Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A nostalgic look at the Old Democratic Party.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 12:34 PM
Original message
A nostalgic look at the Old Democratic Party.

Franklin D. Roosevelt
“The Economic Bill of Rights”
Excerpt from 11 January 1944 message to Congress on the State of the Union

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.


I REALLY miss THAT Democratic Party.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. yesyesyes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Overseas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
2. Yes Please !! /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lpbk2713 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
3. Not to derail the thread...



... but has anyone cautioned Grayson about flying in small private aircraft? :eyes:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC_SKP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
4. Rec'd, especially as it refers to opposing monopolies. We gave up that battle since the 80's.
Telcoms, NAFTA, globalism embraced by both party leaderships.

Sold us out.

Bullshit.

:nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tippy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
5. This ol' Yellow Dog ..K&R..my daddy would be so proud today....n/t
Edited on Sat Nov-07-09 01:47 PM by Tippy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Davis_X_Machina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
6. Another look at the old Democratic Party:
Edited on Sat Nov-07-09 01:49 PM by Davis_X_Machina
.

It wasn't perfect then, and it isn't perfect now, and it's never going to be that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
7. I like this one better:

Huey Long's "Share the Wealth" plan
* Cap personal fortunes at $50 million each (equivalent to about $750 million today)
* Limit annual income to one million dollars each (about $12 million today)
* Limit inheritances to five million dollars each (about $60 million today)
* Guarantee every family an annual income of $2,000 (or one-third the national average)
* Free college education and vocational training
* Old-age pensions for all persons over 60
* Veterans benefits and healthcare
* A 30 hour work week
* A four week vacation for every worker


http://www.hueylong.com/programs/share-our-wealth.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share_Our_Wealth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Libertas1776 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Hey, now why didn't Huey ever get around
to passing thats stuff...oh...yeah, right. Hmm. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. The Democratic Party could learn a lot from Huey Long
He was a badass who mercilessly steamrolled his opponents, unlike today's wimpy liberals who like to imagine themselves as silent martyrs for the American worker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. He was a fascist corrupt white supremacist.
real progressive
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #19
27. A Fascist? No, despite his authoritarian tendencies he was still democratically elected
Edited on Sat Nov-07-09 02:32 PM by anonymous171
And he was absolutely not a white supremacist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #27
34. Democracy is more than deciding things by 51%
Edited on Sat Nov-07-09 04:00 PM by HamdenRice
There are 2 parts of democracy. Rule by the majority; and limits on what the majority can do in terms of the rights of individuals. "Rights" mean that the majority, even if they control government by 51% or 61% or 91%, can't do certain things to an individual or groups -- like "round up the Jews" or "lynch the blacks" or (unfortunately) take away all the wealth of the rich.

Long abandoned the second half of what democracy is, and was roundly criticized and hated by much of the left -- especially civil libertarians, intellectuals, artists and writers -- who saw where he was going. By that measure he was indeed trying to set up a populist fascist regime.

Not saying that the majority can't tax the rich or expropriate the rich in accordance with due process.

Long set up a populist dictatorship and it was the democratic left that set out to crush him as even more dangerous than the corporatist right.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #19
36. What non-white supremacist could hold any office in Louisiana in that time?
He was also very open about his political corruption but always pointed out how much more of it he shared than the other guys.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. Huey Long could. That's what made him unique. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #13
35. It did. The Kingfisher scared the crap out of the parasites.
In a way he was responsible for the success of FDR. Roosevelt adopted/adapted enough of Long's plans and verbiage to mollify the angry workers, while preserving the system of indenture for the parasites to come back later.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #13
50. Yeah, Huey was good at hobnobbin' with the Mob too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #7
16. "Progressives" longing for the rule of segregationist Huey Long! I've seen it all, now
Huey Long:

"Once in office as governor Long moved quickly to consolidate his power, firing hundreds of opponents in the state bureaucracy, at all ranks from cabinet-level heads of departments and board members to rank-and-file civil servants and state road workers. Like previous governors, he filled the vacancies with patronage appointments from his own network of political supporters. Every state employee who depended on Long for a job was expected to pay a portion of his or her salary directly into Long’s political war-chest. These funds were kept in a famous locked “deduct box” to be used at Long's discretion for political purposes."

" Following his election as Governor in 1928, Long built one of the most formidable political machines ever seen in the United States. Indeed, he amassed so much power that contemporary observers routinely called his regime the first dictatorship in our history. For instance, Long abolished minority rights in the legislature, curtailed judicial review, took over the vote counting system, established a State Board of Censors to regulate political speech, and declared martial law against his opponents. Moving rapidly on to the national stage with his election to the Senate - he was Senator and Governor at the same time - Long established a national Share Our Wealth movement with the goal of challenging Franklin D. Roosevelt for the Democratic nomination in 1936."

"The abuses in Louisiana triggered a broad national debate about whether the State still had a republican form of government as required by the Guarantee Clause of Article Four. "

<end quotes>

So as long as a pol does what you think should be done, no matter the procedure or damage to the democratic political process, that's OK?

Isn't that what Bush did?

And if you support a left version of Bush/Long, then why should you be surprised or angry if the right does the same thing when it's in power?

