Douglass has been dead since 1895; but that couldn't stop him from rising from the grave to endorse Romney and the complete Buckeye State GOP ticket. It's a surprising turn of events for several reasons.
First of all, Douglass is...dead.
Second, the brochure handed out by a group calling itself "Women for Liberty" (Treasurer: Susan Holzapfel) says Douglass was for "private wealth creation" whereas President Obama is working to "redistribute wealth." In other words, Douglass would be for "individual freedom and success" if he was still living.
And that rat, Obama? He wants to "create a culture of dependency."
Yeah, nothing like "private wealth creation," circa 1818, when Douglass was born. His father, a white slave owner, got his mother, a slave, pregnant, and when mom delivered, presto, we're talking wealth creation! We're talking: little Frederick is your son/slave and you can put him up for sale!
It's the 19th century version of "trickle down" economics.
Well, no wonder then that Deceased Douglass wants us to vote "Romney/Ryan 2012" (although, come to think of it, would his ghost really have a picture ID?) No culture of dependency for those slave owners, baby!! No siree. You want your cotton picked, you pick it yourself. Isn't that the way it worked on every plantation before 1865?
What else would Douglass like about today's GOP? "Limited government." That's what the group that put together this flyer wants us to believe. Yeah. Don't you hate it in 1954 when a few "activist judges" overturn all those great state laws, denying blacks the right to sit in the front of the bus, enter restaurants, go to the movie theater, get into college, ride in the same taxis or play checkers with white folks?
It says right here on this brochure: Douglass would be for "school choice."
Remember in the last debate when Mitt insisted states can handle health care better than the pushy federal government. No doubt the ghost of Frederick Douglass would agree. Think back, for example, to the pushy federal government that forced through the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which put the hurt on great states like Alabama and Mississippi and Louisiana and required them to start letting dark-skinned folks show up at the polls and vote. Damn the federal government, sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong...
HOLY SHIT!!!! IS THERE ANY WAY TO READ THIS BROCHURE other than to see it as a craven attempt by forces on the right to fool a few confused swing-state voters?
Are the women of "Women for Liberty" really so dense? What makes them think that Frederick Douglass would support Mitt Romney when 98% of African-Americans today do not? Do they know so little of our history that they can delude themselves into imagining that Douglass, who fought for racial equality all his life, would fail to notice the latent and blatant racism of right-wing types today? Oooo, the scary black guy, Barack Hussein Obama, doesn't have a birth certificate! Oooo, he doesn't think like a real American....
Oooo, he's not really one of us.
Come on, right-wing knuckleheads. You're better than this. If you want to bring back dead people to endorse Mitt Romney, bring back Joe McCarthy. He'd be for Romney, for sure. And George Wallace. Now that's a dead American we know would like the GOP today. And don't overlook Pitchfork Ben Tillman! What about Marie Antoinette? She might not, technically, be a U. S. citizen but she would love the disdain your party has for the 47%.
Susan Holzapfel (Send donations to: One West Fourth Street, Suite 2400, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45202), do you really believe that a man who lived through an era when Jim Crow laws were spreading like plague and blacks who stood up for their rights were lynched by the hundreds would support all the new voter-ID laws, designed with clear intent to disenfranchise as many minority voters as possible? Are you so blind as to think a former slave would side with billionaires and vote for a candidate who admits he doesn't care about people who are down and out in American society?
WE KNOW RIGHT-WING TYPES prefer to live in the past, rather than face reality, and we also know they're on the wrong side of history. Conservatives once stood with emperors and kings. Conservatives once stood with slave owners. Conservatives once insisted that only men should vote, then only white men, and now they hope to amend state constitutions and the U. S. Constitution if necessary to insure that gay Americans never, never marry. Oh, of course. The ghost of Frederick Douglass would be for that.
The man who fought to see the 14th Amendment added to the U. S. Constitution (guaranteeing equal protection to all citizens under state law), yeah, he'd be on the side of hate, intolerance and bigotry if he were still alive today.
Sure, "Women of Liberty." Sure he would.
Yes, you do have a point that conservatives have made mistakes in the past. Let us not forget that we are all human and humans are imperfect creatures. Frederick Douglass though would have supported Governor Romney. This becomes plainly obvious when looking at the fact that Mr. Douglass believed in the value of life. President Obama on the other hand believes it is a woman's right to murder their child. Governor Romney is not a perfect choice but then again nobody is perfect. With the mass genocide of human life that is currently happening in America it is only God's grace keeping us from His wrath. This is genocide because it is targeting one specific group the unborn human child. Mr. Viall I have the upmost respect for you and I do agree using Frederick Douglass a campaigning example is ludicrous but that does not take away from the fact that if he were alive today he probably would have voted for Governor Romney. I cannot say that I know Mr. Douglass would have voter for Governor Romney because I obviously have never met him and I am not him. When I look at the Historiographical evidence he most likely would not have voted for President Obama.
