The Democrat Party -- 1828* - 2006 -- R.I.P.

Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 9 August 2006 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Ping.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Everyone chooses their occupation or profession based on their ability and desire to satisfy themselves and the people they care about. Most simply take the first job that will pay enough money to keep the respect of their family. Professionals prepare systematically to do something more than that. Journalists go into journalism to be part of a profession which is at the top of the pecking order. First and foremost, journalism promotes the idea that journalism is the most important profession. And that implies pecking at all the other chickens in the barnyard.

• Water is so important that if somebody shuts someone else's operation down they are said to have "shut his water off." Does someone take their importance by providing good water to the public? Journalism's reaction is to look for questions which can be raised about the possibility of quality degradation in the water supply, and about how expensive water is. Peck.

• Everyone needs gasoline and electricity. Does someone take their importance by providing energy to the public? Journalism's reaction is to look for questions which can be raised about the environmental and international political impact of producing energy, and about how expensive energy is. Peck.

• Everyone needs, or will need, health care. Does someone take their importance by providing health care to the public? Journalism's reaction is to look for questions which can be raised about the reliability and expense of health care. Peck.

• The nation needs police and military. Does someone take their importance by providing security to the public and the nation? Journalism's reaction is to question whether they do their job adequately without brutality. Peck.

And so on. In general, anyone who aspires to respect based on doing things, and who is a natural for membership in the Republican Party, is a natural target of journalism.

Who does journalism not peck? Only those who sell out any independence from the idea that journalism is the only thing that matters. Those people, it calls "liberals." Or "progressives." Or whatever high-sounding label they prefer. Which is why people who are rich enough, tend to buy off journalism by taking on journalism's political coloration. Especially, but far from exclusively, those who inherited their money.

Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Ping to my #42.

[Jimmy Valentine's brother]

Great analysis Congressman. I agree that Lieberman's party has wandered into the desert without a pillar of smoke or fire to guide them.

[TheLion]

When I heard about Lieberman, I thought the Democrats had lost it. To abandon the central part of their party in this time of terrorism is simply insane.

[BamaAndy]

I lile the way you talk--and I like what you say. Harold Ford the junior must go down... too many socialists already in the senate.

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

Don't be too sure that the dim party is finished! The mad-leftists are very powerful and rich. They will stop at nothing to make the USA a communist paradise.

[GOPJ]

I've never known any nation to so embrace defeat and surrender as such a positive good as that bunch. Even if somebody is against the war, do they have to make the possibility of surrender such a joyful event? Surely this mindset is way off on the margin.

I think you're right. The fringe is taking over the dems - these folks think it's 1965 and the "kids" are all behind them... Ain't no kids - boomers grew up - and more are becoming conservative every day...

[prophetic]

bump

[dvwjr]

Originally posted by Congressman Billybob:

"The Democrat Party died yesterday in Hartford, Connecticut."

I would agree with you that the current Democrat party is dying - or splitting into two as it did before the late unpleasantness of the War between the States... Then, as now is cannot paper-over or sustain the policy dichotomy of either slavery/anti-slavery or National security/National isolationism. The Lieberman/Lamont contest just highlighted that fundamental divide, however my personal opinion is that it will takes two more Presidential election defeats before that party takes the road blazed by the Federalists.

"These major political parties have held great power – usually including the Presidency and control of one or both Houses of Congress – only to disappear from the political stage, remembered in history books that no one reads any more: The Federalists, the Anti-Federalists, the Republican-Democrats...."

I would differ just a bit on the history of "major" political parties in the history of the United States. By my count there have been five major political parties, with a few more influential minor parties to boot. Still hard to believe that James Monroe was elected to a second term with no opposition.

There have been five major political parties in the history of the United States, the Federalists, the Democratic-Republicans, the Democrats, the Whigs and the Republicans. Each of these major parties has in at least one Congress controlled the House, Senate and Presidency concurrently. This is what has defined them as major parties...

