Podcasts about Southern Democrats

How historic are Trump 2.0's first few weeks? For the veteran correspondent, Nick Bryant, the longtime BBC man in Washington DC, what the Trump regime has done in the first few weeks of his second administration is as historic as the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. It's the end of the America we haver known for the last seventy years, he says. Bryant describes Trump's rapprochement with Russia as Neville Chamberlain style appeasement and notes the dramatic shifts in U.S. foreign policy, particularly regarding Ukraine and European allies. He sees Trump's actions as revealing rather than changing America's true nature. Bryant also discusses the failures of the Dems, the role of Elon Musk in the administration, and structural changes to federal institutions. Despite all the upheaval, Bryant suggests this isn't so much "goodbye to America" as a revelation of the cynically isolationist forces that were always present in American society.Here are the five KEEN ON takeaways from our conversation with Nick Bryant:* Historic Transformation: Bryant sees Trump's second term as a pivotal moment in world history, comparable to the fall of the Berlin Wall, with rapid changes in global alliances and particularly in America's relationship with Russia, which he characterizes as "appeasement."* Democratic Party Crisis: He analyzes how the Democrats' failures stemmed from multiple factors - Biden's delayed exit, Kamala Harris's weak candidacy, and the lack of time to find a stronger replacement. While Trump's victory was significant, Bryant notes it wasn't a landslide.* Elon Musk's Unexpected Role: An unforeseen development Bryant didn't predict in his book was Musk's prominent position in Trump's second administration, describing it as almost a "co-presidency" following Trump's assassination attempt and Musk's subsequent endorsement of Trump.* Federal Government Transformation: Bryant observes that Trump's dismantling of federal institutions goes beyond typical Republican small-government approaches, potentially removing not just bureaucratic waste but crucial expertise and institutional knowledge.* Trump as Revealer, Not Changer: Perhaps most significantly, Bryant argues that Trump hasn't changed America but rather revealed its true nature - arguing that authoritarianism, political violence, and distrust of big government have always been present in American history. FULL TRANSCRIPT Andrew Keen: Hello, everybody. About eight months ago, we had a great show with the BBC's former Washington correspondent, Nick Bryant. His latest book, "The Forever War: America's Unending Conflict with Itself," predicted much of what's happening in the United States now. When you look at the headlines this week about the U.S.-Russia relationship changing in a head-spinning way, apparently laying the groundwork for ending the Ukrainian war, all sorts of different relations and tariffs and many other things in this new regime. Nick is joining us from Sydney, Australia, where he now lives. Nick, do you miss America?Nick Bryant: I covered the first Trump administration and it felt like a 25/8 job, not just 24/7. Trump 2.0 feels even more relentless—round-the-clock news forever. We're checking our phones to see what has happened next. People who read my book wouldn't be surprised by how Donald Trump is conducting his second term. But some things weren't on my bingo card, like Trump suggesting a U.S. takeover of Gaza. The rapprochement with Putin, which we should look on as an act of appeasement after his aggression in Ukraine, was very easy to predict.Andrew Keen: That's quite a sharp comment, Nick—an act of appeasement equivalent to Neville Chamberlain's umbrella.Nick Bryant: It was ironic that J.D. Vance made his speech at the Munich Security Conference. Munich was where Neville Chamberlain secured the Munich Agreement, which was seen as a terrible act of appeasement towards Nazi Germany. This moment feels historic—I would liken it to the fall of the Berlin Wall. We're seeing a complete upending of the world order.Back at the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, we were talking about the end of history—Francis Fukuyama's famous thesis suggesting the triumph of liberal democracy. Now, we're talking about the end of America as we've known it since World War II. You get these Berlin Wall moments like Trump saying there should be a U.S. takeover of Gaza. J.D. Vance's speech in Munich ruptures the transatlantic alliance, which has been the basis of America's global preeminence and European security since World War II.Then you've seen what's happened in Saudi Arabia with the meeting between the Russians and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, completely resetting relations between Washington and Moscow. It's almost as if the invasions of Ukraine never happened. We're back to the situation during the Bush administration when George W. Bush famously met Vladimir Putin, looked into his soul, and gave him a clean bill of health. Things are moving at a hurtling pace, and it seems we're seeing the equivalent of a Berlin Wall tumbling every couple of days.Andrew Keen: That's quite dramatic for an experienced journalist like yourself to say. You don't exaggerate unnecessarily, Nick. It's astonishing. Nobody predicted this.Nick Bryant: When I first said this about three weeks ago, I had to think long and hard about whether the historical moments were equivalent. Two weeks on, I've got absolutely no doubt. We're seeing a massive change. European allies of America are now not only questioning whether the United States is a reliable ally—they're questioning whether the United States is an ally at all. Some are even raising the possibility that nations like Germany, the UK, and France will soon look upon America as an adversary.J.D. Vance's speech was very pointed, attacking European elitism and what he saw as denial of freedom of speech in Europe by governments, but not having a single word of criticism for Vladimir Putin. People are listening to the U.S. president, vice president, and others like Marco Rubio with their jaws on the ground. It's a very worrying moment for America's allies because they cannot look across the Atlantic anymore and see a president who will support them. Instead, they see an administration aligning itself with hard-right and far-right populist movements.Andrew Keen: The subtitle of your book was "America's Unending Conflict with Itself: The History Behind Trump in Advance." But America now—and I'm talking to you from San Francisco, where obviously there aren't a lot of Trump fans or J.D. Vance fans—seems in an odd, almost surreal way to be united. There were protests on Presidents Day earlier this week against Trump, calling him a tyrant. But is the thesis of your book about the forever war, America continually being divided between coastal elites and the hinterlands, Republicans and Democrats, still manifesting itself in late February 2025?Nick Bryant: Trump didn't win a landslide victory in the election. He won a significant victory, a decisive victory. It was hugely significant that he won the popular vote, which he didn't manage to do in 2016. But it wasn't a big win—he didn't win 50% of the popular vote. Sure, he won the seven battleground states, giving the sense of a massive victory, but it wasn't massive numerically.The divides in America are still there. The opposition has melted away at the moment with sporadic protests, but nothing really major. Don't be fooled into thinking America's forever wars have suddenly ended and Trump has won. The opposition will be back. The resistance will be back.I remember moments in the Obama administration when it looked like progressives had won every battle in America. I remember the day I went to South Carolina, to the funeral of the pastor killed in that terrible shooting in Charleston. Obama broke into "Amazing Grace"—it was almost for the first time in front of a black audience that he fully embraced the mantle of America's first African-American president. He flew back to Washington that night, and the White House was bathed in rainbow colors because the Supreme Court had made same-sex marriage legal across the country.It seemed in that moment that progressives were winning every fight. The Supreme Court also upheld the constitutionality of Obamacare. You assumed America's first black president would be followed by America's first female president. But what we were seeing in that summer of 2015 was actually the conservative backlash. Trump literally announced his presidential bid the day before that awful Charleston shooting. You can easily misread history at this moment. Sure, Trump looks dominant now, but don't be fooled. It wouldn't surprise me at all if in two years' time the Republicans end up losing the House of Representatives in the congressional midterm elections.Andrew Keen: When it comes to progressives, what do you make of the Democratic response, or perhaps the lack of response, to the failure of Kamala Harris? The huge amount of money, the uninspiring nature of her campaign, the fiasco over Biden—were these all accidental events or do they speak of a broader crisis on the left amongst progressives in America?Nick Bryant: They speak of both. There were really big mistakes made by the Democrats, not least Joe Biden's decision to contest the election as long as he did. It had become pretty clear by the beginning of 2024 that he wasn't in a fit state to serve four more years or take on the challenge of Donald Trump.Biden did too well at two critical junctures. During the midterm elections in 2022, many people predicted a red wave, a red tsunami. If that had happened, Biden would have faced pressure to step aside for an orderly primary process to pick a successor. But the red wave turned into a red ripple, and that persuaded Biden he was the right candidate. He focused on democracy, put democracy on the ballot, hammered the point about January 6th, and decided to run.Another critical juncture was the State of the Union address at the beginning of 2024. Biden did a good job, and I think that allayed a lot of concerns in the Democratic Party. Looking back on those two events, they really encouraged Biden to run again when he should never have done so.Remember, in 2020, he intimated that he would be a bridge to the next generation. He probably made a mistake then in picking Kamala Harris as his vice presidential candidate because he was basically appointing his heir. She wasn't the strongest Democrat to go up against Donald Trump—it was always going to be hard for a woman of color to win the Rust Belt. She wasn't a particularly good candidate in 2020 when she ran; she didn't even make it into 2020. She launched her campaign in Oakland, and while it looked good at the time, it became clear she was a poor candidate.Historical accidents, the wrong candidate, a suffering economy, and an America that has always been receptive to someone like Trump—all those factors played into his victory.Andrew Keen: If you were giving advice to the Democrats as they lick their wounds and begin to think about recovery and fighting the next battles, would you advise them to shift to the left or to the center?Nick Bryant: That's a fascinating question because you could argue it both ways. Do the Democrats need to find a populist of the left who can win back those blue-collar voters that have deserted the Democratic Party? This is a historical process that's been going on for many years. Working-class voters ditched the Democrats during the Reagan years and the Nixon years. Often race is part of that, often the bad economy is part of that—an economy that's not working for the working class who can't see a way to map out an American dream for themselves.You could argue for a left-wing populist, or you could argue that history shows the only way Democrats win the White House is by being centrist and moderate. That was true of LBJ, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton—all Southerners, and that wasn't a coincidence. Southern Democrats came from the center of the party. Obama was a pragmatic, centrist candidate. Kennedy was a very pragmatic centrist who tried to bring together the warring tribes of the Democratic Party.Historically, you could argue Democrats need to move to the center and stake out that ground as Trump moves further to the right and the extremes. But what makes it harder to say for sure is that we're in a political world where a lot of the old rules don't seem to apply.Andrew Keen: We don't quite know what the new rules are or if there are any rules. You describe this moment as equivalent in historic terms to the fall of the Berlin Wall or perhaps 9/11. If we reverse that lens and look inwards, is there an equivalent historical significance? You had an interesting tweet about Doge and the attempt in some people's eyes for a kind of capture of power by Elon Musk and the replacement of the traditional state with some sort of almost Leninist state. What do you make of what's happening within the United States in domestic politics, particularly Musk's role?Nick Bryant: We've seen American presidents test the Constitution before. Nobody in the modern era has done it so flagrantly as Donald Trump, but Nixon tried to maximize presidential powers to the extent that he broke the law. Nixon would have been found guilty in a Senate trial had that impeachment process continued. Of course, he was forced to resign because a delegation of his own party drove down Pennsylvania Avenue and told him he had to go.You don't get that with the Republican Party and Donald Trump—they've fallen behind him. FDR was commonly described as an American dictator. H.L. Mencken wrote that America had a Caesar, a pharaoh. Woodrow Wilson was maximalist in his presidential powers. Abraham Lincoln was the great Constitution breaker, from trashing the First Amendment to exceeding his powers with the Emancipation Proclamation. Thomas Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional—he needed congressional approval, which he didn't have.There's a long history of presidents breaking rules and Americans being okay with that. Lincoln has never been displaced from his historical throne of grace. FDR is regarded as one of the great presidents. What sets this moment apart is that constraints on presidents traditionally came from the courts and their own political parties. We're not seeing that with Donald Trump.Andrew Keen: What about the cultural front? There's talk of Trump's revenge, taking over the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., revenge against traditional scientists, possibly closing some universities. Is this overdramatic, or is Trump really taking revenge for what happened between 2020 and 2024 when he was out of power?Nick Bryant: Trump is in a vengeful mood—we always thought Trump 2.0 would be a project of vengeance. Republican presidents have always thought parts of the administrative state work against them, and Trump is dismantling it at warp speed. Elon Musk is going into various government departments acting like he's heading a hostile takeover of the federal government.Reagan launched a rhetorical assault on federal government, which was really a creation of the New Deal years under FDR. That period saw massive expansion of federal government into people's lives with Social Security and the welfare net. We haven't seen this kind of assault on federal government since then. Trump is also trying to dismantle what he regards as America's cultural establishment, which he sees as too white, too elitist, too intellectual. He's trying to remold America, its government, and cultural institutions in his own image.Andrew Keen: You've mentioned Reagan. I came to the U.S. like you—you came as a grad student to study American history. I came in the '80s and remember the hysteria at UC Berkeley over Reagan—that he would blow up the world, that he was clueless, a Hollywood actor with no right to be in politics. Is it conceivable that Trump could be just another version of Reagan? In spite of all this hysteria, might this second Trump regime actually be successful?Nick Bryant: You can't rule out that possibility. The mistake made about Reagan was seeing him as a warmonger when he really wanted to be a peacemaker. That was the point of ending the Cold War—he wanted to win it, but through gambles on people like Gorbachev and diplomatic moves his advisors warned against.There are analogies to Trump. I don't think he's a warmonger or wants to send U.S. troops into countries. He's described some surprising imperial ambitions like taking over Greenland, though Harry Truman once wanted that too. Trump wants to make peace, but the problem is on what terms. Peace in Ukraine, in Trump's view, means a massive win for Vladimir Putin and the sidelining of the Ukrainian people and America's European allies.There wasn't a big cost to Reagan's peacemaking—the European alliance stayed intact, he tinkered with government but didn't go after Social Security. The cost of Trump is the problem.Andrew Keen: The moral cost or the economic cost?Nick Bryant: Both. One thing that happened with Reagan was the opening of big disparities in income and wealth in American society. That was a big factor in Donald Trump's success—the paradox of how this billionaire from New York became the hero of the Rust Belt. When the gulf between executive pay and shop floor pay became massive, it was during the Reagan years.You see the potential of something similar now. Trump is supercharging an economy that looks like it will favor the tech giants and the world's richest man, Elon Musk. You end up worsening the problem you were arguably setting out to solve.You don't get landslides anymore in American politics—the last president to win 40 states was George Herbert Walker Bush. Reagan in '84 won 49 out of 50 states, almost getting a clean sweep except for Mondale's home state of Minnesota. I don't think Trump will be the kind of unifying president that Reagan was. There was a spontaneity and optimism about Reagan that you don't see with Trump.Andrew Keen: Where are the divisions? Where is the great threat to Trump coming from? There was a story this week that Steve Bannon called Elon Musk a parasitic illegal immigrant. Is it conceivable that the biggest weakness within the Trump regime will come from conflict between people like Bannon and Musk, the nationalists and the internationalist wing of the MAGA movement?Nick Bryant: That's a fascinating question. There doesn't seem to be much external opposition at the moment. The Democrats are knocked out or taking the eight count in boxing terms, getting back on their feet and taking as long as they can to get their gloves up. There isn't a leader in the Democratic movement who has anywhere near Trump's magnetism or personal power to take him on.Maybe the opposition comes from internal divisions and collapse of the Trump project. The relationship with Elon Musk was something I didn't anticipate in my book. After that assassination attempt, Musk endorsed Trump in a big way, put his money behind him, started offering cash prizes in Pennsylvania. Having lived at Mar-a-Lago during the transition with a cottage on the grounds and now an office in the White House—I didn't anticipate his role.Many people thought Trump wouldn't put up with somebody who overshadows him or gets more attention, but that relationship hasn't failed yet. I wonder if that speaks to something different between Trump 2.0 and 1.0. Trump's surrounded by loyalists now, but at 78 years old, I think he wanted to win the presidency more than he wanted the presidency itself. I wonder if he's happy to give more responsibility to people like Musk who he thinks will carry out his agenda.Andrew Keen: You've been described as the new Alistair Cooke. Cooke was the father of Anglo-American journalism—his Letter from America was an iconic show, the longest-running show in radio history. Cooke was always very critical of what he called the big daddy state in Washington, D.C., wasn't a fan of large government. What's your take on Trump's attack on large government in D.C.? Is there anything in it? You spent a lot of time in DC. Are these agencies full of fat and do they need to be cut?Nick Bryant: Cutting fat out of Washington budgets is one of the easy things—they're bloated, they get all these earmarks, they're full of pork. There's always been a bloated federal bureaucracy, and there's a long historical tradition of suspicion of Washington going back to the founding. That's why the federal system emerged with so much power vested in the states.Reagan's revolution was based on dismantling the New Deal government. He didn't get that far in that project, but rhetorically he shifted America's views about government. He emphasized that government was the problem, not the solution, for four decades. When Bill Clinton became president, he had to make this big ideological concession to Reaganism and deliver Reaganite lines like "the era of big government is over."The concern right now is that they're not just getting rid of fat—they're getting rid of expertise and institutional knowledge. They're removing people who may be democratic in their thinking or not on board with the Trump revolution, but who have extensive experience in making government work. In moments of national crisis, conservative ideologues tend to become operational liberals. They rely on government in disasters, pandemics, and economic crises to bail out banks and industries.Conservatives have successfully planted in many Americans' heads that government is the enemy. Hillary Clinton saw a classic sign in 2006—a protester carrying a sign saying "get your government hands off my Medicare." Well, Medicare is a government program. People need government, expertise, and people in Washington who know what they're doing. You're not just getting rid of waste—you're getting rid of institutional knowledge.Andrew Keen: One of the more colorful characters in these Trump years is RFK Jr. There was an interesting piece in the National Review about RFK Jr. forcing the left to abandon the Kennedy legacy. Is there something symbolically historical in this shift from RFK Sr. being an icon on the left to RFK Jr. being an icon on the libertarian right? Does it speak of something structural that's changed in American political culture?Nick Bryant: Yes, it does, and it speaks to how America is perceived internationally. JFK was always seen as this liberal champion, but he was an arch pragmatist, never more so than on civil rights. My doctoral thesis and first book were about tearing down that myth about Kennedy.The Kennedys did inspire international respect. The Kennedy White House seemed to be a place of rationality, refinement, and glamor. JFK embodied what was great about America—its youth, dynamism, vision. When RFK was assassinated in California, weeks after MLK's assassination, many thought that sense of America was being killed off too. These were people who inspired others internationally to enter public service. They saw America as a beacon on a hill.RFK Jr. speaks of a different, toxic American exceptionalism. People look at figures like RFK Jr. and wonder how he could possibly end up heading the American Health Department. He embodies what many people internationally reject about America, whereas JFK and RFK embodied what people loved, admired, and wanted to emulate.Andrew Keen: You do a show now on Australian television. What's the view from Australia? Are people as horrified and disturbed in Australia as they are in Europe about what you've called a historic change as profound as the fall of the Berlin Wall—or maybe rather than the fall of the Berlin Wall, it's the establishment of a new kind of Berlin Wall?Nick Bryant: One of Australia's historic diplomatic fears is abandonment. They initially looked to Britain as a security guarantor in the early days of Australian Federation when Australia became a modern country in 1901. After World War II, they realized Britain couldn't protect them, so they looked to America instead. America has underwritten Australia's security since World War II.Now many Australians realize that won't be the case anymore. Australia entered into the AUKUS deal with Britain and America for nuclear submarine technology, which has become the basis of Australia's defense. There's fear that Trump could cancel it on a whim. They're currently battling over steel and aluminum tariffs. Anthony Albanese, the center-left prime minister, got a brief diplomatic reprieve after talking with Trump last week.A country like Australia, much like Britain, France, or Germany, cannot look on Trump's America as a reliable ally right now. That's concerning in a region where China increasingly throws its weight around.Andrew Keen: Although I'm guessing some people in Australia would be encouraged by Trump's hostility towards China.Nick Bryant: Yes, that's one area where they see Trump differently than in Europe because there are so many China hawks in the Trump administration. That gives them some comfort—they don't see the situation as directly analogous to Europe. But it's still worrying. They've had presidents who've been favorable towards Australia over the years. Trump likes Australia partly because America enjoys a trade surplus with Australia and he likes Greg Norman, the golfer. But that only gives you a certain measure of security.There is concern in this part of the world, and like in Europe, people are questioning whether they share values with a president who is aligning himself with far-right parties.Andrew Keen: Finally, Nick, your penultimate book was "When America Stopped Being Great: A History of the Present." You had an interesting tweet where you noted that the final chapter in your current book, "The Forever War," is called "Goodbye America." But the more we talk, whether or not America remains great is arguable. If anything, this conversation is about "hello" to a new America. It's not goodbye America—if anything, America's more powerful, more dominant, shaping the world more in the 2020s than it's ever done.Nick Bryant: It's goodbye to the America we've known for the last 70 years, but not goodbye to America itself. That's one of the arguments of the book—Trump is far more representative of the true America than many international observers realize. If you look at American history through a different lens, Trump makes perfect sense.There's always been an authoritarian streak, a willingness to fall for demagogues, political violence, deep mistrust of government, and rich people making fortunes—from the robber barons of the late 19th century to the tech barons of the 21st century. It's goodbye to a certain America, but the America that Trump presides over now is an America that's always been there. Trump hasn't changed America—he's revealed it.Andrew Keen: Well, one thing we can say for sure is it's not goodbye to Nick Bryant. We'll get you back on the show. You're one of America's most perceptive and incisive observers, even if you're in Australia now. Thank you so much.Nick Bryant: Andrew, it's always a pleasure to be with you. I still love the country deeply—my fascination has always been born of great affection.Nick Bryant is the author of The Forever War: American's Unending Conflict with Itself and When America Stopped Being Great, a book that Joe Biden keeps in the Oval Office. He was formerly one of the BBC's most senior foreign correspondents, with postings in Washington DC, New York, South Asia and Australia. After covering the presidencies of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden, he left the BBC in 2021, and now lives in Sydney with his wife and children. Nick studied history at Cambridge and has a doctorate in American history from Oxford.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

GOOD EVENING: The show begins in 1980 with the rumored "October Surprise"conspiracy allegation... Based on the radio show schedule and book descriptions provided, this appears to be a four-hour episode of "CBS Eye on the World with John Batchelor" focusing on two major historical books: First Half (Hours 1-2): Discussion of Craig Unger's "Den of Spies," which investigates the alleged "October Surprise" of 1980. Unger's book examines claims that Reagan's campaign, led by Bill Casey, made secret deals with Iran to delay the release of American hostages until after the 1980 election. The book draws on three decades of research, including Robert Parry's previously unseen archives. Second Half (Hours 3-4): Coverage of Robert Cwiklik's "Sheridan's Secret Mission," which explores a critical moment in post-Civil War history. The book focuses on General Philip Sheridan's 1874 covert mission to New Orleans, investigating violence against freedmen by the White League. It details how Southern Democrats and paramilitary groups worked to undermine Reconstruction-era protections for Black rights, despite President Grant's efforts to protect freedmen's voting rights. The show appears to dedicate eight 15-minute segments to each book, allowing for in-depth discussion of these complex historical events and their lasting implications for American politics and race relations. 1985 Nancy and Ronald Reagan

On this episode of "The Federalist Radio Hour," Christopher Cox, former congressman and chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, joins The Federalist's Senior Elections Correspondent Matt Kittle to discuss Woodrow Wilson's influence on American politics. Learn how Wilson's sympathies with Southern Democrats impacted his position on two rising movements: women's rights and racial equality.You can find Cox's book, Woodrow Wilson: The Light Withdrawn, here.If you care about combating the corrupt media that continue to inflict devastating damage, please give a gift to help The Federalist do the real journalism America needs.

