Posted on 08/05/2013 10:25:52 AM PDT by Kaslin
Today’s term is psycho-political projection |siko'p?'litiko'pr?'jekSH?n|. This contraction of words labels the political application of the word projection in the Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, “…in a psychoanalytic context, it describes the unconscious process in which the individual attributes to others his or her own emotions and impulses. Sigmund Freud regarded it as a common defence mechanism, used by the ego to control unacceptable feelings, thereby helping to reduce anxiety.”
This is the syndrome that I hereby assign to those of the LEFT who so freely launch accusations for which they themselves harbor a secret sense of guilt. The pattern for this condition is openly on display at the Democratic Party website: www.democrats.org/about/our_history. This webpage, proudly labeled Our Party, Our History, opens with the statement, “For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights, health care, Social Security, workers' rights, and women's rights.”
I will quickly skip past the ripe opportunities to blast the Democratic Party on diminishing the quality of health care, reducing employment opportunities, and dooming Social Security to go belly up in 2035. But I am compelled to take a swipe at their claim for leading the fight for women’s rights before I move on to the party’s most egregious departure from the facts.
The Democratic Party coined the incriminating slogan War on Women, reserved for Republicans who found a higher priority for the right to life than they did for the right to abort. The label was effectively applied to boorish Republican candidates in 2012. The National Organization for Women locks arms with the Democratic Party in pointing out the personal failings of Republican men when the evidence shows that Democratic men set for themselves a much lower standard for chivalry. Let me just conclude this thought with the loaded words, Bob Filner, Elliot Spitzer and Anthony Weiner. Oh, and Bill Clinton.
But by far the most preposterous assertion in the Democratic Party’s statement is that they have led the fight for civil rights for 200 years. If they had any sense of candor, their website would show their history of leading a War on Black Americans.
In 1856, the Democratic Party ruled everything; the White House and nearly two-thirds of both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives. The opposition party, the Whigs, was utterly ineffective in trying to overcome the Democratic Party’s stronghold on laws that kept slavery legal and acceptable.
Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner, a Whig, delivered a fiery speech in May of 1856 that railed against the Democrats for their pushing slavery onto the new state of Kansas. Two days later, while quietly writing at his desk on the Senate floor, Democratic Congressman Preston Brooks of South Carolina delivered a cruel blow to the back of Sumner’s head with the weighty metal end of his cane. Many of Brooks’ fellow Democrats gifted him with more canes as an expression of their approval for his violent assault.
Even though the injury put Senator Sumner in a wheel chair for three years, he worked with his closest friend, Abraham Lincoln, in forming the Republican Party. While the new Republican Party led the actual fight for civil rights, the Democratic Party fought against freedom for black Americans in every way, ultimately collapsing into civil war.
In 1789, the Republican controlled Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance that prohibited slavery in a federal territory. In 1820, the Democratic Congress passed the Missouri Compromise and reversed that earlier policy, permitting slavery in almost half of the federal territories.
In 1850, Democrats in Congress passed the “Fugitive Slave Law” requiring Northerners to return escaped slaves back into slavery or pay huge fines.
1856, the Democratic platform took a position strongly defending slavery and warned that, “All efforts of the abolitionists… are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences and all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people”.
In 1857, a Democratically controlled Supreme Court delivered the Dred Scott decision, declaring that blacks were not persons or citizens but instead were property and therefore had no rights.
The 13th Amendment to abolish slavery was voted for by 100% of the Republicans in Congress and by 23% of the Democrats in Congress.
Not a single one of the 56 Democrats in Congress voted for the 15th amendment that granted explicit voting rights to black Americans.
In 1866 Democrats formed the Ku Klux Klan to pave the way for Democrats to regain control in the elections. The Colored Citizens of Frankfort, Kentucky wrote a letter to Congress appealing that, “our services to the government and our race have become the special object of hatred and persecution at the hands of the Democratic Party.”
In the 19th century, Democrats prevented Black Americans from going to public school. In the 20th and 21st century Democrats prevented Black Americans trapped in failing schools from choosing a better school. In fact Democrats voted against the bill by 99%.
On June 1, 1865, Senator Charles Sumner remarked on what is now considered the most famous speech by President Abraham Lincoln. In his eulogy for the slain president, Sumner called the Gettysburg Address a "monumental act." He stated that Lincoln had been mistaken that "the world will little note, nor long remember what we say here." Rather, the Bostonian remarked, "The world noted at once what he said, and will never cease to remember it. The battle itself was less important than the speech."
IT IS NOT the Republicans NOR IS IT the conservatives who own a recorded history of oppressing Americans of color. Far the opposite is the case. The Democratic Party has unfairly and untruthfully dealt with their guilty conscience by projecting the tendencies of their world view onto the opposition; psycho-political projection.
Just wait until you investigate the civil rights legislation of the 1960s...
