The Rio Stanton Report

Tag: bipartisanship

  • Stop Trusting Republicans to Play Fair

    Stop Trusting Republicans to Play Fair

    One thing that used to really piss me off about the Obama administration (and the Democratic Party as a whole) was the refusal to recognize just how far Republicans were willing to go to gain and keep power.

    Democratic leaders kept looking for reasonable partners. They kept talking about compromise, common ground, and reaching across the aisle. Meanwhile, Republicans kept showing them that their commitment to those things lasted only as long as it served their interests.

    At some point, believing them becomes a choice.

    There is no reasoning your way around people who negotiate in bad faith. There is no meaningful compromise when one side treats every concession as an opportunity to demand more. The Democratic Party needs to stand up and fight tooth and nail for the principles it claims to hold.

    But the lessons of the Obama years still don’t seem to have sunk in.

    We keep waiting for Republicans to come to their senses, embrace their better angels, or stand by their own words. Then, when they abandon those words, Democratic leaders act disappointed. They seem to think disappointment is going to shame Republicans into changing their behavior.

    How many times do we have to watch this?

    The fight over the Supreme Court in 2020 made this painfully clear. Some people genuinely counted on a handful of Republican senators to honor the standard their party had used to block Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. They expected consistency from people who had already demonstrated that the rules could change whenever power was at stake.

    After the Senate failed to convict Trump in his first impeachment trial, some still believed that those same Republican senators would suddenly put fairness ahead of political advantage.

    Why? What had they done to earn that faith?

    The Democratic leadership, the corporate media, and far too many liberals keep convincing themselves that this time Republicans will play fairly. This time, institutional norms will hold. This time, someone will discover a conscience.

    And when that doesn’t happen, we get another round of solemn speeches about how troubling it all is.

    I am tired of being told to admire the restraint of people who keep getting their asses handed to them.

    There is a familiar saying about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Whoever first said it, the point applies here. It is beyond frustrating to watch Democratic leaders repeat an approach that keeps failing, then have their defenders insist that the rest of us simply don’t understand the strategy.

    Apparently, they’re always playing three-dimensional chess. Apparently, every defeat is part of some brilliant plan that will reveal itself later.

    Meanwhile, the whole thing looks more like Wile E. Coyote chasing the damn Road Runner.

    And every time a liberal shows up to explain that my lack of faith is unwarranted, I want to ask: What, exactly, am I supposed to be impressed by?

    The speeches? The stern letters? The commitment to looking reasonable while the other side takes what it wants?

    I do not need another lecture about patience from someone who confuses having a strategy with defending whatever the leadership happens to do.

    Compromise requires people who will honor an agreement. When political leaders repeatedly abandon their own standards for an advantage, trusting them again should require evidence—not another appeal to their supposed decency.

    And compromise itself should not be treated as a virtue regardless of what gets surrendered. People’s rights, livelihoods, and futures are on the line. The goal cannot simply be to reach an agreement so everyone in Washington can congratulate themselves for being bipartisan.

    The goal should be to deliver something worth fighting for.

    Democratic leaders need to stop acting as though Republican approval is necessary to make their demands legitimate. Make the case. Use the power voters gave you. Organize. Give people a reason to show up, stay involved, and believe that their participation matters.

    If the party claims to stand for working people, civil rights, and democracy, then it needs to fight like those commitments mean something.

    Stop trusting Republicans to become the partners you wish they were. Make your demands, prepare for a real political fight, and rally the damn people behind you.

  • American History Myth #3: The Myth That Civil Rights Were Simply a “Republican Achievement”

    American History Myth #3: The Myth That Civil Rights Were Simply a “Republican Achievement”

    Modern political debates often reduce complex historical events to simple partisan talking points. One of the most common claims is that the Civil Rights Movement and the landmark civil rights legislation of the 1960s were primarily the achievement of conservative Republicans.

    This claim is frequently used in contemporary political arguments, but it oversimplifies a far more complicated historical reality.

    It relies on several incorrect assumptions:

    1. The Republican Party has always been a party of fiscal, social, and small-government conservatives.
    2. American political parties historically operated as unified ideological blocs rather than coalitions containing both liberal and conservative wings.
    3. Republicans were never involved in segregationist politics, white supremacist movements, or anti-Black rhetoric and policies.

    All three assumptions are historically inaccurate.

    In the decade following the Civil War, Republicans championed early civil rights legislation during Reconstruction. However, after the contested election of 1876 and the Compromise of 1877, which effectively ended Reconstruction, national political commitment to protecting Black civil rights declined dramatically.

    During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, what historians often call the Nadir of American Race Relations (roughly 1887–1923), racist policies and segregation became entrenched across much of the United States. During this period, many politicians from both major parties adopted or tolerated segregationist attitudes.

    Fast forward to the 1960s and the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    The legislation was originally proposed by President John F. Kennedy (D) in 1963. After Kennedy’s assassination, President Lyndon B. Johnson (D) made the bill a central priority of his administration and pushed aggressively for its passage.

    Several key members of Congress played major roles in advancing the legislation, including:

    • Hubert Humphrey (D–MN)
    • Emanuel Celler (D–NY)
    • Everett Dirksen (R–IL)
    • William McCulloch (R–OH)

    The final legislation was the result of bipartisan cooperation, though it was strongly driven by the Democratic administration and several Democratic leaders in Congress.

    The final vote totals were:

    House of Representatives
    289–126 (70–30%)

    Senate
    73–27

    When broken down by party, the numbers appear to show stronger Republican support:

    House

    • Democrats: 153–91 (69%)
    • Republicans: 136–35 (82%)

    Senate

    • Democrats: 44–23 (66%)
    • Republicans: 27–6 (82%)

    At first glance, these numbers might suggest that Republicans were the primary supporters of civil rights legislation.

    However, this interpretation ignores a crucial factor: region.

    When the votes are separated by region, a very different pattern appears.

    House of Representatives

    Northern members: 281–32 (90%) in favor
    Southern members: 8–94 (8%) in favor

    Senate

    Northern members: 72–6 (92%) in favor
    Southern members: 1–21 (5%) in favor

    In other words, the major divide was not simply party affiliation—it was North versus South.

    Looking at the votes by both region and party makes this even clearer.

    House

    Southern Democrats: 8–83 (9%) in favor
    Southern Republicans: 0–11 (0%) in favor

    Northern Democrats: 145–8 (95%) in favor
    Northern Republicans: 136–24 (85%) in favor

    Senate

    Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%) in favor
    Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%) in favor

    Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98%) in favor
    Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84%) in favor

    Not a single Southern Republican voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Meanwhile, Northern Democrats supported the bill at even higher rates than Northern Republicans.

    Another important point often overlooked in modern political debates is that Democrats held large congressional majorities during this period.

    In the 88th Congress (1964), Democrats held:

    • 66 seats in the Senate
    • 253 seats in the House

    Without substantial Democratic support, the Civil Rights Act simply would not have passed.

    A similar pattern appeared in the Voting Rights Act of 1965. At that time, Democrats held even larger majorities:

    • 68–32 in the Senate
    • 295–140 in the House

    The final votes were:

    House
    333–85

    Senate
    77–19

    Again, both parties supported the legislation. But the historical record shows that the outcome cannot be reduced to a simple narrative about one party single-handedly delivering civil rights.

    The reality is more complex.

    Civil rights legislation in the 1960s passed through bipartisan coalitions, but those coalitions were shaped far more by regional politics and ideological divisions than by party labels alone.

    Reducing this history to a partisan talking point oversimplifies one of the most important political struggles in American history.