On this episode of “The Federalist Radio Hour,” Christopher Cox, former congressman and chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, joins The Federalist’s Senior Elections Correspondent Matt Kittle to discuss Woodrow Wilson’s influence on American politics. Learn how Wilson’s sympathies with Southern Democrats impacted his position on two rising movements: women’s rights and racial equality. […]

Ralph welcomes historian Douglas Brinkley (author of "The Unfinished Presidency: Jimmy Carter's Journey Beyond the White House") as well as journalist and former Carter speechwriter James Fallows to reflect on the life and legacy of the late, great President Jimmy Carter.Douglas Brinkley is the Katherine Tsanoff Brown Chair in Humanities and Professor of History at Rice University, presidential historian for the New-York Historical Society, trustee of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library, and a contributing editor at Vanity Fair. He has authored, co-authored, and edited more than three dozen books on American history, including Silent Spring Revolution: John F. Kennedy, Rachel Carson, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and the Great Environmental Awakening, Rosa Parks: A Life, and The Unfinished Presidency: Jimmy Carter's Journey Beyond the White House.When [Jimmy Carter] came in in January of 1977, he said, “The Democratic Party is an albatross around my neck…” The Southern Democrats that voted for Carter in 1976 in the Senate because of, you know, “he's a fellow Southerner,” they abandoned him. They wanted nothing to do with him.Douglas BrinkleyRalph, I don't know if anyone's already told you this—there's a lot of Carter in yourself. You have a lot of similarities in my mind in the sense that you both work tirelessly, and are brilliant, and you learn the nuts and bolts of an issue and you lean into it, and both of you are known for your integrity and your honesty and your diligence and your duty. The question then becomes: Where did Carter fail? And it's about media and about power within the Democratic Party. Those two things Carter couldn't conquer.Douglas BrinkleyI've just written a column called “Jimmy Carter Was My Last President.” And by that I meant he was my last president—and I believe he was the last president for progressive civic groups as well—because he was the last president to actively open up the federal government to engagement and participation by long politically-excluded American activists. He did this actively. He took our calls. No president since has done that. He invited us to the White House to discuss issues. No president since has done that. And that's what I think has been missing in a lot of the coverage—he really believed in a democratic society.Ralph NaderJames Fallows is a contributing writer at the Atlantic and author of the newsletter Breaking the News. He began writing for the magazine in the mid-1970s, reporting from China, Japan, Southeast Asia, Europe, and across the United States and has written hundreds of articles for the publication since then. He's also worked as a public radio commentator, a news magazine editor, and for two years he was President Jimmy Carter's chief speechwriter. He is the author of twelve books, including Who Runs Congress (with Mark Green and David Zwick), The Water Lords, Breaking the News: How the Media Undermine American Democracy, and Our Towns: A 100,000-Mile Journey Into the Heart of America (with Deborah Fallows).Jimmy Carter, for better and worse, had zero national politics experience. That was part of what made him seem refreshing…But Carter, I think one of his limitations in office was that he didn't know what he didn't know, in various realms. This happens to all of us. That's why many outsiders struggle in their first term as president. And so I think yes, he felt as if he could be in command of many things. And I think if he had a second term, he would have been more effective—as Barack Obama was, and others have been.James FallowsI'm really grateful for the chance to talk with you, Ralph, at this moment. As we reflect on a president of the past and prepare for an administration of the future…There are people whose example lasts because they've been consistent over the decades. And I think you, Ralph, in the decades I've known you, that has been the case with you. I think it's the case of Jimmy Carter as well. For people who are consistent and true to themselves, there are times when fortune smiles in their favor and there's times when fortune works against them, but their lasting example endures and can inspire others.James FallowsNews 1/8/251. According to newly released CIA documents, the agency conducted extensive surveillance on Latino – specifically Mexican and Puerto Rican – political activity in the 1960s, ‘70s, and early ‘80s Axios reports. Among other revelations, these documents prove that the agency infiltrated student activist groups “making demands for Mexican American studies classes” – in direct contravention of the CIA's charter, which prohibits domestic activities. The push to disclose the reality of this spying campaign came from Congressmen Jimmy Gomez and Joaquin Castro, whose mother was monitored by the FBI for her Chicano-related activism. Unlike the CIA, the FBI has not released their records.2. Crusading independent journalists Ken Klippenstein and Daniel Boguslaw are out with a new Substack piece regarding Luigi Mangione. This piece, based on a leaked NYPD intelligence report “Warning of ‘a wide range of extremists' that ‘may view Mangione as a martyr,'” due to their “disdain for corporate greed.” These reporters go on to criticize the media for hiding this report from the public, as they have with other key documents in this case. “The report, produced by the NYPD's Intelligence & Counterterrorism Bureau …was blasted out to law enforcement and counterterror partners across the country. It was also leaked to select major media outlets which refused to permit the public to read the document…By withholding documents and unilaterally deciding which portions merit public disclosure, the media is playing god.”3. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has finalized its rule to remove medical bills from credit reports. The bureau reports this rule will wipe $49 billion in medical bills from the credit reports of approximately 15 million Americans. Further, embedded within this rule is a critical provision barring creditors from access to certain medical information; in the past this has allowed these firms to demand borrowers use medical devices up to and including prosthetic limbs as collateral for loans and as assets the creditors could repossess.4. President Biden has blocked a buyout of US Steel by the Japanese firm Nippon Steel, per the Washington Post. His reasons for doing so remain murky. Many in Biden's inner circle argued against this course of action, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken, U.S. Ambassador to Japan Rahm Emanuel and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen. And despite Biden framing this decision as a move to protect the union employees of US Steel, Nippon had promised to honor the United Steelworkers contract and many workers backed the deal. In fact, the only person Biden seemed to be in complete agreement with on this issue is incoming President Donald Trump.5. In September 2023, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson issued a groundbreaking proposal: a publicly owned grocery store. While such institutions do exist on a very small scale, the Chicago pilot project would have been the largest in the United States by a wide margin. Yet, when the city had the opportunity to apply for Illinois state funds to begin the process of establishing the project, they “passed” according to the Chicago Tribune. Even still, this measure is far sounder than the previous M.O. of Chicago mayors, who lavished public funds on private corporations like Whole Foods to establish or maintain stores in underserved portions of the city, only for those corporations to turn around and shutter those stores once money spigot ran dry.6. On January 5th, the American Historical Association held their annual meeting. Among other proposals, the association voted on a measure to condemn the “scholasticide” being perpetrated by Israel in Gaza. Tim Barker, a PhD candidate at Harvard, reports the AHA passed this measure by a margin of 428 to 88. Along with the condemnation, this measure includes a provision to “form a committee to assist in rebuilding Gaza's educational infrastructure.” The AHA now joins the ever-growing list of organizations slowly coming to grips with the scale of the devastation in Gaza.7. According to Bloomberg, AI data centers are causing potentially massive disruptions to the American power grid. The key problem here is that the huge amounts of power these data centers are gobbling up is resulting in “bad harmonics,” which distort the power that ends up flowing through household appliances like refrigerators and dishwashers. As the piece explains, this harmonic distortion can cause substantial damage to those appliances and even increase the likelihood of electrical fires and blackouts. This issue is a perfect illustration of how tech industry greed is impacting consumers, even those who have nothing to do with their business.8. The Department of Housing and Urban Development reports homelessness increased by over 18% in 2024, per AP. HUD attributes this spike to a dearth of affordable housing, as well as the proliferation of natural disasters. In total, HUD estimates around 770,000 Americans are homeless, though that does not include “those staying with friends or family because they do not have a place of their own.” More granular data is even more appalling; family homelessness, for example, grew by 40%. Homelessness grew by 12% in 2023.9. On January 7th, Public Citizen announced that they have launched a new tracker to “watchdog federal investigations and cases against alleged corporate criminals…that are at risk of being abandoned, weakened, or scaled back under the Trump administration.” This tracker includes 237 investigations, nearly one third of which involve companies with known ties with the Trump administration. These companies include Amazon, Apple, AT&T, Bank of America, Coinbase, Ford, Tesla, Goldman Sachs, Meta, OpenAI, SpaceX, Pfizer, Black & Decker, and Uber among many others. As Corporate Crime expert Rick Claypool, who compiled this tracker, writes, “Corporate crime enforcement fell during Trump's first term, even as his administration pursued ‘tough' policies against immigrants, protestors, and low-level offenders…It's likely Trump's second term will see a similar or worse dropoff in enforcement.”10. Finally, Senate Republicans are pushing for swift confirmation hearings to install Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence, per POLITICO. Yet, the renewed spotlight on Gabbard has brought to light her association with the Science of Identity Foundation, an alleged cult led by “guru” Chris Butler, per Newsweek. The New Yorker reports members of this cult are required to “lie face down when Butler enters a room and even sometimes eat his nail clippings or ‘spoonfuls' of the sand he walked on.”This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

Attorney and local government expert Chris Hand recounts the profound influence of the two late Southern Democrats.

Welcome to The Georgia Politics Podcast! On today's special episode, we are once again joined by two delegates from Georgia to the most famous party convention in American history. Parker Hudson and Taylor Branch, both graduates of Westminster Schools, were delegates from Georgia to the 1968 DNC supporting Sen. Eugene McCarthy because of his anti-Vietnam War position. The convention, held in Chicago, was a turning point in U.S. political history, marked by violent protests, police brutality, and deep divisions within the Democratic Party. The backdrop of the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights Movement, and the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy fueled a highly charged atmosphere. Inside the convention, the Democratic Party was divided between establishment figures supporting Vice President Hubert Humphrey and more progressive, anti-war factions backing Senators Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern. Georgia played a distinct role in the convention as it represented the conservative, pro-segregation wing of the party. Governor Lester Maddox, a vocal segregationist, led the Georgia delegation. Maddox was known for his staunch opposition to the Civil Rights Movement and had famously closed his restaurant rather than comply with integration laws. He and other Southern Democrats, sometimes referred to as Dixiecrats, resisted the party's growing embrace of civil rights and its increasingly liberal stance on social issues. At the convention, the Georgia delegation stood with the conservative elements of the party, opposing the anti-war platform and pushing back against the civil rights advancements. Maddox and other Southern leaders were aligned with George Wallace's independent campaign, which sought to appeal to disaffected white voters in the South, capitalizing on fears of racial integration and opposition to federal intervention in state matters. This ideological split within the Democratic Party, exemplified by the clash between conservative Southern Democrats like Maddox and the more progressive northern and western factions, highlighted the fractures that would soon lead to a realignment in American politics. Georgia's role in the 1968 DNC represented the old guard of Southern Democrats, clinging to segregationist values in the face of a rapidly changing political landscape. You can connect with Parker Hudson online, here. You can buy We Asked, “Why Not?” online, here. You can connect with Taylor Branch online, here. You can buy the Pulitzer Prize winning Parting the Waters, here. Connect with The Georgia Politics Podcast on Twitter @gapoliticspod Preston Thompson on Twitter @pston3 Hans Appen on Twitter @hansappen Craig Kidd on Twitter @CraigKidd1 Proud member of the Appen Podcast Network. #gapol

At the 1948 Democratic National Convention, Minneapolis Mayor Hubert Humphrey demanded his party “walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights.” Southern Democrats defected, creating their own Dixiecrat Party. But President Harry Truman ran for re-election as the candidate of civil rights, and his dramatic victory set the stage for the landmark civil rights laws of the 1960s.

Welcome to The Georgia Politics Podcast! On today's special episode, we are joined by two delegates from Georgia to the most famous party convention in American history. Parker Hudson and Taylor Branch, both graduates of Westminster Schools, were delegates from Georgia to the 1968 DNC supporting Sen. Eugene McCarthy because of his anti-Vietnam War position. The convention, held in Chicago, was a turning point in U.S. political history, marked by violent protests, police brutality, and deep divisions within the Democratic Party. The backdrop of the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights Movement, and the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy fueled a highly charged atmosphere. Inside the convention, the Democratic Party was divided between establishment figures supporting Vice President Hubert Humphrey and more progressive, anti-war factions backing Senators Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern. Georgia played a distinct role in the convention as it represented the conservative, pro-segregation wing of the party. Governor Lester Maddox, a vocal segregationist, led the Georgia delegation. Maddox was known for his staunch opposition to the Civil Rights Movement and had famously closed his restaurant rather than comply with integration laws. He and other Southern Democrats, sometimes referred to as Dixiecrats, resisted the party's growing embrace of civil rights and its increasingly liberal stance on social issues. At the convention, the Georgia delegation stood with the conservative elements of the party, opposing the anti-war platform and pushing back against the civil rights advancements. Maddox and other Southern leaders were aligned with George Wallace's independent campaign, which sought to appeal to disaffected white voters in the South, capitalizing on fears of racial integration and opposition to federal intervention in state matters. This ideological split within the Democratic Party, exemplified by the clash between conservative Southern Democrats like Maddox and the more progressive northern and western factions, highlighted the fractures that would soon lead to a realignment in American politics. Georgia's role in the 1968 DNC represented the old guard of Southern Democrats, clinging to segregationist values in the face of a rapidly changing political landscape. You can connect with Parker Hudson online, here. You can buy We Asked, “Why Not?” online, here. You can connect with Taylor Branch online, here. You can buy the Pulitzer Prize winning Parting the Waters, here. Connect with The Georgia Politics Podcast on Twitter @gapoliticspod Preston Thompson on Twitter @pston3 Hans Appen on Twitter @hansappen Craig Kidd on Twitter @CraigKidd1 Proud member of the Appen Podcast Network. #gapol

