Today marks the signing of Executive Order 9066 in the United States. This order was signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and led to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. In modern society, the internment camps are noted as a stain on America.
Actor George Takei was interned in one of these camps when he was a child; as a result, he is against anything that remotely resembles them ever returning. On his Facebook page, he often posts about the camps and why it is important for them to never re-materialize in any form. Any reasonable human being would agree with him.
Unfortunately, whenever the internment camps are raised in Internet discussion, there are some people who don't listen to the message that the camps were unacceptable and shouldn't return. These people instead use the camps to deflect from any terrible policies developed by today's Republican Party. Why? Because FDR was a Democratic president and in their eyes, this is enough to dismiss any civil rights progression the Democrats have achieved in the seven and a half decades since.
No one has ever argued that because a Democratic president issued an order to set up the internment camps that the camps were therefore okay. No one. In fact, that a Democrat did issue it is part of the reason why today's Democrats are vocal about how terrible the camps were and why they should never be seen again; the main reason, of course, is that it's morally wrong to isolate and segregate people based on their ethnicity. "A Democrat did it!" is just a childish deflection from developments in American politics today.
The message here? Yes, a Democratic president was behind the internment camps for Japanese Americans in the latter half of World War II but no one today says that it was acceptable because the president was a Democrat; the people who discuss the camps now are doing so to remind others that they were a dark part of American history and should remain in the past.
Showing posts with label Franklin D. Roosevelt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Franklin D. Roosevelt. Show all posts
Sunday, 19 February 2017
Thursday, 28 April 2016
"Unrealistic" policies and defeatism
An aspect of the 2016 presidential election in the United States that has disappointed me is how proposals by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, which if implemented would massively change systems such as education and healthcare, have been dismissed and mocked as "unrealistic" and "never going to happen". It's disappointing because I want to know this: Where this defeatism in the United States come from?
Years ago, US presidents regardless of their political affiliation would make grand promises as to how they would improve life for everyday Americans. They would aim high and even if they weren't able to achieve everything, they would at least have achieved something. Even Herbert Hoover, who was defeated in a landslide by FDR in 1932 for being a highly ineffective president, once said, "A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage". He didn't campaign on, "Every American having a roof over their heads and a food on their plates? Completely unrealistic!". Voters would never have granted him a first term, let alone a chance for a second.
Whether or not you agree with Sanders' policies isn't my point; rather, it's that his proposed sweeping changes are viewed as pipe dreams and that many people seem to want to accept no change to a system that they supposedly think is severely broken and in need of fixing. People complain about the system and when someone different comes along and offers different solutions, they admit defeat by dismissing that person and voting for the very system they claim to despise. If that attitude had been more prevalent years ago, the likes of Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK and even Ronald Reagan would never have been elected.
American presidents used to promise everything under the Sun to the public and would at least try to deliver. Many attitudes of decades ago are better off being left in the past but perhaps that's one to bring back.
Years ago, US presidents regardless of their political affiliation would make grand promises as to how they would improve life for everyday Americans. They would aim high and even if they weren't able to achieve everything, they would at least have achieved something. Even Herbert Hoover, who was defeated in a landslide by FDR in 1932 for being a highly ineffective president, once said, "A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage". He didn't campaign on, "Every American having a roof over their heads and a food on their plates? Completely unrealistic!". Voters would never have granted him a first term, let alone a chance for a second.
Whether or not you agree with Sanders' policies isn't my point; rather, it's that his proposed sweeping changes are viewed as pipe dreams and that many people seem to want to accept no change to a system that they supposedly think is severely broken and in need of fixing. People complain about the system and when someone different comes along and offers different solutions, they admit defeat by dismissing that person and voting for the very system they claim to despise. If that attitude had been more prevalent years ago, the likes of Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK and even Ronald Reagan would never have been elected.
American presidents used to promise everything under the Sun to the public and would at least try to deliver. Many attitudes of decades ago are better off being left in the past but perhaps that's one to bring back.
Sunday, 2 June 2013
Elliott County, Kentucky
Elliott County, located in northeastern Kentucky, fits the stereotypical description of a Republican-voting region: it is in the South, it's rural, its inhabitants are poor, there is high unemployment, most of the people hold socially conservative views and it's overwhelmingly white (around 98%). Despite this profile, since its inception in 1969 Elliott County has voted for the Democratic candidate in every presidential election, usually by a margin of two-to-one or higher; it holds the record for the longest streak of a county voting for one party.
How did this come to be? For decades, the people of Elliott County voted for Democrats out of pure resentment for the Republicans and Abraham Lincoln; each generation would pass this resentment on to the next and people who did vote for Republicans received hostility for their actions. Tradition and familial party loyalty have been major factors in keeping the county Democratic and many of the residents are opposed to voting against either their own families or tradition. Elliott County has nearly 4,700 registered Democrats and under 230 registered Republicans out of a population of 8,000.
