I am not a historian but I was aware at the time of President Johnson's Great Society and Civil

[wasupaloopa]

Rights Act. They were both bold and needed. Add in the backlash against them and President Carter’s administration and you got Ronald Reagan and Reagan Democrats.

Something to think about when offering bold plans. Just don’t be afraid of discussing the risks too.

[Voltaire2]

1. So we should have not passed the civil rights act, medicare, medicaid the voting rights act, etc?

Seriously?

[wasupaloopa]

2. I did not say that. I said talk about the risks too Johnson said he will lose the South.

He knew the risks. It gave us Conservative rule for 50 years. He still went ahead with his plans

[appalachiablue]

7. It's a lot more complicated than that. Since FDR in 1932, the far right

was panting to block or roll back ANY advances for workers and regular Americans-- labor laws, progressive taxes on high wealth, protections from predator banks and more brought to us through the New Deal and a dominant Democratic Congress.

Republicans were out of power in the executive branch for 20 years- from 1932 until 1952, and they were hell bent to gain power again to roll back and replace the gains of FDR, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson's Great Society.

We're witnessing the evisceration of 50 years of progress, maybe a century. Choices are limited in these dire times, much courage is required.

[Voltaire2]

9. So Clinton and Obama and Carter were conservatives?

That's 20 of your 50 years right there.

Just which voting block in the Democratic Party today are we going alienate by enacting real substantive progressive reform? Healthcare CEOs?

[Uncle Joe]

3. The corporate media T.V. in particular is what led to Reagan.

They always prefer Republicans first and as they conglomerated over the decades with the Fairness Doctrine being the first domino to fall is what led to long term Reaganism embraced by the Republicans and the Democratic Party to a lesser degree.

You have to be wealthy to own a T.V. network and their interests will always be tantamount in their coverage taking the side of "trickle down" economics without so much as a mild rebuke much less substantive criticism.

FDR dominated during the age of radio a much more affordable medium and closer connected to the people.

The Internet is finally swinging the pendulum back towards the grass roots and the corporate media conglomerates while most enthusiastic to criticize the internet, (whether rightfully or wrongfully,) those same talking heads won't even whisper about their own inherent and obvious to anyone willing to look, conflicts of interest.

Thanks for the thread wasupaloopa.

[MaryMagdaline]

4. Yes, we lost seats after Obamacare.

Some things are worth losing for. Definitely Medicaid, Obamacare, civil rights, food stamps.

[George II]

5. At the time the Senate was 62-38 and House was 262-172, both huge Democratic majorities.

[OKNancy]

11. thank you. I wrote the same in an earlier post

It's easy to be bold when you have a huge majority.

[Cosmocat]

6. Pete B has it right

They and the media are going to say and do the sane bullshit either way.

Might as well do the right thing, and embrace it.

[wyldwolf]

8. An urban legend says LBJ stated "we've lost the south for a generation."

President Johnson's Great Society and Civil Rights Act, while bold, were not seismic events. They both followed decades of incremental changes.

Discussing risks, despite statements to the contrary, are not Republican talking points.

[Otto Lidenbrock]

14. There are enough urban legends about LBJ to be a volume of Caro's series!

The fact President Johnson died not long after leaving office leaves a cloud on first person history. And Lady Bird was too classy to engage in kiss and tell gossip even though she lived almost 4 decades after her Lyndon passed.

[wyldwolf]

15. I like to pretend most are true. :)

[Otto Lidenbrock]

16. He's the most fascinating man to be president IMO

The man's life is a complete contradiction. But had it not been for Vietnam he'd be considered one of our greatest Presidents.

[GulfCoast66]

17. I agree! And I think as that generation passes

Many who rightfully will never forgive him for Vietnam, his standing with historians and the public will continue to rise.

I was born right before Vietnam really exploded so remember nothing. Just what I read. But the Civil Rights Act and Medicare, if nothing else like fair housing, continue to leave their legacy today. Even with republican attempts to kill them all.

[customerserviceguy]

10. It may not have been backlash against them

The urban riots of 1965 through 1968 took place after the Great Society and Civil Rights legislation were passed.

Nixon managed win the 1968 election even with George Wallace being on the ballot in all fifty states to bleed off the votes of the worst of the racists. Wallace got a slice in every state, and even won the Electoral votes of five of the states, depriving Nixon of them.

I'm of the opinion that using the word "reparations" is going to have the same effect. It's why Barack Obama dodged the subject.

[TexasBushwhacker]

12. Wallace got the Dixiecrat vote

He hurt Humphrey more than Nixon. Those Dixiecrats eventually turned to Reagan.

[customerserviceguy]

13. The Dixiecrats

were done with the Democratic Party after the Civil Rights Acts, they were still trying to shuck off their hate of the Republican Party going back to the days of Reconstruction, and Wallace gave them someplace to go.

Nixon won in a lot of places that Humphrey should have won.

[GulfCoast66]

18. Man, that's says a lot in a few sentences!

Almost never hear it, but Wallace was a bridge for the southern white democrat to switch to republican. Had there not been a Wallace, but loyal Democratic Governors in all southern states the white southerns might have stayed in the party.

My grandfather died in the early 80s. Was racist but believed in government helping the common man. He hated republicans. But by the time he died Reagan was cleaning up the mess Wallace started.

[customerserviceguy]

19. Maybe, maybe not

The segregationists who were in the Democratic Party tried to keep their voter base, but once the party went for civil rights, it was only a matter of time before Nixon's perfected "Southern Strategy" would take the South for the GOP.

[GulfCoast66]

20. Yeah, your probably correct.

But not sure the break would have been as complete. The Democratic Party held sway in the South for 140 years. And they actually liked what FDR did. All forgotten now.

Without the Wallace bridge I’m not so sure the party would have been as destroyed in the south as it was.

But like you say...we will never know.

Interesting conversation and I think somewhere in that line of thought is a chance for a resurgence in the South. I keep hoping that the predictions of C. Vann Woodward will be just 80 years late in Coming to fruition! But am not optimistic

[customerserviceguy]

21. FDR

liked the South. Remember, he died in Warm Springs, Georgia. World War II brought a lot of wartime work to the South. And the military was segregated, it was Eleanor Roosevelt who tried to get integration into the Armed Forces.

[GulfCoast66]

22. FDR did not want to do it in the middle of a world war.

Understandable in retrospect. Not necessarily defensible, but understandable.

Truman finally did it, if I remember my history correctly.

[customerserviceguy]

23. Yes, that is correct. n/t