Well, that was a waste of three seconds. Now, let's get back to our screaming hate-mongering and await the next warped and semi-literate missive from Brother Danny of the Historical Nuggets.
.
.
.
.
.

Well, that was a waste of three seconds. Now, let's get back to our screaming hate-mongering and await the next warped and semi-literate missive from Brother Danny of the Historical Nuggets.
.
.
.
.
.

Well, that was a waste of three seconds. Now, let's get back to our screaming hate-mongering and await the next warped and semi-literate missive from Brother Danny of the Historical Nuggets.
.
.
.
.
.

Well, that was a waste of three seconds. Now, let's get back to our screaming hate-mongering and await the next warped and semi-literate missive from Brother Danny of the Historical Nuggets.
.
.
.
.
.

You actually seem like a decent sort and I’m able to take you at face value. I appreciate that. Almost all the others are just filled with hate and venom, there’s hardly any reason to address their points. They seem entirely and exclusively focused on calling me some kind of name. That’s all I get out of their comments. It’s all anyone gets out of them. I suppose it makes them feel better. I just don’t come from that kind of background. (I actually think many of them are symptomatic of what’s wrong with American discourse today—what George Will calls the American political distemper.) Anyway, I do want to answer you final thoughtful reply.

You’re the first person to concede that by the end of the 60s we’re no longer talking about race, and that cultural issues had come to the forefront. I appreciate your honesty, and it’s an important marker that allows us to focus in on perhaps a narrower line of disagreement—who knows, one that we may resolve. You said:

My contention is that the cultural issues to which you refer were not
major issues to voters in the South in 1964, and were not the impetus
behind the campaigns of Strom Thurmond and George Wallace, nor were
they the impetus behind the deep South flipping from the Democrats to
Barry Goldwater. My contention is that the stance taken by Democrats
on the civil rights issue caused the switch to occur at the presidential level.

Okay, so we’re talking about 1964. I have several points on this:

1) My party and I are moving targets in this discussion. Terms, regions, alleged motives and actors are thrown in and then pulled out of the discussions with blinding speed, depending on how the discussion seems to be moving.
2) A favorite almost knee-jerk, hip pocket cliché some people whip out is the “Southern Strategy” (with which the user tries to imply—although they never come out and say exactly how—that some kind of tactic, stratagem, or ploy was used in some kind of sinister way that caused the most evilly motivated voters to somehow vote Republican. This is never fleshed out.)
3) Strom Thurmond was a Democrat. He was a Democrat when he left the Democratic Convention in 1948 (probably bewildered because it was the same party that had supported the Ku Klux Klan as recently as 1924—keeping in mind that that’s the same distance of time as 1984 is from us, and I remember 1984 pretty doggone well) to run as a Dixiecrat, i.e. Southern Democrat for President. He was a Democrat when he voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He left the party and became a Republican subsequently, but you have to remember he denounced segregation and in 1968, he supported Nixon, and not fellow Democrat Wallace.
4) George Wallace was a Democrat. Always. He was the leading Democrat vote-getter in the 1972 Presidential Primaries. The only thing to keep him from finishing as the top popular vote-getter was that he got shot.
5) The “Deep South” you refer to was actually all lost by Republicans in 1968—with the single exception of South Carolina where Thurmond campaigned for a Republican platform that did not embrace segregation or Wallace themes. But this is a key year they are referring to when many modern Democrats blurt out “Southern Strategy.” We carried the rest of the South, except Texas. But that merely means we carried the part of the South where we had a good deal of strength already in Presidential elections. Eisenhower had carried Tennessee, Florida, Texas and Virginia twice each. Nixon in 1960 had carried Florida, Tennessee, Virginia and even Mississippi had defeated Kennedy with a slate of unpledged electors—and this was long before the 1964 Civil Rights Act, let alone the VRA. It’s impossible to blame Republicans for “racism” for that fact, or any of the other losses the Democrats were beginning to pile up not just in the South, but in border states like Oklahoma, Kentucky and Missouri where they had long dominated. Political scientists and historians point out the psephological trends visible in the 30s and 40s as reactions to the New Deal, and what many Southerners and
Midwesterners and Westerners viewed as creeping socialism, rightly or wrongly.