In this gripping episode of "Connecting the Dots," Dr. Wilmer Leon and two-time Pulitzer Prize finalist Jon Jeter expose the Democratic Party's desperate reliance on voters of color to save them from political collapse.   Find me and the show on social media. Click the following links or search @DrWilmerLeon on X/Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Patreon and YouTube! Hey everyone, Dr. Wilmer here! If you've been enjoying my deep dives into the real stories behind the headlines and appreciate the balanced perspective I bring, I'd love your support on my Patreon channel. Your contribution helps me keep "Connecting the Dots" alive, revealing the truth behind the news. Join our community, and together, let's keep uncovering the hidden truths and making sense of the world. Thank you for being a part of this journey!   FULL TRANSCRIPT: Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:00:00): I have two questions. The first question, has the Democratic Party committed suicide by biting the black hands that feed it? Here's the second question. Has the African-American community allowed itself to be taken for granted and thereby taken advantage of Jon Jeter (00:00:25): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge? Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:00:32): Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon. I'm Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they happen in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historical context in which a lot of these events occur. During each episode, my guests and I have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between these events and the broader historic context in which they occur. This enables you to better understand and analyze the events that impact the global village in which we live. Black Agenda report has a piece entitled How the Democratic Party Committed Suicide by Biting the Black Hands That Feed It On today's episode. The issues before us are, as I stated at the top, has the party in fact committed suicide and has the African-American community allowed itself to be taken for granted and thereby to advantage of for insight into this? (00:01:35): And for answers to these questions, let's turn to my guest. He's a former foreign correspondent for the Washington Post. He's the co-author of a Day Late and a Dollar Short, dark Days and Bright Nights in Obama's post-Racial America. His work can be found at Patreon as well as Black Republic Media. He's the author of this piece. He is John Jeter brother John Jeter. Welcome back. The pleasure is all mine, brother. Thank you for having me. You opened your piece as follows, the Democratic Party dug its own grave decades ago when it began trying to siphon voters from the Republican party or the GOP by appealing to conservatives and ignoring the needs of its strong base of African-American people. If political parties were prominent people, you'd have stumbled upon this obituary. Today, the Democratic Party, one half of America's longstanding ruling duopoly, and the author of political movements as disparate as Jim Crow and the New Deal died Wednesday, July 24. It was 196 sources said the cause was suicide following along illness. John, that's incredibly, incredibly creative. I've gone through the coroner's report. I can't make heads nor tails when it comes to the cause of Speaker 3 (00:02:58): Death. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:02:59): So what was the cause of death on July 24th? Speaker 3 (00:03:03): It sort of slit death by a thousand cuts, but slitting your throat a thousand times slowly over the years. Man, I really, that piece really meant something to me. I am, as I think you would say, you are a man of a certain age and I remember very clearly Jesse Jackson's 1984 and 88 campaigns for President. I remember the energy and the excitement. I remember, even though I was just in my teens and early twenties, I remember that it was electric, those campaigns. And then I remember Bill Clinton running for president and I voted for Bill Clinton. But I remember thinking, I remember holding my nose while I voted because I remember Bill Clinton lecturing Jesse Jackson about Sister Soldier lecturing black people going to black church, lecturing black people about how we have failed Martin Luther King. And I didn't quite understand it other than I thought, well, bill Clinton is like most white people I know, racists most, not all the most. (00:04:13): And I just wrote it off as that when I was a young journalist at the Detroit Free Press. Later, I got to Washington the same time as Bill Clinton In 1993, January of 1993, I got to the Washington Post, and it sort of dawned on me over the years, particularly as I heard democratic presidents and democratic candidates for President repeat these same tropes scolding black people. I remember, and I was in a very different place at this point, but I remember Barack Obama talking down the black people in a way that just really offended me, scolding black fathers for their failure to raise their kids when a study at that time had been produced, which showed that black men who are separated from their families are actually better parents, actually spend more quality time with their kids than any other ethnic group. Barack Obama telling a black church, I believe it was in South Carolina, that a good plan for economic development would be to stop throwing Popeye's chicken wrappers out of your car window, right? (00:05:23): Just the infantilization of the black voting block, black electorate. And it struck me that this is by design. They're talking to white people. And then this is only in the last few years where I read David Roder, the labor economist, labor, labor historian, I'm sorry, who wrote about the Reagan Democrats in Michigan, who we elected the blue collar white workers who we elected Ronald Reagan, president who crossed over to elect Ronald Reagan president. And how his polling showed that their main motivation was race or racism, I should say. They did not like black people. They defined black people as pulling down the party. And they divided Democrats as people who catered to blacks who were lazy welfare, all the tropes that were popularized by, built by Ronald Reagan. And it struck me that the Democrats in 92, the astrophysicists, I believe they talk about solar systems that are so distant, you can't see the sun, but you can tell by the movement of the planets that there is indeed a solar system by the movement of the stars and the planets that there is indeed a sun there, that it is indeed a solar system. (00:06:43): No one really wrote it down really. Although the poster Stanley Stanley, I can't remember his name now, but the post of the Greenberg for the Democrats, he came close, but we can see by their actions that the Democrats in 1992 especially were wrestling with how to win the White House after they had been exiled by 12 years of Republican rule. And they decided they chose between Jesse Jackson's campaign, which was trying to reunite that New Deal coalition, tenuous as it was, but it was still a new deal, coalition of black and white workers, and then Ronald Reagan's approach, which was to basically return to the old Southern Democrats, George Wallace, basically, and refusing to be out in worded right, keeping up this racist animosity and resentment. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:07:40): I think that was Strom Thurman who originally made that quote, I will never be. Right. Speaker 3 (00:07:45): Right. That's right. That's right. Yeah. George Wallace took it to another level, and I think that that has been the Democrat's problem ever since. And you would think a child could have told them, this is not going to work well for you to antagonize purposefully your base, but this is the moment we're in where you see the Democrats, it's almost like a circus, a dog and pony show where Democrats spend four years openly denouncing or renouncing their black base and then in the election year trying to make up for it, trying to gin up the black vote. It is almost like this awkward dance that they're doing. And now we're seeing the culmination, because this has been going on pretty much for the last 30 years. I think Obama was the Navy or the Zenith, depending on how you want to look at it. But I think that it's really run its course. I think it's possible Kamala Harris can win this election, but even if that is the case after four years in office, the Democrats are a spent force. They can't continue this dance. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:08:52): So to those who would say, well, wait a minute, John, how can you say that the party is biting the hand that feeds it when you've had a President Barack Obama from 2009 to 2017, and they are set as we assume that when they come out of their convention in a couple of weeks, that Kamala Harris will be the nominee for 2024. So how do you answer those folks who say, well, they're not taking us for granted. Let's assume that she wins in November. They've had two African American presidents. We could talk about African Jamaican, but we'll just put Kamala in the box over 20 year span, Speaker 3 (00:09:48): And they've completely ignored, completely frustrated black demands, right? You think about Kamala Harris. Well, Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:09:57): Barack Obama told us we didn't make any demands, which is why we didn't get anything. When he was asked that question. His answer was, you didn't demand anything. Yeah. Speaker 3 (00:10:06): And I would have to say, he's actually got to give the devil this dude. He was right on that one. Hey, look, the 2008, what they did, what the Democrats did in pushing Barack Obama passed Hillary Clinton was a stroke of genius. It really was. They had the perfect candidate to whip up to generate this black excitement, excitement in the black community, which at that same time, they were ripping off through these subprime mortgages, right, which were disproportionately aimed at blacks, black homeowners. And what they did by pushing Obama to the fore, the Democrats, I'm talking about bringing blacks, gin up the black vote, getting blacks excited about someone who at that point, Barack just didn't have much of a record for serving the black community. But he went on in his eight years in office to openly excoriate sc disappoint the black community. And in fact, I think you could argue that in terms of black people, I'm 59, I'll be 60 years old in January. (00:11:12): I would argue that Barack Obama has been the worst president in my lifetime for blacks. What I mean by that is the opportunity that he had in 2008 during the Great Recession, the opportunity that he had to actually begin to redistribute, and I'm not talking about socialism or communism. I'm talking about just redistributing wealth, just shaving off a portion of that onerous debt that many of us had accrued through these illegal, that's not my term, that's the FBI term illegal loans, fraudulent loans that the lenders made, and he could have shaved off proportion of that debt revived consumer buying power as we speak. We're talking, we're in the midst of the Wall Street, has seen a week really of decline. And the reasons, because Barack Obama set this in motion by not responding to the asset bubble in 2008, that asset bubble popped. (00:12:14): Usually how you deal with an asset bubble is you shave off a portion of the debt and you put people in jail to disincentivize a fraud, but you shave off a portion of the debt because that will revive buying power. Barack Obama didn't do that. He actually threw more money at the lenders. And so right now we don't have body power and who's leading that? African American. So I say that to say, to answer your question, that the blacks who have been candidates for high office, particularly for the White House, have been put there because they will participate. They will join in on this dance of scolding black people for the benefit of the white vote, and then doing this dance, this sort of vaudevillian kind of act where they, every four years talk about what they've done for the black community, what they're going to do for the black community, how much they love black people. (00:13:11): And I think it's run its course. I feel that it's run its course. And let me just end with this. And I really do believe that the legacy of Barack Obama, we've always had class tension within the black community. Now I think we're going to see the eruption of a real civil war, a real class war within the black community where the black elected officials are very much like conservatives and very much like white liberals. I think we're getting to a point now where we're going to see that the fault lines are very sharply drawn and the black elected officials, black celebrities, van Jones and Jay-Z and Bakari Sellers, that all these people are going to be seen as class enemies to the working class black community and the people who are its allies. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:13:57): A couple of things. One, you mentioned the asset bubble and former President Obama giving the money back, basically bailing out the banks and not bailing out the homeowners. And I remember because to your point, that would've been the move. Don't give the money to the banks, deal with the loans, and that way you would've enabled people to stay in their homes. You would've been able to maintain the integrity of a number of neighborhoods, even down to the level of public schools and public school budgets because they get their money from property taxes by maintaining the value of property. There are a whole lot of things, a whole lot of benefits that would've come from that action. Instead of giving the money to the banksters, give the money to the homeowners. And I remember a press conference where former President Obama was asked why he did it the way he did it. And his answer was, and I remember this very clearly, his answer was, I didn't expect the banks to do this. People were asking him, why hasn't the money that you've given to the banks been loaned out? Why hasn't that money been distributed to the communities in need? And he said, I didn't expect the banks to do that. I said, well, man, that's what banks do, Speaker 3 (00:15:23): And maybe you shouldn't have run for president if you don't have that kind of understanding of finance. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:15:27): Well, but that's the same guy that told the Banksters, I'm the one standing between you and the people with the pitch for us. Speaker 3 (00:15:32): Right? Right. And I believe it was in that same interview, I believe it was where he said that the reason he didn't bail out the homeowners who had been defrauded of their homes to these subprime mortgages, he said he didn't want to invite moral hazard. Well, moral hazard is exactly what he invited. But on behalf of the banks, not on behalf Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:15:52): Of, oh, see, I thought he said Merrill haggard not moral hazard. My bad. I thought he didn't like country and western music. I'm glad. I'm glad you straighten that out for me. And the other thing you mentioned about former President Obama, and what I assume we're going to see from Vice President Harris is they have, I call it menstrual diplomacy. They are being used to sell imperialism and neoliberalism. And because it's coming from them, because Kamala Harris was selling us invading Haiti along with Linda Thomas Greenfield and so many, but because it was black people selling it, then there must not be anything wrong with it. We must be able to go ahead and accept it because of who it is that's selling it to us. I want to read another paragraph from your piece wherein you write, you write, it's important, however, to view Biden as a vital organ to a larger body politic that finally flatlined after failing to address a chronic illness, akin say to a diabetic eating Big Max every day for the past 30 years, Biden does not in fact owe his failed reelection bid to senility, though his cognitive decline is apparent. (00:17:24): But to his party's strategic decision three decades ago, to compete with Ronald Reagan's, GOP for racist, white suburban voters, white suburban voters, by openly repudiating the Democrats electoral base of African-Americans. And that gets to what you just opened with. But I also think it's important for people to understand that by taking us for granted and by allowing ourselves to be taken for granted, the Democrats know we're not going anywhere. And so that enables them to speak to a lot of issues while actually appealing to that white middle class male voter because they don't want to appear to be a party that's too black. They don't want to appear to be a party that's catering to black people. John Che. Speaker 3 (00:18:23): No, that's exactly right. I think I ride with black people. I rock with black people. I will to the day I die, particularly the black working class. My father was a UAW member. And as much as the unions are fraught with racism, I still claim the working class. That's the class I was born into in the class I will die in. Although if I hit the lottery, I guess I'll be a Cadillac Communist at that point. Maybe. In Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:18:50): Fact, really quickly, really simply, the CIO was we got the AFL CIO because the A FL was racist and okay, Speaker 3 (00:19:03): Yeah, that's exactly right. And then the CIO turned racist. But that's another story. But no, this is really a choice that the Democrats made, which just shows how unimagined they were. If they had followed Jesse Jackson's model pulling more and more people, which by the way was what RFK planned to do before he was assassinated, was to pull more and more people into the tech, younger people, it's very conceivable they would've never have lost an election over the last 30 years. Right? It's very conceivable. We have 110, a hundred million voters at least every year who are eligible to vote, who don't vote. Pulling those people in more of those people in by giving them something to vote for would be a winning strategy, a sustainable strategy. The Democrats just relied on their own. They just reverted to reform, right? Racist Democrats like Bill Clinton, like Ben Pitchfork, Tillman, that's who they're, and they can't sort of snap out of that. (00:20:10): And so now they're stuck. They're stuck with this dance. It's very awkward dance, performative blackness. That's what Barack Obama is. That's what Kamala Harris, they perform, but they're not radical black political actors because if they were, and we have to bear some of the responsibility for this failure. We black people who have historically been the most sophisticated voters in the United States since they ran Barack Obama, we have for some reason forgotten that we have agency in this that if just sit and wait four years to go cast a ballot for whoever they put up for us to vote, that we might well be buried under a ton of ash, like some lost city of Pompeii or whatever. Because our parents and our grandparents knew much like they did in Chicago with Harold Washington, they faced the same dilemma. The Democrats just basically crapping on them and then asked them for their vote. (00:21:17): And they decided in 1982 that, oh, well, we'll just get our own candidate to run. And they got Harold Washington. They drove each other to the polls, they registered voters. They raised money even though they didn't have much. They raised money and they got him by the finish line right now, it won't look the same way now probably. But the point is that they used their imagination. They didn't just sit there and say, oh, well, this is who we got to vote for. They did something about, they demonstrated their own agency. We need to get back to that. But lemme just say this too, on that point, I do feel though that this isn't a way, a culmination of what Malcolm said when he said, I think there will be another civil war in this country, but it won't be black versus white. There'd be the haves versus the havenots. (00:22:01): And I believe we are getting closer to that. You see now these campus protests that emerged over the spring, which were led by the vanguard of which was Jewish people and Arab people and black people, I think that's going to be the coming revolution where we see what's happening in Gaza, rightfully so, has become the moral center of the universe. But that cause Gaza, which of course does not speak well with Kamala Harris, that cause I believe is going to intersect. We already see it intersecting with other causes. Cop city in Atlanta, right, the Jim Crow justice system. We see it intersecting with these other causes. That's how revolutions are born. So I say all that to say that I think that the Democrats are going to be on the wrong side of history. I think this deal, they struck this Carthage Genian peace deal that black Democrats have struck with the party. I think that it has run its courts and the people no longer have any use for it. I don't know if Trump or Ka Harris is going to be the next president, but I know that the American people are going to lose either way. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:23:12): And I think evidence to what it is that you've just articulated in terms of this confluence of interest between Jewish Americans, between Arab Americans and African Americans, we're seeing now how Republicans are taking control at the electoral board level, the local electoral board level. They are now denying elections. They are now failing to certify elections. And this is something that people need to pay very, very close attention to because they are gaining control of the apparatus itself. And when they get control of the apparatus itself, then that's going to make our challenges even that much more difficult in terms of challenges, in terms of electoral politics, is going to make our challenges even harder to be successful at when you have members of election boards that fail to certify elections, not because they find wrongdoing in the process, but simply because the candidate that they backed. Look at Donald Trump gave this speech. He was in Atlanta today, I think it was Sunday or Monday, and he's pointing to people in the crowd that are at his campaign rally who are members of the county Boards of Election, and he's applauding them and lauding them for how loyal they are to his efforts. Speaker 3 (00:24:48): Oh, wow. I did not realize that. And that's very dangerous because these elections, these presidential elections tend to be battles of attrition who can do more to turn to vote, which means that they're very slim margins. So I mean, if Donald Trump has a little bit of leverage with the elections board in Milwaukee and Detroit and Philadelphia, you might as well hand the presidency over to him now. So this is something else. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:25:17): Well, and that's why he is saying, Christians, after this election, you won't need to vote. I mean, he is saying to people, oh, I've got this. I don't even need your vote. I've got this. And after this election, you won't need to vote. And that goes back to, and I think this went over the heads of a lot of folks. His key advisor, the guy that's in jail now went to jail. Speaker 3 (00:25:50): Oh, baton. Baton. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:25:51): Steve Baton said, our objective is the deconstruction of the administrative state. Steve Bannon was very, very clear about Trump's objective is to deconstruct the administrative state. And I don't think many people paid attention to that. And that is what we see with the January 6th attack on the Capitol with they're getting their talons into local boards of election with this whole project 2025, which isn't new. It's all wine in new bottles. But all of those things are culminating with the Donald Trump. Speaker 3 (00:26:44): Yeah, no, it's really a historic time. We don't know how it's going to turn out. But I mean, if you look at the situation on the ground and Nazi Germany, say in 1934, it'd be very similar to what we're seeing now with this demagogue clearly rising up. And then you see all the other parties in Germany, although we only have one here in the United States, you see all the other parties sort of seeding that ground to this demagogue and the people who support him. And that's shaping up here. And the Democrat, again, it could be an opportunity for the Democrats to actually say, okay, we're going to step in and we're going to restore democracy, but they don't really care about democracy. How do we know the same people who are complaining about January 6th? And the Trump supporters who wanted to overturn the election just announced that the winner of the election in Venezuela is the guy who came in second passed the post, right? (00:27:38): And then the silliness. Well, we believe that the election was stolen. The Carter Center, Jimmy Carter has called the elections in Venezuela, the freest and fairest he has ever observed. Correct. National lawyers, gu, when they're now, and they said, no, this election is fine, but we're going to say that this guy who's a conservative in a country that is 13% black, and probably half of them are of mixed race, we're going to say this white conservative went in there and over and basically beat the socialist party, the Olaine revolution that has been in power since 1998. And not just beat 'em, but beat 'em by 34 percentage points, I Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:28:22): Believe. Now, I was calling this out months ago, and folks, you need to really understand this, and there are numerous, if you go to Oroco Tribune or you go to venezuelan analysis.com, you'll find plenty of articles on this. So the United States started backing the Russian, the Venezuelan conservative candidate, marina Machado Speaker 3 (00:28:50): Machado, Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:28:52): And then she was convicted by the Venezuelan Supreme Court and found to have been basically an unregistered foreign agent. She was operating, I think, on behalf of Peru, I think it was Peru, against the interest of Venezuela. So they said, you are, because you have been operating as this agent for another country against Venezuelan interests, you can't run in the election. So the United States started backing her, knowing she couldn't run, and then they found the Gonzalez, the guy that replaced her, but he's basically her mouthpiece. And I was saying all along the United States is backing her, knowing she can't win, and then backing Gonzalez, knowing he can't win, so that when they lose, they will claim the election was fraud. And that's exactly, now here's the problem. So the United States goes in to Venezuela and they try to ment civil unrest the same way that Victoria Newland went into Madan Square. (00:30:12): That's right. And overthrew the democratically elected government in Ukraine leading us to where we are now in Ukraine. The difference between, or one of the differences between Ukraine and Venezuela, or a couple differences. One, the people are armed. There is a armed popular militia that when the bell rings, or as George Clinton would say, when the horn blow, you better be ready to go. They come in the street packing. In fact, we know this, when we had what we call the Bay of Piglets, about a year and a half ago, some American mercenaries tried to float their way into Venezuela, and they were stopped by a group of Venezuelan fishermen that arrested these guys damn near killed them, but exposed them for trying to come into the country to overthrow the government. So you've got a very strong citizen, heavily armed citizen militia in Venezuela. And here's the other thing. It's not about Maduro. No, it's about the Bolivarian revolution. Speaker 3 (00:31:28): That's right. That's right. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:31:28): These folks are Speaker 3 (00:31:32): Right. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:31:33): Ugo Chavez is the man. So they see Maduro not as Maduro. They see Maduro as an agent of the revolution. Speaker 3 (00:31:46): That's right. That's right. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:31:47): I'll make one more statement about this because you know more about this than I do. I'm going to make this point. This is hyperbole, but I want to say they would say, Nicholas Maduro be damned. It's about the revolution. It's not about him as an individual. And so long as he stays true to the revolution, they will stay true to him. When they see him deviate, he's done. Speaker 3 (00:32:17): I could not agree with you more. I have not stepped foot in Venezuela in 20 years, although I talked to people who are still on the ground there every once in a while. I'm going to tell you something, man, I have never seen, and I've lived in South Africa, I've been through most of Africa, through half of South America. I've never seen France. Nan talked about the need for revolutions make to create the new man, the new woman, a different consciousness. I'm not sure I ever knew what that meant until I went to Venezuela. They really have a different consciousness. Now, I'm going to be honest with you. I think a lot of that was Hugo Chavez. I mean, it really does come down, man. He was as brilliant. I've met Mandela, who I think highly of. I met Mugabi. I never met a man who's more charismatic, more powerful, more visionary than he was. (00:33:09): Robert, I met later in life. I don't know what he was like earlier. Same with Mandela. But Chavez was visionary, and I so have to say that so much of this revolution is doing his understanding. When the United States organized a coup in 2002, the people, they weren't as well armed. They didn't have the malicious then, although some of them had armed the people because the government, the news media, which was controlled by the wealthy, the oligarchs in Venezuela, they told the people that Hugo Chavez is on the beach and she would kicking it with Fidel Castro. The people had these hammer radios. They got on the ham radio and said, nah, that ain't what happened. He would never abandon us like that. I think he's a mirror for us. Let's go get 'em mostly with pots and pan. And you can look at, there's a documentary, I can't remember the name of the documentary. (00:33:58): It's black women who were in the front pots and pans, and look, you're going to give him back. Right? And they did. Right. It took a couple days. It took a little while, right? About two days, right. Cause like I said, they mostly just had pots and pan. But thank God back. Now, look, I think that the vote, which was the closest, it's been, I think in 28 and 20, 26 years now, the vote just a little bit beyond 50% from Mad Gerald. I think it was 53. I want to say it was like 53, 46 or something like that. Yeah, I saw 51 to 44, but something like that. But anyway, it's a diminished margin. I mean, they have had inflation. These sanctions have taken an effect. And I know the people I talked to on the ground, I lived in Ecuador for a year or so a few years ago, and you saw more and more people coming to Ecuador who were disillusioned with the BOLO volume revolution. (00:34:52): And these are people who would've been supportive, people who were of color, mestizos, no blacks, but mestizos. Anyway, so I do think that it's lost a little bit of its luster. But this is what I know, they did not put up a right wing candidate was talking about taking Venezuela back to what it was in 1989 before what they call, I think they called the characters Z. When the president basically told the Venezuela one day we're not going to convert to neoliberalism and ratchet up the bus prices and all that. And the next day they went to work and the bus prices had doubled. And so there was this ride, and that's what produced hug job is. So what I'm saying is that there's a of the Venezuelan voter, the average Venezuelan, I wish we had it here in the United States because they understand as Fred, I know you're going to get sick of me quoting Fred Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:35:47): Hampton. Right? I'll never get sick of you quoting Fred Hampton. Speaker 3 (00:35:50): But it's like the Venezuelans understand. I wish we understood it. I wish you peace if you willing to fight for it. The Venezuelans, they live by that, right? And so, I don't know. I can't tell you, the United States is very powerful, even though we're a diminished force, I can't tell you they'll always be able to hold off the United States, but they're going to have to fight them for Venezuela. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:36:10): So we started this with your piece, how the Democratic Party committed suicide by biting the hands that feed it. And the way that we got to this discussion about Venezuela was a discussion about democracy and how Joe Biden tells us democracy is on the ballot. And Kamala Harris, the democracy is on the ballot. And Donald Trump democracy, we ought to protect democracy while we're going around the world, overthrowing democracies. That's why we're fighting in Vene in Ukraine because the United States overthrew the democratically elected government. We're trying to have regime change in Russia while the Russians, you can talk about their form of government, all you want to, it is democratic by their definition. And he was democratically elected. We can talk about Syria, we can talk about what they're trying to do in China as it relates to Taiwan. We can talk about what's going on in Gaza. We keep talking about we're defending democracy in Israel, democracy for who Speaker 3 (00:37:19): Democracy. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:37:19): You even have, there are even Jews in Israel that aren't a part of the Democratic. So that's how we, so, okay. I just wanted to kind of bring us all back to this vice President, Kamala Harris, and still use the word presumptive, because even though she got the vote she needed through the Zoom process, they're going to have a convention which I will attend as a journalist not carrying anybody's banner. Speaker 3 (00:37:56): You sure you don't have that vote blue? No banner who? Banner at home you going to take Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:38:03): No. So, okay, so now she has announced her running mate, and Tim Walsh has debuted as her VP pick in Philly. And my question to you relative to this, is the story that Harris selected Waltz to be her running mate, or is the story that she did not select Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro, as the team gets ready to kick off its five state tour, which of those, and they both could be the story, but because we kept hearing that she was going to, A lot of people thought Shapiro was going to be the pick and the fact that they were kicking off in Philly, and now they're not awkward, but which one is the story? Speaker 3 (00:39:18): Yeah, that's a great question. I have to say, if I had to bet money, if I had to bet the farm, I would say that the Democrats are going to lose this election. But I do think Waltz is probably the best choice that she could have made. Shapiro would've been catastrophic, I think just because whether exactly, whether they want to admit it or not, Zionism is on the ballot, right? Right. We know Kamala has said she's a Zionist, right? We know she's had meetings with APAC in which she has asked for it not to be recorded. She is a Zionist. She supports Israel's right to defend itself when it has no such, right? No more so than the Nazis did in Germany. Anyway. So waltz, I think really Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:40:02): Minute. Wait a minute, wait a minute. I need to say. So folks can clearly understand that you are stating that Israel does not have the right to defend itself. That statement is based upon international law, Speaker 3 (00:40:21): Law, Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:40:21): Law. Yes. You're not making this up, right. Kamala Harris coming out and saying, Israel has the right to defend itself as a prosecutor. She should know better because that's wrong. It is just, you might as well say the world is flat and the sun revolves around the earth. The world is not flat, even though when you stand out on the horizon, it looks that way. It ain't necessarily so, and the sun does not revolve around the earth. Speaker 3 (00:40:56): And the rest of the world knows this. Right? The Palestinians are an occupied people. You have the right to, that's why Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:41:02): They're called oppress occupied Speaker 3 (00:41:05): Territory's not right. International law. It's not international law. We'll Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:41:08): Continue, but I just want to be very, very clear on that point. Speaker 3 (00:41:12): Yeah. I just think it's so interesting though. I mean, it seems to me that their choice of, am I pronouncing his name right? Waltz? Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:41:20): Waltz. Waltz. Waltz. No, WALZ. Speaker 3 (00:41:24): Wall. Okay. Waltz. Okay. I think it's a concession to the anti-Zionist protests that I still think are going to be a very big factor in this convention. Chicago is home to the biggest, the largest Palestinian population in the country. And Lord knows how many black people are going to come out and support because they're protesting their mayor there who did a mini, he's a Obama Mini me ran, left, and is governing, right? So it does seem like it's like the best choice. It gives them a shot. He softens their edges, Kamala's edges, the Biden Harris administration's edges in terms of Zionism. But it softens his edges. It doesn't eliminate, from what I understand, he still supports Israel, right? Absolutely. And I don't know. Look, one thing we have to be honest about now is that the media is very much complicit in this game that the Democrats are running, and that's what it is. (00:42:26): The media is very complicit in this. And so are they going to really ask the Harris ticket, Kamala Harris' ticket to tough questions? I don't know. But you'd have to assume that somewhere between now and November that they're going to be confronted in a very public fashion with this question though. Well, what are you going to do about Israel? And that's why I see them losing this race, if nothing else. And I know that foreign policy does not often decide a presidential election, but I think given the state of the first live stream genocide in history, which Daily is bringing these unbearable images into our homes, that combined with their failure to do anything for their black base, especially black men, I have a hard time seeing a path to victory for the Democratic party. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:43:19): Well, staying in that region. Another thing that folks, you got to stay tuned because these dynamics are changing minute by minute, Hassan Nala, the head of Hezbollah, came out and said, look, we are going to respond. Lemme take a step back. Secretary of State was telling us, Monday, 24 hours, 24 hours, and we expect that Iran is going to respond with man you Speaker 3 (00:43:57): Like he knows. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:44:00): So Cassandra Sharla comes out and says, well, we're going to respond, and now we don't care what the outcome is. He came out Monday in a very clear speech and said, we are going to respond. We're going in hard, and we don't care what you do. Anah in Yemen saying, please send missiles our way, because every missile you send towards us is a missile you can send in the Palestine. Now, this is the poorest country in the world, the poorest country in the world. They have shut down. I'm talking about Yemen. Yemen, they have shut down the Red Sea. You can't get nothing in or out of the Red Sea. There's a port in Israel called the Port of OT has gone bankrupt because Ansara Allah has been sending missiles into the port of ot, like 13, 1400 miles away. And they're saying, we welcome the fight. Look, that's some smoke you don't want, Speaker 3 (00:45:36): Right? Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:45:37): Because if we were in South central la, this would be the bloods and the Crips saying, I'm about that life. Speaker 3 (00:45:45): Right? Right. The ties and Hezbollah and Hezbollah, you know that about that life. They handed a behind whooping to Israel in 2006, which Israel's never forgotten, right? No. And the ties, I mean, man mean you talk about solidarity. I mean, they, they're what anybody who says they're a revolutionary aspires to be a revolutionary needs to look at. They have a picture. We can take the picture. Well, no, maybe don't take the picture Martin Luther King down, maybe put the Houthis right next to it everywhere kitchen. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:46:19): And see, they're not new to this game. Speaker 3 (00:46:23): No. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:46:24): When Anah, I believe means a helper of God, Speaker 3 (00:46:30): Know that, Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:46:31): And I believe that comes from the time of the prophet. May peace be upon him. They traced their lineage that far back when he came through that region, they were assisting him. Speaker 3 (00:46:46): Oh, I did not know that. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:46:48): So when that's your psyche, when that's your North star look, when Mike Tyson tells you to stop kicking the back of his seat on an airplane, you might want to stop kicking his backseat back of his seat on airplane. Speaker 3 (00:47:02): You might consider doing what he says. Yeah. I Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:47:05): Dunno if you remember that story. Yeah, Speaker 3 (00:47:06): I do. I do. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:47:07): When they had to carry that guy off of the plane Speaker 3 (00:47:10): And he got off lucky Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:47:13): Because he was able, he survived the assault. Speaker 3 (00:47:15): And I Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:47:16): Don't mean assault in illegal term ass whooping. So anyway, anyway, all of this, I bring this up again, folks. I'm trying to connect these dots. We get into September and October, vice President Harris may be asking questions about the regional war that is ongoing, because that's where we're headed. That's what Israel wants. They are trying to bait the United States into a conflict in the region. And now you've got the supreme leader in Iran saying to Hezbollah, go ahead on, do what you got to do. He's not saying, pump your brakes. Partner saying, do what you got to do. And he's saying, do what you got to do, because we about to do what we got to do. Speaker 3 (00:48:17): We about to put in that work too. And I don't mean to be glib about it, man, this is a horrible thing that's happening. But you've got to look at it. Americans really need to look at it in context. Context. Wait minute. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:48:27): Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Don't send your money yet, because there's a bamboo steamer that comes with this deal. Turkey Toa, Speaker 3 (00:48:34): Right? Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:48:36): Erwan is saying we in it too. He says, if we have to go in now, he can be a funny dude. Speaker 3 (00:48:43): Yeah. Yeah. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:48:45): He is at least saying, oh, if we got to go in, we're going in. Speaker 3 (00:48:51): Yeah. This is a perfect storm. I mean, this is the worst perfect storm I've ever seen in my lifetime. You've got this on the one side you've got, and you really think about it, this revolutionary consciousness that has been strengthened and amplified by Israel's decision to commit genocide in front of cameras. And then when we say, yo man, that's the genocide. They say, what's your point? Right? This is the end of Israel. Your Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:49:22): Problem is, Speaker 3 (00:49:23): Yeah, exactly. As we know it, Israel, Israel will never go back to what it was on October 6th of last year. It just won't. Right? It's not going to happen. And the United States, I don't think it's going to go back to what it was on October 6th of last year, either what it's going to be, I don't know. But this is, we're really seeing the end of it, and you can see it in a couple things. One is the congealing of this resistance movement in the Middle East against the white settler colonialism of Israel and the United States and the West. You see it with the bricks whose GDP cumulatively has surpassed the United States. Russia, I believe, has said at reported, they're arming the Houthis. Right? They're arming the Houthis. I've read the, but I dunno if it's true or not, right? And then you've got the peace day resistance, a recession. (00:50:12): Oh, I didn't even think about that. Right? You've got, in the Sahel region in Africa, you've got this resistance is forming, and you've got all of Africa starting to sort of assert itself and say, wait a minute, why do we need these people who speak French, who speak English in here, telling us what to do? They claim to be the boss. Why do they take our resources out? Pay us nothing, take our resources out. You've got that congealing, and then you've got the peace state resistance. You've got that also in South America, although it's in bits and starts, the pink tides kind of a ebb and of flow. But then you've got the peace state resistance, which is what some economists and financial people believe is, at the very least, a very brave and very deep recession. And some people are saying, could be the greatest depression, the greatest depression that the world has ever seen. And there are numbers. I mean, United States has never been 35 trillion in debt. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:51:07): That Speaker 3 (00:51:07): Never Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:51:08): Happened against a $25 trillion GDP. Speaker 3 (00:51:11): I mean, come on, man. So we've got a lot of issues said Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:51:16): That, try to get a mortgage with that bank balance, Speaker 3 (00:51:19): Man. I was looking at the loans for, and then we've got credit card debt up the kazoo, and the average interest rate, I believe is 25% of these credit card rates. And we're dealing with all these, no, that's the problem. We're not dealing with these problems. We don't address, we don't face these problems. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:51:34): So all of that, I wrote a piece, you're with her, but is she with you? Yeah. And the piece is contrary to what many people want to say. It's not anti Kamala. It's pro us. Yes. The question in the piece is, what are you as an African-American community demanding from her? And we have just articulated a number of very important issues that are and will impact how much you pay for a pack of chicken wings, a gallon of milk, and a loaf of bread Speaker 3 (00:52:18): Question. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:52:19): So it's great that she's an AKA. It's great that she went to Howard. It's great that she can do what she do, but what does she stand for? What if you go to her website right now, zero policy, zero, not nary policy reference, Speaker 3 (00:52:47): But she has Megan, the stallion, twerking for Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:52:49): Her. Oh, well, then that gets my Speaker 3 (00:52:51): Vote. I'm just saying, Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:52:53): Hey, I, amen. Speaker 3 (00:52:55): You know what, Earl? You know what Earl but said about black voters, right? Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:52:59): Go ahead. Speaker 3 (00:53:01): I dunno if I can repeat it here, but all we want is a warm toilet seat. A tight, tight, what was it? And a pair of shoe apparently to say, Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:53:17): So here's folks, here's the question. Politics. We are so caught up in the politics of personality and the politics of phenotype. We are trying to defend, oh, Donald Trump said she isn't black. Who cares when a pack of chicken wings is $21 a pack, when organic, a gallon of organic milk is $12 a gallon. That matters to me. I drink organic milk. Why are we so caught up in that? When your tax dollars are funding genocide, when your tax dollars are paying the salaries and the retirement of Ukrainians, and you don't have a retirement plan, your pension plan went out the window 25 years ago. That's right. We're paying Ukrainian pensions and healthcare. And healthcare and education budgets are numeric representations of priority. Speaker 3 (00:54:36): That's right. That's right. A moral document, as King said. That's Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:54:40): Right. And we keep being told, we don't have the money. We don't have the money, but F sixteens just landed in Ukraine, which I'll say in the next 10 days will probably be blown into rubble. But we're sending F sixteens. So Lockheed Martin is happy. John Jeter, am I hating black women because I'm questioning policy issues related. Oh, we have to give her a chance. What did Barack Obama say when members of the Black Press said, you didn't really do anything for the black community, said you did not demand anything. Speaker 3 (00:55:34): Yeah. Yeah. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:55:36): Frederick Douglas says, power yields nothing without demand. It never has. And it never will. That's Speaker 3 (00:55:43): Right. That's right. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:55:44): But when I asked the question, well, what are you demanding? Oh, no, Wilmer. See, you have to give her a chance. Oh, here's the other. I'll make, explain. Now I'm going to turn it over to you. So you've got folks like Simone Sanders that say, well, she's been vice president for four years. Kamala has earned it. And then you say, but wait a minute. So while she was vice president, what'd she do? Oh, well, you have to understand that vice presidents, those jobs, their job description is really very vague, and you can't really expect, well, no. See, you can't have it both ways, Speaker 3 (00:56:23): Right? That's right. You Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:56:24): Can't tell me she earned it by being vice president. And then when I ask you, well, what did she do? You can't tell me. Well, she didn't do anything because vice presidents don't do anything. John Jeter. Speaker 3 (00:56:35): Yeah. We really need to raise our level of play. All Americans do, but particularly African Americans, because we have historically been the vanguard of this revolution, of the revolution in the United States, a progressive working class revolution. We need to raise our level of play. We need to deepen our understanding of politics. We need to do exactly as you say, we need to develop a list of demands, make them and stick to them. I'll try to say this very succinctly. I'm coming out with a new book in September next month, class War in America, how the elites divide the nation by asking, are you a worker or are you white? I began the book talking about a political movement in the 1870s in the reconstruction period in Virginia where blacks were the majority of a political party called the read adjusters. Poor whites, mostly farmers and blacks in Virginia, who decided to team up and to the elites of both parties, Republicans and Democrats were trying to take their tax money and pay the bonds, the money that was loaned to Virginia by the wealthy, the aristocrats, the Confederates, the people who really were responsible for the war, the Civil War. (00:57:55): And they said they wanted to pay exorbitant interest rates 6%, which would be actually pretty low these days. This coalition said, no, we won't do it. So this group, the Readjusts, they lowered interest rates, they Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:58:07): Readjusted the loans. Speaker 3 (00:58:09): They spent this money on schools and things like that. They started feeling themselves, and the white party leader said, well, the blacks were saying, well, we want also, we want enter the whipping post. We want this and we want that. And the whites in that party, the adjusters didn't hear 'em. They didn't feel 'em, right? So they didn't do it. So the brother said, because it's just black men who voted at that time, although we know that their black women supported them in this. But black men said, okay, cool. So the next election, the readjust lost everything. And they realized, to their credit, they said, oh, they were serious. And so when they returned to power, they did everything the brother said, they eliminate the whipping votes. In the book, there's a point where they talk about the Patronist jobs. They handed out to blacks because black were 60% of this party. There's a postmaster who said, I think it was 1881. He said, my office is so full of blacks, or might have said colors at that time. My office is so full of colors. It looks like Africa in here, right? This is 1881. So I said, that's the same in Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:59:18): Virginia. Speaker 3 (00:59:18): In Virginia, the heart of the Confederacy, right? 1881, people read this and they said, I was lying. I did not make it up. It is a true fact, as we say, right? We need to return to that mindset, that understanding. We need the people in Venezuela like the Houthis, like the Lebanese, the Hezbollah, Lebanon. We need to return to that level of understanding and raise our revolutionary metabolism. Look, man, as Fred Hampton said last time, I'll quote Fred Hampton today, if you say you want to do something revolutionary, but you say, I'm too young to die, you don't realize you are already dead. It's a lot of dead men walking in this country right Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:59:59): Now. John Jeter, my brother, thank you for joining me today. Speaker 3 (01:00:05): My pleasure, man. Always a pleasure. Dr. Wilmer Leon (01:00:08): Folks. Thank you all so much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wilmer Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, please follow and subscribe. Go to that Patreon account. Help us out, please. This isn't cheap. We need you to make this work. Leave a review and share the show. Follow us on social media. You can find all the links below in the show description. And remember, this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge. Because talk without analysis is just chatter, and we don't chatter here on connecting the dots. I'm going to see you again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Wier Leon. Have a great one. Peace. I'm out Jon Jeter (01:00:58): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.  

