Skip to main content

 January 7, 1920, was opening day for legislation at the New York State Assembly. The atmosphere was genial and careless as the regular protocols were dispensed with. The members spent time catching up on pleasantries and asking about family members.

  Then shortly after noon Speaker Thaddeus Campbell Sweet said in cold, measured tones:
"The Chair directs the Sergeant-At-Arms to present before the bar of the House Samuel A. DeWitt, Samuel Orr, Louis Waldmann, Charles Solomon, and August Claessens."
   The casual atmosphere of the chambers suddenly vanished.

  The five members called to the "well" of the House were all members of the Socialist Party. The Republican majority had decided to reject representative democracy and the Democrats were along for the ride.

 Sweet declared that they had been "elected on a platform that is absolutely inimical to the best interests of the state of New York and the United States." Furthermore, Sweet charged that the Socialist Party was "not truly a political party", but was rather "a membership organization admitting within its ranks aliens, enemy aliens, and minors."
   But the real crime, according to Sweet, was that the Socialist Party was opposed to entering WWI. Speaking out against the war was a criminal offense. It was the reason that Eugene Debs was sentenced to 10 years in prison just nine months earlier.
  Sweet declared that the assemblyment could be expelled "with or without a hearing".
   After Sweet's resolution was read a roll call was taken. It was 140 to 6 (only one Democrat voted against). The Democrats in the Assembly hung their heads and declined to even meet the eyes of the five socialists as they were escorted out.

The First Red Scare
 Sweet's actions weren't without precedence.
Socialist Victor Berger, like Debs, was indicted under the Espionage Act in 1918 for speaking out against the war. Despite being under indictment, the people of Milwaukee elected him to the House of Representatives that year.
   He was convicted in early 1919 and sentenced to 20 years in prison. He appealed his case all the way to the Supreme Court where it was overturned on January 31, 1921.

  While the case was under appeal, Berger went to Washington to take his seat. On November 10, 1919, the House determined that Berger could not be admitted and declared the seat vacant. A special election to fill the "vacant" seat was held on December 19, 1919, and the people of Milwaukee elected Berger a second time.
   On January 10, 1920, the House refused to seat him yet again, and so the seat remained vacant.

  Berger would go on win the 1922 election and then get re-elected twice more by the good people of Milwaukee.

  What made Sweet's actions different from the House's actions against Berger was that he was attacking the legitimacy of an entire political party. In 1918, the Socialist Party held 1,200 elected offices in the United States, including 32 state representatives and 79 mayors. They were an official legal party in every state.
   At the very same time, the United States Army was at war against the Bolsheviks in Russia and losing. So a certain amount of paranoia was understandable.

  However, the paranoia had quickly turned into oppression against leftists. Just one week before Sweet's political coup the second Palmer Raid had been conducted. It was excesses of these raids that eventually turned public opinion against the oppression.

 Nationwide, the day saw as many as ten thousand arrests across 23 states and 33 cities -- Among those rounded up in the wide net were thirty-nine bakers in Lynn, Massachusetts attempting to organize a bakery, 800 men and women in Detroit who were then forced to sleep in a windowless hallway for five days and share one toilet, and a New Jersey man who "looked like a radical." But in this huge haul, only three pistols were confiscated, two of them .22 caliber, and in the end only 556 men and women were deported, mostly for run-of-the-mill immigration violations.
 The blatent illegality of the raid didn't stop the press from endorsing them. The Washington Post argued that '[t]here is no time to waste on hairsplitting over infringement of liberty,"

The backlash

 Sweet and his allies honestly expected plaudits and public adulation for expelling the socialists. the very next day the leaders of both parties moved to push through laws banning any socialist from holding office anywhere in New York state.
  They must have been shocked and bewildered when the reaction was instead alarm, and eventually outrage. One newspaper headlines read, "A Blow at Free Government". Even the Brooklyn Standard-Union, a leading Republican newspaper, said the expulsion was "utterly wrong in principle and lamentable as a matter of policy." The New York Evening Journal compared the action to the "British King" attacking our fouding fathers and accusing the body of "treason of the majority".
 Charles Hughes, former Republican candidate for president and Supreme Court Justice, publically rebuked Sweet.
  The Bar Association of the City of New York volunteered to defend the socialists.