Congress	Years_Term	President	Presidential Party	House Majority Party	Senate Majority Party	The Big Tri-Fecta
1st	1789-1791	Washington	No Party	Administration	Administration	*
2nd	1791-1793	Washington	No Party	Administration	Administration	*
3rd	1793-1795	Washington	No Party	Opposition	Administration
4th	1795-1797	Washington	No Party	Opposition	Administration
5th	1797-1799	Adams(2)	Federalist	Dem-Reps	Federalist
6th	1799-1801	Adams(2)	Federalist	Federalist	Federalist	*
7th	1801-1803	Jefferson	Dem-Reps	Dem-Reps	Dem-Reps	*
8th	1803-1805	Jefferson	Dem-Reps	Dem-Reps	Dem-Reps	*
9th	1805-1807	Jefferson	Dem-Reps	Dem-Reps	Dem-Reps	*
10th	1807-1809	Jefferson	Dem-Reps	Dem-Reps	Dem-Reps	*
11th	1809-1811	Madison	Dem-Reps	Dem-Reps	Dem-Reps	*
12th	1811-1813	Madison	Dem-Reps	Dem-Reps	Dem-Reps	*
13th	1814-1815	Madison	Dem-Reps	Dem-Reps	Dem-Reps	*
14th	1815-1817	Madison	Dem-Reps	Dem-Reps	Dem-Reps	*
15th	1817-1819	Monroe	Dem-Reps	Dem-Reps	Dem-Reps	*
16th	1819-1821	Monroe	Dem-Reps	Dem-Reps	Dem-Reps	*
17th	1821-1823	Monroe	Dem-Reps	Dem-Reps	Dem-Reps	*
18th	1823-1825	Monroe	Dem-Reps	Dem-Reps	Dem-Reps	*
19th	1825-1827	Adams(6)	Dem-Reps	Dem-Reps	Dem-Reps	*
20th	1827-1829	Adams(6)	Dem-Reps	Dem-Reps	Dem-Reps	*
21st	1829-1831	Jackson	Democrat	Democrat	Democrat	*
22nd	1831-1833	Jackson	Democrat	Democrat	Democrat	*
23rd	1834-1835	Jackson	Democrat	Democrat	Whig
24th	1835-1837	Jackson	Democrat	Democrat	Democrat	*
25th	1837-1839	Van-Buren	Democrat	Democrat	Democrat	*
26th	1839-1841	Van-Buren	Democrat	Whig	Democrat
27th	1841-1843	Harrison(9)/Tyler	Whig	Whig	Whig	*
28th	1843-1845	Tyler	Whig	Democrat	Whig
29th	1845-1847	Polk	Democrat	Democrat	Democrat	*
30th	1847-1849	Polk	Democrat	Whig	Democrat
31st	1849-1851	Taylor/Filmore	Whig	Democrat	Democrat
32nd	1851-1853	Filmore	Whig	Democrat	Democrat
33rd	1853-1855	Pierce	Democrat	Democrat	Democrat	*
34th	1855-1857	Pierce	Democrat	Republican	Democrat
35th	1857-1859	Buchanan	Democrat	Democrat	Democrat	*
36th	1859-1861	Buchanan	Democrat	Republican	Democrat
37th	1861-1863	Lincoln	Republican	Republican	Republican	*
38th	1863-1865	Lincoln	Republican	Republican	Republican	*
39th	1865-1867	Lincoln/Johnson(17)	Republican*	Republican	Republican	*
40th	1867-1869	Johnson(17)	Republican*	Republican	Republican	*
41st	1869-1871	Grant	Republican	Republican	Republican	*
42nd	1871-1873	Grant	Republican	Republican	Republican	*
43rd	1873-1875	Grant	Republican	Republican	Republican	*
44th	1875-1877	Grant	Republican	Democrat	Republican
45th	1877-1879	Hayes	Republican	Democrat	Republican
46th	1879-1881	Hayes	Republican	Democrat	Republican
47th	1881-1883	Garfield/Arthur	Republican	Republican	Republican	*
48th	1883-1885	Arthur	Republican	Democrat	Republican
49th	1885-1887	Cleveland(22)	Democrat	Democrat	Republican
50th	1887-1889	Cleveland(22)	Democrat	Democrat	Republican
51st	1889-1891	Harrison(23)	Republican	Republican	Republican	*
52nd	1891-1893	Harrison(23)	Republican	Democrat	Republican
53rd	1893-1895	Cleveland(24)	Democrat	Democrat	Republican
54th	1895-1897	Cleveland(24)	Democrat	Republican	Republican
