Reply With Quote
Sure it is.
Democrats have been the party of exploitation and iden y politics since the very first one, Andrew Jackson.
not true
what happened in the mid 20th century?
the stink of Republican loserdom has never worn out, nor the resentment for 40 years in the woods, even though that was a long time ago
Sure it is.
Democrats have been the party of exploitation and iden y politics since the very first one, Andrew Jackson.
The War on Poverty - which led to programs such as SNAP, used by Schumer to attempt to extort Republicans - at the expense of those who had become dependent on a government handout - was begun with racist motives. Doesn't look like it's going to make it 200 years.
not sure i know what you mean
is andrew jackson the source of iden y politics?
do tell
btw, why do you guys want to be the 1860s Democrats?
you guys are rolling back the Reconstruction
Andrew Jackson did not invent factional politics, but he changed its basis. He built the Democratic Party not as a coalition of policy interests but as a community organized around iden y—an iden y constructed in contrast to an enemy, mobilized emotionally, and codified through racial boundaries and mass cultural messaging.
In this sense, Jackson was the architect of iden y politics: He defined who the nation was, He defined who the nation was not, And he made political loyalty a reflection of belonging to one group or the other.
Modern iden y politics follows the same structure. Jackson simply did it first—loudly, effectively, and intentionally.
It's why Barack Obama can call you racist for not voting for a black person in one political race while coming out in full-throated opposition to a black person in another.
yes, LBJ was known for earthy expressions and frank racism, like many of his peersThe War on Poverty - which led to programs such as SNAP, used by Schumer to attempt to extort Republicans - at the expense of those who had become dependent on a government handout - was begun with racist motives. Doesn't look like it's going to make it 200 years.
He also knew what he was doing when he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act
He split the Democrats on that one.
The southern ones became Republicans over time
From Andrew Jackson forward, Democrats have repeatedly defined political legitimacy through group iden y rather than shared citizenship. Jackson built a coalition of “the real Americans” against supposed elites; Andrew Johnson protected Southern racial hierarchy in Reconstruction; FDR and later LBJ expanded government dependency as a surrogate iden y for entire voting blocs; Carter moralized national decline as the public’s own fault; Clinton perfected demographic triangulation; and Obama recast political disagreement itself as racial animus. Joe Biden simply carries the tradition forward—dividing Americans into categories of aggrieved and oppressor, then declaring himself champion of whichever group secures the necessary votes. The labels change; the strategy hasn’t.
Bull
Andy Jackson as the progenitor of PC is a lame hypothesis, barely credible -- unless you're talking about native Americans. your link up with nationalism failed at inception, it's gobbledegook.
your babbling about Obama hardly makes any sense either, do better!
this is undiluted piffle
it makes no sense
To you.
right wing Mad Libs tbh
very buzzy and trite
You’re reacting to a claim I didn’t make. I didn’t say Jackson invented progressive iden y politics or modern PC. I said he pioneered building a political coalition based on a constructed group iden y—“the real Americans”—defined against an internal enemy. That’s not speculation; it’s how the Democratic Party organized itself from the 1820s forward. Jackson didn’t argue policy to win support—he declared that those who backed him were the nation and those who opposed him were illegitimate. That’s iden y politics in its most primal form.Bull
Andy Jackson as the progenitor of PC is a lame hypothesis, barely credible -- unless you're talking about native Americans. your link up with nationalism failed at inception, it's gobbledegook.
your babbling about Obama hardly makes any sense either, do better!
And yes—Obama absolutely used the same frame. If iden y is the basis of political legitimacy, then criticizing or rejecting a candidate from a “protected” iden y group becomes automatically suspect, while opposing a similar candidate becomes permissible if they fall outside the approved ideological tribe. That’s why Obama could imply racism when voters rejected his candidate in one race, yet attack Winsome Sears—also black—without hesitation. Iden y wasn’t the principle. Loyalty was the principle, and iden y was the tool.
That’s the continuity:
Jackson → Johnson → FDR → LBJ → Obama → Biden
Different eras, same tactic: define who is “the public” and who isn’t—and govern by rewarding one and condemning the other.
If you want to dispute the argument, dispute that lineage. But pretending the Democratic Party hasn’t leveraged iden y as a political organizing strategy for 200 years is historically unserious.
isn't MAGA mostly aligned against an internal enemy?
the Dems never sicced the US marines on y'all
Nope. It's aligned against the internal ideology expressed in my quote to which you responded.
Every political movement defines an opponent. The difference is what the group iden y is based on.
Jackson (and today’s Democrats) tie political legitimacy to demographic iden y—race, class, gender, tribe, grievance category.
MAGA ties it to citizenship and shared national norms—border, sovereignty, economy, energy, inflation, schools, crime.
One is “you belong because of what you are.”
The other is “you belong because of what you believe.”
Iden y politics sorts people by biology and grievance.
MAGA sorts people by agenda and interests.
That’s the distinction. The internal enemy in iden y politics is the wrong kind of person.
The internal enemy in MAGA is the wrong set of policies.
One is tribal.
The other is political.
no, you guys are the ones purging internal enemies
before it was cultural, free society
y'all are using raw political power to enforce your tribal norms
of bigotry and hatred and xenophobia
When did that happen?
LA man, you're not keeping up
I simply disagree. There is a schism in the Republican Party, but it didn’t begin as a purge — it began as a reckoning. When Trump descended that escalator in 2016, he exposed a divide between the Republican elites and the base — between those content to manage America’s decline and those determined to confront government abuse, runaway spending, and entrenched corruption. In Texas, we’re doing our part to move the party back to its principles by supporting leaders like Wesley Hunt over career politicians like John Cornyn — people who still believe in accountability, limited government, and serving the voters rather than the donor class.
And since you’re a Democrat, I’d think you’d be all-in for Wesley Hunt — you know, representation and all that. Or, are you a racist?
I've never heard of Wesley Hunt
Are you the racism police now?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions