I am trying to change the focus of my blog. Instead of responding to the latest outrage (or debunking the latest conspiracy theory) I plan to go deeper into legal history to offer a better understanding of what is happening today.
Last week I wrote about the Right to Vote. I left off when the drafters of the Constitution kicked the problem of who should be allowed to vote down the road. This week I’ll pick up with the history of voting rights from 1790 until about 1870. Information (mostly) from:
(The author, Keyssar, is a professor of history and social policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School. The book is almost 900 pages including notes and the research is impressive.)
The general progression from colonial days until the Civil War looked like this:
Colonial and Early America:
The right to vote was mostly restricted to white men who owned property. Some colonies/states allowed women and freed Black Americans to vote if they could meet the property requirements. (Some states didn’t allow women to own property.) The numbers of non-white male voters was relatively small. While we don’t have the numbers, Keysslar tells us that only a “fraction” of the population voted in the presidential election of 1789.
In 1776, approximately 98% of the voting population was Protestant. So “we the people” was a small homogenous group.
1780-1850:
The franchise opened for white men: From Keysslar: “The United States was the first country in the Western world to significantly broaden its electorate by permanently lowering economic barriers to voting.” Most states removed the property ownership requirement and instead instituted a tax paying requirement which allowed more men to vote. Then states gradually got rid of all economic requirements. The result was almost universal suffrage — for white men.
But white men on the margins were still often excluded: Migrants, the poor who accepted public assistance or charity, convicts, the mentally ill. Debates centered around whether penniless migrant illiterate drifters had the ability to make informed and rational decisions about who should govern or whether they would be too easily swayed by those who offered them charity.
At the same time, the franchise closed for Black Americans: The number of states that forbid freed Black Americans to vote rose steadily between 1790 and 1850. Examples: New Jersey, Maryland, and Connecticut initially allowed African Americans to vote, but by 1820, limited the franchise to whites. In 1835, North Carolina added the word “white” to its constitutional requirements. Pennsylvania, which had a liberal constitution during the revolutionary era, added “white” to its constitutional requirements in 1838.
Every state that entered the union after 1819 prohibited blacks from voting.
By 1855, only five states (Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Rhode Island) did not discriminate against African Americans, but these states contained only 4 percent of the nation’s free black population.
The federal government also prohibited black Americans from voting in the territories it controlled.
The Progressive (or Triumphalist) Presumption
Keysslar explains what he calls the progressive presumption or triumphalist presumption, which he defines as “a deeply embedded, yet virtually unspoken, notion that the history of suffrage is the history of gradual, inevitable reform and progress.” (p. 22)
He traces the origins of this idea at least as far back as Alexis de Tocqueville, a French political thinker who came to the United States in 1831 and wrote Democracy in America based on what he observed. What struck Alexis de Tocqueville most about the United States was “the country’s equality of conditions, its democracy.” Yes, this was the era of slavery and restricting rights for women, but the United States was the only country in the Western world to open the suffrage to (almost) all (white) men.
While the US was ahead in some ways (removing economic barriers for white men) it was behind in others: The British empire abolished slavery in all of its holdings in 1834.
Doris Kearns Goodwin, in Team of Rivals, a Pulitzer Prize winning book about the Lincoln era, opened Chapter 3 with this image of the men in a 19th century American town discussing politics:
The opening paragraph and the painting (Stump Speaking by 19th century painter George Caleb Bingham, 1811-1879) illustrate what Alexis de Tocqueville saw and admired.
Among the things Alexis de Tocqueville concluded was:
Once a people begins to interfere with the voting qualification, one can be sure that sooner or later it will abolish it altogether. That is one of the most invariable rules of social behavior.
His reasoning was that power becomes consolidated into the hands of a few, those few become less willing to share it. In fact, that didn’t happen. He also conclcuded that:
The further the limit of voting rights is extended, the stronger is the need felt to spread them still wider; for after each new concession the forces of democracy are strengthened, and its demands increase with its augmented power. The ambition of those left below the qualifying limit increases in proportion to the number of those above it. Finally the exception becomes the rule; concessions follow one another without interruption, and there is no halting place until universal suffrage has been attained.
In other words, he viewed progress as automatic: Once it starts, it will inevitably push forward. Keysslar proves through historical examples that this presumption is false. In fact, the history of voting rights shows that both of Toqueville’s conclusions were false.
