Are you maybe meaning to comment on another thread or something? Right now it looks like you’re trying to claim that “The New Deal, the Civil Rights Act, Women’s Lib, cessation of hostility in Vietnam, the Clean Water Act, the ADA” all of which (except maybe arguably Vietnam) were things passed by popular demand by a democratically elected government…
Oh no. They were mass movements that performed illegal actions and threatened more. We the People didn’t cast votes. We demanded what we deserved with a threat of violence.
And then those mass movements resulted in… Yup, democratic change! And frankly, the illegal actions were mostly to stir sympathy because, yes, the key making policy changes was having enough people support your side because, you guessed it, that’s how democracy works!
I don’t recall the book’s name but there’s a great account of why the civil rights movement targeted Birmingham in particular and one of the big reasons was they knew the sherrif, Bull Connor, would over-react and over-react violently in a way that would garner sympathy for the movement. (That’s how they got the iconic photo of the Black kid getting bitten by the cop dog.) King might have talked about it in Letters from Birmingham jail?
Are you maybe meaning to comment on another thread or something? Right now it looks like you’re trying to claim that “The New Deal, the Civil Rights Act, Women’s Lib, cessation of hostility in Vietnam, the Clean Water Act, the ADA” all of which (except maybe arguably Vietnam) were things passed by popular demand by a democratically elected government…
Why did they pass them? You seem to have not studied any history at all.
There were mass movements that translated to electoral victory… In other words, democracy function led exactly as it should.
Oh no. They were mass movements that performed illegal actions and threatened more. We the People didn’t cast votes. We demanded what we deserved with a threat of violence.
And then those mass movements resulted in… Yup, democratic change! And frankly, the illegal actions were mostly to stir sympathy because, yes, the key making policy changes was having enough people support your side because, you guessed it, that’s how democracy works!
I don’t recall the book’s name but there’s a great account of why the civil rights movement targeted Birmingham in particular and one of the big reasons was they knew the sherrif, Bull Connor, would over-react and over-react violently in a way that would garner sympathy for the movement. (That’s how they got the iconic photo of the Black kid getting bitten by the cop dog.) King might have talked about it in Letters from Birmingham jail?
Democratic?
US exceptionalism.
What?
You win buzzword bingo! Congrats!