Thealexa Becker wrote:To be fair, the Democrats back then were not the same as the Democrats now, there was a change in the party structure during Civil Rights.
Despite 2/3 majorities in both the House and Senate in the 1960s, the Democrats could not have passed the Voting Rights Act or the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if it had not been for the 80+% of House/Senate Republicans who voted in favor of those bills.
Both bills, by the way, were originally tried by Eisenhower in the late 50s and both were held up by committee leaders who happen to be Democrats.
Now, in spite of this, I'll still agree with you, Democrats then were different from Democrats now.
Back then, Grover Cleveland was a Democrat. A man who said:
"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation [$10,000 in seed purchases for drought-ridden counties in Texas] in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people. The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."Sounds more like a 'wack job teapartier' to me.
Today, a man like Dennis Kucinich can call himself a Democrat and get away with it because people don't seem to know any better. Back then, I suspect he would be labeled a Fabian Socialist.