Why the franchise opened up (for white men) in the first half of the 19th century
Middle class Americans in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century were mostly yeoman farmers, shopkeepers, merchants, “mechanics,” and soldiers. They were also white and almost entirely Protestant.
While there were always activists and idealists who believed that a country that boasted of rule by people should give all people a voice, the changes were also driven by self-interests. The leaders of the Democratic-Republicans, the party of Thomas Jefferson (which later morphed into the party of the Confederacy) knew that extending the vote to yeoman farmers and other non-elite whites would improve their electoral prospections. This group tended to vote Democratic instead of Whig. For example, in 1807, the New Jersey state legislature restricted voting rights to tax-paying, white male citizens. This was done to give the Democratic-Republican Party an advantage in the 1808 presidential election. Women often voted for the opposing Federalist Party, so taking away women’s voting rights helped the Democratic-Republicans.
In 1845, American demographics began changing. The Irish Famine of 1845 brought millions of Irish Catholics to American shores. No surprise, this was also the decade that saw the rise of an anti-Catholic political party, the Know Nothings, which flourished about 1850. The No Nothing Party was anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant. Anti-Catholic feelings in the US peaked during this large wave of immigration. Catholics were viewed as less civilized, less white, and embracing a religion viewed as tyrannical.
Then, in 1865, a period of rapid industrialization along with more waves of Jewish and Catholic immigrants into the Northern cities created a new working class, a proletariat, that hadn’t been a force in the United States earlier. These new immigrants worked in factories and in merchandizing and lived in crowded conditions in Northern urban cities. They often arrived penniless.
Keysslar argues that the elite in the early 1800s allowed white men without property or money to vote because the United States then didn’t have the proletariat class of workers so despised in Europe:
The relatively early broadening of the franchise in the United States was not simply, or even primarily, the consequence of a distinctive American commitment to democracy, of the insignificance of class, or of a belief in extending political rights to subaltern classes. Rather, the early extension of voting rights occurred—or was at least made possible—because the rights and power of those subaltern classes, despised and feared in the United States much as they were in Europe, were not at issue when suffrage reforms were adopted. (pp. 131-132).
Abolishing slavery similarly changed the demographics in the South. By the end of the Civil War, four million enslaved people had been freed.
In the early 1800s, when the Southern states opened the franchise to yeoman farmers, they never dreamed that the class of Southern farmers would one day include their own newly-freed enslaved population. Similarly, in the early 1800s, when the North opened the franchise to the urbanites, they never imagined that the end of the nineteenth century would see an enormous influx of proletariat factory workers, including Catholics, and Jews.
What happened next was a rise in restrictions including voter registration and residency requirements intended to keep these immigrants from voting. For example, in 1857, Massachusetts passed a law requiring prospective voters to demonstrate their ability to read the Constitution. This was intended to keep what the Know Nothings called the “ignorant, imbruted Irish” from the polls. (p.. 152.) In 1860 “secessionist Georgia disenfranchised propertyless whites, largely in response to the rapid growth of an Irish working-class population in Augusta and Savannah.” (p. 151).
With two exceptions, the franchise was gradually restricted in the second half of the nineteenth century. First, western states, beginning with Wyoming, allowed women to vote primarily as a way of attracting white women from the east to the new states.
The other exception was the 15th Amendment giving Black men the right to vote. There were, of course, nineteenth century idealists committed to universal suffrage behind the 15th Amendment. In fact, abolitionists had been working for decades to create equality. But there was also some self-interest. During the Reconstruction Era, the Republicans (then the anti-slavery party of Lincoln and northern industrialism) knew that Black men, if given the vote, would vote Republican. So they wanted Black men to vote. The Republicans (which was then the Party of Lincoln) knew that white southern women, if allowed to vote, would cancel out the votes of white northern women, so there was no gain, therefore no point including women. Thus women were thus not included in the 15th Amendment. This enraged the women, black and white, who had worked tirelessly to help end enslavement and create equal rights. They were shocked to find themselves left out of the 15th Amendment.
In other words, the period from 1790 to about 1870 witnessed a “checkered tale of motion forward, backward, and sideways, of local peculiarities and surprises, of rapidly changing, increasingly heterogenous society contending awkwardly with its own professed political values.”
And yet, there remains a firm belief that the history of voting rights has been one of “gradual, inevitable reform and progress.”