In this episode we discuss the origins of the New Deal with Ira Katznelson. I am joined by Simon Gansinger, philosopher and law-enthusiast, to delve into the murky past of the New Deal and to examine how it became one of the most defining moments of US history and why it continues to deserve our attention.We begin by looking at the uneasy alliance between F.D. Roosevelt and the Southern Democrats. Roosevelt required their political support in Congress in order to pass the New Deal, but that came at a price: to keep the subject of race off of the political agenda. Katznelson's book focuses on this uneasy alliance and raises important questions about the success of the New Deal and how it should be understood.We then look at how the New Deal fundamentally altered the relationship between the US state and the economy. Much of what is considered nowadays to be the role of the US state is due to the New Deal. This, too, could not have succeeded without the support of the Southern Democrats, who were curiously pro-labour. We investigate this development in the US state and interrogate the tension at heart between a white supremacist South and a progressive South, when it came to labour.Finally, we consider the difficult relationship that the New Deal has with non-democratic forms of government. A central theme of Katznelson's book is that the, paradoxically, whilst the New Deal is a response by the US to defend itself against the rise of non-democratic forms of government, it borrows much from these non-democratic forms of government. Katznelson's book, then, fundamentally demands that we re-think the opposition between democracy and non-democracy, and shows us how, in times of crisis, they are unnervingly similar.

On this day in 1862, the Homestead Act was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Martin discusses the significance of the anniversary of the start of the Civil War with the firing on Ft. Sumter.  How the war, which focused on the elimination of slavery, was also a war about class power, in this case, the Southern elite.  The slave owners were determined to hold power and economic power by keeping people enslaved.  Once the war ended, the next approach was to disenfranchise the newly freed Americans through Jim Crow.  This was successful for almost a century until the rise of the civil rights movement and Martin Luther King Jr.   With civil rights came again the war on poverty which was truly an attempt at equality among the classes.  This attempt was ultimately thwarted in many ways with the rise of the Republican party persuading Southern Democrats to switch.  The rise of partisan politics, the Tea Party and eventually MAGA has been the continuation of trying to maintain and expand the 1% of society.  Like their plantation forebears, these politicians have managed to persuade some of the yeomanry to "arms" on their behalf.   While not exactly an overt war, it is nonetheless a war on equality: economic, rights and social standing.  This has spilled into the 2024 election.  Holding the funds for Ukraine, under the idea guise of border safety (in spite of a bipartisan compromise earlier this year) has endangered not Ukraine, but the standing of the United States.  The Gazan war and the extreme right government in Israel has furthered endangered the west.  Israel's attack on the Iranian consulate in Syria has once again directly brought in the United States into conflict.  Oddly enough, the need for funds for Ukraine and Israel are hostage due to the erosion of the Republican Party.Support the showWe are always grateful to have you listening to STRUNG OUT. Here are some important links:SUPPORT THE SHOW:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/MartyfineaKMARTIN'S WEBSITE:http://www.MARTINMcCORMACK.COM (note---you can get my weekly bulletin when you sign up on the list!)MARTIN'S MUSIC: Music | Martin Laurence McCormack (bandcamp.com)Martin McCormack | SpotifyMARTIN'S YOUTUBE CHANNELMartin McCormack - YouTubeFACEBOOKFacebook...

It's March 19th. This day in 1879, a small group of Southern Democrats is holding up budget appropriations bills in order to force a fight over federal troops in the South. Jody, Niki, and Kellie discuss how, for the first time, a government shutdown became a proxy war for a bigger political battle — and how it mirrors the many shutdown battles we see today. Find out more at thisdaypod.com This Day In Esoteric Political History is a proud member of Radiotopia from PRX. Your support helps foster independent, artist-owned podcasts and award-winning stories. If you want to support the show directly, you can do so on our website: ThisDayPod.com Get in touch if you have any ideas for future topics, or just want to say hello. Follow us on social @thisdaypod Our team: Jacob Feldman, Researcher/Producer; Brittani Brown, Producer; Khawla Nakua, Transcripts; music by Teen Daze and Blue Dot Sessions; Audrey Mardavich is our Executive Producer at Radiotopia

Join me for another lively discussion on all things political with fmr. Senator Doug Jones (D-AL)

On this day in legal history, October 3, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, also known as the Hart-Celler Act, marked a shift in U.S. immigration policy. Signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, the act abolished the National Origins Formula, which had been in place since the 1920s and favored immigration from Western and Northern Europe. This change came during the height of the Civil Rights Movement and was seen as a step toward ending racially discriminatory immigration policies. The act introduced a seven-category preference system that prioritized family reunification, professionals with specialized skills, and refugees.Before the 1965 act, U.S. immigration policy was heavily skewed towards preserving American homogeneity. Laws like the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the Immigration Act of 1924 had been enacted to limit immigration from Asia, Southern Europe, and Eastern Europe. The 1965 act was a response to both domestic and international pressures to end such discriminatory practices. It received bipartisan support, although there was notable opposition from Southern Democrats.For the first time, the act also set a numerical limit on immigration from the Western Hemisphere, capping it at 120,000 per annum. The immediate effect of the act was a diversification of the immigrant population in the U.S., with increased numbers coming from Asia, Africa, and Eastern and Southern Europe. Despite its progressive steps, the act did not fully eliminate discrimination; for instance, members of the LGBTQ+ community were still denied entry on the grounds of being "mentally defective" until the Immigration Act of 1990.The act was signed into law at the foot of the Statue of Liberty, symbolically ending preferences for white immigrants that dated back to the 18th century. It laid the groundwork for the multicultural society that the United States is today, although it was not without its critics and limitations.Kirkland & Ellis, the world's leading law firm in terms of revenue, has set a new record by promoting 205 attorneys to partnership, effective October 1. This marks the sixth consecutive year the firm has broken its own record, with 193 lawyers promoted last year and 151 the year before that. Over the past decade, the size of the firm's partnership class has surged by more than 156%, growing from 80 new partners in 2013 to over 200 in 2023. The firm, founded in Chicago, reported a gross revenue of $6.5 billion in 2022 and profits per equity partner exceeding $7.5 million. Kirkland & Ellis also maintains a large tier of nonequity partners, distinguishing it as the most successful firm with such a structure.Kirkland & Ellis Promotes the Largest Class Ever to PartnershipX Corp., formerly known as Twitter Inc., is facing a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by X Social Media LLC in a Florida federal court. The lawsuit alleges that X Corp. was aware of X Social Media's pre-existing rights to the "X" trademark before undergoing a rebranding campaign in July, led by owner Elon Musk. The rebranding has caused confusion among consumers, leading them to believe that X Social Media is associated with X Corp., according to the complaint. The name change is said to be "financially and strategically harmful" to X Social Media, which claims to have already lost revenue due to the rebranding.Founded in 2015, X Social Media specializes in connecting law firms with clients through social media platforms. The company has invested over $2 million in building its brand and owns the federal trademark registration for "X SocialMedia," which it has used continuously for five years. The letter "X" in its name symbolizes the "beginning of a life-changing journey towards justice," according to the company.X Social Media sent a cease-and-desist letter to X Corp. in August, but the latter refused to comply. X Corp. has also applied for seven trademark registrations with the US Patent and Trademark Office. The lawsuit against X Corp. is not an isolated incident; other tech companies have faced similar legal challenges following rebranding efforts. For example, Meta Platforms Inc.'s 2021 name change from Facebook led to multiple lawsuits, including from a VR company and a blockchain group. Similarly, Block Inc., formerly Square, settled a trademark dispute with H&R Block Inc. earlier this year.Musk's X Corp. Sued Over Trademark by Legal Marketing Firm (1)Elon Musk's X hit with trademark lawsuit from marketing agency | ReutersThe civil fraud trial against former U.S. President Donald Trump has commenced in New York, with the state's Attorney General Letitia James accusing Trump of generating over $100 million through fraudulent means related to his real estate empire. James is seeking at least $250 million in fines and a permanent ban on Trump and his sons from running businesses in New York. The case revolves around allegations that Trump inflated the value of his assets and net worth between 2011 and 2021 to secure favorable bank loans and lower insurance premiums.Trump has vehemently denied the allegations, calling the case a "scam" and a "sham," and accusing James and the presiding judge, Arthur Engoron, of political bias. Engoron is hearing the case without a jury and last week found Trump and his companies liable for fraud, including inflating the value of assets like Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago. The trial will also review six additional claims, including falsifying business records and insurance fraud.The state's first witness was Donald Bender, a partner at Mazars USA and a longtime accountant for Trump's businesses. Bender testified that he relied on information provided by Trump and his companies when compiling Trump's personal financial statements. More than 150 people, including Michael Cohen, Trump's former personal lawyer, could testify in the trial, which is expected to run through early December.Trump's legal team countered that his financials were entirely legal and that there was no intent to defraud. They argued that disagreements over asset valuations do not necessarily constitute fraud. This trial is one of several legal challenges Trump is currently facing, including criminal charges in Washington, Georgia, Florida, and New York for various alleged offenses. Trump has denied all wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty in all cases.Trump reaped over $100 million through fraud, New York says as trial starts | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this special edition of our podcast , we pay tribute to one of the true giants of the post World War 2 era, former Vice President and Former United States Senator , Hubert Horatio Humphrey.  He was the happy warrior and in some ways the fundamental decency of this man is probably what kept him away from the Presidency in an era of politics notorious for being shark infested waters,For it was Hubert Humphrey that watched his Presidential dreams get dashed in 1960 when John F. Kennedy's father  allegedly paid to insure the West Virginia Primary was won by his son, and again as the Vietnam War waged in 1968 he saw his campaign lose a close one to Former Vice President Richard Nixon.  Those losses often obscured Hubert Humphrey's major and often forgotten role as the father of Civil Rights in this country. For it was Hubert Humphrey that took to the podium at the Democratic National Convention and argued for the party to champion the cause of civil rights. It was his speech that led Strom Thurmond and many other Southern Democrats to walk out of the 1948 Democratic Convention and challenge Harry Truman for the Presidency. Truman had just integrated the United States Armed Forces and became the lightening rod against Civil Rights for doing so. It was Hubert Humphrey that was also an early champion for a program that would one day become Medicare, and an early champion of healthcare reform as well. Humphrey was a giant of his era and in this episode we hope to give him his long deserved recognition. But we also hope we can touch on the decency and goodness of this great man. For while our nation was extremely lucky to have elected one of its four greatest Presidents in 1968 in Richard Nixon,  it is not without some wonder at what might have been, had Hubert Humphrey ever gotten a bite at the Presidential apple himself at some point. Such was the choice between two of the greatest leaders our nation ever produced in 1968, that our nation had to pick just one of them to be our President.  It does make you long for that era again, when our national leadership produced such great men as Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey to have to choose between. So we hope you enjoy this special edition in honor of a great man, Hubert Horatio Humphrey.  Questions or comments at , Randalrgw1@aol.com , https://twitter.com/randal_wallace , and http://www.randalwallace.com/Please Leave us a review at wherever you get your podcastsThanks for listening!!

