I am still a registered Democrat, but it has been awhile since I have thought of myself as one. — jgill

Same here. It's the Dems who changed, not me. — fishfry

I can't really talk about the Dems, but I have the impression that the Dems, back in the day, were an alliance of (mainly social) liberals and political left wingers; there was also a lot of support in the South, which goes back to the civil war. If that's true, there's a very similar phenomenon in the UK. The Labour party has always been a rather uneasy alliance between those two points of view. It's not unreasonable, because both were in opposition to existing orthodoxy, just on rather different grounds and with rather different aims.

The last ten years in the UK were largely based around this problem, which got hugely focused on Brexit, though it was never just about that. The promises have been revealed as fantasies, and now we have to make the best of a bad job.

The problem arose because of the success of the social liberal movement, which became a new orthodoxy, in many ways, but also transformed. Many social liberals became successful and powerful and so acquired a new point of view. "Socialism" became more of a threat to them and they espoused free market ideologies, which had been their route to success and became their security. This left the left wing isolated and nearly powerless.

Do you (two) think that I'm talking rubbish, or does this fit with what has happened to you?

For me, it does fit, with one further development since the good old days. The liberation movements since the successes between, say, 1950 and 2000 have moved on as the generations have changed, and some of the demands and expectations seem to me more problematic than the original demands. I'm very hesitant about this because I am just an old fogey who has fallen behind the times. Nonetheless, I'm not comfortable. But I'm even more uncomfortable with what the free market ideology has become.

I can't really talk about the Dems, but I have the impression that the Dems, back in the day, were an alliance of (mainly social) liberals and political left wingers — Ludwig V

Far from it. I grew up in a segregated South and the Democratic party supported that. Political winds finally shifted during the 1960s.

From Wiki:

During this period, the white-dominated Democratic Party maintained political control of the South. With whites controlling all the seats representing the total population of the South, they had a powerful voting bloc in Congress. The Republican Party—the "party of Lincoln" and the party to which most blacks had belonged—shrank to insignificance except in remote Unionist areas of Appalachia and the Ozarks as black voter registration was suppressed. The Republican lily-white movement also gained strength by excluding blacks. Until 1965, the "Solid South" was a one-party system under the white Democrats.

I was in a math class at the University of Alabama in 1963 when Governor Wallace was asked to step aside and allow two Afro-American students to enroll. He complied and those of us on the sidelines cheered. An old Confederate cannon went off at the time, but I can find no reference to that.

My first vote for President was the 1960 election, and I caste my ballot for JFK. He had been a genuine war hero, and when he extended my tour in the USAF for a year because the Berlin Wall was going up I forgave him. Turned out it worked out well for me.

Far from it. I grew up in a segregated South and the Democratic party supported that. Political winds finally shifted during the 1960s. — jgill

Yes. I knew that. I'm sorry I wasn't clear.
What I didn't know is that most blacks (I'm assuming you mean most blacks who weren't slaves) belonged to the Republican party before the war. I'm confused now.
Perhaps I'm just making a mistake trying to apply the political divisions that apply now to politics then.
I should read up on this more carefully before trying to talk about it.

I was in a math class at the University of Alabama in 1963 when Governor Wallace was asked to step aside and allow two Afro-American students to enroll. He complied and those of us on the sidelines cheered. An old Confederate cannon went off at the time, but I can find no reference to that. — jgill

I remember reading about that. Some of us thought there would be another civil war. I don't remember the reports saying that people cheered when Wallace gave in. That very good to know. It was also my first year at University. Do you think the cannon was a protest or a celebration? Presumably, it didn't have a ball, but was loaded blank?

My first vote for President was the 1960 election, and I caste my ballot for JFK. He had been a genuine war hero, and when he extended my tour in the USAF for a year because the Berlin Wall was going up I forgave him. Turned out it worked out well for me. — jgill

I was almost completely apolitical. That didn't change until 1968. Remembering those terrible yet exciting times makes me a bit less worried now.

Do you (two) think that I'm talking rubbish, or does this fit with what has happened to you? — Ludwig V

The Democrats used to be the party of the working class. They've become the party of the wealthy liberal elites and the poor who benefit from government services.

In other news from merry old England, I hear Labour has it in for the House of Lords.

Don’t ‘reform’ the Lords – abolish it

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/09/12/dont-reform-the-lords-abolish-it/

Do you think the cannon was a protest or a celebration? Presumably, it didn't have a ball, but was loaded blank? — Ludwig V

There were several Civil War cannons on the lawn of the old armory where the ROTC had made its home since before that conflict. I'm certain one fired a blank at that time. It's funny but I cannot find any reference to it in the media. But I think it would have been a celebration. Most people at the University disapproved of the Klan, and there had been some speculation the KKK might get ugly, but they backed off and were more or less silent.