Keysslar notes that because the progressive presumption has dominated thinking about voting rights in the modern era, the history of voting rights has been of little interest to scholars. What is there to write about, after all, if progress in voting rights is automatic? We have the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, so all we have to do is sit back and applaud the progress and watch as it continues on its own momentum. Right? (wrong!)
In the past, I’ve talked about a “progressive view of history” that goes like this: The founders started with some pretty good ideas, but they left out a lot of people. As more people have come to be included, the graph slopes upward and points to a better and even more inclusive future. Progressives see history as an upward slope and they assume the slope will continue upward, like this:
The regressives (which include today’s Republican Party) have an opposite view of history. They think America started out as good and pure: The nation was homogeneous (ruled by white male Christians) and life was simpler. Government was local. The laws were easy to understand. The states were not bound to offer due process, so justice was swift (and often brutal). At first, there was almost no federal government. Then, over time, the federal government grew larger and more complicated (mostly because of the New Deal and then attempts to create fairness) until pretty soon people felt like they need a PhD or law degree to understand what is happening.
People who cannot tolerate complexity pine for a simpler time.
They see a downward slope that looks like this:
The problems with the regressive view is obvious. Going back to bygone era requires dismantling much of the federal government (the “deep state”) put in place over the past two hundred years and taking back rights people have been given. It’s possible, but unlikely, that taking away rights and dismantling a complex federal government can be done without violence.
There are problems with the progressive presumption as well. Among other things, it creates a sense of complacency and entitlement. If history naturally slopes upward, it’s like being on a rowboat without having to paddle. Citizens don’t have to do anything. When there is a backslide they feel helpless, shocked, and terrified. When people feel helpless, shocked, and terrified they are more likely to fall prey to rage merchants. They are less likely to become activists. If you think the arrow naturally points upward, there is nothing to do. It also encourages conspiracy thinking because people start looking for someone to blame. (This is why so many people who consider themselves progressives blame the Democrats for not solving the problem that has been with us since the start of the nation.)
If we zoom out and look at the history from 30,000 feet, it can indeed look like an inevitable upward slope. We have come a long way from 1776 when the electorate was 98% Protestant and almost entirely male.
This, from Christianity Today, explains the white nationalism embraced by much of today’s Republican Party:
It’s clear from the history of voting rights that the position the Republicans are taking today on voting rights and who is a real American is not new. As Faulkner said, the past isn’t dead. It isn’t even past.
The problem the Republicans are having now is that their demographic are shrinking.
“In 1950, nonwhites constituted barely 10 percent of the U.S. population. By 2014, they constituted 38 percent, and the U.S. Census Bureau projects that a majority of the population will be nonwhite by 2044.” (From How Democracies Die).
- In 1969, white voters were 85% of the electorate.
- In 2o19, white voters were 69% of the electorate.
- The census points to a white minority by 2025.
So the Republican extremists are in a panic. They believe America is being destroyed, so they are resorting to desperate measures.
Anyone who has worked elections can tell you that this is true: In a polarized environment, winning an election is about turnout. Most people know whether they embrace the Trump view of what America should be or the Biden view of what America should be.
It’s obvious that Trump’s behavior since November 2020 has not expanded his voters. He lost Liz Cheney and Mike Pence, among others. He lost in 2020, and has not expanded his base, so I expect him to lose again.
The question is: What will be the margins? Will the margins be razor thin again? Or will the margins be more comfortable, allowing for more rapid changes? Roosevelt was able to turn the country around during the 1930s from an age of extreme income inequality to an era that saw the rise of a middle class and decrease in poverty, but he also won the 1933 election with 57% of the vote.
* * *
One reason I am changing my focus is that so many of my readers watch cable news programs or get their news from left-leaning social media and I have concluded that what I’ve been calling the left-wing misinformation-echo chamber is getting worse. In fact, I’ve concluded that it is hopeless. The reason: Pundits who are (1) consistently wrong and (2) provide emotionally based content are consistently showcased. Being wrong is not a disqualification as long as the pundit or “expert” riles people and keeps them glued to the screen.
I suspect NBC concluded that inviting Ronna McDaniel will allow for lots of heated arguments. It will rile people. It will enrage them. It will keep them viewed to their screens. It will help ratings.