Find links to all the following stories as well as other law and legal-adjacent stories at esq.social Links. On this day in history August 29, 1957, the Civil Rights Act of 1957 was passed by congress – the first piece of federal legislation aimed at civil rights since reconstruction.Prompted by the Supreme Court's landmark 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, which ignited public debate on school desegregation, the act aimed to address the widespread disenfranchisement of African Americans in the Southern United States. President Dwight D. Eisenhower initially proposed the bill to bolster federal protection for African American voting rights, a pressing issue given that only about 20% of black people were registered to vote by 1957.However, the act faced considerable opposition in Congress, particularly from Southern Democrats who were engaged in a campaign of "massive resistance" against desegregation and civil rights reforms. Amendments like the Anderson–Aiken and O'Mahoney jury trial amendments were successful in diluting the act's potency. Senator Strom Thurmond notably conducted the longest one-person filibuster in Senate history in an attempt to block the legislation.Despite these setbacks, the act did pass, albeit in a watered-down form orchestrated by Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson. While the act had a limited immediate impact on African American voter participation due to the removal of stringent voting protection clauses, it laid important groundwork for future civil rights legislation. It established the United States Commission on Civil Rights and the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, both of which would play crucial roles in the enforcement of civil rights laws.The act also set the stage for more robust civil rights legislation in the 1960s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Civil Rights Act of 1968. These later acts would build upon the foundation laid by the 1957 act, offering more comprehensive protections against discrimination and disenfranchisement. Overall, the Civil Rights Act of 1957 was a pivotal, if imperfect, step in the long journey toward civil rights and equality in America.The Biden administration has targeted 10 prescription drugs for price negotiations under Medicare, aiming to cut their costs by half on average by 2026. This move is part of Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, which was signed into law a year ago to address the high cost of medicines in the U.S. Among the drugs targeted are Eliquis, a blood thinner by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, and AstraZeneca's Farxiga, which treats diabetes and heart failure. These drugs alone accounted for significant spending, with Eliquis costing Medicare $16 billion in the year through May 2023.Previously, the U.S. government was prohibited from negotiating drug prices due to a 2003 law that created Medicare's Part D program. However, the Inflation Reduction Act has mandated these negotiations. The drugs selected for this round of negotiations account for nearly $51 billion, or about 20% of Part D's prescription drug costs. Around 9 million people on Medicare took these drugs and paid $3.4 billion out-of-pocket last year.Pharmaceutical companies have criticized the move, arguing that it threatens innovation and intellectual property rights. Johnson & Johnson, which has two drugs on the list, stated that the policies put an "artificial deadline on innovation." The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) also warned that giving the government the power to set prices could have "significant negative consequences."The drug industry is currently suing to block these negotiations, and companies like Merck, Bristol, J&J, and AstraZeneca have each filed lawsuits. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is also seeking an injunction to halt the negotiations. Analysts project a manageable impact on industry revenue, estimating as much as a 5% hit. However, the government expects that the price negotiations will save Medicare $100 billion through 2031.Bristol, Lilly Blockbusters Targeted for Medicare Price Cuts (1)US names first 10 drugs for Medicare price negotiation | ReutersU.S. states are increasingly focusing on "opportunity transparency" to address pay gaps, requiring companies to be more transparent about promotion opportunities. Illinois and Colorado have enacted laws that will take effect in 2025 and next year, respectively, mandating employers to disclose information about promotions. New Jersey also has pending legislation on this issue. These efforts build on pay disclosure laws initiated in Colorado in 2021 and later adopted by states like Washington, New York, California, and Hawaii. These laws primarily aim to address pay disparities affecting women and people of color.The new rules are designed to counter the "shoulder tap" practice, where employees are quietly selected for promotions, often without the knowledge of their co-workers. This lack of transparency disproportionately affects women and minorities. A 2022 study by McKinsey & Co. and LeanIn found that for every 100 men promoted from entry-level to manager positions, only 87 women and 82 women of color are promoted. This contributes to men holding nearly two-thirds of managerial roles despite making up only half of the workforce.Colorado's law imposes fines of up to $10,000 per violation and mandates changes in business practices. It requires companies to notify all employees of job openings and promotions in writing, giving them sufficient time to apply. Amendments to the law will further require businesses to notify employees about all job openings, not just promotions.The Illinois law, effective in 2025, will require companies to announce all potential promotions to their current employees within 14 days of posting a position externally. It will also require the disclosure of salary ranges and a summary of benefits in job ads. These laws aim to have a "cascading impact" on pay equity, complementing other policy efforts like banning employers from asking about applicants' prior salary history.States Put New Spin on Pay Gap Laws With Promotion TransparencyThe American Bar Association (ABA) is forming a new task force to explore the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on the legal profession. This move comes as law firms increasingly experiment with AI tools like ChatGPT, while also confronting ethical and practical challenges posed by the technology. The ABA Task Force on Law and Artificial Intelligence will be chaired by Lucy Thomson, a lawyer and cybersecurity engineer based in Washington, D.C. The group will include seven special advisors, such as former U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and former U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman.The task force aims to assess how AI will affect the practice of law, probe ethical questions, and focus on issues like risk management, AI governance, and AI in legal education. ABA President Mary Smith emphasized the need to address both the "promise and the peril" of emerging technologies like AI. The initiative reflects a broader trend of growing interest in AI tools among legal professionals, including law schools considering the use of AI in applications and classrooms.By way of brief biographical background, Lucy Thomson, the group's chair, is the principal at a firm in Washington D.C., Livingston PLLC, that focuses on issues related to cyber security.Michael Chertoff was the co-author of the PATRIOT act, and former Secretary of Homeland Security under George W. Bush. Seth Waxman was Solicitor General of the United States from 1997 through 2001 and is frequently before the Supreme Court. The average age among the team is about 70, they're all lawyers, and none of them have any evident technical expertise.ABA taps prominent lawyers to tackle AI risks, opportunities | ReutersA U.S. District Judge, James Donato, is set to decertify a class-action lawsuit against Google involving 21 million consumers who claimed the tech giant violated federal antitrust laws through its Google Play app store. The decision could significantly reduce any damages that Google might owe for its distribution of Android mobile applications. The judge stated that his previous class certification order from November 2022 should be thrown out, as he decided not to allow an economist to testify as an expert witness for the consumers. This move eliminated an "essential element" of the consumers' argument for class certification. The class action had included consumers from 12 U.S. states and five territories, separate from a similar case brought by state attorneys general against Google.US judge set to decertify Google Play class action | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

528. We talk to Nicholas Lemann, a journalist who grew up in Louisiana, about his book, Redemption: The Last Battle of the Civil War. "Nicholas Lemann opens this extraordinary book with a riveting account of the horrific events of Easter 1873 in Colfax, Louisiana, where a white militia of Confederate veterans-turned-vigilantes attacked the black community there and massacred hundreds of people in a gruesome killing spree. This began an insurgency that changed the course of American history: for the next few years white Southern Democrats waged a campaign of political terrorism aiming to overturn the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and challenge President Grant's support for the emergent structures of black political power. Redemption is the first book to describe in uncompromising detail this organized racial violence, which reached its apogee in Mississippi in 1875" (Goodreads). This week in Louisiana history. June 23 1813 Records show W.C.C. Claiborne used pelican and motto as state seal for first time This week in New Orleans history. One of the lengthiest and most violent transit railway strikes the nation ever experienced began in New Orleans on July 1, 1929. Although an agreement was reached in August, the union members did not agree to go back to work until October. What good fortune could possibly come out of the misfortune just described? It was the beginning of the famous New Orleans sandwich called the po-boy. Benny and Clovis Martin, owners of Martin Brothers Restaurant on St. Claude Street (Avenue), were grateful for the business they enjoyed. Many of those who frequented their place of business were the street railway workers. This week in Louisiana. Rock The Red on the 4th of July Sponsored by City of Alexandria Downtown Amphitheatre, Time:  5 p.m. Tim Turner Band.  6:30 p.m. Keith Frank and the Soileau Zydeco Band.  9 p.m. Fireworks. Cost:  Admission free. Call:  (318) 449-5051.  Monday, July 4, 2023 Website Postcards from Louisiana. 30°/90° on Frenchmen St. Listen on Google Play. Listen on Google Podcasts. Listen on Spotify. Listen on Stitcher. Listen on TuneIn. The Louisiana Anthology Home Page. Like us on Facebook. 

On Easter Sunday, 1873, an armed white mob battled a Black militia over control of a courthouse in a rural Louisiana parish. In the end, as many as 150 Black citizens were massacred. It was one the deadliest incidents of racial violence during the Reconstruction era.As anti-Black violence ravaged the South, President Ulysses S. Grant entered his second term. Soon, the North's commitment to defending Southern Black political rights faltered when disaster struck Wall Street, triggering bank failures across America. Tens of thousands of freedpeople saw their meager savings disappear, as their political rights came under threat from armed Southern Democrats determined to reclaim power once and for all.Listen ad free with Wondery+. Join Wondery+ for exclusives, binges, early access, and ad free listening. Available in the Wondery App. https://wondery.app.link/historytellersSupport us by supporting our sponsors!See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Join me for a one-on-one discussion with the youngest party chair in the U.S., North Carolina DNC Chair, Anderson Clayton.

Southern Democrats are rallying around Atlanta to be the city to host the 2024 Democratic National Convention. In this episode of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Politically Georgia podcast, AJC political insiders Greg Bluestein and Patricia Murphy explain how Atlanta is maneuvering to win the bid over Chicago and New York City and what hosting the convention would mean for the city. Plus, our insiders talk about how the city-state alliance is strengthening when it comes to public safety and economic development. Have a question for Greg and Patricia? Call the 24-hour Politically Georgia Podcast Hotline at (770)810-5297. We'll play back your question and answer it during the Listener Mailbag segment on next Friday's episode.   Listen and subscribe to our podcast for free at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, or Stitcher. You can also tell your smart speaker to “play Politically Georgia podcast.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Tuesday on Political Rewind: More voices are calling for Congress to pass a bill that would address police misconduct. The bill passed the U.S. House in 2021 but was never taken up by the Senate. Plus, Southern Democrats urge President Biden and the Democratic National Committee to hold their convention in Atlanta. The panel: Chuck Kuck, @ckuck, immigration attorney Chuck Williams, @chuckwilliams, reporter, WRBL-TV Columbus Kendra King-Momon, political science professor, Oglethorpe University Tamar Hallerman, @TamarHallerman, senior reporter, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Timestamps: 0:00 - Introductions 2:00 - The latest from Fulton County's election probe and how it impacts Trump's reelection campaign. 8:00 - Pressure on Congress to pass bills addressing police misconduct. 29:00 - President Biden is facing criticism on both sides for his immigration policy. 44:00 - Southern Democrats petition the DNC and Joe Biden to hold their convention in Atlanta. Wednesday on Political Rewind: The Washington Post's Matt Brown joins the panel.

The 2022 Republican Party would have never been able to back Abraham Lincoln as their presidential candidate - except for one tiny detail: Lincoln was a Republican, and espoused the original beliefs of the Republican Party (down to the anti-slavery, committed to equality part).    So how did we get from Lincoln's Republican Party to today's Trump political base?    Who were the Whigs?    What do we mean when we say Southern Democrats?    Why does this cycle of money and power keep reappearing on the political stage, over and over again?   If those are some of the questions you have - or even if those are questions you've never thought of asking yourself, but you realize that somewhere, someone made some changes to how we define political parties in this country, and it's important to understand just how far the 2022 Republican party is from those original Republican ideals - then this is the episode for you.    It's like US History all over again, except more engaging, more relevant, and it includes stuff you'll actually remember… hopefully long enough to go vote.     What to listen for:  What the two original American political parties were (hint: Republican wasn't one of them) Why the Republican Party was formed, and the two ideals that held it together How the Republican Party and Democrat Party switched ideologies over time, but how it was really Truman and Johnson, two Southern Democrat Presidents, who pushed that ideological change through their pro-civil rights stances (which weren't even that extreme at times) What we can do with this information from a practical perspective: go vote, and get loud.

Nelson bores us with his knowledge of southern politics to talk about why the South went from Democrat to Republican  Twitter link to a list of 200 Southern Democrats who became Republicans  https://twitter.com/KevinMKruse/status/1013981446615322624?t=SKi-_ch1T3IDEP4hC4IRMA&s=19 Podcast links: https://linktr.ee/dotprole  

Woman suffrage and World War I patriotism. When World War I started in 1914, women in eight states had already won the right to vote, but support for a federal amendment was still tepid. The war provided a new urgency to the fight for the vote. When the U.S. entered World War I, Catt made the controversial decision to support the war effort, despite the widespread pacifist sentiment of many of her colleagues and supporters. As women joined the labor force to replace men serving in the military and took visible positions as nurses, relief workers, and ambulance drivers to support the war effort, NAWSA organizers argued that women's sacrifices made them deserving of the vote. By contrast, the NWP used the war to point out the contradictions of fighting for democracy abroad while restricting it at home. In 1917, the NWP began picketing the White House to bring attention to the cause of women's suffrage. In 1914 the constitutional amendment proposed by Sargent, which was nicknamed the "Susan B. Anthony Amendment", was once again considered by the Senate, where it was again rejected. In April 1917 the "Anthony Amendment", which eventually became the Nineteenth Amendment, was reintroduced in the House and Senate. Picketing NWP members, nicknamed the "Silent Sentinels", continued their protests on the sidewalks outside the White House. On July 4, 1917, police arrested 168 of the protesters, who were sent to prison in Lorton, Virginia. Some of these women, including Lucy Burns and Alice Paul, went on hunger strikes; some were force-fed while others were otherwise harshly treated by prison guards. The release of the women a few months later was largely due to increasing public pressure. Final congressional challenges. In 1918, President Wilson faced a difficult midterm election and would have to confront the issue of women's suffrage directly. Fifteen states had extended equal voting rights to women and, by this time, the President fully supported the federal amendment. A proposal brought before the House in January 1918 passed by only one vote. The vote was then carried into the Senate where Wilson made an appeal on the Senate floor, an unprecedented action at the time. In a short speech, the President tied women's right to vote directly to the war, asking, "Shall we admit them only to a partnership of suffering and sacrifice and toil and not to a partnership of privilege and right?" On September 30, 1918, the proposal fell two votes short of passage, prompting the NWP to direct campaigning against senators who had voted against the amendment. Between January 1918 and June 1919, the House and Senate voted on the federal amendment five times. Each vote was extremely close and Southern Democrats continued to oppose giving women the vote. Suffragists pressured President Wilson to call a special session of Congress and he agreed to schedule one for May 19, 1919. On May 21, 1919, the amendment passed the House 304 to 89, with 42 votes more than was necessary. On June 4, 1919, it was brought before the Senate and, after Southern Democrats abandoned a filibuster, 36 Republican Senators were joined by 20 Democrats to pass the amendment with 56 yeas, 25 nays, and 14 not voting.

The ultimate survival of American democracy is going to come down to the Democrats figuring out how to defeat the party that wants to overturn it. Plus, it's Joe Manchin's way or the highway. New York magazine's Ed Kilgore joins guest host JVL on today's episode. Special Guest: Ed Kilgore.

This week, the Senate Republicans filibustered the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and stopped it from being voted into law in the Senate, even though there was a majority of 51 votes. A filibuster is just, literally, talking a bill to death so that the Senate cannot get on with its work. To close off that trick, to stop a filibuster, you need 60 votes, and only one Republican, Lisa Murkowski, crossed the line to vote for the bill. Now, understand, the filibuster was specifically created by Southern Democrats after the Civil War for one single purpose: to prevent voting rights legislation and the protection of black people. In fact, one of the only times it was ever used was in 1922 to block the passage of a national law against lynching. So, until very recently, it's been used almost exclusively for one purpose, that is to block rights of black people to vote. Now, it's been used lately by Republicans for all kinds of things, but basically it's a Jim Crow tactic.

From a Yale Law paper: If Americans know one thing about their system of government, it is that they live in a democracy and that other, less fortunate people, live in dictatorships. Dictatorships are what democracies are not, the very opposite of representative government under a constitution. The opposition between democracy and dictatorship, however, is greatly overstated. The term “dictatorship,” after all, began as a special constitutional office of the Roman Republic, granting a single person extraordinary emergency powers for a limited period of time. “Every man the least conversant in Roman story,” remarked Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist No. 70, “knows how often that republic was obliged to take refuge in the absolute power of a single man, under the formidable title of Dictator” to confront emergencies caused by insurrection, sedition, and external enemies. No political constitution was well designed, Hamilton believed, unless it could confront emergencies and provide for energetic executive powers to handle them. ...Nor should we forget John F. Kennedy's actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It is often viewed as Kennedy's finest hour because the United States avoided a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union. What is often overlooked in the dramatic tales surrounding those "thirteen days"' of meetings in Washington with Kennedy and his Ex-Comm (Executive Committee of the National Security Council) is that everyone participating assumed that it was up to the President to decide whether or not to embark on what would surely have become a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. The exact nature of the crisis was hidden from almost everyone in the country. Kennedy's acolyte Theodore Sorenson reports that at the time Kennedy estimated the odds of nuclear war at one in three. Interestingly enough, Abram Chayes, in his flattering portrayal of Kennedy's conduct during the Crisis, did not suggest that there was anything amiss in Kennedy's risking nuclear annihilation. Kennedy's behavior seems even more potentially reckless if one accepts the argument made at the time-in secret, of course-by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara that the Cuban missiles in fact posed little or no threat to actual American security. After all, the United States had an overwhelming nuclear stockpile and Soviet leaders surely believed that the United States would use it in response to any missiles fired from Cuba. One is tempted to analyze the Cuban Missile Crisis-and perhaps foreign wars in general-as purely problems of "foreign policy" or "international relations." But these issues-and the ways presidents approach them-are often deeply influenced by domestic politics. One of the reasons that Kennedy found himself in such a delicate situation was the fact that constitutionally required elections were about to take place for Congress, and Republican New York Senator Kenneth Keating, among others, was denouncing him for being soft on Soviet penetration of Cuba. Kennedy needed to retain healthy Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate because he could not always depend on Southern Democrats to support his "New Frontier" agenda. Kennedy was also concerned about his prospects for reelection in 1964. https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=130386 Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSFVD7Xfhn7sJY8LAIQmH8Q/join https://odysee.com/@LukeFordLive, https://lbry.tv/@LukeFord, https://rumble.com/lukeford https://dlive.tv/lukefordlivestreams Listener Call In #: 1-310-997-4596 Superchat: https://entropystream.live/app/lukefordlive Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/lukeford/ Soundcloud MP3s: https://soundcloud.com/luke-ford-666431593 Code of Conduct: https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=125692

From a Yale Law paper: If Americans know one thing about their system of government, it is that they live in a democracy and that other, less fortunate people, live in dictatorships. Dictatorships are what democracies are not, the very opposite of representative government under a constitution. The opposition between democracy and dictatorship, however, is greatly overstated. The term “dictatorship,” after all, began as a special constitutional office of the Roman Republic, granting a single person extraordinary emergency powers for a limited period of time. “Every man the least conversant in Roman story,” remarked Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist No. 70, “knows how often that republic was obliged to take refuge in the absolute power of a single man, under the formidable title of Dictator” to confront emergencies caused by insurrection, sedition, and external enemies. No political constitution was well designed, Hamilton believed, unless it could confront emergencies and provide for energetic executive powers to handle them. ...Nor should we forget John F. Kennedy's actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It is often viewed as Kennedy's finest hour because the United States avoided a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union. What is often overlooked in the dramatic tales surrounding those "thirteen days"' of meetings in Washington with Kennedy and his Ex-Comm (Executive Committee of the National Security Council) is that everyone participating assumed that it was up to the President to decide whether or not to embark on what would surely have become a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. The exact nature of the crisis was hidden from almost everyone in the country. Kennedy's acolyte Theodore Sorenson reports that at the time Kennedy estimated the odds of nuclear war at one in three. Interestingly enough, Abram Chayes, in his flattering portrayal of Kennedy's conduct during the Crisis, did not suggest that there was anything amiss in Kennedy's risking nuclear annihilation. Kennedy's behavior seems even more potentially reckless if one accepts the argument made at the time-in secret, of course-by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara that the Cuban missiles in fact posed little or no threat to actual American security. After all, the United States had an overwhelming nuclear stockpile and Soviet leaders surely believed that the United States would use it in response to any missiles fired from Cuba. One is tempted to analyze the Cuban Missile Crisis-and perhaps foreign wars in general-as purely problems of "foreign policy" or "international relations." But these issues-and the ways presidents approach them-are often deeply influenced by domestic politics. One of the reasons that Kennedy found himself in such a delicate situation was the fact that constitutionally required elections were about to take place for Congress, and Republican New York Senator Kenneth Keating, among others, was denouncing him for being soft on Soviet penetration of Cuba. Kennedy needed to retain healthy Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate because he could not always depend on Southern Democrats to support his "New Frontier" agenda. Kennedy was also concerned about his prospects for reelection in 1964. https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=130386 Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSFVD7Xfhn7sJY8LAIQmH8Q/join https://odysee.com/@LukeFordLive, https://lbry.tv/@LukeFord, https://rumble.com/lukeford https://dlive.tv/lukefordlivestreams Listener Call In #: 1-310-997-4596 Superchat: https://entropystream.live/app/lukefordlive Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/lukeford/ Soundcloud MP3s: https://soundcloud.com/luke-ford-666431593 Code of Conduct: https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=125692

At his inaugural address in 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace infamously declared, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” An avowed racist, he opposed the Civil Rights Movement and its mission to end legalized racial discrimination in the United States. To label him a “controversial” figure would be an injustice to the people he hated and devoted his political career to oppressing. On Monday, May 15th, 1972, at approximately four in the afternoon, Arthur Herman Bremer fired at George Wallace at point-blank range. Though seriously injured, Wallace survived the attack. But why did Bremer fire on the governor? Was this a political statement? Or, was it something else entirely? Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/DasCriminal Sources: https://bit.ly/3bhoMVw

Join me for Episode 3 of the Culture of Cancel Podcast where I debunk Facebook's Juneteenth "fact check" and the "Southern Strategy" narrative that Democrats use to cynically claim that there was a mass transfer of racist Southern Democrats to the Republican Party beginning in the 1960s.

