Comments on: Up from Jacksonianism? http://www.historiann.com/2009/11/24/up-from-jacksonianism/ History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present Sat, 20 Sep 2014 07:56:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.2 By: Comrade PhysioProf http://www.historiann.com/2009/11/24/up-from-jacksonianism/comment-page-1/#comment-493166 Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:43:09 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=8484#comment-493166 This shit is too complicated for me. I’d rather just hammer on sick-fuck right-wing assholes.

]]>
By: KoshemBos http://www.historiann.com/2009/11/24/up-from-jacksonianism/comment-page-1/#comment-492617 Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:27:57 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=8484#comment-492617 The steep conversion of the Democrats from a labor-rich party happened solely under Obama whose winning coalition included the rich down to to the well off middle class. In the primaries when the leadership of the labor unions started to tend Obama, the rank and file went overwhelmingly to Hillary in part due to their affinity to Bill.

There is no doubt that once money started to dominate elections, an element totally missing from the article, the Democrats started to tend to Wall Street. Interestingly, Clinton has gone to Hollywood, which is highly liberal, for a lot of his money.

]]>
By: Hotshot Harry http://www.historiann.com/2009/11/24/up-from-jacksonianism/comment-page-1/#comment-492282 Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:28:38 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=8484#comment-492282 “Lincoln’s antislavery Republicans succeeded where the earlier Whigs had failed because the Republicans persuaded Jacksonian farmers that snobbish, parasitic Southern Democratic slave owners were a greater threat to white farmers and white workers in the Midwest than rich Republican bankers and industrialists in the Northeast.”

Not to nit pick, but he’s just plain wrong here. The true “Jacksonian farmers” (the kind Historiann describes as racist and patriarchal) in the northern states in 1860 tended to vote Breckinridge or Douglas (or that great invention, the “fusion” ticket) precisely because they didn’t trust the Republican power brokers. The Republicans succeeded where the Whigs failed for two reasons: first, they were able to hold together a coalition that didn’t really see eye to eye on certain things in the past (nativists, temperance advocates, industrialists, antislavery folks) due largely to the common threat of disunion. In past elections, these groups had wandered around the political barnyard, supporting the American Party, the Free Soil Party, and even Democrats. Rare was the election where they found compromise. Second, and more important, the Democratic opposition was in a tailspin in 1860. The north/south Democratic marriage, which had begun to crack over a decade earlier, resulted in three Democratic candidates on the ballot in 1860.

I’m not sure what this all means for our contemporary situation, except that I’ve always been weary of drawing comparison with the sectional crisis of 1860. Tough to draw comparisons with the American slaveocracy.

]]>
By: Emma http://www.historiann.com/2009/11/24/up-from-jacksonianism/comment-page-1/#comment-492279 Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:04:31 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=8484#comment-492279 When only men went to Yale, more men got in. When only men worked on the factory floor, more men worked there. Making the rules of competition fairer means you have to compete against more people. It’s difficult to overestimate how angry and resentful people get when their space – be it work, their neighborhood, or their local diner – has to accept people who “don’t belong” there. It wasn’t really all that long ago that Black persons were legally segregated, the NY Times’ help wanted ads were segregated by gender, and there were official limits on the number of women allowed into grad schools.

Of course, all the feelings caused by the changes wrought by the civil rights movements are only exacerbated by the incredibly complex and increasingly classist society we live in today.

But I really think it’s true that more equality for some really does mean less privilege for others in certain areas.

]]>
By: Wayne http://www.historiann.com/2009/11/24/up-from-jacksonianism/comment-page-1/#comment-492057 Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:42:58 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=8484#comment-492057 There are producers, looters, and moochers. Two out of three, are not necessary.

]]>
By: Paul http://www.historiann.com/2009/11/24/up-from-jacksonianism/comment-page-1/#comment-491993 Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:49:13 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=8484#comment-491993 But: how do feminism and Civil Rights force anyone to live their lives differently? Except for outlawing the segregation of public schools and accomodations, how do they bother anyone who doesn’t agree? My diagnosis of the problems of Jacksonianism is that it’s always a zero-sum game in the minds of traditional Jacksonians like Lind: if I win, then someone else must be losing. Whereas I think that more equality and more opportunities are better for everyone.

I think that there definitely is a lot of zero-sum thinking involved – that one group of people can only gain at the expense of others. Zero-sum thinking may be more prevalent among traditional Jacksonians or conservatives in general, although I think that it shows up among people of all political persuasions.

There is also, at least in my very limited experience, sometimes an exaggeration or misunderstanding of the potential consequences of certain laws and policies. Years ago, when I was going through college and my first round of graduate school, I worried that affirmative action would make it much more difficult for me as a white male to get educational, scholarship, and employment opportunities. (White male) friends and relatives had warned me repeatedly about this, how affirmative action meant that I would have to work harder, that it stacked the deck against me, etc., etc. In practice, I found that this did not seem to be true. I had other obstacles to succeeding, but none of them had to do with the fact that I was a white male. I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of the people who warned me, even if they were incorrect. This, among other experiences, has led me to conclude that a substantial number of white men simply have very inaccurate ideas about what policies and rules like affirmative action and no sexual harassment in the workplace actually mean and entail for both them and other people. These mistaken ideas often are connected to a fear that the actual effect of these policies is to take away their own autonomy and treat them as inferiors, regardless of what anybody says. Bizarre though this may sound, I know that I sincerely believed it and I suspect that I was not that unusual.

]]>
By: Historiann http://www.historiann.com/2009/11/24/up-from-jacksonianism/comment-page-1/#comment-491970 Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:56:49 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=8484#comment-491970 Feminist Avatar–good points. I forget what an imposition feminism has been on men!

This is why I don’t fully understand Lind’s apparent nostalgia for the New Deal or Jacksonian coalitions. I think he offers trenchant critiques of the party intertwining itself with Wall Street. But populism doesn’t have to be racist or patriarchal. (Unfortunately, Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck will disagree, and there’s a danger that they’ll make the case more effectively than any Dems currently in office.)

]]>
By: Feminist Avatar http://www.historiann.com/2009/11/24/up-from-jacksonianism/comment-page-1/#comment-491960 Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:47:13 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=8484#comment-491960 Well, you could argue due to legislative change feminism has forced men to stop sexually harrassing women in the workplace, it has forced men to accept women as colleagues, and it has forced employers to at least pretend to pay women equally to men, and so on?

Or, I suppose you could argue that it has just created consequences for people when they choose not to do those things, so they’re not FORCED to change.

]]>
By: Historiann http://www.historiann.com/2009/11/24/up-from-jacksonianism/comment-page-1/#comment-491845 Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:43:21 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=8484#comment-491845 Paul, I can (sort of) understand the resentment of environmentalism. I would argue that there are “real people” living in dense urban areas who want public transportation and would benefit from it–the postwar suburban landscape was just as much a product of “social engineering” as would be any neo-urban, low-CO2 emissions landscape of utopian fantasy.

But: how do feminism and Civil Rights force anyone to live their lives differently? Except for outlawing the segregation of public schools and accomodations, how do they bother anyone who doesn’t agree? My diagnosis of the problems of Jacksonianism is that it’s always a zero-sum game in the minds of traditional Jacksonians like Lind: if I win, then someone else must be losing. Whereas I think that more equality and more opportunities are better for everyone.

]]>
By: Indyanna http://www.historiann.com/2009/11/24/up-from-jacksonianism/comment-page-1/#comment-491844 Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:42:44 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=8484#comment-491844 Moderates sincerely believe that? How to live their lives, as in, “don’t dump that stuff into the rivers,” or “don’t take ALL of the available public resources for just your own school districts?” Excuses for things like that?

]]>