Inviting Ronna McDaniel to participate in these panels is exactly what I would expect from an echo-chamber going farther down the tubes. It also demonstrates that while some people who appear have intelligent well-thought out fact-based views, these are not the sole hiring criteria. A person who lies and presents unhinged views is also qualified if that person stimulates “discussion” and controversy and helps create compelling theater.
There is, incidentally, a Russian propaganda technique known as “noise.” Instead of silencing dissenting voices, Russian propaganda allows “all” views to be presented. This allows lies to be showcased alongside the truth. The result is that viewers end up confused and conclude that the truth is unknowable. When the population gives up on the truth and concludes that it is unknowable, autocracy can take hold. I am not saying this is the motive of MSNBC, but in one of their statements about the hire, they said they are committed to presenting a diversity of viewpoints.
People don’t need a diversity of viewpoints. A diversity of viewpoints is confusing. The truth gets lost. People need news and facts.
I would guess that NBC/MSNBC’s motive is to create more conflict (which is entertaining) and to bill itself as presenting all sides to counter the accusation that it is partisan media.
I would also guess that some of the people who are objecting to McDaniels don’t care how many of their liberal heroes are consistently wrong.
If viewership decreases, I suspect we won’t see much Ronna McDaniels. If there is enough pushback from viewers, she won’t continue.
That’s because it’s all about ratings.
Speaking of voting, Fair Fight has initiated a textbanking campaign, called “Building Bridges,” to register voters in Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, and Texas. I signed up so I could, as you advise, do something to support and strengthen democracy!
Sorry, it’s not a Fair Fight program. It’s run by “Building Bridges for America.” Still, it’s a worthwhile effort.
The concept that the upward trend in voting trends is not a matter of inertia flowing from the idea, it is the constant pushing from the citizenry that believes this is the way to get better results. Today’s republican party sees this as a direct threat to their control, something they took for granted until Obama was elected and they faced someone that did not look like them. It scared the hell out of them. As for Ronna McDaniels, it appears the journalistic side of the equation won out. The people that run large media outlets do not look at their programing through the lens of presenting just the facts, this why we get the both sides epidemic infecting much of what we see ans read.
I may be getting ahead of you, but will you be addressing state constitutions and whether they enshrine a right to vote not provided by the federal Constitution? For example, I believe Pennsylvania’s language is much stronger in Article VII, Sec 1:
“Every citizen 21 years of age, possessing the following
qualifications, shall be entitled to vote at all elections
subject, however, to such laws requiring and regulating the
registration of electors as the General Assembly may enact.”
The qualifications are simply a minimum age (21 as written amended to 18 in 1973) and minimum length of US citizenship (one month) and residency in the state (90 days).
How does this square up with the Article I Section 4 provision reserving to states the right to set the time, manner, and place of elections for Representatives and Senators?
So very right: “People don’t need a diversity of viewpoints. A diversity of viewpoints is confusing. The truth gets lost because opinions are not the facts.” Understanding requires us to think about facts, and the process of thinking simultaneously requires three things of us: our ability to remember, our ability to associate, our the ability to evaluate. The result is our “understanding” – ie our opinion. People with differing opinions should focus relentlessly on resolving their differences about the facts.
Good article, but I don’t get how Russia allows all voices to be heard Dissenter either imprisoned or sent to a gulag.
I think that was in reference to the propaganda Russia spreads outside of Russia. The rules are different at home.
I was taking about how views and information is handled on Russian TV, not people who actually rebel against Putin. Not all people who hate Putin or who speak out against his government are retaliated against. That would be impossible. Putin doesn’t try to do that. He only retaliates when someone becomes threatening.
“People don’t need a diversity of viewpoints. A diversity of viewpoints is confusing. The truth gets lost. People need news and facts.” – Thank you!
Ok. I live in NJ but have been in FL for several weeks. I tell you this b/c when in FL I try to stay away from MSNBC and stick to your comments, legal briefs (boring and difficult to read) and several lawyers like Joyce Vance, Marc Elias, etc. Yes, I’m still on Twitter but that’s only b/c it’s easier to access the above professionals this way. Since your last post on rage media, I’ve been attempting to filter misinformation from facts — no easy task as it takes up a LOT of my time.
I’ve always believed you develop your values over the course of your lifetime, and should be willing to defend them. Yes, one’s opinions can change and grow as you age and are exposed to different experiences and opinions. HOWEVER, when you have been a staunch supporter of someone like Trump and have been so vocal about the MAGA agenda, as McDaniels has, it’s impossible for me to take her seriously as she attempts to reverse course. It’s too little too late, at least for me. Therefore, I’m going to cut back even more on MSNBC viewing.