On April 5, 1968, the day after Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated, Senator Robert F. Kennedy stood at The City Club of Cleveland's podium and delivered the Mindless Menace of Violence speech, now considered one of the most important speeches of the 20th century.rnrnHistory, race, and politics converged in the 1960s in ways that indelibly changed America. A new book by civil rights historian Patricia Sullivan places Kennedy at the center of the movement for racial justice of the 1960s--and shows how many of today's issues can be traced back to that pivotal timernrnWhen protests broke out across the South, Kennedy, then a young attorney general, confronted escalating demands for racial justice. What began as a political problem soon became a moral one. In the face of vehement pushback from Southern Democrats bent on massive resistance, he put the weight of the federal government behind school desegregation and voter registration. Kennedy's youthful energy, moral vision, and capacity to lead created a momentum for change. He helped shape the 1964 Civil Rights Act but knew no law would end racism. When the Watts uprising brought calls for more aggressive policing, he pushed back, pointing to the root causes of urban unrest: entrenched poverty, substandard schools, and few job opportunities. Strongly opposed the military buildup in Vietnam, but nothing was more important to him than "the revolution within our gates, the struggle of the American Negro for full equality and full freedom."rnrnJoin us as Sullivan discusses her research and Robert F. Kennedy's life and legacy against the backdrop of the wide-ranging racial reckoning of the 1960s with Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, daughter of Robert F. and Ethel Kennedy.

This week we highlight presidential leadership and one of the most important civil rights speeches ever delivered by a sitting American president.By June of 1963, John F. Kennedy has been president for nearly two and a half years.While Kennedy had long privately expressed his deep moral objections to the treatment of black people in American society and indicated support for New federal legislation. His public comments ranged from cautious moderate criticism to a 1950s version of “both sides-ism” but were mostly nonexistent.In June of 1963, however the man and the moment met.Alabama Governor George Wallace's staged photo op defiance of federal law by standing in the school house doorway had lasted less than 90 minutes. On June 11th 1963 two black students were peaceful enrolled at the University of Alabama under the protection of a federalized Alabama National Guard commanded by US Marshals under the direction of the Department of Justice and the Attorney General of the United States.Kennedy's advisors recommended and Fully expected that the president would NOT address the American people that evening. With a little less than 18 months until to the 1964 elections, the President's legislative agenda and his political future depended upon the votes Southern Democrats in Congress and those of their politically unforgiving constituents. The President had other ideas. Kennedy saw a way to exercise moral leader on an issue where he had to that point failed. He would request Network Television airtime to address the nation on the issue of civil rights. The facts and statistics on racial inequality in the United States described by President Kennedy to the American people that evening had even never been acknowledged by a President before - much less spoken in such a detailed and direct language. In a telegram to the White House after watching the President's remarks in Atlanta with other civil rights leaders, the Reverend Dr Martin Luther King Jr. described the address as ONE OF THE MOST ELOQUENT, PROFOUND,AND UNEQUIVOCAL PLEAS FOR JUSTICE AND FREEDOM OF ALL MEN, EVER MADE BY ANY PRESIDENT.Dr King knew that Kennedy was moved by his now famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail” - written just weeks before. To President Kennedy and many Americans Dr. King's letter was more than than a spirited defense of civil disobedience. It was an indictment of white indifference.As you listen to the speech, you will hear Kennedy echoing King's “Letter”The President rejects the idea that Black Americans should have to wait for equality. "Who among us," Kennedy asks the American people, "would then be content with counsels of patience and delay?"Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/words-matter. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In 1919, shortly after the ending of world war 1. A group of Black Floridians in Jacksonville established these educational meetings for Black Floridians. These meetings centered on voting and the importance of voting. In the 19th and throughout the 20th century, much of the south had a one-party rule. Southern Democrats had control and, this made it harder for Black Americans' lives regarding economic stability, education, health care and protection from violence like lynchings. And so this group in Jacksonville was like enough is, we are going to participate in the voting process whether they like it or not. And this is what starts the voter registration movement or what historian Paul Ortiz, who wrote a book about this movement, calls The Florida Movement. A campaign made up of Black Floridians and white republicans (the parties were different back then) to register as many Black Floridians as possible. This is the story of the Florida movement and Mary McLeod Bethune's pivotal role in the movement.  To read the transcript of the show, click here The History Of Mary McLeod Bethune and The Florida Movement 

Presenting the second episode of a new eight-part ABC News podcast, "In Plain Sight: Lady Bird Johnson." Continue listening on Apple Podcasts (http://apple.co/ladybird), Spotify (https://spoti.fi/3ukYgoq), or wherever you get your podcasts: https://bit.ly/3bBrdUK - There are moments in Lady Bird’s audio diaries that truly re-write the known history of LBJ's presidency. This episode includes one of the most consequential. In a memo to Lyndon just five months into his presidency, Lady Bird predicts how the Vietnam war will derail his administration, and proposes a clear end-date for his time in office -- fully four years before he shocked the nation with his announcement in March of 1968 that he wouldn't run for reelection. We hear Lady Bird’s growing sense that Bobby Kennedy will become LBJ's political rival, and RFK’s bring-down-the-house performance at the Democratic Convention in the summer of 1964. In the run up to the ’64 election, Lady Bird makes a Whistle Stop tour of the South — her home turf — to try to keep Southern Democrats from defecting over Civil Rights. But she’s met with open hostility, and worse. And on her return to Washington, a sex scandal involving Lyndon’s closest aide presents an October surprise that could easily upend the election.

Presenting the second episode of a new eight-part ABC News podcast, "In Plain Sight: Lady Bird Johnson." Continue listening on Apple Podcasts (http://apple.co/ladybird), Spotify (https://spoti.fi/3ukYgoq), or wherever you get your podcasts: https://bit.ly/3bBrdUK - There are moments in Lady Bird’s audio diaries that truly re-write the known history of LBJ's presidency. This episode includes one of the most consequential. In a memo to Lyndon just five months into his presidency, Lady Bird predicts how the Vietnam war will derail his administration, and proposes a clear end-date for his time in office -- fully four years before he shocked the nation with his announcement in March of 1968 that he wouldn't run for reelection. We hear Lady Bird’s growing sense that Bobby Kennedy will become LBJ's political rival, and RFK’s bring-down-the-house performance at the Democratic Convention in the summer of 1964. In the run up to the ’64 election, Lady Bird makes a Whistle Stop tour of the South — her home turf — to try to keep Southern Democrats from defecting over Civil Rights. But she’s met with open hostility, and worse. And on her return to Washington, a sex scandal involving Lyndon’s closest aide presents an October surprise that could easily upend the election.

There are moments in Lady Bird's audio diaries that truly re-write the known history of LBJ's presidency. This episode includes one of the most consequential. In a memo to Lyndon just five months into his presidency, Lady Bird predicts how the Vietnam war will derail his administration, and proposes a clear end-date for his time in office -- fully four years before he shocked the nation with his announcement in March of 1968 that he wouldn't run for reelection. We hear Lady Bird's growing sense that Bobby Kennedy will become LBJ's political rival, and RFK's bring-down-the-house performance at the Democratic Convention in the summer of 1964. In the run up to the '64 election, Lady Bird makes a Whistle Stop tour of the South — her home turf — to try to keep Southern Democrats from defecting over Civil Rights. But she's met with open hostility, and worse. And on her return to Washington, a sex scandal involving Lyndon's closest aide presents an October surprise that could easily upend the election.

By the 1950s, the law known as separate but equal had become second-nature to Southern Blacks. Having originated in the aftermath of the American Civil War, it was proposed by Southern Democrats to maintain continued oppression over the newly-emancipated African Americans. Though there was some opposition in the near-century that followed, it wasn't until 1955 that the fight against it finally gained some traction when a Montgomery, Alabama-based seamstress named Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a White rider on a city bus. But who was Rosa Parks? What is the history surrounding the notorious separate but equal law? And how did Parks' heroic actions launch the Civil Rights Movement? Find out in the final Black History Month installment of the "History Loves Company" podcast. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/historylovescompany/support

"There are a lot of systemic inequalities that exist in the US and I think even starting to chip away will mean tremendous progress."Ed and Sean are joined again by Dana Rawls and Stephanie Zuniga-Maher from Democrats Abroad this week in a supersized chat! One week in and the Biden Administration has hit the ground running, we discuss the latest cabinet appointees and what is on the agenda for the first 100 days, including COVID economic relief, unemployment, immigration and racial inequality. Plus what the result in Georgia means for Southern Democrats and the role of Kamala Harris in the new administration.

One of saddest moments of American History is the Hayes-Tilden Compromise of 1877. In that Compromise, Southern Democrats agreed to accept Rutherford Hayes as President in exchange for Republicans agreeing to withdraw troops from the South. US Grant historian, Jean Edward Smith described the Compromise this way: "The rights of African Americans were sacrificed at the altar of national reconciliation." We are still reaping the bitter fruit from that backroom deal. In this Episode, I explore the events leading up to that Compromise, why it happened, and why we still feel its effects even today. I also discuss some possible solutions to finally address the failures of Reconstruction: reparations and reconciliation. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Since 1968, American political fortunes have turned on the status of Southern politics. When Lyndon B. Johnson passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, racially aggrieved white Southern Democrats defected to the Republican Party, a move that Richard Nixon exploited as part of his infamous “Southern Strategy.” This week, when Georgia voters cemented the turning of Georgia back to blue with election wins for two new Democratic senators, Rev.

John F. Kennedy is preparing to run for re-election amongst heightened racial tensions and the defection of support from Southern Democrats. He and his brain trust decide to begin the Kennedy ‘64 campaign in Dallas, TX to show they still intend to be competitive in the Bible Belt. Meanwhile, Republican support begins pooling around upstart Barry Goldwater despite establishment worries that his brand of inflexible conservatism is irresistible to fringe groups like the John Birch Society. After an unforeseen tragedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson takes charge.

The mainstream historical narrative of modern American politics is that from the 1960's to the 1980's, the Republican Party engaged in the "Southern Strategy", where they capitalized on Southern Democrats' opposition to civil rights, and used their racial fears to bring them into the Republican Party, creating what is called the "Party Switch". However, modern conservative intellectuals deny this narrative, claiming it is all a myth. From the internet, to college campuses, to the halls of congress, PragerU, Ben Shapiro, Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens have maintained this stance. But can we trust their account of history? Is their analysis of the Southern Strategy right? In this episode, I take a look at the arguments they make to defend their stance, and analyze the history that contradicts them.

Mark Dudzic, National Coordinator for the Labor Campaign for Single Payer, joins us again to take a deep dive into the recent history of Medicare for All organizing within the labor movement, including the political calculations made during the failed Clinton health reform push, the changing landscape for unions through the Affordable Care Act, labor's role in the creation of the center-left Healthcare for America Now (HCAN), and the direction labor is moving in the Sanders/Biden era. Show Notes Ben kicks things off on a rant. Recently diagnosed with gout, which leads to extremely painful inflammation in the joints Ben was warned by his doctor that the miracle drug that treats gout inflammation - colchicine - could come with massive copayments of hundreds of dollars. How? Colchicine is one of the oldest medicines in recorded history - described in Egyptian medical texts from 1,500BC, and used by the ancient Greeks to treat joint pain! Colchicine has been widely available and prescribed by doctors at low prices for generations now, but in 2009 the FDA decided to give the patent rights for colchicine to one pharmaceutical company, which drove all the generic manufacturers out of the industry, and prices rose by more than 2,000 percent. Ben now has trouble accessing a drug that was readily available to Aristotle and Christ. Good job American healthcare! With that rant over, we bring back our guest Mark Dudzic, national coordinator for the Labor Campaign for Single Payer to do a deep dive on the history of the Medicare for All movement, and labor's role. Mark starts by pointing out that in the U.S., the linking of healthcare to our employment was an accident of history coming out of WWII. When wages were frozen during the war effort, the labor movement effectively pushed for and massively non-wage benefits - including healthcare coverage - for workers in the U.S. However, the promise that Roosevelt made to implement an economic bill of rights following the war, including establishing healthcare as a public right, was never realized. Instead, a serious attempt by Truman to pass national healthcare in the late 1940s was defeated by Southern Democrats to protect structural racism in the healthcare system, and that was followed by a decade of red-baiting and anti-worker legislation. During the entire postwar period, the official policy of the labor movement was to fight for a national health plan, until the 1990s. However, the late 1980s and early 90s marked a huge health crisis - huge losses in healthcare coverage, and surging prices. Bill Clinton ran on healthcare in 1992, and tasked Hillary Clinton with implementing health reform. However, the Clintons early on ruled out a single-payer system, taking the approach that Democrats need to coopt market-oriented policy from Republicans, and they promised to develop a universal healthcare plan with all the benefits of Medicare for All without taking on the healthcare industry. Mark describes the Clinton reform as a classic example of bargaining against yourself, and predictably the healthcare industry took all of the concessions that were offered to them, demanded more, and then ultimately opposed and defeated the bill in the end anyway. The bill was dead on arrival, and it wasted a couple years of the Clinton administration's political capital. The Clinton reform was also a turning point for the labor movement. The official policy of the labor movement had been supporting national health insurance for decades. Entering 1992, though, the AFL-CIO very narrowly - by a vote of 5-4 - decided to endorse the Clinton healthcare plan and retreat from Medicare for All organizing. This led to a period of very little activity around Medicare for All: the 1990s rise of HMOs and managed care being forced upon workers, which dramatically restricted choice and access to care, did temporarily stabilize premium costs. The labor movement was also side-tracked in f...

Tina and Hillary cover the Wilmington Massacre of 1898 and the wrongful death of Tyra Hunter. For show notes and links to our sources, please click here (https://themuckpodcast.fireside.fm/articles/ep26notes).

The 2020 Democratic candidate Joe Biden made an insipid comment a few weeks back during an interview with radio host Charlamagne Tha God saying that, "You're not black, if you don't vote for me." What kind of education do you think gave Biden the inkling to think that he could make such a statement like that?  How does he know what constitutes for who a black person is or isn't?How does Biden know when some black people don't even know.1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.Black people have been studied, measured, poked into, pulled and tugged.  They know us.  It's fine time we learn a little bit about them.Listen in as I break down a bit of the history of the Southern Democrats and the Northern Republicans; the history of behaviors that might still be in play today.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Themes discussed:Racialized Social ConstraintCivil Rights Act of 1866The Fourteenth AmendmentThe Fifteenth AmendmentThe Roosevelt Coalition----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Thank you for listening - Follow me, Sade Graham on Instagram & Twitter or look me up on Facebook.Artwork design & logo by Dana Givens.                                                             Website: https://www.danagivens.com/   Social: www.instagram.com/danagivens/ Original music produced by professional musical production company, SweatBeatz. Website: http://www.sweatbeatz.com/   Social: www.instagram.com/ricspice/ & www.instagram.com/diasekou/----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Source(s):Holy Biblehttps://press.princeton.edu/ideas/why-are-blacks-democratshttps://www.umbc.edu/che/tahlessons/pdf/African_Americans_and_the_Democratic_Party(PrinterFriendly).pdfhttps://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/BAIC/Historical-Essays/Keeping-the-Faith/Party-Realignment--New-Deal/

This week we highlight presidential leadership and one of the most important civil rights speeches ever delivered by a sitting American president.By June of 1963, John F. Kennedy has been president for nearly two and a half years.While Kennedy had long privately expressed his deep moral objections to the treatment of black people in American society and indicated support for New federal legislation. His public comments ranged from cautious moderate criticism to a 1950s version of “both sides-ism” but were mostly nonexistent.In June of 1963, however the man and the moment met.Alabama Governor George Wallace’s staged photo op definance of federal law by standing in the school house doorway had lasted less than 90 minutes. On June 11th 1963 two black students were peaceful enrolled at the University of Alabama under the protection of a federalized Alabama National Guard commanded by US Marshals under the direction of the Department of Justice and the Attorney General of the United States.Kennedy’s advisors recommended and Fully expected that the president would NOT address the American people that evening. With a little less than 18 months until to the 1964 elections, the President’s legislative agenda and his political future depended upon the votes Southern Democrats in Congress and those of their politically unforgiving constituents. The President had other ideas. Kennedy saw a way to exercise moral leader on an issue where he had to that point failed. He would request Network Television airtime to address the nation on the issue of civil rights. The facts and statistics on racial inequality in the United States described by President Kennedy to the American people that evening had even never been acknowledged by a President before - much less spoken in such a detailed and direct language. In a telegram to the White House after watching the President’s remarks in Atlanta with other civil rights leaders, the Reverend Dr Martin Luther King Jr. described the address as ONE OF THE MOST ELOQUENT, PROFOUND, AND UNEQUIVOCAL PLEAS FOR JUSTICE AND FREEDOM OF ALL MEN, EVER MADE BY ANY PRESIDENT.Dr King knew that Kennedy was moved by his now famous “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” - written just weeks before. To President Kennedy and many Americans Dr. King’s letter was more than than a spirited defense of civil disobedience. It was an indictment of white indifference.As you listen to the speech, you will hear Kennedy echoing King’s “Letter”The President rejects the idea that Black Americans should have to wait for equality. "Who among us," Kennedy asks the American people, "would then be content with counsels of patience and delay?" See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This week we highlight presidential leadership and one of the most important civil rights speeches ever delivered by a sitting American president.By June of 1963, John F. Kennedy has been president for nearly two and a half years.While Kennedy had long privately expressed his deep moral objections to the treatment of black people in American society and indicated support for New federal legislation. His public comments ranged from cautious moderate criticism to a 1950s version of “both sides-ism” but were mostly nonexistent.In June of 1963, however the man and the moment met.Alabama Governor George Wallace’s staged photo op definance of federal law by standing in the school house doorway had lasted less than 90 minutes. On June 11th 1963 two black students were peaceful enrolled at the University of Alabama under the protection of a federalized Alabama National Guard commanded by US Marshals under the direction of the Department of Justice and the Attorney General of the United States.Kennedy’s advisors recommended and Fully expected that the president would NOT address the American people that evening. With a little less than 18 months until to the 1964 elections, the President’s legislative agenda and his political future depended upon the votes Southern Democrats in Congress and those of their politically unforgiving constituents. The President had other ideas. Kennedy saw a way to exercise moral leader on an issue where he had to that point failed. He would request Network Television airtime to address the nation on the issue of civil rights. The facts and statistics on racial inequality in the United States described by President Kennedy to the American people that evening had even never been acknowledged by a President before - much less spoken in such a detailed and direct language. In a telegram to the White House after watching the President’s remarks in Atlanta with other civil rights leaders, the Reverend Dr Martin Luther King Jr. described the address as ONE OF THE MOST ELOQUENT, PROFOUND, AND UNEQUIVOCAL PLEAS FOR JUSTICE AND FREEDOM OF ALL MEN, EVER MADE BY ANY PRESIDENT.Dr King knew that Kennedy was moved by his now famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail” - written just weeks before. To President Kennedy and many Americans Dr. King’s letter was more than than a spirited defense of civil disobedience. It was an indictment of white indifference.As you listen to the speech, you will hear Kennedy echoing King’s “Letter”The President rejects the idea that Black Americans should have to wait for equality. "Who among us," Kennedy asks the American people, "would then be content with counsels of patience and delay?" See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The term Jim Crow derives from a dance . Negro used their feet a certain ways while dancing. Hence the term Jim Crow. After Civil War Negro Americans owned 16 Millions of Acres of land throughout the South and Midwest. Jim Crow laws were state and local laws that enforced racial segregation in the Southern United States . All were enacted in the 19th and early 20th centuries by Dixiecrat aka ( Democrats Party). Jim Crow laws were upheld in segregation in all public facilities in the confederate states of America. President Woodrow Wilson a Southern Democrats initiated the segregation of Federal work place in 1913. You must know those people are your enemies. They don’t have your best interest at heart. They have stolen your wealth and destroyed you thru religions beliefs. Now you have nothing to show for your hard worked. Call in Let’s discuss --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/johnrosemberg/support

Yesterday, Former Governor Bevin made history in conceding the Kentucky Gubernatorial election to Former Attorney General Andy Beshear, turning the Governor's seat in Kentucky blue. Three years earlier, Trump had carried this deep red state by 30 points. Today, Democrats have turned to key elections in the south to ask if the wave of blue support means a change in the national narrative and potential foreshadowing for the national election. Join Danielle and a very special guest as we ask the age-old question: what does this mean for the future of our country? --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/anjali-pellegrin/message

Link: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/04/list-of-passages-i-highlighted-in-my-copy-of-ages-of-discord/   Turchin has some great stories about unity vs. polarization over time. For example in the 1940s, unity became such a “problem” that concerned citizens demanded more partisanship: Concerned about electoral torpor and meaningless political debate, the American Political Science Association in 1946 appointed a committee to examine the role of parties in the American system. Four years later, the committee published a lengthy (and alarmed) report calling for the return of ideologically distinct and powerful political parties. Parties ought to stand for distinct sets of politics, the political scientists urged. Voters should be presented with clear choices. I have vague memories of similar demands in the early ’90s; everyone was complaining that the parties were exactly the same and the “elites” were rigging things to make sure we didn’t have any real choices. On the other hand, partisanship during the Civil War was pretty intense: Another indicator of growing intraelite conflict was the increasing incidence of violence and threatened violence in Congress, which reached a peak during the 1850s. The brutal caning that Representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina gave to Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts on the Senate floor in 1856 is the best known such episode, but it was not the only one. In 1842, after Representative Thomas Arnold of Tennessee “reprimanded a pro-slavery member of his own party, two Southern Democrats stalked towards him, at least of one of whom was arhmed with a bowie knife…calling Arnold a ‘damned coward,’ his angry colleagues threatened to cut his throat ‘from ear to ear'” (Freeman 2011). According to Senator Hammond, “The only persons who do not have a revolver and a knife are those who have two revolvers” (quoted in Potter 1976:389). During a debate in 1850, Senator Henry Foote of Mississippi pulled a pistol on Senator Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri (Freeman 2011). In another bitter debate, a New York congressman inadvertently dropped a pistol (it fell out of his pocket), and this almost precipitated a general shootout on the floor of Congress (Potter 1976: 389).