Engel v. Vitale, which struck down school prayer was handed down in 1962, and brought outrage from middle class conservatives. And there were a number of liberal, rulings prior to 1964, and shortly thereafter (Miranda, 1966) that had “Impeach Earl Warren” billboards popping up all over middle America, including the South. The Great Society programs which foisted government on American life in a way unmatched since the New Deal, and which in its permanency and cost vastly outstripped the New Deal, are also completely ignored by most “crossfire-styled” blog commentators on this. (Frankly I doubt very many of them know much about these things at all.) Again, though, it’s clear you are not like that and enjoy a serious discussion. My point is that there are numerous influences on political attitudes that were taking shape in the mid-60s that had nothing to do with race. People in Jefferson City, Missouri were mad as hell about watching out-of-control riots on TV every night, with no one able to get a handle on it. Some of the riots were in fact race riots in the North, but most were about Vietnam, and many were just about student “agitation.” When we look for “race” to answer every single thing that ever happened in the 60s, we not only miss a hell of a lot of clearly documented impacts on political attitudes and voting shifts, we miss a tremendous amount of American history. We disserve our fellow citizens if we narrow our discussions to such inaccurate pigeon-holing, substituting clichés and catch-phrases for history.
6) In the first election of the 70s, Nixon squared off against McGovern, who embodied everything I’ve just discussed. That election wasn’t about race any more than 1968 was. Nixon carried all 11 Southern states, and 49 of 50.
7) Jimmy Carter came right back and carried ten of eleven states, plus Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia, Maryland. If the Democrats had lost the South because of race it—and the Republicans had gained it as part of their “empire” would have stayed lost and gained. It didn’t. Because it wasn’t about appeals to race. Republicans made no appeals to race. Here’s probably what happened. And you have sort of talked around it, but not quite hit it.

As the immigration waves of the early late 1800s and early 1900s were reaping its generational benefits, the big cities began to take on a bigger role in Democratic politics—outfits like Tammany Hall had always been powerful, but the rural agrarian South and West could dominate at conventions. This tension grew as the numbers began to grow even. People like Al Smith and FDR were nominated and that was okay, sort of, with rural Democrats because though they seemed highly concentrated on urban concerns and big government, they were Democrat enough to be at the very best (or if you’re a Democrat of that era, at the very worst) indifferent to race and racism. But because of this shift toward the cities, Republican strength began to grow—anomalies like Warren Harding carrying Tennessee even went little noticed, but Republican returns got a lot better. The Depression and Hoover set them back, but FDR’s excesses saw the numbers start growing again by the 40s.

By the end of the 40s there were the first stirrings of the consciences of some Democrats on race. Republicans did not do anything other than watch them. Keep in mind what were big deals, and big revelations to Democrats had long since been advocated by Republicans. (Truman integrated the Armed Forces eight years after the Republican Platform called for it.) Eisenhower continued to make gains. By the time the Civil Rights Act occurred, with Republicans overwhelmingly supporting it, other factors mentioned above were becoming stronger and stronger—driving wedge after wedge between the modern liberal Democrat and the populist Democrat that was a holdover from the post-Reconstruction era.

Here’s where I get to the nugget of historical fact that I think we’ll agree on: The Southern Populist Democrat by the mid to late 1960s no longer agreed with the modern liberal Democrat, who now controlled his party, on anything. Economics, welfare, the courts, prayer in schools, rioting in the streets, law and order, national defense priorities, “tying the hands” of the cops (a big issue in the 60s) and many, many others. If he also no longer agreed with the Democrats on racial justice and Civil Rights, it certainly cannot be said that the Republican Party agreed with him. Nowhere did Republicans repudiate their 110-year (at that time) history on civil rights. The Southern Populist no longer had a Democratic Party apparatus that would, as an institution—nationally for at least 125 years, and regionally for another 15-20 years—stand up for him on segregation and racism.

So the Republican Party wouldn’t either. So what. The Grand Old Party would stand with him on economics, welfare, the courts, prayer in schools, rioting in the streets, law and order, national defense priorities, “tying the hands” of the cops (a big issue in the 60s) and many, many others.

He switched.

That is not the fault of the Republican Party. Republicans made no great racist overtures to him or anyone else. The party grew in the South, in the Midwest and in the West based on the fact it was more in step with the Middle Class, what the modern liberal would call “bourgeois” value, than was his old party.

That’s the long of it. (I would say long and short of it, but that would be wrong.)

Dan

A Not So Proud Republican

After reading Danny boy for a while, I think I have finally figured out his secret recipe for composing his columns:

Take:
2 cups red herring
Mix with 2 1/2 cups straw men
Quickly stir in 10 gallons strong bile
Sprinkle generously with crunchy lies
Bake half-way and serve with vitriol

Voila! Foley's Folly!

George Wallace became a born-again Christian in the late 1970s and apologized for his earlier segregationist views to black civil rights leaders. He said while he once sought power and glory, he realized he needed to seek love and forgiveness. His term as Governor (1983–1987) saw a record number of black appointments to government positions.

The second from the Journal:

Albuquerque Journal
Published: Saturday, August 02, 2008
By Copyright 2008 Albuquerque Journal By Colleen Heild Journal Investigative Reporter

A state contract that offers supplemental insurance to government employees has proven profitable for a top Republican legislator over the past year.

Last week, a Chaves County commissioner asked the state attorney general to look into business ties between state Rep. Dan Foley, R- Roswell, and the contract the state awarded to Allstate last year.