55th	1897-1899	McKinley	Republican	Republican	Republican	*
56th	1899-1901	McKinley	Republican	Republican	Republican	*
57th	1901-1903	McKinley/Roosevelt(26)	Republican	Republican	Republican	*
58th	1903-1905	Roosevelt(26)	Republican	Republican	Republican	*
59th	1905-1907	Roosevelt(26)	Republican	Republican	Republican	*
60th	1907-1909	Roosevelt(26)	Republican	Republican	Republican	*
61st	1909-1911	Taft	Republican	Republican	Republican	*
62nd	1911-1913	Taft	Republican	Democrat	Republican
63rd	1913-1915	Wilson	Democrat	Democrat	Republican
64th	1915-1917	Wilson	Democrat	Democrat	Democrat	*
65th	1917-1919	Wilson	Democrat	Republican	Democrat
66th	1919-1921	Wilson	Democrat	Republican	Republican
67th	1921-1923	Harding/Coolidge	Republican	Republican	Republican	*
68th	1923-1925	Coolidge	Republican	Republican	Republican	*
69th	1925-1927	Coolidge	Republican	Republican	Republican	*
70th	1927-1929	Coolidge	Republican	Republican	Republican	*
71st	1929-1931	Hoover	Republican	Republican	Republican	*
72nd	1931-1933	Hoover	Republican	Republican	Republican	*
73rd	1933-1935	Roosevelt(32)	Democrat	Democrat	Democrat	*
74th	1935-1937	Roosevelt(32)	Democrat	Democrat	Democrat	*
75th	1937-1939	Roosevelt(32)	Democrat	Democrat	Democrat	*
76th	1939-1941	Roosevelt(32)	Democrat	Democrat	Democrat	*
77th	1941-1943	Roosevelt(32)	Democrat	Democrat	Democrat	*
78th	1943-1945	Roosevelt(32)	Democrat	Democrat	Democrat	*
79th	1945-1947	Roosevelt(32)/Truman	Democrat	Democrat	Democrat	*
80th	1947-1949	Truman	Democrat	Republican	Democrat
81st	1949-1951	Truman	Democrat	Democrat	Democrat	*
82nd	1951-1953	Truman	Democrat	Democrat	Democrat	*
83rd	1953-1955	Eisenhower	Republican	Republican	Republican	*
84th	1955-1957	Eisenhower	Republican	Democrat	Democrat
85th	1957-1959	Eisenhower	Republican	Democrat	Democrat
86th	1959-1961	Eisenhower	Republican	Democrat	Democrat
87th	1961-1963	Kennedy	Democrat	Democrat	Democrat	*
88th	1963-1965	Kennedy/Johnson(36)	Democrat	Democrat	Democrat	*
89th	1965-1967	Johnson(36)	Democrat	Democrat	Democrat	*
90th	1967-1969	Johnson(36)	Democrat	Democrat	Democrat	*
91st	1969-1971	Nixon	Republican	Democrat	Democrat
92nd	1971-1973	Nixon	Republican	Democrat	Democrat
93rd	1973-1975	Nixon/Ford	Republican	Democrat	Democrat
94th	1975-1977	Ford	Republican	Democrat	Democrat
95th	1977-1979	Carter	Democrat	Democrat	Democrat	*
96th	1979-1981	Carter	Democrat	Democrat	Democrat	*
97th	1981-1983	Reagan	Republican	Democrat	Republican
98th	1983-1985	Reagan	Republican	Democrat	Republican
99th	1985-1987	Reagan	Republican	Democrat	Republican
100th	1987-1989	Reagan	Republican	Democrat	Democrat
101st	1989-1991	Bush(41)	Republican	Democrat	Democrat
102nd	1991-1993	Bush(41)	Republican	Democrat	Democrat
103rd	1993-1995	Clinton	Democrat	Democrat	Democrat	*
104th	1995-1997	Clinton	Democrat	Republican	Republican
105th	1997-1999	Clinton	Democrat	Republican	Republican
106th	1999-2001	Clinton	Democrat	Republican	Republican
107th	2001-2003	Bush(43)	Republican	Republican	Rep/Dem	*/no
108th	2003-2005	Bush(43)	Republican	Republican	Republican	*
107th	2005-2007	Bush(43)	Republican	Republican	Republican	*