   The Democrats, suddenly faced with the political consequences, put their cowardess on full display and disclaimed responsibility. Some Republicans claimed they didn't know what they were voting for.
   On January 12, Democrat Charles Donohue proposed a resolution rescind the vote which expelled the socialists. It failed 71 to 33. Many Democrats were getting cold feet, while many Republicans had abstained from voting.
  Sweet then announced the 13 members of the Judiciary Committee, which he hand-picked. One of those picked was Louis Cuvillier, who was quoted as saying,  "if the five accused Assemblymen are found guilty, they ought not to be expelled, but taken out and shot."
   The five suspended member were given a summons for the trail that would start on the 20th, but were not told of the charges against them.

 During the "trial" that followed, the prosecution stated that the suspended representatives "are entitled no representation". Democrat John Stanchfield said in the trial that "these five men under investigation are here purely as a matter of courtesy...You could proceed arbitrarily."
"Can't you see where that would lead? If the Socialist members of the assembly are today expelled or excluded for the sole reason that their platform, their party, are not to your taste, what warrent is there that the same contention won't be made, perhaps next year, perhaps three years from now, against the Democratic Party?"
  - Morris Hillquit, 1920, counsel for the defense
During the proceedings the defense managed to get Chairman Martin to admit of the suspended assemblymen, "We are not claiming these people are criminals."
   At which point the defense asked, "If they are not charged with crime, if they are not charged with anything else, what are we here for?"

  The prosecution based its case that the defendants were part of "an alien and invisible empire" and "direct agents of Lenin and Trotsky" and not actually citizens of the United States.
  Based on that assumption they put all of global socialism on trial. Everything ever written or said by any communist or anarchist anywhere in the world was used as "evidence" against the accused, and the prosecution said exactly that when the defense objected.
   The prosecution witnesses included defeated political opponents of the defendents from the previous election.

Verdict

  The trail lasted for three months and the outcome was pre-decided, but hardly overwhelming. On March 31 the committee voted 7-6 to expel the five socialist members. It now went to the full Assembly.
  The debate lasted 22 hours and had both sides accusing the other of disloyalty. Assemblyman McCue said "these five men ought to be made an example to the other traitors and violators of the law. They ought to be strung up to the nearest lamp post, with their feet dangling in the air."
   Assemblyman Wells testified, "We must expel these Socialists. If we don't our children and grandchildren will be washing the blood off the doorsteps."
   The votes for expulsion ranged from 104-40 for Orr to 116-28 for Solomon. In every vote a solid majority of both Republicans and Democrats voted for expulsion.

"The forces of plutocracy and reaction have temporarily triumphed."
  - Assemblymen Solomon and Waldman
Afterward

  The five seats sat open until a special election was held on September 16, 1920. The Democrats and Republicans conspired to run Political Monopoly Candidates, known as "fusion" candidates (candidates backed by both parties), to run against the expelled Socialists.
   Much to the chagrin of the majority parties, all five Socialist Party candidates won again, in convincing fashion.

   Once again the five Socialist Party candidates went to Albany to take their rightful place in the Assembly. Once again they were denied.

 Nonetheless, on Sept. 21, the Assembly voted again to expel Messrs. Waldman, Claessens and Solomon, this time by a vote of 90 to 45.
   A motion to expel Messrs. Orr and DeWitt failed, 48 to 87. But the two men resigned in solidarity with their Socialist brethren, who had been denounced as “un-American.” Their resignation was met with cheers.
 Orr and Solomon ran again in November and won. New resolutions to expel Orr, Solomon and Henry Jager of Brooklyn (a new Socialist candidate) were defeated in January 1921.
EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  democracy doomed - was it ever real? (15+ / 0-)

    the subject line is in the actual link address of this piece

    here is a paragraph and the title of the article below

    This is what democracy looks like: grotesque inequality, delusional Tea Party obstructionism, a vast secret national-security state, overseas wars we’re never even told about and a total inability to address the global climate crisis, a failure for which our descendants will never forgive us, and never should. Maybe I’ll take the turtle costumes after all. The aura of democratic legitimacy is fading fast in an era when financial and political capital are increasingly consolidated in a few thousand people, a fact we already knew but whose implications French insta-celebrity Thomas Piketty and the political scientists Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page (of the “oligarchy study”) have forcefully driven home. Libertarian thinker Bryan Caplan sees the same pattern, as Michael Lind recently wrote in Salon, but thinks it’s a good thing. In America, democracy offers the choice between one political party that has embraced a combination of corporate bootlicking, poorly veiled racism, anti-government paranoia and a wholesale rejection of science, and another whose cosmopolitan veneer sits atop secret drone warfare, Wall Street cronyism and the all-seeing Panopticon of high-tech surveillance. You don’t have to conclude that noted climate-change expert Marco Rubio and Establishment mega-hawk Hillary Clinton are interchangeable or identical to conclude that it isn’t much of a choice.
    This is not what democracy looks like: The long, slow death of Jefferson’s dream
    From Thomas Piketty to Cliven Bundy to GOP climate trolls, democracy is in deep crisis. What comes next?
  •  Shame! (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gjohnsit, Wolf10, corvo, quill, Jim P

    "If Wall Street paid a tax on every “game” they run, we would get enough revenue to run the government on." ~ Will Rogers

    by Lefty Coaster on Sun May 25, 2014 at 09:01:38 AM PDT

  •  plus ca change . . . n/t (6+ / 0-)

    Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

    by corvo on Sun May 25, 2014 at 09:34:38 AM PDT

  •  I'm rather surprised at the (14+ / 0-)

    lack of interest in this diary so far.

    Then again, how dare somebody mention a third party on this website.

    The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

    by dfarrah on Sun May 25, 2014 at 10:01:57 AM PDT

    •  I had some discussion (13+ / 0-)

      with JimP about this diary. He mentioned that I had to be careful how I worded this diary or I would get banned.
         I told him that I was on a recent roll for pissing people off here, so I may as well bring up 3rd parties and how the Dems and Repubs work together to retain their political duopoly, and thus piss off a whole bunch more people.
        To JimP's credit, he said he was looking forward to it.

      "The oppressors most powerful weapon is the mind of the oppressed." - Stephen Biko

      by gjohnsit on Sun May 25, 2014 at 10:18:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm close to banning myself (8+ / 0-)

        from here.

        I'm going to wait out the next pres election and make a decision based on that.

        The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

        by dfarrah on Sun May 25, 2014 at 10:24:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Me too. (7+ / 0-)

          Look, the decision here to be made is whether or not we want to lie to ourselves about the fact that we're abandoning all the principles we ever held, and claiming, mostly falsely, that we're advancing incrementally toward realizing those principles in public life, when in fact, if we're advancing incrementally anywhere, it's in the opposite direction.

          The management of this site, and a large number of its users, has decided that it is going to keep to its original political equation (Democrats are good, or at least better than Republicans, so support the Democratic party for all you're worth and it will give us a better nation) despite the influx of new data which throws the original equation into complete disarray.

          In order to maintain the original equation, the original hypothesis, the data has to be thrown out, and those who talk about the data discredited or in some fashion distracted or silenced. In other words, in order to maintain the original hypothesis, we have to enable the destruction of the principles which got us into this business in the first place, lie about that destruction, and then pretend we're not lying--asserting that in fact nothing of note is happening at all, except that we're being assailed by malcontents, extremists, and fools, who are demanding ridiculous things of our party, like that the President not have a kill list, that we live under the rule of law within the framework of the Bill of Rights, and that we stop the process of extraction by which money, property and natural resources are getting concentrated in the hands of a few thousand people.