Dag teh stoopit it hurt brane some tyme.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. Conservatives don't play nice, neither should we.
He might have gone a little overboard, but it was appropriate considering the amount of opposition and power the upper classes had back then. And just so you know, Long was not a racist. He abolished poll tax and was generally loathed by the KKK.

http://www.hueylong.com/perspectives/politics-racism.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #16
47. I can't believe some of this bullshit today.
Edited on Sun Nov-08-09 12:57 AM by SemiCharmedQuark
And even when you point out that said leader wasn't as great for some people as for others, you get a dismissive reponse.

Oh pshaw. Internment camps weren't even one of the top worst things the US has ever done.*

*this point was actually made by a DUer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
8. Me too
:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #8
21. I hope you're not black or Japanese.
Because it would be to the back of the bus, or to the concentration camp, with you if today's party was like the 1932 version,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. or you could go back to when Republicans were anti slavery
if one were determined to ignore the thrust of this thread...
:roll eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. The point of the thread is that the Democratic party/coalition
of 1932 had much more progressive values.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. So... throw out the baby with the bathwater?
Because your car has a headlight out and a flat tire do you call the scarp yard?
Your point is a given, there was progress to be made - and it was made in the areas you cite.
This kind of argumentation isn't valid for me. Fault in another area of debate doesn't invalidate the soundness in the subject being discussed.


But the OP laments areas where corporate rule, vis-a-vis BOTH parties are corporatist, has prevented progress when it concrens big profit vs people. And where social justice is concerned, money matters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
9. You mean the one with Dixiecrats that prevented civil rights bills for 30 years?
Edited on Sat Nov-07-09 02:07 PM by HamdenRice
You mean the one with the Dixiecrats whose asses FDR had to kiss, and who was represented by LBJ during the 50s to kill or water down civil rights bills?

Yeah, sigh, those were the good old days!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Back then the democratic party was more worker oriented.
Edited on Sat Nov-07-09 02:18 PM by anonymous171
For some reason, when the democrats started supporting Civil Rights, they also became much more corporate friendly. Social Liberalism all but eliminated economic liberalism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Working class whites fled to the Republican party.
The problem with populism is that the population includes a lot of racists and bigots.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. Fuck no. I just wish we could find a way to regain those votes without having to resort to racism.
That's all I was trying to say. Racism is bad, Civil Rights are good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #11
30. Yeah, blame it all on "civil rights"
Edited on Sat Nov-07-09 02:52 PM by HamdenRice
Civil rights = corporate takeover.

That's exactly what they said in South Africa. The mines wanted to allow blacks and whites to work more equally after the Boer War, so the whites had a mini-revolution, and almost established the Johannesburg Soviet.

The slogan was "workers of the world unite for a white South Africa."

The government got scared, and enacted legislation like "Reservation of Jobs Act" which Huey Long I'm sure would have approved of.

Not all working class white movements are peachy keanareano, as the histories of South Africa, Louisiana and Alabama show.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. Oh shit
I do not think that the Civil Rights movement was a corporate takeover. Sorry if it sounded that way. It was actually more of a question than anything else. Perhaps the corporate takeover was happening in both political parties regardless of their demographic shifts.


BTW thanks for the historical context. It was very enlightening. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 02:18 PM
Response to Original message
12. You must have loved the concentration camps and Jim Crow. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. I don't think the OP said any of that. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. He wants the Democratic party to be like it was in 1932.
The Democratic party in 1932 was thoroughly racist and had borderline fascist tendencies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #18
28. Fascism is a right wing movement. Left wingers cannot be fascist. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
22. YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Me too. I want my party back. Then our country can return to the people
I agree. It seems we are labeled 'radical left' now even by Democrats. And by all media except some at MSNBC, and on Air America.

k/r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brigid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
24. I miss that Democratic Party too.
:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
26. That's relevant today.
I wish they would but don't have any hopes of it happening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
32. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
37. I miss that Party
and don't really like the craven mediocrity and neediness of the current leadership, not to mention their prejudice and religionism. What happened to people?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. "Prejudice and religionism" What?
The current democratic party is much less religious than the old Party. It is also much less prejudiced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
38. Guess we will have to start a Progressive party to maintain what used to be Democratic principles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
C_Lawyer09 Donating Member (690 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #38
41. Third parties are trying
Corporations and corporate friendly state governments are concocting ways to ensure there is no viable third party by keeping them off the state primary ballots. This used to not be the case, pre-1980. Now for an independent to have a chance he'd have to be a billionaire and commit millions to his campaign to even begin to compete.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. It is very disconcerting to wake up and find we live in a corporatocracy...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #41
44. I'd settle for a 2nd Party.
Anti-WAR/Pro Working Class Party.

America could sure use a 2nd Party like that.



"I don’t represent the big oil companies. I don’t represent the big pharmaceutical companies.
I don’t represent the Enrons of this world. But you know what?
They already have great representation in Washington.
It’s the rest of the people that need it.”
---Paul Wellstone’s Last Commercial


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Libertas1776 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:53 AM
Response to Reply #44
48. +1000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
42. Back by popular demand. I would love to see it! Thanks for posting. K & R nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-07-09 11:20 PM
Response to Original message
45. This is the party that I was raised to believe in
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
waiting for hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:15 AM
Response to Original message
46. That was the party I believed in -
One that over 20 years ago I joined. I don't know what this party is - it certainly is not what I had come to believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lugnut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 01:05 AM
Response to Original message
49. K&R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 02:49 AM
Response to Original message
51. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeHereNow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 02:55 AM
Response to Original message
52. K&R!!!!!
Thank you.
BHN
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC