Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   "Why the Civil Rights Act couldn't pass today" Because half of Congress are a bunch of uncompromising, backward hicks?   (politico.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

611 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Jul 2014 at 12:52 PM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



38 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-07-02 10:01:53 AM  
That's one way of saying it. Another way of saying it is that the Civil Rights act passed because Congress in 1964 had a overwhelming majority of Democrats, especially northern Democrats. There were 65 Democrats and 35 Republicans in the Senate, and it was 255-177 in the Senate.

Give Democrats those numbers today and the Civil Rights Act would easily pass again.
 
2014-07-02 10:17:46 AM  
Not that there's any sort of meaningful comparison on this issue between modern day Republicans and those of 50 years ago, but Republican vote percentages were more heavily in favor of the CRA than Democratic vote percentages, although both were overwhelmingly in favor. Per the Wiki article's breakdowns, the real demographic splits were more North-South than Dem-Rep.
 
2014-07-02 10:19:07 AM  

rwhamann: Not that there's any sort of meaningful comparison on this issue between modern day Republicans and those of 50 years ago, but Republican vote percentages were more heavily in favor of the CRA than Democratic vote percentages, although both were overwhelmingly in favor. Per the Wiki article's breakdowns, the real demographic splits were more North-South than Dem-Rep.


This is correct. Once you control for geography, Democrats were still more in favor of it than Republicans.

In other words, Northern Dems supported the CRA more than Northern GOP, and Southern Dems supported it more than Southern GOP.
 
2014-07-02 10:23:34 AM  
It is also significant to note that many GOP representatives are openly hostile to civil-rights era legislation like the CRA and VRA and will contend publicly that they were great injustices visited upon the American white people.  This is beyond their "If he's for it, I'm a'gin it" mantra.
 
2014-07-02 10:31:37 AM  

DamnYankees: This is correct. Once you control for geography, Democrats were still more in favor of it than Republicans.

In other words, Northern Dems supported the CRA more than Northern GOP, and Southern Dems supported it more than Southern GOP.


Excellent point - the seemingly GOP favorable percentages overall are more a factor of the incredible hold the Democrats had on the south at the time than a difference in ideology on this matter. Not one southern Republican voted for it.
 
2014-07-02 10:42:21 AM  
but I was told "you never go back"
 
2014-07-02 10:57:20 AM  
Also back then there was still enough power concentrated in the hands of the Speaker of the House and the Presidency that they could fark over your career if you didn't toe the line. Johnson was renowned for his backroom arm twisting. That kind of thing would not fly today.
 
2014-07-02 10:58:49 AM  
Done in the headline,
 
2014-07-02 11:24:11 AM  

DamnYankees: rwhamann: Not that there's any sort of meaningful comparison on this issue between modern day Republicans and those of 50 years ago, but Republican vote percentages were more heavily in favor of the CRA than Democratic vote percentages, although both were overwhelmingly in favor. Per the Wiki article's breakdowns, the real demographic splits were more North-South than Dem-Rep.

This is correct. Once you control for geography, Democrats were still more in favor of it than Republicans.

In other words, Northern Dems supported the CRA more than Northern GOP, and Southern Dems supported it more than Southern GOP.


upload.wikimedia.org
What Southern Republicans? For the record, among Southerners, only one Democrat voted in favor: Ralph Yarborough of Texas (incidentally, the Southern Republican, also of Texas, voted against it). The South is defined as former members of the Confederacy.

Vote totals indicate that the vote was less party-related than it was geography-related: the majority of Northern Senators, GOP and Democratic, voted for the Civil Rights Act (Democrats 45-1, Republicans 27-5).
 
2014-07-02 11:27:43 AM  
Because it would be redundant?
 
2014-07-02 12:56:22 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-07-02 12:57:53 PM  

DamnYankees: That's one way of saying it. Another way of saying it is that the Civil Rights act passed because Congress in 1964 had a overwhelming majority of Democrats, especially northern Democrats. There were 65 Democrats and 35 Republicans in the Senate, and it was 255-177 in the Senate.

Give Democrats those numbers today and the Civil Rights Act would easily pass again.


Kennedy's death was also a motivating factor.
 
2014-07-02 12:58:08 PM  
We can't even keep the Civil Rights Act we have intact let alone pass a new one. It's like that recipe for Roman cement that has been lost to time.
 
2014-07-02 12:58:46 PM  
Hudson, Sir.  He's Hicks.
 
2014-07-02 01:02:36 PM  
If the CRA hadn't been passed in 64, by now Jim Crow would have most likely been overturned by some, uh ... other means.
 
2014-07-02 01:04:00 PM  

born_yesterday: Hudson, Sir.  He's Hicks.


How do I get outta this chicken-sh*t outfit?
 
2014-07-02 01:07:12 PM  
Throw in several hundred billion for border security and it might have a shot.
 
2014-07-02 01:10:48 PM  
Congress has always had its hicks. Its the people opposing them who've gone.

The progressives rolled over and died back during Reagan and there hasn't been a big enough lightning storm for the good doctor to get the corpse up and awake with since.
 
2014-07-02 01:11:40 PM  

HempHead: DamnYankees: That's one way of saying it. Another way of saying it is that the Civil Rights act passed because Congress in 1964 had a overwhelming majority of Democrats, especially northern Democrats. There were 65 Democrats and 35 Republicans in the Senate, and it was 255-177 in the Senate.

Give Democrats those numbers today and the Civil Rights Act would easily pass again.

Kennedy's death was also a motivating factor.


If you take that out of the equation, you also had the Four Little Girls.

There was also social pressures and the use of television. Before "viral", you had news coverage of protestors harassed and beaten.