ReplyDeleteWe will have to agree to disagree. Hope college life is fun for you, Mr. D.
DeleteWhat about that child after he/she is born? Then who cares about them? Why is it that conservatives only seem to care about people before they are born and after they die, when that can't make any demands on us?
DeleteThank you Mr. Viall college has gone excellent so far. Anonymous: I agree that some Conservative positions are incorrect. I did not say that conservatives were always right in fact I said the opposite. I was trying to state my opinion based on historical evidence without my worldview bias coming completely through. Will I vote conservative? Yes, because I believe they are closer to my Biblical worldview. Do conservatives have bad policies? Yes, I do not agree with every stance of the conservatives. For example Medicaid and food stamps, are they intrinsically evil? No, but do they like all human systems get abused? Yes, my dad has been searching for a job for 2 years so we have been on TANF. The problem is the people who need help the most are not getting it, I.E. veterans and the disabled. I have seen people drive up in a mustang, wearing a hundred of dollar outfit, grab Twinkies and donuts, and pay for them with food stamps. The conservatives do care for people. They try to keep our rights to own a gun, I personally enjoy the liberty to purchase a gun if I so choose. We would have less crime in my opinion if everybody owned a gun. When guns are illegal only criminals will have them I know that statement is overused but it is true. Do Liberals have some good ideas? Yes, but most of their ideas conflict with my biblical worldview, not all of their ideas are wrong in my eyes. Most of their ideas however I believe go against God and what He stands for. Have a good day.
ReplyDeleteJonathon, you have, as usual, a sensible position, well-thought out. (I'm not surprised, of course, having seen you "in action" in my class.)
DeleteOh look a self-loathing white male (mis)educator. Slam your people and your history in order to "fit in" and keep that Ghetto Pass. Bravo, pinky.
ReplyDeleteYou have obviously never met Mr. Viall. Wonderful educator, great man, brought in ex and current military men for his students to talk with for a real perspective on war and history. I don't agree with all his positions but you have no right to say what you said.
DeleteThanks, Mr. D.
DeleteYou should run for office yourself; you'd be an honest politician.
I might one day, my plans right now Lord willing are to become a lawyer. (The only problem that I would have is I'm to conservative to run as a democrate but I disagree with to many Republican ideas to run Republican, and rarely does a third party candidate win)The reason people get so mad over polotics is because they can't compromise OH the democrats are voting for it, it must be inherantly evil...not always the case.
DeleteEx-Lefty, I'm not sure you saw my response, but didn't want you to think I forgot you. I think I posted this without replying properly to you:
DeleteAh, "your people?" My people would be humanity, of course. It's like the Declaration of Independence, see? "All men are created equal." You've read that, I hope.
As for "pinky" I joined the Marines on December 28, 1968, because I thought communism had to be stopped in SE Asia. Your boy Mitt was heading for France to make sure he stayed totally, irrevocably safe.
I'm not going to say I know what you think; but I suspect you are a bigot with a tendency toward Facism. I suspect you are adept at hating others. I suspect, if I met you, I would pity you.
Sorry, Ex-Leftist, I posted on my older brother's computer. So the comment above is mine.
ReplyDeleteIt's kind of cool, though: he served in Vietnam in 1972, with the U. S. Army, and got shot at once or twice. He's an Obama supporter, too, not because of race, but because he thinks Romney is kind of a weasel.
I'll vote Obama because I don't believe a woman who is raped should have to have the baby. Or, because my daughter is a type-1 diabetic and now she can't be denied health insurance. Or because I figure a gay guy in the military today has earned the right to get married if he and his partner want to; and my marriage will still be perfectly safe. See. Simple liberal thinking.
John J. Viall (now posting on my younger brother's computer.)
I am not sure what you are thinking, but Douglass was a conservative, and the examples you brought up of state rights were liberal ideas of state rights. The liberal democrats wanted a big government that could deny the rights of individuals, they just used the states to achieve this instead of the Federal Government as usual (which shouldn't have as much power). But when the states overstep their limits and infringe upon one's rights, then the federal government is supposed to step in, which is why Republicans championed civil rights, and the Democrats in the south were against it (because they were liberals who denied the person hood of people, as they continue to today).
ReplyDeleteThe definition of "conservative" involves "conserve" or save what exists. Conservatives in 1776, for example, wanted to keep a king. Radicals favored revolution. In 1860, the slave owners were the conservatives. They wanted to keep slavery. I agree that Republicans in 1860 were against slavery. Sometimes they were called "Radical Republicans." Liberals, of any party, are people who want to change society and make it better. Women's rights? For them. Civil rights for blacks and gays and Muslims, etc. For them. You are correct that Southern Democrats were once anti-black. That doesn't mean they were liberals. They were racists--and very conservative in their views. Southern Democrats in 1860??? No possible way anyone who reads a little history would say they were "liberals."
Delete