What say you?

dvwjr

[Congressman Billybob]

I agree with you that only those five Parties have elected Presidents. And I wrote exactly that to the US Supreme Court in a brief in John Anderson's case there, in 1983.

Where I disagree with your chart is the Madison and Monroe years. Jefferson's Republican-Democrat Party dissolved after his two years. The Democrat Party as it is known today had not yet been born. That's my only quarrel.

John / Billybob

[CPT Clay]

Great Post!!!

May I plagerize?

[uncbob]

they're moving leftward too quickly and too openly. Not that any of the ordinary guys I know who vote Dem seem to have much awareness of that.

Most people who vote democrat or republican do so cause they always have and are unaware of what is really happening in the political world

[hellinahandcart]

Good article.

I lost all respect for Joe when he chose his party over his country, backing away from the Clinton Impeachment. (Because I thought Joe thoroughly honest, I’d written six months prior that I expected him to be the “honest Senator” as Goldwater was concerning President Nixon a quarter century before.) I have never forgotten that. I have nothing but contempt for LIEberman ever since. HHC's husband.

[B.O. Plenty]

Bump for later

[sachem longrifle]

There was an article in our local paper about 2 or 3 years ago from a former local Dem activist(retired) that warned the dems their flaccid foreign policy beliefs would regulate them to minority status. He also said that many traditionalist democrats(Reagan Democrats) were making the repub party like the Dem party of old and the current dems are becoming more the Green party

[HawaiianGecko]

Ping: Death of a party

[wmfights]

"I have never forgotten that. I have nothing but contempt for LIEberman ever since. HHC's husband."
_________________________________

Don't forget, other than defense, he ALWAYS votes liberal.

I watched Barone break down the voting pattern. The blue-collar middle class voters went Lieberman. The wealthy upper class voted Lamont. The schism in the Rat party is between the "I know what's good for you elitists" and the unheard "I'm a working stiff". The problem is why would the working stiff crowd join the Pubs? The Pubs have turned from their conservative roots the longer they have had power. The Pubs are run by the "blue bloods".

[Sam Cree]

"Most people who vote democrat or republican do so cause they always have and are unaware of what is really happening in the political world"

Yes, it's true. That was exactly the reason my Democrat voting fishing buddy gave. That he always had voted Dem, and so had his father. On the one hand he'll go on about his belief in the free market, then he'll go right out and vote for a socialist. None of these guys believe in affirmative action or even many of the Dem causes; but they see the Dems as the "home team."

[Sam Cree]

"The Pubs are run by the "blue bloods."

I guess you could say the Bushes, the Romneys and other Republicans are blue bloods, but the Dems have their own share of 'em, the Kerrys and the Kennedys come to mind right away. Not to mention FDR, who was a blue blood as well. And this Lamont idiot.