Foley, who is an Allstate agent, said the company pays him a 10 percent commission on all policies sold under the contract. So far, an estimated 500 state and local government employees have purchased the insurance, meaning Foley’s cut would run into the thousands of dollars.

Foley said he has done nothing improper and added that the contract was awarded through a competitive process. He dismissed the request for an AG investigation as “purely a political ploy.”

The request came from one of Foley’s critics, Chaves County Commissioner Harold Hobson, who lives near Roswell.

At issue is the state’s decision in 2007 to allow Allstate to sell supplemental cancer, accident and universal life insurance to government employees.

Foley, who serves as House minority whip, said he has had no contact with state officials about the contract. State General Services Department spokesman Alex Cuellar confirmed that in a recent e-mail message to the Journal.

Foley said Allstate pays him the commission because he was the one who noticed the state was soliciting proposals for the insurance on the public General Services Department Web site and alerted his company.

“I mean any Allstate agent could have done that,” he added. He said he also worked with Allstate “getting them pointed in the right direction” on how to respond to the request for proposals.

“We didn’t win it (the contract) before, but we won it this time because (of) my two cents that I gave them,” Foley said.

Foley said he routinely checks the Web site for business prospects.

A state Web site for supplemental voluntary insurance lists Foley as one of Allstate’s 19 participating agents. Foley said he has been one of Allstate’s top sellers of supplemental insurance. A September 2007 memo showed him earning six times more “points” (which are based on business generated) than more than 30 New Mexico Allstate agents or agencies. In a July 29 letter to Attorney General Gary King, Hobson noted that New Mexico law bars state agencies from entering into a sole source contract in which a public officer or employee of the state has a “substantial interest.” Hobson said an inquiry is especially relevant with the special legislative session to begin Aug. 15.

“As part of the elected Republican leadership in our legislature, Rep. Foley will be involved in negotiations on proposed legislation for universal health care or expanded health care coverage that Governor Richardson is promoting,” Hobson said in his letter.

He alleged that Foley’s involvement in supplemental health care policies represents a “direct conflict of interest as the impact of any proposed legislation may reduce the need or the method of these supplemental policies for state employees.” Foley, a Roswell insurance agent for 11 years, has served in the Legislature since 1999 but lost his bid for re-election in June’s primary. His term ends Jan. 1. Attorney General’s Of f ice spokesman Phil Sisneros said the letter had been received and would be forwarded to the appropriate legal section.

Foley said Hobson’s argument has no merit because state law defines sole source contracts as being awarded without competition. He noted that Allstate participated in a competitive request for proposals process. However, Allstate was the only health insurance provider to submit a proposal to offer that specific supplemental insurance, Cuellar said.

Other companies were selected to offer other types of insurance such as pre-paid legal services, home and auto insurance, and whole life.

Foley also said he hasn’t directly sold the insurance to any state employee and hasn’t solicited any state employee to buy it.

“I felt like it was probably not right for me as Rep. Foley with my red (legislative) license plate to pull into the Department of Transportation (or any other state agency) and say ‘I’m here to sell you something.’”

An Allstate spokeswoman on Friday wouldn’t comment about any particular agent’s commission but said the state procurement was a “very transparent process.” She said individual agents usually don’t sell the insurance because it is offered at annual employee enrollments in the workplace.

Rates for Allstate cancer insurance range from $9 to $24 per paycheck and from $7 to $51 for accident coverage. The state Web site for employee benefits did not list specific rates for life insurance premiums. Cuellar estimated that about 500 state or local employees have signed up for the voluntary insurance through payroll deduction.

Employees can also make personal payments to Allstate. The state Risk Management Division had no contact with Foley regarding the Allstate contract, Cuellar said.

Supplemental insurance was offered effective July 1, 2007, after the state Risk Management Division “conducted an internal member survey asking for insurance product suggestions.”

The state went to a request for proposals, after gaps were identified in the employees’ benefits package.

As a contractor, Allstate makes no payments to the state. It offers employees a group rate for which Foley said employees pay 100 percent of the cost.

History of criticism A request for proposals issued in the spring of 2007 allowed vendors to bid on any or all portions of the voluntary benefits insurance products required by the RFP. Six other companies submitted proposals, Cuellar stated in his e-mail, but none for the three types of insurance Allstate is providing. Hobson, a Roswell area farmer, has been critical of Foley in the past, and on primary election night in 2006 the two had a public verbal altercation. “He was yelling at some women and I told him to stop,” Foley said. Hobson, in a letter to the Roswell Daily Record, contended the “attack required two deputies to jump in between Mr. Hobson and Mr. Foley.” Hobson also wrote a letter to Foley last week calling on him to “recuse himself from any participation in negotiations, debate or votes on legislation dealing with state insurance during the special session. It’s impossible for the public to know when Dan Foley ‘the Legislator’ is speaking and when Dan Foley ‘the state insurance contractor’ is talking.” Foley responded that Hobson “is just throwing mud against the wall to see what sticks.”