When Franklin Delano Roosevelt came to power in the 1930s and implemented the New Deal, Roosevelt's expansion of government-funded projects and the social safety systems caused the inhabitants of Elliott County to view the Democratic Party as the "party of the people" and gave them reason to believe in government. Even now, Elliott County is deeply reliant on the government: Medicaid and food stamp recipients currently make up a third of the population and the government is one of the largest employers; it is not in the county's interests to implement spending cuts because they would seriously harm the county's economy and general well-being.
Given that Elliott County has remained loyal to the Democrats long after the rest of the South moved away from the party because of the passing of the Civil Rights Act, will it ever vote for a Republican? It's possible: of all the Democratic presidential candidates since 1960, President Barack's Obama's support percentages were the lowest — 61% in 2008 and 49.4% in 2012; given the country's socially conservative views, Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party's strong support for gay marriage and abortion rights is a likely contributor to the lower support. Mr. Obama was also portrayed as an anti-coal candidate during the 2012 election and Elliott County has links to the coal industry, but given the county's location and demographics, race cannot be ruled out as a reason for the declined percentages.
That being said, if Elliott County's traditions and party loyalty hold, its belief in and reliance on government both remain resolute, and the Republicans are viewed as wanting to cut the services that the government provides, Elliott County will continue to vote for the Democrats in the foreseeable future.
Source/recommended reading: Not So Solid South: Democratic Party Survives In Rural Elliott County, Kentucky, from The Huffington Post, 05/09/2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_County,_Kentucky is also useful
How did this come to be? For decades, the people of Elliott County voted for Democrats out of pure resentment for the Republicans and Abraham Lincoln; each generation would pass this resentment on to the next and people who did vote for Republicans received hostility for their actions. Tradition and familial party loyalty have been major factors in keeping the county Democratic and many of the residents are opposed to voting against either their own families or tradition. Elliott County has nearly 4,700 registered Democrats and under 230 registered Republicans out of a population of 8,000.
When Franklin Delano Roosevelt came to power in the 1930s and implemented the New Deal, Roosevelt's expansion of government-funded projects and the social safety systems caused the inhabitants of Elliott County to view the Democratic Party as the "party of the people" and gave them reason to believe in government. Even now, Elliott County is deeply reliant on the government: Medicaid and food stamp recipients currently make up a third of the population and the government is one of the largest employers; it is not in the county's interests to implement spending cuts because they would seriously harm the county's economy and general well-being.
Given that Elliott County has remained loyal to the Democrats long after the rest of the South moved away from the party because of the passing of the Civil Rights Act, will it ever vote for a Republican? It's possible: of all the Democratic presidential candidates since 1960, President Barack's Obama's support percentages were the lowest — 61% in 2008 and 49.4% in 2012; given the country's socially conservative views, Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party's strong support for gay marriage and abortion rights is a likely contributor to the lower support. Mr. Obama was also portrayed as an anti-coal candidate during the 2012 election and Elliott County has links to the coal industry, but given the county's location and demographics, race cannot be ruled out as a reason for the declined percentages.
That being said, if Elliott County's traditions and party loyalty hold, its belief in and reliance on government both remain resolute, and the Republicans are viewed as wanting to cut the services that the government provides, Elliott County will continue to vote for the Democrats in the foreseeable future.
Source/recommended reading: Not So Solid South: Democratic Party Survives In Rural Elliott County, Kentucky, from The Huffington Post, 05/09/2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_County,_Kentucky is also useful
Wednesday, 25 April 2012
Ohio's voting record
In my post about US state nicknames, I wrote that I mistakenly thought Ohio to be nicknamed the "Bellwether State". I led myself into thinking that because of Ohio's ability to vote with the winning candidate of the presidential elections over 90% of the time.
Since 1896 onwards, Ohio has voted for the winner in all except two elections: 1944 and 1960. In 1944, Governor Thomas E. Dewey narrowly carried the state over President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and in 1960 Vice President Richard Nixon comfortably won the state over Senator John F. Kennedy; in addition, 1960 was the last time Ohio voted against the victor of an election.
Missouri had the best record of being a bellwether until the 2008 election, when it voted against the winner (although the state was incredibly close); before then the last two times it voted the opposite way to the victor was in 1956 and 1900...hence its lower win rate than Ohio. Despite Ohio's record, apparently the state with the better track is Nevada, as it has supported the winner in every election since 1912 except for 1976; however, if Nevada is put on the same timeline as Ohio, it voted against the winner in 1896, 1900, and 1908.
Since 1896 onwards, Ohio has voted for the winner in all except two elections: 1944 and 1960. In 1944, Governor Thomas E. Dewey narrowly carried the state over President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and in 1960 Vice President Richard Nixon comfortably won the state over Senator John F. Kennedy; in addition, 1960 was the last time Ohio voted against the victor of an election.
Missouri had the best record of being a bellwether until the 2008 election, when it voted against the winner (although the state was incredibly close); before then the last two times it voted the opposite way to the victor was in 1956 and 1900...hence its lower win rate than Ohio. Despite Ohio's record, apparently the state with the better track is Nevada, as it has supported the winner in every election since 1912 except for 1976; however, if Nevada is put on the same timeline as Ohio, it voted against the winner in 1896, 1900, and 1908.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)