I was going to say Twitter, Facebook, and Jon Stewart would have multiplied the effect on Congress, but there was one other factor: LBJ. He knew how to get a bill through both Houses and who to rely/manipulate. I don't think he would have put up with the Tea Party bullshiat, or would have had many visits to the Heritage Foundation.
 
2014-07-02 01:16:42 PM  
The South: Wrong about ALMOST everything since 1789
 
2014-07-02 01:20:00 PM  
It was a painful tableau: The bipartisan leaders of Congress linking hands in the Capitol Rotunda and swaying to the strains of "We Shall Overcome" as they commemorated the 50th anniversary of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

That does sound painful. I'd call in sick.

At the same time, the Democratic Party's stance on civil rights has steadily shifted from the color-blind approach of 50 years ago - a belief that if blacks and whites were granted equal standing at the ballot box and in public spaces and the workplace, justice would prevail - to an emphasis on color-conscious remedies like affirmative action and social programs that redistribute wealth.

"Republicans have never gotten on board with that last piece," Kabaservice said, "and so Democrats now almost have to define Republicans as anti-civil rights."


Well, that's an interesting way to reinterpret things. Are "color-conscious" programs a civil right? Are their outcomes? It seems like a more honest label than "anti-civil rights" would be "anti-black."
 
2014-07-02 01:20:21 PM  
I suspect it wouldn't pass because it would be laden with so much pork that has nothing to do with civil rights that most right-thinking people in congress would oppose it.
 
2014-07-02 01:23:37 PM  

Chris Ween: Because it would be redundant?


That is irrelevant!  This is the thread where we discuss a hypothetical situation then predict how we think others might react to it, then we criticize them for how we imagine they might have acted in the hypothetical situation.

Of course we base all this upon our own closely held stereotypes and prejudices.
 
2014-07-02 01:30:16 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: The South: Wrong about ALMOST everything since 1789


and yet both parties keep refuse to run the candidates they really want so they can try and get the most southern votes they can
 
2014-07-02 01:30:19 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: That does sound painful. I'd call in sick.


Colbert did a great thing when he had Eleanor Holmes-Norton on the show last week. He showed the clip of Democrats singing while Boehner and McConnell looked super uncomfortable and didn't sing. Colbert asked what she thought of them not singing, and she, diplomatically, said well, maybe they didn't know the words. Colbert responded by showing in the clip that they literally had the words directly in front of them on a teleprompter. He then didn't push the subject, but it was pretty funny.
 
2014-07-02 01:33:22 PM  

Kittypie070: born_yesterday: Hudson, Sir.  He's Hicks.

How do I get outta this chicken-sh*t outfit?


Nuke 'em from orbit.

It's the only way to be sure...
 
2014-07-02 01:37:07 PM  
Because we learned from our mistake?
 
2014-07-02 01:38:35 PM  
Saw this line the other day: Perfect confidence is granted to the less talented. As a consolation prize.
 
2014-07-02 01:43:30 PM  
nmrsnr

...Democrats singing while Boehner and McConnell looked super uncomfortable and didn't sing.

Well, one can understand why. Republicans tend to push voter ID initiatives, which apparently disproportionately affect black people (keeping them from voting), so singing a song strongly associated with a period in which black Americans were campaigning for legitimate enfranchisement would be pretty awkward for them.

I'd have more respect for them if they just walked out or something.
 
2014-07-02 02:13:56 PM  

nmrsnr: Facetious_Speciest: That does sound painful. I'd call in sick.

Colbert did a great thing when he had Eleanor Holmes-Norton on the show last week. He showed the clip of Democrats singing while Boehner and McConnell looked super uncomfortable and didn't sing. Colbert asked what she thought of them not singing, and she, diplomatically, said well, maybe they didn't know the words. Colbert responded by showing in the clip that they literally had the words directly in front of them on a teleprompter. He then didn't push the subject, but it was pretty funny.


I saw that, loved it
 
2014-07-02 02:23:00 PM  
I'll go one step further, and predict that Southern GOPpers will be calling for it's repeal in the next 5-10 years. All under the guise of "liberty" for business owners, of course.
 
2014-07-02 02:28:54 PM  

ReverendJynxed: Because we learned from our mistake?


I'll bite. How was the Civil Rights Act a mistake?
 
2014-07-02 02:37:39 PM  

Cletus C.: Throw in several hundred billion for border security and it might have a shot.


Bwaah?
 
2014-07-02 03:51:22 PM  

DamnYankees: That's one way of saying it. Another way of saying it is that the Civil Rights act passed because Congress in 1964 had a overwhelming majority of Democrats, especially northern Democrats. There were 65 Democrats and 35 Republicans in the Senate, and it was 255-177 in the Senate.

Give Democrats those numbers today and the Civil Rights Act would easily pass again.we could seriously unfark this nation


Not that is isn't unreasonable to have issues with the DNC, but if you think giving serious consideration to voting for any Repub or libertarian in this environment, you aren't living in objective reality.
 
2014-07-02 04:45:54 PM  
You spelled "dicks" wrong, Subby. But "hicks" will do.
 
2014-07-02 05:35:24 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: The South: Wrong about ALMOST everything since 1789


i'd say its mostly the theory of gravy (put it on everything) that they've gotten right, can't think of anything else really.
 
2014-07-02 11:44:22 PM  
Done in one.  The Democrats had a huge majority, and more importantly, they had made huge gains in Northern states.  There was a time when Republicans dominated House and Senate seats in the North, particularly during the brief periods when they controlled both houses in the 50s.

Democrats had their largest majority ever (at that time) in '65 (when the Voting Rights Act was passed, due to down-ticket gains from the LBJ landslide.
 
2014-07-03 10:45:42 AM  
img.fark.net
 
Displayed 38 of 38 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report