The Democrats’ picking Milwaukee for their convention in 2020 indicates how that Wisconsin is a key battleground the party must win in order to recapture the White House.  John Nichols talks about what it going to take for the Democrats to carry Wisconsin—and Michigan and Pennsylvania—and about the far-reaching tasks that face the party after four years of Trump.  Also: southern Democrats were an all-white party before the voting rights act of 1965; and then, as LBJ predicted, its members all became Republicans.  And yet throughout the 20th century Southern Democrats in Congress supported Progressive legislation—as long as it didn’t help black people.  Historian Michael Kazin comments—and talks about the party in the South now, where Stacey Abrams and Betto O’Rourke are building something new. Plus: Halfway through Trump’s term, and the week after International Women’s Day, it’s a good time to look at the big picture of where women stand in the US and in the world—where the US ranks in terms of women’s political representation, legal equality, and recent reports of discrimination and violence.  Katha Pollitt surveys the good news, and the bad news.

Hugh unpacks a Harper's Weekly illustration from September 1868, and reads articles about the barbecues with which Southern Democrats were attempting to win the votes of freedmen. For all images and notes, see the companion blog.

Sarah Constantine is taking something sexy and turning it into homework. The sex researcher has spent the last several years looking deeper into (mostly) straight women’s fantasies. One woman had a specific erotic fantasy about a can of tomato soup. What’s that about? Find out on this week’s Manwhore Podcast! ALSO: Kenzie returns to co-host my intro recorded at the beautiful Mexican resort Desire! PLUS: guilt, bestiality, public nudity, sexual orientation, dating, and sexy Southern Democrats! Follow Kenzie! Twitter: @kenzieb1992 Instagram: @manicpizzadreamgirl Follow Billy! Twitter: @TheBillyProcida Instagram: @TheBillyProcida Facebook Fan Page Snag yourself some Manwhore Podcast march! Get a Fanwhore Membership on Patreon for access to bonus episodes and private sex-positive discussion groups. Click here to join for $1! Use promo code MANWHORE to get a 40-minute FREE TRIAL of ethical paid-for-porn viewing at HotMovies.com/bonus! Email your comments, questions, and boobies to manwhorepod@gmail.com. www.ManwhorePod.com

On The Gist, the inaugural edition of “whoah there, girl!” Political parties are like people: They grow and change, their values shift, and sometimes they become downright belligerent. Lilliana Mason says America’s two political parties are in the middle of a shift, and it won’t be over anytime soon: “What happened to conservative southern Democrats after the Civil Rights Act passed? They didn’t like it. … It took an entire generation for conservative Southern Democrats to become Republicans.” Mason is the author of Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. In the Spiel, “angel moms” deserve sympathy, but they’re being used.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On The Gist, the inaugural edition of “whoah there, girl!” Political parties are like people: They grow and change, their values shift, and sometimes they become downright belligerent. Lilliana Mason says America’s two political parties are in the middle of a shift, and it won’t be over anytime soon: “What happened to conservative southern Democrats after the Civil Rights Act passed? They didn’t like it. … It took an entire generation for conservative Southern Democrats to become Republicans.” Mason is the author of Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. In the Spiel, “angel moms” deserve sympathy, but they’re being used.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Deondra Rose has written Citizens by Degree: Higher Education Policy and the Changing Gender Dynamics of American Citizenship (Oxford University Press, 2018). She is an assistant professor of public policy and political science at Duke University. Citizens by Degree examines the development and impact of federal higher education policy, specifically the National Defense Education Act, the Higher Education Act, and Title IX. Rose argues that these policies have been an overlooked-factor driving the progress that women have made in the United States. By significantly expanding women's access to college, they led to women to surpassing men as the recipients of bachelor's degrees, while also empowering them to become more economically successful and politically engaged. The book focuses on how Southern Democrats shaped U.S. higher policy development during the mid-twentieth century, expanding opportunities for women, while maintaining discriminatory practices for African Americans. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Deondra Rose has written Citizens by Degree: Higher Education Policy and the Changing Gender Dynamics of American Citizenship (Oxford University Press, 2018). She is an assistant professor of public policy and political science at Duke University. Citizens by Degree examines the development and impact of federal higher education policy, specifically the National Defense Education Act, the Higher Education Act, and Title IX. Rose argues that these policies have been an overlooked-factor driving the progress that women have made in the United States. By significantly expanding women’s access to college, they led to women to surpassing men as the recipients of bachelor’s degrees, while also empowering them to become more economically successful and politically engaged. The book focuses on how Southern Democrats shaped U.S. higher policy development during the mid-twentieth century, expanding opportunities for women, while maintaining discriminatory practices for African Americans. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Deondra Rose has written Citizens by Degree: Higher Education Policy and the Changing Gender Dynamics of American Citizenship (Oxford University Press, 2018). She is an assistant professor of public policy and political science at Duke University. Citizens by Degree examines the development and impact of federal higher education policy, specifically the National Defense Education Act, the Higher Education Act, and Title IX. Rose argues that these policies have been an overlooked-factor driving the progress that women have made in the United States. By significantly expanding women’s access to college, they led to women to surpassing men as the recipients of bachelor’s degrees, while also empowering them to become more economically successful and politically engaged. The book focuses on how Southern Democrats shaped U.S. higher policy development during the mid-twentieth century, expanding opportunities for women, while maintaining discriminatory practices for African Americans. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Deondra Rose has written Citizens by Degree: Higher Education Policy and the Changing Gender Dynamics of American Citizenship (Oxford University Press, 2018). She is an assistant professor of public policy and political science at Duke University. Citizens by Degree examines the development and impact of federal higher education policy, specifically the National Defense Education Act, the Higher Education Act, and Title IX. Rose argues that these policies have been an overlooked-factor driving the progress that women have made in the United States. By significantly expanding women’s access to college, they led to women to surpassing men as the recipients of bachelor’s degrees, while also empowering them to become more economically successful and politically engaged. The book focuses on how Southern Democrats shaped U.S. higher policy development during the mid-twentieth century, expanding opportunities for women, while maintaining discriminatory practices for African Americans. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Deondra Rose has written Citizens by Degree: Higher Education Policy and the Changing Gender Dynamics of American Citizenship (Oxford University Press, 2018). She is an assistant professor of public policy and political science at Duke University. Citizens by Degree examines the development and impact of federal higher education policy, specifically the National Defense Education Act, the Higher Education Act, and Title IX. Rose argues that these policies have been an overlooked-factor driving the progress that women have made in the United States. By significantly expanding women’s access to college, they led to women to surpassing men as the recipients of bachelor’s degrees, while also empowering them to become more economically successful and politically engaged. The book focuses on how Southern Democrats shaped U.S. higher policy development during the mid-twentieth century, expanding opportunities for women, while maintaining discriminatory practices for African Americans. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Deondra Rose has written Citizens by Degree: Higher Education Policy and the Changing Gender Dynamics of American Citizenship (Oxford University Press, 2018). She is an assistant professor of public policy and political science at Duke University. Citizens by Degree examines the development and impact of federal higher education policy, specifically the National Defense Education Act, the Higher Education Act, and Title IX. Rose argues that these policies have been an overlooked-factor driving the progress that women have made in the United States. By significantly expanding women’s access to college, they led to women to surpassing men as the recipients of bachelor’s degrees, while also empowering them to become more economically successful and politically engaged. The book focuses on how Southern Democrats shaped U.S. higher policy development during the mid-twentieth century, expanding opportunities for women, while maintaining discriminatory practices for African Americans. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Deondra Rose has written Citizens by Degree: Higher Education Policy and the Changing Gender Dynamics of American Citizenship (Oxford University Press, 2018). She is an assistant professor of public policy and political science at Duke University. Citizens by Degree examines the development and impact of federal higher education policy, specifically the National Defense Education Act, the Higher Education Act, and Title IX. Rose argues that these policies have been an overlooked-factor driving the progress that women have made in the United States. By significantly expanding women's access to college, they led to women to surpassing men as the recipients of bachelor's degrees, while also empowering them to become more economically successful and politically engaged. The book focuses on how Southern Democrats shaped U.S. higher policy development during the mid-twentieth century, expanding opportunities for women, while maintaining discriminatory practices for African Americans.

Deondra Rose has written Citizens by Degree: Higher Education Policy and the Changing Gender Dynamics of American Citizenship (Oxford University Press, 2018). She is an assistant professor of public policy and political science at Duke University. Citizens by Degree examines the development and impact of federal higher education policy, specifically the National Defense Education Act, the Higher Education Act, and Title IX. Rose argues that these policies have been an overlooked-factor driving the progress that women have made in the United States. By significantly expanding women’s access to college, they led to women to surpassing men as the recipients of bachelor’s degrees, while also empowering them to become more economically successful and politically engaged. The book focuses on how Southern Democrats shaped U.S. higher policy development during the mid-twentieth century, expanding opportunities for women, while maintaining discriminatory practices for African Americans. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

  In this week's episode, Natalia, Niki, and Neil discuss a feud between African-American intellectuals Cornel West and Ta-Nehisi Coates, the electoral prospects for southern Democrats, and why LaCroix Sparkling Water has become an obsession.   Support Past Present at Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/pastpresentpodcast    Here are some links and references mentioned during this week’s show:   Cornel West published a blistering takedown of Ta-Nehisi Coates in The Guardian. Niki referenced Michael Eric Dyson’s critique of West in The New Republic and Natalia referred to Matthew Clair’s essay in Public Books about the origins of the desire among liberal white audiences to hear “authentic” black voices, but only in certain ways. Niki referenced Tressie McMillan Cottom’s blog post where she argued that Coates and West are fundamentally different as thinkers. Doug Jones’ win against Roy Moore in Alabama was astonishing given the political leanings of the region. Neil referred to his own post in Public Seminar in which he argued the election was more a loss for Moore than a victory by Jones. Niki referred to Matthew Lassiter’s Silent Majority: Suburban Politics in the Sunbelt South and Kevin Kruse’s White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of Modern Conservatism, both of which detail the slow process by which the long-Democratic South became almost wholesale Republican. LaCroix Sparkling Water is all the rage among coastal tastemakers these days, though it has Midwestern roots, as Vox reports. Niki recommended the Gastropod podcast to delve deeper into the history of seltzer.    In our regular closing feature, What’s Making History: Natalia discussed allegations of sexual assault against Russell Simmons. Neil recommended Sarah Rose’s book For All the Tea in China. Niki shared why KFC is a popular Christmas meal in Japan.