Thank you for asking.
Re your statement about how the GOP doesn’t like the growth of non-white voters, there is a growing trend among them abandoning the Dems and voting for the GOP, that progressives did not anticipate. See “Democrats’ big vulnerability: Why they’re losing Black, Hispanic voters” (https://www.axios.com/2024/03/13/why-democrats-black-hispanic-vote-republican).
The polls have been way off for years now. Before 2016 I paid attention to them. Since 2016 they’ve gotten worse. The only way to measure trends is from previous elections and Democrats have been exceeding expectations and Republicans have been underperforming.
Nice detailed reminder that voting is a privilege, not a right enshrined in the Constitution (15th Amendment notwithstanding, only the 2nd Amendmenrt is absolute per this Supreme Court). I really like your reduction of “automatic progress” vs. “regression/conservatism”. This gets to the core of the vague meaning behind Make America Great Again, and explains why the Republican Party (from Reconstruction on) has viewed the dismantling of the administrative state as a good idea. It also explains why a majority of American voters consider politics a boring reality show. Progress is automatic, why should I care?
The Ronna Romney McDaniel hiring. You’re correct that ratings and chatter are major drivers, but there’s 1 more thing. Mass media presents itself as a view from above the fray, offering various “opinions” to demonstrate its objectivity to encourage a perception of unbiased trustworthiness, the coin of the media realm back in the day of 3 network news sources. That was an illusion then, but it’s still clung to by mass media in an attempt to stay perceived as mass, therefore authoritative, therefore relavent. Of course, some “opinions” are more important than others, Ronna is a Player, so she gets a golden ticket in hopes she’ll dish some dirt while driving engagement with controversial “opinions”.
Thank you.
“It’s obvious that Trump’s behavior since November 2020 has not expanded his voters. He lost Liz Cheney and Mike Pence, among others. He lost in 2020, and has not expanded his base, so I expect him to lose again.”
I hope you are right. That’s been my thinking. But – we need to get the pro-Biden voters out. If we don’t have a good turnout, Trump can win.
Re MSNBC – I think they have good stuff as well as just the “stirring the pot” stuff. I do hear of things there I haven’t seen elsewhere for whatever reason (like the pro-trump voters who disrupted a city council meeting in Arizona). But I don’t watch it all day; I pick one of the news shows to watch at night (one night Joy Reid, another Chris Hayes, another night someone else); watch the initial pitch of the story; and then almost always fast forward through the talking heads portion. That works for me, balanced with columns like yours and Jessica Valenti’s and Joyce Vance; stuff from The Bulwark ; and NYT and Washington Post, plus a sprinkle of other articles.
But everyone has their preference. YMMV as they say.
Real question: Curious about which news sources you feel are worthy, independent, or even possibly objective. I subscribe to many newsletters which often feature newspaper/tv exiles but many also require a subscription fee. In addition, “good” legacy print publications like Foreign Policy for example are pricey. Is most “good” news now restricted to the monied and most “lousy” news free?
I read the Washington Post and remain alert for misleading headlines, sensational pieces, and opinion pieces.
I never watch cable news shows. I don’t have cable. I believe I am better able to evaluate sources and sift through the garbage in print rather than listening.
There is no perfect news source. I recall being annoyed by headlines in the 1990s and of course, all writing has some slant.
But I see no value in talking heads talking off the tops of their heads or those silly panels. Most serious lawyers are appalled by what passes for TV lawyering or the kind of start status given to lawyers who think their own speculations are newsworthy.
I have been cleaning up the misinformation from those panels for years and I now quit 🙂 See the pinned series on my blog for more.
Teri: Agree with your comments above. My truth lineup is newspaper (front half), broadcast network news and voter’s pamphlets at election time. I hold palm to candle daily with about fifteen minutes each evening of MSNBC, CNN and FOX “news.” My question is: why do you seem to single out the “echoist” panels from CNN/MSNBC in your essays? My late evening dysentery after the cable entertainment “hits” is always much worse after FOX than the two “lefties.” Wayne
Another great post, grounded in facts and history, which we do not see on “news” shows. All cable news has become entertainment because people want to hear their views validated. We sort ourselves into clans and cling to our own groups because they validate us. and make us feel safe. News media is a business, and they sell products. They need viewers to watch to maintain their business model and attract advertising. NPR and PBS are available to all, and they try to present accurate information, but if the government and non-profits do not support fact-based journalism it becomes impossible for people to exit their self-imposed echo chambers unless they make an effort. Many Americans need to work 2 or 3 jobs just to survive, and lack the time and energy to inform themselves. Who can blame today’s young people for wanting to check out with video games when the world is such a confusing place?