Let’s just say a certain party filibustered it for decades...
Ping to read later.
Here's what I've learned so far about interpreting the world: Every social exchange or situation is a Rorschach test. The way you read - or, the way you rewrite for yourself the story you hear or see, the life of the other person, the meaning of what's in front of you - says more about you than about the "text" or "inkblot" you're interpreting. Mauriac explored this idea in the novel I just finished (Vipers' Tangle): the kind of reader you are is the kind of person you are. Character and interpretation of meaning are interconnected.Making assumptions is human nature and often a necessary part of arriving at some kind of understanding of a person or situation. Assumptions fill in the gaps. It's a well-known phenomenon that, given part or parts of a particular recognizable whole, the human brain fills in details so as to create for itself something it can perceive and interpret. I think that among our faults and failings as human beings, making some wrong assumptions is one of the most understandable, and perhaps one of the most insidious....
-- from the thread What You Get Is What You See
Another great post on FR:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1985158/posts
Best to all,
Gail
http://www.backyardfence.wordpress.com
Grand Kleagle Robert Byrd (D-WV)
According to Slick Willie, “Sheets” Byrd was merely doing what he had to do ‘back then’ to get elected.
“In 1789, the Republican controlled Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance that prohibited slavery in a federal territory.”
It would help if the author of this article bothered to fact-check and proof-read the document before publishing it.
The Republican party was created in the middle of the 19th century, and was not involved in the first session of Congress let alone having control of Congress. The first political party, the Federalist Party, did not even come into existence until 1792.
Ping for later.
I am old enough to remember that, during the Civil Rights Movement, the politicians who opposed Civil Rights were called “DIXIECRATS”.
I don’t recall ever hearing the term, “Dixieublicans”.
Any Demonrat can tell you that those northern Republicans were really today's Demonrats and those southern Demonrats were really Republicans.
After the civil war the parties agreed to swap names and become the parties we know today.
bump
The most common excuse I hear in response to this is “The parties were different back then.”
The author lost me right there. The Republican party we know today was founded in 1854, and could not have "controlled" Congress in 1789.
The Republican party of the early Federal period is the ancestor of the Democrat party.
In 1789, political parties hadn't even developed yet.
If we're going to make a historical case, we need someone who won't make us sound like idiots.
The 19th amendment was ratified almost entirely by state legislatures that were controlled by Republicans. I think that only one was controlled by Democrats.
Women also had the right to vote in many state elections before the 19th amendment was ratified. Those states were almost exclusively Republican.
I think Wyoming was the first state to give the franchise to women...heh
““In 1789, the Republican controlled Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance that prohibited slavery in a federal territory.””
OMG. Epic fail. Perhaps he confuses the Jeffersonian Republicans (ancestors of the democrats) that we refer to today as the “Democratic-Republicans” (much like the Byzantine Empire no one called them that back then) with the modern Republican party which was named to evoke their memory.
That would be triply wrong because that party wasn’t officially formed yet in 1789 and Jeffersonians didn’t have a majority until after the 1800 election anyway! And if they did I doubt they would have agreed to ban slavery in the territory.
Or maybe the author considers the proto-Federalists who controlled the first Congress as Republicans. Weird but that would at least make a tiny bit of sense.
Otherwise seems like a useful article.
Many Neo-Confederate freepers also believe that. They would have us believe the parties magically switched ideologies at some point after their beloved Southern rebellion. Modern Democrats who refuse to associate themselves with slavery and Jim Crow believe the same. It's a pant load of bull.
Democrats also say that the Southern democrats were all conservative. Some of them were, because almost everyone in the South was a democrat at the time. Many were socialists, all were bound together by their racism which is the reason it took so long for the conservative ones to leave the party that was socialist on the national level, see that couldn't go joining with those Negro-loving Republicans.
Issues have evolved, the 19th century was a very different time, but IMO Federalists-Whigs-Republicans were always the party of commerce and the Jeffersonians-Jacksonians-Democrats were always the party of populist BS and prior to the civil war, slave power (The Whigs were divided on that which is why they collapsed). They are still the party of racism. They have been the party of socialism since 1896 when the Bryan Marxist Labor faction (there were also a few Marxist Labor Republicans but they never controlled the party) won control from the Grover Cleveland Bourbon Democrats. Cleveland is one of the only Dem Presidents that wasn't a total piece of worthless crap.
Well, NEITHER party that we now know as Dems or Republicans existed then. The Nationalists soon called themselves the Federalists, forcing the former Federalists to call themselves anti-federalists. It was a genius of brand-name marketing. The Jeffersonian Democratic Republicans existed from about 1790 to 1824-—by which time the Federalists had disappeared-—and were replaced THEN by the modern-day Democrats as founded by Martin Van Buren. The Republicans of course didn’t appear till 1855. So for the author to use such terms is just silly without extensive context.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.