The victors rewrite history

Chinese scribeIt’s a process at least as old as Chinese civilization, where each new dynasty rewrote the history of the one before to prove that the new emperor was God’s chosen. Still, old or not, it’s disconcerting to watch history being altered before one’s eyes.

LATimes: Democrats responsible for passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

According to this article ,

Only 64 percent of Democrats in Congress voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act (153 for, 91 against in the House; and 46 for, 21 against in the Senate). But 80 percent of Republicans (136 for, 35 against in the House; and 27 for, 6 against in the Senate) voted for the 1964 Act.

Wikipedia, which has been known on occasion to get its facts right, has the same numbers.

Even the ultra-liberal blog Raw Story acknowledges the vote totals:

When we look at the party vote in both houses of Congress, it fits the historical pattern. Republicans are more in favor of the bill:

80% of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the bill. Less than 70% of Democrats did. Indeed, Minority Leader Republican Everett Dirksen led the fight to end the filibuster. Meanwhile, Democrats such as Richard Russell of Georgia and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina tried as hard as they could to sustain a filibuster.

15 Comments

Filed under Right wing nut rantings

15 responses to “The victors rewrite history

  1. burningmadolf

    Al Gore Sr. That is all.

  2. Anonymous

    Nice historical flim flam on your part, CF, which completely ignores the historical fact that the two parties have traded places since 1964 on civil rights. The Dixiecrat Democrats are now reactionary Republicans, and the moderate Republicans are now Democrats. You can’t with a straight face pretend that the two parties that existed back then are the same today. The Republicans that helped pass civil rights legislation in 1964 would roll over in their grave at the heaping mass of moronic, Tea Party, warmed over John Birchers, and Randian monkeys in charge of today’s GOP. Nice try, CF, but you get an F in social studies! Talk about rewriting history!

    • Peg

      Parties continue to change through the years; both Republicans and Democrats have, too. But the oft-repeated notion by liberals that they’ve “changed places” is not true at all.

      Suck it up, Anon. (I wouldn’t admit who I was either, if I was offering these bogus stories.) DEMOCRATS didn’t want civil rights for blacks when we didn’t have the laws in place. REPUBLICANS did. Yes, now (at least in theory) Democrats are as supportive of civil rights as Republicans. (Put me down as someone who believes many Democratic policies are actually harming our minority citizens more than helping them – no matter what you argue.) And, I do believe that Republicans have not come along enough, in general, with other social issues – like acceptance of the gay community.

      But that being said, CF was right and you were wrong. Both parties have changed, yet the Republicans were the ones to push civil rights legislation through.

      Speaking of history – here’s a bit more of for you about Reagan and civil rights. Too bad movie goers are getting a LOAD in “The Butler.”

      http://moot.typepad.com/what_if/2013/08/the-race-warriors.html

    • So if I understand your argument, the Democrats of 1964 can be said to have been responsible for passage of the Civil Rights Act because, you say, the Democrats of today are different from the Democrats then, and if the Democrats of 1964 had been like the Democrats of today, they would have welcomed integration? So a headline stating that they were in fact integrationists and champions of civil rights is true and historically accurate, once that adjustment is made? Did you work for Dan Rather, by any chance?

  3. InfoDiva

    You can do better than this, Chris. George Wallace was a Democrat back then, for heaven’s sake.

  4. Rivman

    Trading places? There are no moderates left in either party. They knew well enough to move back to the private sector.

    • housecat

      Or maybe we were just foolish enough to. I’m starting to think I picked the wrong racket, especially since insider trading is a-ok again for our elected representatives. Is there a non-millionaire Congressmen left in DC? If so, maybe we should trap and stuff him for display in the Natural History Museum before he succumbs to Potomac Fever.

  5. Far Right Winger

    The Democrat Party has a shameful past which continues with the present cast of characters. I found a great link to a summary of the Democrat Party as it has evolved in American History. Blacks need to be educated about this shameful past and then perhaps Republicans can start to gain the Black votes they are due.

  6. FF

    “President Kennedy’s real problem with civil rights, however, was the crucial role of the South in the Democratic Party. In 1963, the Democratic party was made up of an uneasy coalition of conservative southern Democrats on the one hand and liberal northern and western Democrats on the other. The only way Kennedy could hope to get a major tax-cut bill and other economic programs through the Congress was to keep the Southerners in the Democratic fold. Pushing hard for civil rights, however, would have antagonized the southern Democrats.”

    Clearly the liberal northern and Western Democrats won the day, as there are exactly 5 Democratic and 21 Republican Senators in the old Confederacy. Lots of truth about misconceptions about both parties (Teddy Roosevelt, the finest environmental president still, was a Republican), but you seem to think that parties maintain their character forever, whether or not they have evolved through internal debates. If that is the case, then I think the Republicans have to take credit for Obamacare………..

    “The mandate, requiring every American to purchase health insurance, appeared in a 1989 published proposal by Stuart M. Butler of the conservative Heritage Foundation called “Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans,” which included a provision to “mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance.”

    Now surely you will state that this is not the same, but if the Republicans invented the individual mandate, by your logic does this mean they are now and forever the party of Obamacare, regardless of the evolution of the Republicans over the past 20 years?

    I don’t know what the point of making your statement in a vacuum is, but I suspect there is some kind of need for some to associate themselves with policies that they agree in – such as civil rights legislation – while trying to stay true to the conservative cause which is increasingly populated by people who you have little in common with yet share a part of the ideological spectrum that is not kind to heresy. So if you need to make the Republicans the heroes of civil rights, you would likely be right in 1964, but under no stretch of the imagination in 2013

    • What is it that you and Dollar Bill can’t understand about this post? The LA Times asserts as truth that the Democrats were responsible for enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in 1964. I point out that that is not true. You and Dullard say, “but it is true, because the Democrats have changed since 1964″. If the LA Times had written a headline, “2013 Democrats would have passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act had they’d been there”, you could at least make the argument that the hypothesis was accurate. You aren’t, as the last great Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynahan, entitled to your own facts.
      One of you is far smarter than this, and it isn’t Dullard Bill.

    • Pinzgauer

      I so enjoy the liberals’ style of advancing an argument : idiot this, moron that….

      Oh yes, I take someone like that very seriously. Not!

  7. Anonymous

    You’re being very slippery and deceptive with your argument, CF,suggesting that because Republicans (along with non-Dixiecrat Democrats) helped pass the civil rights bill, we should infer that the Republicans of 2013 remain champions of racial equality. And of course we know they are nothing of the sort. And don’t pretend that because Tea Party loon Tim Scott is the only black Senator, and is a Republican, that proves your point. It doesn’t. George Wallace would be perfectly at home in today’s GOP, and liberal Republican Jacob Javits would not. Hell, even Reagan would have a hard time fitting in within the confines of your monkeyhouse. Until your party expands its base outside of the angry, rich, aging white guy demographic, you are doomed. Which you very well know, but won’t admit.