I will not watch a woman who is a liar and promotes chaos. Nor will I watch MSNBC. We don’t need differing view points, as you pointed out. Facts are important and people can come to their own conclusions with a trove well presented facts about the news.
I did read this evening that she was hired by NBC news and not MSNBC. As if there really is a difference in the news channel, perhaps so. All the same, I just can’t believe they actually did that.
Thanks for this necessary correction. Progressive presumption, indeed!
Perhaps a side issue, but something that’s bugging me: Your animosity towards MSNBC. You mention “Pundits who are (1) consistently wrong and (2) provide emotionally based content are consistently showcased. Being wrong is not a disqualification as long as the pundit or “expert” riles people and keeps them glued to the screen.”
I like to think that I avoid joining the rage machine. I prefer news (what has happened) to predictions (what pundits think will happen). And, I prefer information and commentary that helps me decide what messages to send to what office-holders (or letters to the editor).
I just watched a video of portions of Lawrence O’Donnell’s “Last Word:”
https://youtu.be/BH56L4TPKYA?si=CxEGB_K5rZKCdfFP
I found all of the points made to be thoughtful if worrying, and, I think, based in fact. I didn’t pick up any to-do’s, but I think I’m better informed. Among other things, I now realize that “the iconic Trump Tower” is not iconic, and Trump might not own much of the building.
Having watched this segment, I feel bolstered against Trump’s “noise.” (Thank you, again, for that excellent idea.)
If you read the series I have pinned you will understand my animosity. I am sure there are good hosts and good information, but the bad information and conspiracy theories have done so much damage that I can’t see the value. There are ways of getting good information that doesn’t support a network that spreads conspiracy theories.
Reread the series and note how much effort I have spent over about a 5 year period trying to tamp down and correct the misinformation. That’s why I feel animosity.
Nits (on a very good piece): I think you mean “penned,” not “pinned” above. And “Know Nothing, ” not “No Nothing” in main piece, along with “demographic is,” not “are”(or else “demographics are”).
Absolutely correct that we don’t need alternative “views” on documented facts.
I have started re-reading your series on misinformation and the outrage industry.
In your enlightening section on “The Partisan Pundit” (partway down this page: https://terikanefield.com/conspiracytheoryconditions/) you mention PolitiFact.
I looked up what PolitiFact says about Lawrence O’Donnell:
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/list/?speaker=lawrence-odonnell
Unfortunately the most recent item is from 2015. Sure would like to see more recent data!
BTW, I tried to provide feedback to PolitiFact but I could not find a “contact us” form or email address. Huh.
I would be interested in seeing a list of who you recommend and trust as, reliable sources, lawyers, etc. Thanks for turning me onto Stephanie Jones (for example). If you have done such a list, please point it out. Thanks for your work – it has changed how I approach media, for sure.
I will answer this question in the next blog post.
Why I watch MSNBC = I am part of a tiny progressive community in a red state. I need validation. Think of it like meatloaf, it’s comfort food.
“If we zoom out and look at the history from 30,000 feet, it can indeed look like an inevitable upward slope. We have come a long way from 1776 when the electorate was 98% Protestant and almost entirely male.”
Martin Luther King, Jr was able to see the 30,000 foot view and believed the moral arc of the universe bent toward justice. That was a message of hope for himself and others as they worked tirelessly to gain the civil rights that had long been denied them.
Coretta Scott King understood that though the arc of the universe may bend toward justice, the work is ongoing. “Freedom is never really won,” she said. “You earn it and win it in every generation. This is what we have not taught young people, or older ones for that matter. You do not finally win a state of freedom that is protected forever. It doesn’t work that way.”
Thanks, Teri, for your steadfastness in keeping us grounded as we work to protect freedom in this major election year and in every year that is to come. Deeply grateful for your written words.