Highlights The African American saga in WW1 @ | 01:30 11th Engineers Cambrai follow up @ | 08:55 Brits capture Jerusalem from Turks - Mike Shuster @ | 09:40 Millionaire’s Unit & Lafayette Escadrille documentary film producer - Darroch Greer @ | 13:55 AmazonSmile for the holidays @ | 21:35 Speaking WW1- Foxhole, Dugout and Cubbyhole @ | 22:35 100C/100M profile - Carmel By The Sea memorial arch - Ian Martin @ | 23:25 The American in Paris documentary - Antony Easton @ | 30:05 Mexican born, illegal immigrant most decorated Texan soldier in WW1 @ | 38:15 WWrite Blog - German songwriter/soldier found from rediscovering his music @ | 39:05 The Buzz - Katherine Akey  @ | 40:20----more---- Opening Welcome to World War 1 centennial News - It’s about WW1 THEN - what was happening 100 years ago this week  - and it’s about WW1 NOW - news and updates about the centennial and the commemoration. Before we get going - we’d like to send our thoughts and warm wishes to all the people of southern california who are experiencing the devastation of fires raging through your communities. Our thoughts are with you.   Today is December 6th, 2017. Our guests this week include: Mike Shuster, updating us on events in the middle east    Darroch Greer telling us about his films, The Millionaire’s Unit and The Lafayette Escadrille Ian Martin from the 100 Cities/100 Memorials project in Carmel-by-the-sea California Antony Easton sharing his experience making the film The American in Paris And Katherine Akey, the shows line producer and the commission's social media director...   WW1 Centennial News is brought to you by the U.S. World War I Centennial Commission and the Pritzker Military Museum and Library. I’m Theo Mayer - the Chief Technologist for the Commission and your host. Welcome to the show. [MUSIC] Preface The African American saga in World War 1 is both inspiring and terrible … Less than a generation after the civil war, this is a time where black american men and women are considered second class citizens at best. Chad Williams is the chair of the African & Afro-American Studies Department at Brandeis University and author of “Torchbearers of Democracy: African-American Soldiers in the World War I Era,”. quote: "In many ways, World War I marked the beginning of the modern civil rights movement for African-Americans. Their service in the military had dramatic implications for African-Americans. Black soldiers faced systemic racial discrimination in the army and endured virulent hostility on returning to their homes at the end of the war. At the same time, service in the army empowered soldiers to demand their individual rights as American citizens and laid the groundwork for the future movement for racial justice."   So…  let's jump into our wayback machine and learn more about the African American experience in the war that changed the world!   World War One THEN 100 Year Ago This Week [MUSIC TRANSITION] It's the first week of December 1917 - Just a note to our audience - that the language of the times, which we have kept in our reports, refers to African Americans as negroes and colored.   [SOUND EFFECT] Dateline: December 4, 197 A headline in the New York times reads ARMY IS FAIR TO NEGROES - Policy of War Department is to discourage race discrimination.   The article reads - Secretary of War Baker today announced that he had ordered an investigation of the allegation that there had been discrimination against negro Draftees. Quote: "As you know, it has been my policy to discourage discrimination against any persons by reason of their race. This policy has been adopted not merely as an act of justice to safeguard the institution which we are now enagaged in defending -  and which any racial disorder must endanger.   The charges stem from accusations that the military is not allowing negro units into combat roles, but relegating them to Service Battalions for labor jobs. And there is a lot of truth to it. Racism is as endemic in the armed forces as it is in the rest of America at this time. Southern Democrats try to block negroes from inclusion in the draft, few colored men served in the Navy and none in the Marine Corps, and the Army’s four segregated units—the 24th and 25th Infantry and the 9th and 10th Cavalry Regiments are assigned guard duty on the Mexican border and never go abroad. African Americans comprised 13 percent of active-duty military manpower, but make up only seven-tenths of 1 percent of the officers. Around 200,000 African Americans are deployed to Europe and serve with distinction in the AEF - the American Expeditionary Forces - as well as with the French Army. While, as per the complaints, the vast majority of these troops are relegated to Services of Supplies (SOS) units and labor battalions, some 40,000 soldiers see combat in two new black units, the Ninety-second and Ninety-third Divisions. Fighting alongside the French, the Ninety-third serves heroically throughout the war and experiences greater acceptance and more equal treatment than that found in the U.S. Army. The division's 369th Infantry Regiment, "the Harlem Hellfighters," spend more than six months on the front lines — longer than any other American unit — in part because General Pershing, contrary to his policy of having American soldiers under American Command, gives the 369th to French commanders who take them to the front immediately -  bypassing much of the training the other combat soldiers undergo... Regardless.. the 369th distinguishes itself as an awesome fighting force that never surrenders an inch of Allied territory nor loses a single soldier through capture. From this regiment alone, 171 officers and men receive either Croix de Guerre or Legions of Merit from the French government. The sacrifice of African American soldiers such as these certainly did not end racism at home or abroad, but it showed the world that their patriotism and heroism unquestioningly matches that of their white counterparts in the war that changed the world! Links: Sources: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9F02EFDD1E3AE433A25756C0A9649D946696D6CF https://armyhistory.org/fighting-for-respect-african-american-soldiers-in-wwi/ http://exhibitions.nypl.org/africanaage/essay-world-war-i.html http://time.com/4681227/great-war-clip-black-history-month/ https://memory.loc.gov/ammem/aaohtml/exhibit/aopart7.html http://www.brandeis.edu/now/2014/july/worldwar.html http://www.oxfordaasc.com/public/features/archive/0508/index.jsp http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/african-americans-in-combat/   [SOUND EFFECT] Dateline December 7 The headline in the NY Times reads: PRESIDENT SIGNS DECLARATION OF WAR ON AUSTRIA-HUNGARY AFTER CONGRESS ACTS WITH ONLY ONE DISSENTING VOTE The story reads: The United States went to war against Austria-Hungary at 5:03 this afternoon when President Wilson approved a joint resolution, adopted by congress, declaring a state of war exists!   Wait a minute… I thought we did that on April 6!?? Well that is what makes this such an interesting event. On April 6, 2017 we declared war on Germany… but not the other axis powers. Though we declared Austria Hungary an ENEMY through the “Trading with the enemy act of 1917” which we told you about in episode 42… we did not formally declare war on them until 100 years ago this week. Links:http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9906E4DD1E3AE433A25757C0A9649D946696D6CF http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9903E1DD1E3AE433A25756C0A9649D946696D6CF http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9A02E1DD1E3AE433A25756C0A9649D946696D6CF http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=940DE0DC1E3AE433A2575BC0A9649D946696D6CF   [SOUND EFFECT] Do you remember the story from last week about the 11th engineers who were caught in a German counter attack during the battle of Cambrai - and went at it with shovels, pick axes and wrenches because they were engineers not set up as combatants - well - this week the story has some interesting fallout as the French, the Engineers and the combat troops each are featured in an article in the NY times with a Rashomon style point of view on the issue. First the French… Dateline December 3, 1917 Headline: France gives high praise to our engineers at cambrai The story reads: “There is not a single person who saw them at work who does not render warm praise to the coolness, discipline, and courage of these improvised combatants”   From the seemingly - slightly jealous Pershing troops still waiting and ready to fight…. [SOUND EFFECT] Headline: Pershing’s troops envy the Engineers And the story includes: An infantry Sergeant remarked: ‘We stay in these muddy trenches for a spell and let Fritz shoot his artillery at us and have never really had a chance to use our rifles except to snipe and pot at Fritz out in No Man’s Land on dark nights. Meanwhile - These railroaders managed to run their trains right into a good, thick scrap, and if this isn’t luck, I don’t know what it is.’”   And from the somewhat still astounded engineers [SOUND EFFECT] Headline: Engineers jest over first battle In the story they describe the chaos of sudden, unexpected action, “‘I hadn’t a steel hat handy” ‘so i picked up a petrol tin and put that on my head, and thought it might be better than nothing.”   The  journalist writes, “They are a splendid body of men,” “Hard, keen and good humored, who made a joke of their thrilling adventure and of their present danger.”   And from another soldier, “‘It was the doggonedest experience I ever had, and a mighty close call!’   And that’s how it was this week, one hundred years ago in the war that changed the world! Links http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9806E4DD1E3AE433A25757C0A9649D946696D6CF http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9907E0DD1E3AE433A25756C0A9649D946696D6CF http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9B04E3DD1E3AE433A25757C0A9649D946696D6CF [SOUND EFFECT] Great War Project Jerusalem is a city with massive significance to all the major religions of the world - Christians, Jews and Muslims. So as 1917 comes to a close, the British determine that they want to - even need to - win the city from the Ottoman Turks - and they wanted to do it before Christmas! They felt that the  psychological impact was desperately needed in these otherwise dark days.   Here to tell us about the campaign is Mike Shuster, former NPR correspondent and curator of the Great War Project blog. [Mike Shuster]   Mike Shuster from the Great War Project blog.   We also came across a very good 7 minute documentary clip about these event in the middle east 100 years ago this week - you’ll find it on Youtube called “Blood & Oil: Jerusalem Falls”  by Janson Media. We have included the link to it in the podcast notes LINK: http://greatwarproject.org/2017/12/03/ottomans-surrender-jerusalem/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qApUFVHREo   [SOUND EFFECT] War in the Sky The Millionaire’s Unit FILM And speaking of documentaries -  in a special War in the Sky segment this week, we are speaking with Darroch Greer, co-producer and director of multiple films on aviation in World War One, including the recently released The Millionaire’s Unit and the upcoming documentary The Lafayette Escadrille.   Welcome, Darroch!   [greetings]   [Darroch, we recently had the author of the Millionaire’s Unit book on the show - Marc Wortman. How did you translate the book into a documentary?]   [We had a lot of interest from our listeners after Marc was on - how can people see the documentary? [the dvd is being released shortly and includes special other shorts]   [Your next project sounds great - the Lafayette Escadrille… Probably one of the most interesting pack of adventurers and daredevils of the 20th century - can you give out an overview?]   [So this week, is the in fact, the centennial of the Lafayette Escadrille getting its orders releasing its American pilots from the French Military - in preparation for transferring them to the US forces-- how did that transition go and what role did these guys play in the new US Army Air Service?]   [Darroch - When can we see a trailer and when does the film come out?  ]   [Will you come back and visit us here when the film publishes?]   [goodbyes/thanks]   Darroch Greer is the producer and director on documentary films about the WWI air war. You can find links to his documentaries -- The Millionaire’s Unit and The Lafayette Escadrille in the podcast notes.   Links:http://www.millionairesunit.org/ http://www.worldwar1centennial.org/index.php/darroch-greer-the-millionaires-unit.html http://humanusdocumentaryfilms.org/portfolio/the-lafayette-escadrille/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOtGBfAMotE http://thelafayetteescadrille.org The Great War Channel For weekly videos about WWI  - join host Indy Neidell at the Great War Channel on Youtube.   The episodes this week include: Invasions, Naval Battles and German Raiders - WW1 in the Pacific All Quiet on the Eastern Front Shell Recycling And finally - Origins of the German Alpenkorps Follow the link in the podcast notes or search for “the great war” on youtube. Link: https://www.youtube.com/user/TheGreatWar World War One NOW It is time to fast forward into the present to WW1 Centennial News NOW - this section is not about history, but rather - it explores what is happening to commemorate the centennial of the War that changed the world!   [SOUND EFFECT] Commission News: The holiday shopping season is here and as you shop to bring cheer to you and yours --- you can also bring a little cheer to us with AmazonSmile.What is AmazonSmile?It’s an easy, simple and automatic way to support our many activities, including this Podcast, the national WWI memorial, our education programs and more… If you designate United States Foundation for the Commemoration of the World Wars (USFCWW) as your charity on smile.amazon.com, Amazon will donate ½ a percent of everything you spend on Amazon to us. It costs you nothing and it helps us a lot! So thank you… just go to Smile.Amazon.com and remember the US Foundation for the Commemoration of the World Wars or even easier -- just follow the link in the podcast notes! link:http://www.worldwar1centennial.org/3723 http://smile.amazon.com/ch/46-3321814 Speaking WW1 And now for our feature “Speaking World War 1” - Where we explore the words & phrases that are rooted in the war  --- When people think WWI the image that comes to mind for many is barb wire and trenches. Life at ground level generally toxic and lethal. So, soldiers spent much of their time living in the ground. Besides the word Trenches, other related words also came into common use - several of which are still with us today. Fox hole, Dug Out and Cubby Hole are three of them! The history of Fox Hole and Dug Out are pretty obvious and the term Cubby was probably derived from the old english word cub - for shed, coop or hutch Today we still have dugouts in baseball and cubbyholes in the office - terms that got popular 100 years ago when the motto was “get down, dig in and stash yourself in a hole”. See the podcast notes to learn more! link: https://www.amazon.com/Tommy-Doughboy-Fritz-Soldier-Slang/dp/144563 7839/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1508848013&sr=8-1&keywords=tommy+doughboy+fritz 100 Cities/100 Memorials [SOUND EFFECT Carmel-by-the-sea, CA 100 cities Moving on to our 100 Cities / 100 Memorials segment about the $200,000 matching grant challenge to rescue and focus on our local WWI memorials. As you listen to our guest tell us about the project, remember that we are taking grant applications for the second round of awards - the deadline to submit the applications is January 15, 2018 - go to ww1cc.org/100Memorials to learn all about it.’   This week we are profiling the World War I Memorial Arch in Carmel-by-the-sea California-- One of the first 50 grant awardees. with us tell us about the project is Ian Martin, a resident of Carmel and a member of the Carmel Patriots, the American Legion Post 512's non-veteran volunteer organization.   Welcome Ian! [exchange greetings]   [Ian, the Carmel By the Sea memorial was designed by a renown resident of the city Charles Greene - can you tell us a little about him and his decision to build this really beautiful arch?]   [The arch is made out of sandstone - instead of granite - and I understand that this has posed some challenges in restoration. Why and What are those? ]   [How did you Patriots and American Legion Post 512 get involved in this restoration?]   [Are you planning a rededication?]   Ian - Thank you and congratulation to your team for getting this incredible WWI memorial designated as a WWI Centennial Memorial! Ian Martin, a resident of Carmel-by-the-Sea and a member of the Carmel Patriots, the American Legion Post 512's non-veteran volunteer organization If you have a local WWI memorial project you want to submit for a grant - go to ww1cc.org/100 memorials or follow the link in the podcast notes to learn more about how to participate in this program! Link: www.ww1cc.org/100memorials https://www.facebook.com/events/438048213017354/   [SOUND EFFECT] Spotlight in the Media The American in Paris For our Spotlight in the Media segment this week, we are speaking with Antony Easton, director of the documentary film The American in Paris-- which tells the story of the L’hopital Americain during the course of the great war.   Welcome Antony!   [greetings] [So Antony, can you give us a brief introduction to the American Hospital in Paris - which got involved in the war in 1914, three years before America declared war?]   [Antony - give us an overview of the film and how you got involved in it?]   [Here is a clip from the trailer…] [Run clip]   [In the trailer, it mentions that the French are recognizing the service of the hospital more and more in recent years-- Why is that? ]   [You recently premiered the documentary in both the US and in France? Do you think it is seen differently in each country?]   [So how can I see the film?]   Thank you Antony.   [thanks and goodbye] That was Antony Easton--director of the documentary film The American in Paris. Learn more at the links in the podcast notes. Link:https://vimeo.com/231687152 http://frenchculture.org/events/6473-americans-paris   Articles and Posts Our website at WW1cc.org is the home and archive for lots of things WW1 - with over 3700 articles on WWI, 2,000 locations listed in our map database and nearly 1400 WWI related events in our national events register - its a great place to explore and new articles are published weekly. This week we will highly a few of them for you. Brooke Kroeger interview First from ww1cc.org/news-- A remarkable new book has appeared on the World War I scene, one that traces the origins of the Women's Suffrage movement in America to the war effort 100 years ago. It explores why, a group of prominent and influential men in New York City, and beyond, came together to help women gain the right to vote. Brooke Kroeger is the author. She is a journalist, author of five books, a professor of journalism at the NYU Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute and director of the Global and Joint Program Studies, which she founded in 2007. You can read the interview where she speaks about this book, and what she found in writing it, by following the link in the podcast notes. link:http://www.worldwar1centennial.org/index.php/communicate/press-media/wwi-centennial-news/3772-four-questions-for-brooke-kroeger.html   Marcelino Serna Next is a story about Mexican-born Marcelino Serna. When the U.S. entered World War One in 1917, it is estimated that roughly 500,000 people who joined the United States armed services were immigrants. According to the National Park Service, this amounted to 18 percent of U.S. troops. One of these was a Mexican-born, illegal immigrant named Marcelino Serna, who volunteered to join the US Army and was the first Mexican American to collect a Distinguished Service Cross. Read more about the heroism and the man who returned from ‘Over There” as the most highly-decorated Texan soldier to serve in World War I by visiting ww1cc.org/news or following the link in the podcast notes.   Link: http://www.worldwar1centennial.org/index.php/communicate/press-media/wwi-centennial-news/3779-marcelino-serna-most-decorated-texan-of-world-war-one.html Wwrite Blog In our WWRITE blog, which explores WWI’s Influence on contemporary writing and scholarship, this week’s posts reads “Soon, All Too Soon” When British musicians Patricia Hammond and Matt Redman found and performed German sheet music written by a soldier killed in Verdun, they had no idea the song, "Soon, Too Soon," would also lead to the discovery of the composer's body, which had been buried in an unmarked grave in France's Meuse-Argonne region. Read about the captivating hunt for a man behind a melody. Here is a clip from the song performed by Patricia Hammond and Matt Redman [run clip] The post including a video are at ww1cc.org/WWRITE or follow the link in the podcast notes. Link:http://www.worldwar1centennial.org/index.php/articles-posts/3783-soon-all-too-soon.html www.ww1cc.org/wwrite   The Buzz - WW1 in Social Media Posts And that brings us to the buzz - the centennial of WW1 this week in social media with Katherine Akey - Katherine, what did you pick to tell us about?   Hi Theo! Iron Harvest This week, we shared an article from the Commonwealth War Graves Commission on the Iron Harvest. It is estimated that more than a billion shells were fired during the First World War, and that as many as 30 percent of those failed to explode. Specialty bomb-disposal units in France and Belgium collect and defuse the unexploded ordinances, which are often found by farmers as they do their work. These local farmers are the ones who coined the name Iron Harvest, as they come across literal tonnes of shells every year. It’s estimated that it will take another 500 years of the Iron Harvest before the area is fully safe again. Read more about this constant reminder of the war, and watch a video of the disposal units in action, by following the link in the podcast notes. link:https://www.cwgc.org/learn/news-and-events/news/2017/11/28/16/47/the-iron-harvest-a-warning-from-history   Women Photographers Finally this week, a story close to my heart. Hyperallergic put out a piece this week which we shared on facebook featuring and reviewing a new exhibition at Impressions Gallery in Bradford, England. The show is titled No Man’s Land: Women’s Photography and the First World War and features the work of some very talented and brave women photographers who served during the conflict. Some of the artists included served as official photographers, while others photographed while serving as nurses or in other auxiliary roles. One photographer was a motorcycle and ambulance driver who volunteered at 18 and whose photos range from graphic and distressing to coy and humorous. Three contemporary artists’ work is shown as well, complimenting the work done by the women a century ago. Follow the link in the podcast notes to see some of the images and to read the stories of the photographers. And that’s it this week for the Buzz! link:https://hyperallergic.com/410238/no-mans-land-women-photographers-wwi-impressions-gallery/   Thank you for having listened to WW1 Centennial News for the first week of December, 1917 and 2017   We want to thank our guests... Mike Shuster from the great war project blog,    Director and Producer Darroch Greer Ian Martin from the 100 Cities/100 Memorials project in Carmel-by-the-sea California Director Antony Easton Katherine Akey the shows line producer and the commission's social media director...   Thanks to Eric Marr for his great help on our story research… And I am Theo Mayer - your host.   The US World War One Centennial Commission was created by Congress to honor, commemorate and educate about WW1. Our programs are to-- inspire a national conversation and awareness about WW1; Your listening to this podcast is a part of that…. Thank you! We are bringing the lessons of the 100 years ago into today's classrooms; We are helping to restore WW1 memorials in communities of all sizes across our country; and of course we are building America’s National WW1 Memorial in Washington DC.   This week’s featured web page is ww1cc.org/subscribe - where you can subscribe to our various communications products including our weekly newsletter - the Dispatch, the Education newsletter and of course this podcast if you happen not to be a regular subscriber.   We want to thank commission’s founding sponsor the Pritzker Military Museum and Library for their support.   The podcast can be found on our website at ww1cc.org/cn   on  iTunes and google play ww1 Centennial News, and on Amazon Echo or other Alexa enabled devices. Just say: Alexa: Play W W One Centennial News Podcast. Our twitter and instagram handles are both @ww1cc and we are on facebook @ww1centennial. Thank you for joining us. And don’t forget to share the stories you are hearing here today about the war that changed the world! [music]   I am going to climb into my cubby and pull the blankets over my head!   So long!

No election in American history was as consequential as the 1860 Presidential Election. Within two months of the election of Abraham Lincoln, South Carolina had seceded from the Union, and before Lincoln had been inaugurated, the Confederate States of America were formed. The Democratic Party unraveled first, as their convention in April in Charleston, South Carolina dissolved without a nominee. Arguing over the platform, a group of extreme pro-slavery agitators called "Fire Eaters" sought a platform that called for widespread expansion of slavery. This targeted the frontrunner for the nomination Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas and had the support of most Southern delegates. Meanwhile in Chicago, the still young Republican Party decided to choose a more moderate candidate, Abraham Lincoln of Illinois, who had lost a Senate race to Douglas two years earlier. A new party emerged called the Constitutional Union Party, which nominated John Bell of Tennessee and argued for the "Union as it is and Constiution as it is." When the Democrats met again in Baltimore in June, it came out as two parties, with Northern Democrats nominating Douglas and Southern Democrats nominating Vice President John Breckinridge. This division allowed Abraham Lincoln to easily take the election with less than 40 percent of the vote, and made most Southerners even more set on secession.

President Lyndon B. Johnson signs the U.S. Civil Rights Act. President John F. Kennedy’s 1960 campaign for a new American civil rights act met with such heavy opposition from Southern Democrats, it was stymied for several years. Still, in a national speech on June 11, 1963, President Kennedy outlined the need for African Americans to receive legal protection. When Kennedy was assassinated five months later, it was up to Lyndon B. Johnson to decide if he wanted to push forward with the new proposed law. Johnson, a Texas Democrat, had helped with the Civil Rights Act of 1957, but Kennedy’s law went much further. However, in the end Johnson became a champion of the cause. Passage of the Act was a breeze in the House of Representatives in comparison to the Senate, where Southerners were infamous for using procedures to kill most civil rights legislation. Johnson’s long-time friend and mentor, Senator Richard B. Russell, filibustered the bill along with 18 other Democratic Southerners. But Johnson was highly skilled at parliamentary procedure and he used every tactic in the book. In the end, 73 senators voted in favour of the bill while 27 opposed it. Thus, on July 3, 1964, President Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964, giving African Americans the protections they required to vote and access public facilities such as restaurants and hotels. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

http://learntruehistory.com Most people have never heard of Josiah Bailey of North Carolina. He was one of the few voices railing against the excesses of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and helped author "The Conservative Manifesto" in 1937. Garland Tucker featured him in his Conservative Heroes, a nice little book that is a good companion to Forgotten Conservatives in American History. I discuss Bailey, Southern Democrats, and the Manifesto in this episode of the Brion McClanahan Show. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/brion-mcclanahan/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/brion-mcclanahan/support

While Senate Republicans refuse to consider President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, the History Guys review the history of gridlock in American politics. In this episode, Peter, Ed and Brian will look at other moments when our system of checks and balances devolved into open warfare between political factions. They’ll discuss how the Missouri Compromise failed to resolve the political battle over the expansion of slavery. They’ll also look at the war within the Democratic party over Prohibition in the l920’s, and how Southern Democrats used the filibuster to block civil rights bills in the l950’s and 60’s. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://megaphone.fm/adchoices

Doug McAdam and Karina Kloos are the authors of Deeply Divided: Racial Politics and Social Movements in Postwar America (Oxford University Press, 2014). McAdam is The Ray Lyman Wilbur Professor of Sociology at Stanford University and the former Director of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. Kloos is a scholar of political sociology and social movements at Stanford University, where she is a PhD candidate. What has gotten us to this point of high political polarization and high income inequality? McAdam and Kloos offer a novel answer to what divides us as a country that focuses on the role social movements have in pulling parties to the extremes or pushing parties to the middle. They argue that the post-World War II period was unusual for its low levels of social movement activities and the resulting political centrism of the 1950s. The Civil Rights movement that followed – and the related backlash politics of the Southern Democrats – pushed the parties away from the center and toward regional realignment. Along the way, activists re-wrote party voting procedures that reinforced the power of vocal minorities within each party, thereby entrenching political polarization for the decades to come. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Doug McAdam and Karina Kloos are the authors of Deeply Divided: Racial Politics and Social Movements in Postwar America (Oxford University Press, 2014). McAdam is The Ray Lyman Wilbur Professor of Sociology at Stanford University and the former Director of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. Kloos is a scholar of political sociology and social movements at Stanford University, where she is a PhD candidate. What has gotten us to this point of high political polarization and high income inequality? McAdam and Kloos offer a novel answer to what divides us as a country that focuses on the role social movements have in pulling parties to the extremes or pushing parties to the middle. They argue that the post-World War II period was unusual for its low levels of social movement activities and the resulting political centrism of the 1950s. The Civil Rights movement that followed – and the related backlash politics of the Southern Democrats – pushed the parties away from the center and toward regional realignment. Along the way, activists re-wrote party voting procedures that reinforced the power of vocal minorities within each party, thereby entrenching political polarization for the decades to come. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Doug McAdam and Karina Kloos are the authors of Deeply Divided: Racial Politics and Social Movements in Postwar America (Oxford University Press, 2014). McAdam is The Ray Lyman Wilbur Professor of Sociology at Stanford University and the former Director of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. Kloos is a scholar of political sociology and social movements at Stanford University, where she is a PhD candidate. What has gotten us to this point of high political polarization and high income inequality? McAdam and Kloos offer a novel answer to what divides us as a country that focuses on the role social movements have in pulling parties to the extremes or pushing parties to the middle. They argue that the post-World War II period was unusual for its low levels of social movement activities and the resulting political centrism of the 1950s. The Civil Rights movement that followed – and the related backlash politics of the Southern Democrats – pushed the parties away from the center and toward regional realignment. Along the way, activists re-wrote party voting procedures that reinforced the power of vocal minorities within each party, thereby entrenching political polarization for the decades to come. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Doug McAdam and Karina Kloos are the authors of Deeply Divided: Racial Politics and Social Movements in Postwar America (Oxford University Press, 2014). McAdam is The Ray Lyman Wilbur Professor of Sociology at Stanford University and the former Director of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. Kloos is a scholar of political sociology and social movements at Stanford University, where she is a PhD candidate. What has gotten us to this point of high political polarization and high income inequality? McAdam and Kloos offer a novel answer to what divides us as a country that focuses on the role social movements have in pulling parties to the extremes or pushing parties to the middle. They argue that the post-World War II period was unusual for its low levels of social movement activities and the resulting political centrism of the 1950s. The Civil Rights movement that followed – and the related backlash politics of the Southern Democrats – pushed the parties away from the center and toward regional realignment. Along the way, activists re-wrote party voting procedures that reinforced the power of vocal minorities within each party, thereby entrenching political polarization for the decades to come. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Doug McAdam and Karina Kloos are the authors of Deeply Divided: Racial Politics and Social Movements in Postwar America (Oxford University Press, 2014). McAdam is The Ray Lyman Wilbur Professor of Sociology at Stanford University and the former Director of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. Kloos is a scholar of political sociology and social movements at Stanford University, where she is a PhD candidate. What has gotten us to this point of high political polarization and high income inequality? McAdam and Kloos offer a novel answer to what divides us as a country that focuses on the role social movements have in pulling parties to the extremes or pushing parties to the middle. They argue that the post-World War II period was unusual for its low levels of social movement activities and the resulting political centrism of the 1950s. The Civil Rights movement that followed – and the related backlash politics of the Southern Democrats – pushed the parties away from the center and toward regional realignment. Along the way, activists re-wrote party voting procedures that reinforced the power of vocal minorities within each party, thereby entrenching political polarization for the decades to come. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Doug McAdam and Karina Kloos are the authors of Deeply Divided: Racial Politics and Social Movements in Postwar America (Oxford University Press, 2014). McAdam is The Ray Lyman Wilbur Professor of Sociology at Stanford University and the former Director of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. Kloos is a scholar of political sociology and social movements at Stanford University, where she is a PhD candidate. What has gotten us to this point of high political polarization and high income inequality? McAdam and Kloos offer a novel answer to what divides us as a country that focuses on the role social movements have in pulling parties to the extremes or pushing parties to the middle. They argue that the post-World War II period was unusual for its low levels of social movement activities and the resulting political centrism of the 1950s. The Civil Rights movement that followed – and the related backlash politics of the Southern Democrats – pushed the parties away from the center and toward regional realignment. Along the way, activists re-wrote party voting procedures that reinforced the power of vocal minorities within each party, thereby entrenching political polarization for the decades to come. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-american-studies

Doug McAdam and Karina Kloos are the authors of Deeply Divided: Racial Politics and Social Movements in Postwar America (Oxford University Press, 2014). McAdam is The Ray Lyman Wilbur Professor of Sociology at Stanford University and the former Director of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. Kloos is a scholar of political sociology and social movements at Stanford University, where she is a PhD candidate. What has gotten us to this point of high political polarization and high income inequality? McAdam and Kloos offer a novel answer to what divides us as a country that focuses on the role social movements have in pulling parties to the extremes or pushing parties to the middle. They argue that the post-World War II period was unusual for its low levels of social movement activities and the resulting political centrism of the 1950s. The Civil Rights movement that followed – and the related backlash politics of the Southern Democrats – pushed the parties away from the center and toward regional realignment. Along the way, activists re-wrote party voting procedures that reinforced the power of vocal minorities within each party, thereby entrenching political polarization for the decades to come. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices