I think there's more to it than a buck in his pocket. D'Souza is a neoconservative, which means that he's loyal to a different political party than most liberals and probably wants lower taxes and a more aggressive foreign policy than many Democrats, but he agrees with Democrats on fundamental issues and shares the basic values and core assumptions that animate liberals.
Jackson and Van Buren founded the Democratic party and Andrew Jackson was the first Democrat President.
In name, yes. But in practice, Thomas Jefferson was both the founder of the Democratic Party (Democratic-Republicans became Democrats) and its first President. The Republican genealogy is Federalist-Whig-Republican, so I similarly consider Adams, not Lincoln, to be the first Republican President.
Attacking Jackson is part of D’Souza’s “Democrats have always been the party of Satan” shtick that he’s been using to milk cash from gullible Republicans who don’t know enough history to see what Dinesh is doing.
I'm glad someone here can see this. Pro-multiculturalism establishment Republicans use the excuse that Jackson (and Confederates) were "Democrats" as a fig leaf to side with the Left's attacks on them, when party affiliation isn't what this is all about. People are so conditioned to think in terms of party name and loyalty that they completely ignore the fact that the issues that defined Democrats vs. Republicans 150+ years ago have absolutely nothing to do with those defining them today (e.g. there was no welfare state back then, so there was no party to be for or against it). Nothing seems to erase critical thinking skills like party identification and loyalty, and D'Souza and friends, conniving little sleazes that they are, know how to milk that for what it's worth.
That was very well said.
Dinesh is definitely a neoconservative. And like most of that persuasion he spends time nudging conservatives into accepting the premises of the cultural left without them realizing it.
” Thomas Jefferson was both the founder of the Democratic Party (Democratic-Republicans became Democrats) and its first President.”
That’s not entirely accurate, although it’s probably gained currency because the of Democrat’s annual Jefferson-Jackson dinner.
In fact the D-R’s are the source of both the Democrats and the Whigs. For example John Quincy Adams was elected President as a D-R in 1824, and then in the 1830s became a Whig. He wasn’t alone in being a former D-R Whig.
I agree that there is a philosophical continuum between the Federalists and Whigs and Republicans. But the Democrat-Republicans of 1800-1828 were an odd animal that managed to give birth to both the Democrats and the Whigs.
“Nothing seems to erase critical thinking skills like party identification and loyalty, and D’Souza and friends, conniving little sleazes that they are, know how to milk that for what it’s worth.”
Hear! Hear!