You correctly note the seduction of a simple, linear, Whiggish understanding of history. The reality is exactly the opposite, as you point out. This is not only the case for the franchise, but for all manner of change in society. And it is also closely linked to an (often unrecognized) assumption that the present state of affairs was largely predetermined. It is very easy to forget that many things we take for granted were highly contingent on seemingly trivial choices. A fairly recent and now inconsequential example was the choice between VHS and Betamax platforms for VCRs. For most of us, this doesn’t matter. But there were individuals for whom the outcome meant a great deal in terms of wealth and subsequent business decisions. Not only does history not proceed linearly; sometimes its course approaches randomness.
Interesting, good stuff! But isn’t in a bit reductionist to paint everyone who sees that upward curve in history, as people who consider it inevitable? It seems like “there are only two camps” is one of the major problems we’re facing these days, and maybe best avoided. I guess you’ve written other things that may acknowledge the rest of us, but I’m new here.
A small typo, I think, but the “No Nothing Party” is surely the Know Nothings?
Thank you for the much needed history lesson.
If nothing else, I’m curious to hear Ms. McDaniel’s apologies concerning her known lies. Why she lied, and why she lied about the lies. If I think she’s being forthcoming about her motives – and I think I’m a pretty good judge of character – then I’ll listen to her perspectives. If not, I will be brutal in my emails to the muckety-mucks at NBC.
She’s said she had to “take one for the team.” Seems like no one is buying it.
Thanks for this very helpful survey with references. I appreciate your detailed analysis much more than echo chamber chagrin, which there is still plenty of in other blogs and big news (said the cord-cutter). The changes our country went thru in the 1800’s are much too poorly understood, and the Faulkner quote underscores why that matters. We need thorough, accurate history teaching in public schools, and opportunities for kids to talk about why it matters to them, today.
Thank you as always for your clear and in depth insight. As for Ms. McDaniel, there is a reason I haven’t owned a TV in almost 15 years.
Thank you once again for your sane and soothing writings! I am looking forward to reading your graphic novel with my daughter (12).
Theoretically, it’s possible to have Ronna McDaniel debate her views with another person expressing the opposite views. This would require that neither party lies. Since McDaniel has shown a long history of lying this is very unlikely to happen and would require a moderator who would step in every time a lie was told, by either debater. Unfortunately, this won’t happen because as Terri explained, it’s all about money, not news. So, I see no purpose in MSNBC having McDaniel on their network except to generate rage. As one of the millions of people who no longer has cable (streaming services only) I no longer watch networks such as MSNBC live. I do watch clips and read articles about interviews on these cable shows, but I ignore any rage interviews since I’ve had enough.
NBC hired Ronna Romney McDaniel, not MSNBC. There is a difference.
MSNBC is owned by NBC. Why do you think MSNBC hosts were in an uproar over it? MSNBC does what NBC tells it to do.
More to the point, MSNBC is a highly partisan news source that tells its viewers what they want to hear. It is also a source of misinformation. See my pinned blog post.(If you get through part 3 you’ll see what I mean.)
Interesting that the division head of MSNBC assured the staff there that Ronna would NOT be used as a “political analyst” on the network… and then a few days later, NBC News announced that they were ditching her altogether.
Hello Ms. Kanefield, I am chair of the SLO County Democratic Party. Apparently you live in our midst. We’d like to talk with you.
Re: McDaniel. Thank you for once again providing a balanced, logical perspective.
Your series on voting suggests to me that politics is not immune from physics. For every motion there is an equal but opposite one.
I don’t even know because I’ve been traveling. What are the “takes” you’ve seen? (Also I’m trying to avoid social media LOL)
I think the most popular response tracks along the reasoning she is a traitor and insurrectionist, thus has no credibility and has forfeited the right to an audience
Also, the “upward slope” image is probably true, but would look more accurate as a graph, full of ups and downs but basically trending up. Similar to a stock market chart.
A few more typos:
> that their demographic whites are shriking as a demographic.
I don’t think you meant demographic both places, though it might fit in either.
> In 2919, white voters were 69% of the electorate.
Maybe 2019?
I thought I fixed those! I blame wifi on Delta!
You have a typo:
> the period from 1790 to 1790 witnessed a “checkered tale of motion forward, backward, and sideways
I was wondering about this too… Right now it says “the period from 1790 to about 1780” and I think the latter year is supposed to be 1870? (That is the time period mentioned in the intro: “This week I’ll pick up with the history of voting rights from 1790 until about 1870.”)
dang I thought I fixed that.