, "Professor X should know" is not how to do it. It takes more work. Falling in line is always easier than doing the work.

Read 4 tweets
Feb 12
I'm tired of the word "accountable." It's a weasel word. Don't say "accountable." Say what you mean.

Does "accountable" mean
🔹Lose elections?
🔹Go to prison?
🔹Lose a lawsuit?
🔹Be hated?

It would be nice if all the good people were rewarded and the bad people punished.
So you want to start indicting people and gather the evidence after they're indicted?

Or not worry about evidence?

There are rules of evidence, which means that the stuff you've read in newspapers and Tweets probably isn't admissible in court . . .
Indicting people and having juries return "not guilty" verdicts because there isn't evidence to prove each element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt may not accomplish what people think it will accomplish.
Read 10 tweets
Feb 12
One reason I think social media is turning everyone into authoritarians: people don't read or think.

They see a headline and have a strong emotional reaction, which they Tweet and which then gets repeated by others, who are also not thinking . . .

1/
Political psychologists like @karen_stenner describe the authoritarian personality.

Those with an authoritarian disposition are averse to complexity. They reject nuance.

They prefer sameness and uniformity and have “cognitive limitations.”

(link in the next Tweet)

2/
See for example, "Authoritarianism is not a momentary madness,” which originally appeared in this book, an dwhich Stenner has now made available free on her website, here: ……e-4700-aaa9-743a55a9437a.filesusr.com/ugd/02ff25_370…

Timothy Snyder also talks about the danger of what he calls Internet Memes.

3/
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(