          There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun May 25, 2014 at 12:17:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I've almost reached the point (8+ / 0-)

            where I've decided to get myself banned.
               However, I want to do it in a "classy" way, not just with some political rant. When I get banned I want people to say, "Yeh, technically he broke the rules, but that's still total bullshit because he was obviously telling the truth."
            I haven't figured out how that way will be yet, but I eventually will.

              I've gotten real disgusted with the "specialty agenda" people. Like that stupid diary at the top of the rec list yesterday that blamed the mass shooting on "white privilege". Seriously? It couldn't be about mental illness and too many guns instead?

               Or the constant barrage of "look how bad the Republicans are" diaries. We know! Republicans are bad. Now let's talk about the issues.
             I'd rather than people arguing and getting into fights about the issues that matter than the direction that DKos is going in.

            "The oppressors most powerful weapon is the mind of the oppressed." - Stephen Biko

            by gjohnsit on Sun May 25, 2014 at 12:46:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  They're using anti-racist and anti-sexist (7+ / 0-)

              discourse as a shield behind which any number of terrible people and their terrible policies can crouch. They have, through the figure of Obama, managed to put the fight against racism into the service of corporate and Wall St power.

              There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

              by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun May 25, 2014 at 01:03:06 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Remember when (3+ / 0-)

                Obama said that it was long past time for a "national dialogue about racism"?
                   I sure hope this wasn't what he had in mind. It seems like we are walking backwards on the issue.

                "The oppressors most powerful weapon is the mind of the oppressed." - Stephen Biko

                by gjohnsit on Sun May 25, 2014 at 01:15:17 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well...it's pretty creepy, actually (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  yoduuuh do or do not, George3

                  because I can see Wall St holding out its hand to the black community and offering them a deal. Basically the same way that white Southern aristocrats have done to white working-class Southerners for generations. "We don't have to fight--we're all on the same side, really! Just work with us and you'll become successful just like us!"

                  It never turns out well.

                  In this instance, apparently picking out a few highly intelligent, highly charismatic black men to push to the highest levels of political power, (and maybe eventually a few black women as well) is what's being offered in exchange for the black community standing down on issues of civil liberties and poverty. Voting rights being the one exception, I'm guessing because as long as the black community plays ball on all the other issues, Wall St is going to, for the first time in history, really want them to vote.

                  There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

                  by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun May 25, 2014 at 01:49:34 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Wow, I was wondering if (2+ / 0-)

                    I was the only one thinking what you're thinking.

                    In this instance, apparently picking out a few highly intelligent, highly charismatic black men to push to the highest levels of political power, (and maybe eventually a few black women as well)

                    I look at BO and ask, "how?"

                    I believe the conservative party is recruiting very early and very heavily, mentoring young people they see with potential, in urban areas. Not as conservatives, but as dems.  Then these new up and coming 'dems' upend the usual political progression, and there they are - in power.  

                    Any proof? No.  Maybe I'm full of it.  I just can't figure out how so many anti-labor, pro-capitalist neo-liberal dems manage to get elected in urban areas.

                    The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

                    by dfarrah on Sun May 25, 2014 at 03:12:25 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Because (0+ / 0-)

                      since about 1980-85 the American working class at large hasn't voted for its interests and hopes.  It gave those up and now votes its resentments and defensively.  Can't champion a class that has no solidarity and few hopes and doesn't think of itself as having much of a future.

            •  Which is crazy, given that black people (4+ / 0-)

              are arguably suffering more under corporate and Wall St rule than anybody else, and there's no signs that that's going to stop anytime soon. The police state, also, is particularly hard on black people. But apparently having a black man in the Presidency makes up for all that.

              There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

              by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun May 25, 2014 at 01:04:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  How can I support the deep (3+ / 0-)

            immorality of it all, whether it's the drones/war, the environment, or other areas like economics?

            I've been voting since the '70s.  I lived thru Reagan-mania and figured conservatism would run its course.  Socially, the dems do fine - gay marriage, yay.  But I can't leave the other areas behind just because gay people can get married now, more women are executives, and we elected a bi-racial guy to pres.