I had an older cousin who lived in the country and was a member of the Klan. He had worked at some menial job and kept dogs for coon (racoon) hunting. His kitchen sink had a manual pump and chickens ran loose in his dirt yard. When I went out to visit him in 1963 with my fist wife I was astounded in the transformation. He now lived in a nice brick home and when we were met at the door he was neatly dressed and introduced us to one of his best friends, a black man who worked with him at the BFGoodrich plant nearby. The last time I had seen him was in the late 1940s when I was a child. The plant had opened in 1946 and he was still living the rustic life and a member of the Klan then.

The Democrats used to be the party of the working class. They've become the party of the wealthy liberal elites and the poor who benefit from government services. — fishfry

Thank you. That may be short, but it gets to what I was trying to say. And then I was trying to say that Labour has exactly the same problem. The working class, represented within the party by the unions, used to be represented by Democrats/Labour. But, since around 1980 (Thatcher/Reagan), that has gradually declined (basically, I think, as the power of the unions declined). The assumption was always that the working class would align with the poor and socially liberal ways, but that was simply false. Many of the working class do not think of themselves as poor and are certainly not socially liberal, and they basically have nowhere to go. Mind you, another dimension of the problem is that most people are not only reluctant to think of themselves as poor, but also reluctant to think of themselves as working class.

In other news from merry old England, I hear Labour has it in for the House of Lords.
Don’t ‘reform’ the Lords – abolish it — fishfry

Good Lord! You'll be wanting to abolish the Monarchy next! That's not how we do things here! We don't abolish things! The two Houses started in 1341! How could they be abolished? Tradition, you know!

I like your "spiked online" article. It explains things quite clearly.

More seriously, though, Your constitution is designed to make sure that no-one has total power by splitting the power into three parts - legislators, executive, law. We don't have that. But we do have the equivalent. Any Government, no matter how large its majority, is restrained by thinking that there's no point in doing something that can be undone by a later Parliament.

The reason that abolishing the Lords is not on the agenda is quite simple. If Labour abolished the Lords, the Conservatives would recreate it when they get back in. I'm sure that the Labour plans have been discussed through back-channels with the Conservatives, and they have signalled that they would not reverse these reforms when they get back in.

Mind you, there is another problem. If you abolish the Lords, what do you do next? There's no consensus about that - never has been and likely never will be. If there was a consensus, it would be done. Same for the monarchy.

There is one thing that your founding fathers missed. The theatre of the state. Dressing up in funny hats and strutting around like peacocks in gaudy costumes. That's what all this is about. It's gratifying for those in power and entertains the masses - and provides assurance of stability when everything else is falling apart. Like a conjuring trick, it works so long as you don't look too closely.

Starmer's plans are unsatisfactory, but they are very likely practical, so they will have to do. Better than nothing.

The reform I would like to see is the abolition of the life peers (political appointees) or at least their ejection from Parliament. Imagine if the President could appoint people to your Senate! We have a phrase "kicked upstairs", which means being "promoted" somewhere you can't get in the way. That's what the political peerages are all about. The weird practice actually helps to get things done. So there's absolutely no chance of that.

Most people at the University disapproved of the Klan, and there had been some speculation the KKK might get ugly, but they backed off and were more or less silent. — jgill

I had no idea. I don't recall the Klan being even mentioned in the coverage here.

I was astounded in the transformation. — jgill

I bet you were. I don't suppose you ever had a chance to talk with him about what happened. Likely, he just wants to forget it.

From Britannica:

The Democratic Party has changed significantly during its more than two centuries of existence. During the 19th century the party supported or tolerated slavery, and it opposed civil rights reforms after the American Civil War in order to retain the support of Southern voters. By the mid-20th century it had undergone a dramatic ideological realignment and reinvented itself as a party supporting organized labor, the civil rights of minorities, and progressive reform

In a nutshell.

So the mid-20th century party is the one you joined?

The Democrats used to be the party of the working class. They've become the party of the wealthy liberal elites and the poor who benefit from government services. — fishfry

Do you agree with fishfry about what the party has become?
If so, that's also the story of the Labour party - and it's also the story of the last ten years or so in the UK.

So the mid-20th century party is the one you joined? — Ludwig V

I probably registered as Democrat when I voted for JFK. I didn't give it any thought at the time. LBJ began his political life in the Senate staunchly against civil rights legislation, but reversed his position as the tides began to turn.

Do you agree with fishfry about what the party has become? — Ludwig V

More or less. Frankly, I don't know what it has become since the "Squad" gained influence.

LBJ began his political life in the Senate staunchly against civil rights legislation, but reversed his position as the tides began to turn. — jgill

That's politics for you. But I always understood that he was very effective (more effective than JFK?) in getting Civil Rights legislation through.

More or less. Frankly, I don't know what it has become since the "Squad" gained influence. — jgill

I think the problem of our times is that the left wing isn't clear what it's about. So many goals were achieved and the fall of the USSR was taken as "disproving" socialism. The right, these days, at least knows what it's about - and is much more ruthless in fighting for it. The left can't form a united front or articulate a coherent ideology.