            I can see why people give up and simply shut it all out.

            The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

            by dfarrah on Sun May 25, 2014 at 02:53:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  I have mentioned a thrid party (9+ / 0-)

      on numerous occasions, just to be shot down. I know this site is to "elect more and better democrats" but that isn't working out so well with gerrymandering.  We must be on the side of the most progressive person. I'm sure I'll get negative comments for this, but I accept that from the kossacks here.

      People act on the outside how they feel on the inside. If you acknowledge it, you can change it.

      by Raggedy Ann on Sun May 25, 2014 at 10:18:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  1916: He Kept Us Out of War! Wilson in a landslide (5+ / 0-)

    1917: Kill the Kaiser or Else

    Pretty amazing what propaganda can do, ain't it?

    Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

    by k9disc on Sun May 25, 2014 at 10:09:12 AM PDT

  •  "Democracies without democratic outcomes" (9+ / 0-)

    wrote a wag about Europe and the US a couple of years ago. One wonders how long the charade can go on. Seems like it's been going on for near a century in the US.

    There are people who hold that Democracy has failed. My counter is that it's yet to be tried. What we have is a 'Managed Democracy.'

    In ancient Rome they had elections, too. People were assigned to cohorts, depending on Caste: essentially the Aristocrats; the Military; the plebes. (might be another lower caste in there I've forgotten.) And votes would be cast in that order. Often, by time the Aristocrats and Military voted, the election was decided, and the people were sent home.

    Pretty much the same system now, except the Aristocrats & Military first decide who is acceptable to be voted upon, and the people are always allowed their vote.


    A government is a body of people usually notably ungoverned. -- Firefly

    by Jim P on Sun May 25, 2014 at 10:25:48 AM PDT

    •  It's a constant fight. Sometimes our side (6+ / 0-)

      is in the ascendant, sometimes theirs.

      However, I think it is historically gravely inaccurate to assert that nothing has been lost in the last 30 years. Saying "but it's always sucked, really!" does nothing but cover up the fact that a plot actually was laid, funded, and carried out over the past 35 years or so, with disastrous consequences.

      The Lewis Powell memo tells me just about everything I need to know. For that matter, one of Nixon's henchmen, on the way to prison, told the media defiantly that they were going to "move America so far to the right that it would become unrecognizable."

      Anybody who was alive and aware in the 70s or earlier can tell the vast difference between the country we inhabited then and the one we inhabit now. Hell, just bring up any mainstream media coverage from the 70s and compare it side-by-side with what passes for the news now.

      There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun May 25, 2014 at 12:22:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think the big change (5+ / 0-)

        isn't so much the politics as the news media.
           The news media in the 70's was pretty darn good. It had its flaws, but it had a moral code too.

          The news media today is a joke. It's almost as bad as Soviet Pravda (which ironically means "truth", in the same way that Fox says they are "fair and balanced").
           It's just not goverment owned. It's all about the corporate agenda.

        "The oppressors most powerful weapon is the mind of the oppressed." - Stephen Biko

        by gjohnsit on Sun May 25, 2014 at 12:48:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But that's how the political landscape (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gjohnsit, 420 forever, George3

          is being controlled. It's the reason that big campaign spending translates into more votes. The media is the gatekeeper of people's perceptions, and all you have to do is bribe the gatekeeper and you get to have a more than even chance at controlling people's perceptions. At which point, you have a political field of discourse that is seriously tilted your way.

          There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun May 25, 2014 at 01:06:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you so much for this (6+ / 0-)

    My grandfather ran for various political offices on the Socialist ticket through the twenties and thirties.  His obituary says he was a close friend of Norman Thomas, which was no doubt an exaggeration, but also not something one would expect to see on the front page of a southern Indiana newspaper.  My uncles Eugene and Victor died as infants, but I am convinced they were named after Eugene Victor Debs (although, to be fair, my grandfather's name was also Eugene.).  A cousin recently told me that when my parents got engaged, my father was still a Socialist, which caused a stir.  I'm beginning to think of myself as a Socialist, too.

    Thanks, then, for the context of what he lived through.

    "Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me." Jesus, Matthew 25:40, New Revised Standard Version.

    by Tenn Wisc Dem on Sun May 25, 2014 at 10:31:28 AM PDT

    •  Both my Grampas were active in the Socialist (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      George3

      Party in the '20's and '30's.  Active in the Unions too.  Gramma & Grampa on my Mom's side had Walter Reuther at their supper table on at least one occasion.

      My Grampa on my Dad's side got fired several times for Union Organizing.  My Dad told several stories of him coming home carrying his tool box (he was a tool and die maker).  Dad said you could hear Grandma chewing him out - she worried about food on the table, not the Union activity itself.

      The only reason the 1% are rich is because the 99% agree they are.

      by GreatLakeSailor on Sun May 25, 2014 at 12:53:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I recently found where my grandfather (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GreatLakeSailor, gjohnsit

        had written a letter to the editor saying his votes had not all been counted.  He said he had spent four weeks' wages on advertising alone.  My first thought was "What did Grandma think about that?"

        "Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me." Jesus, Matthew 25:40, New Revised Standard Version.

        by Tenn Wisc Dem on Mon May 26, 2014 at 06:12:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Between registered Independents that by themselves (6+ / 0-)

    outnumber both Ds and Rs plus age-eligible non-voters that represent 40% of the total electorate and lean heavily to the left, one imagines that an electoral alternative to the duopoly could be cobbled together from such raw material. Unfortunately money is a severely limiting factor and those with lots of it like things pretty much as they are.

    The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

    by Wolf10 on Sun May 25, 2014 at 11:28:17 AM PDT

  •  Well, thank you for making clear (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gjohnsit, Johnny Q, George3

    what the historical antecedents of those who attack third parties consist of.

    There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun May 25, 2014 at 11:59:14 AM PDT

  •  Similar to John Wilkes (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gjohnsit, Johnny Q, George3

    John Wilkes was an 18th century British politician. He was a very disreputable and cynical figure, but for a time his cause was that of the liberty of the people to elect a representative of their choice. A quote from his article in The History of Parliament 1760-1790, summarises what happened.

    In February 1768, his resources at an end and resolved to risk a desperate throw, he returned to England. ‘What the Devil have I to do with prudence?’, he is reported to have said.6 ‘I owe money in France, am an outlaw in England, hated by the King, the Parliament, and the bench of bishops ... I must raise a dust or starve in a gaol.’ Asked what were his qualifications for standing for London, he replied: ‘General warrants and the good nature of my fellow citizens.’ Defeated for London, he was returned head of the poll for Middlesex. His imprisonment for blasphemy and libel, his repeated expulsions from the House of Commons, and finally the seating of his defeated rival Henry Lawes Luttrell was a small price to pay for his popularity with the freeholders of Middlesex. His debts were paid off by subscription, a party under his lead was formed in the City of London, and he could be assured that no Government could prevent his return for Middlesex at the next general election. Wilkes became the martyr of the London radicals and the idol of the London mob; and over the printers’ case in 1771 was able to defy the House of Commons with impunity.

    There is no man alive who is sufficiently good to rule the life of the man next door to him. Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris, M.P.

    by Gary J on Sun May 25, 2014 at 12:11:48 PM PDT

  •  asdf (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Johnny Q, wonmug, 420 forever, gjohnsit

    I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
    My faith in the system restored
    And I'm glad the commies were thrown out
    Of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board

    I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
    As long as they don't move next door
    So love me, love me
    Love me, I'm a liberal

    Read more: Phil Ochs - Love Me, I'm A Liberal Lyrics | MetroLyrics

    There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun May 25, 2014 at 01:08:02 PM PDT

  •  Amazing diary - this site would benefit greatly (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gjohnsit, George3

    from opening up to new ideas.

    “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.” Terry Pratchett

    by 420 forever on Sun May 25, 2014 at 07:19:44 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site