The Western Journal

Watch: Dem Strategist Melts Down When Scott Jennings Gives Her a History Lesson About Her Own Party

The article, published by The Western Journal, criticizes the Democratic Party and uses a recent CNN exchange between conservative Scott Jennings and Democratic strategist Julie Roginsky as a launching point. Roginsky accused Republicans of supporting violent suppression of civil-rights protesters in the 1960s; Jennings interrupted to note that segregationist politicians in places like Alabama were Democrats, a point the piece says undermined her argument. The author then provides a historical overview arguing that the Democratic party has long defended oppressive policies – citing Andrew Jackson’s Indian Removal in the 1830s, antebellum Democrats’ support for slavery and territorial expansion of the institution, Southern secession after Lincoln’s 1860 victory, and post-Civil War efforts to roll back Reconstruction and maintain racial hierarchy. The article concludes by asserting that racism and elitist authoritarian tendencies are continuities within the Democratic Party that persist into the present, and frames the CNN segment as a reminder of that history. The tone is polemical and partisan,aimed at discrediting the Democratic Party’s legacy.


Modern Democrats would do well to avoid bringing up the past.

After all, the Democratic Party as a whole (excluding some decent individuals) amounts to a 200-year-old cancer on the republic.

Sunday on CNN, conservative commentator Scott Jennings turned Democratic strategist Julie Roginsky’s lame historical allusion on its head, causing Roginsky to verbally flail while complaining that Jennings would not allow her to talk.

“These are the same people that defended opening fire hoses on protesters in the Sixties on the Selma Bridge,” Roginsky said, referring to Jennings and Republicans, who, according to the Democrat strategist, would have supported the violent suppression of peaceful protests during the Civil Rights Era, in this case the famous march, led by Martin Luther King Jr., across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, in 1965.

Unfortunately for Roginsky, the historical facts do not support her slanderous contention.

“I think those were Democrats, Julie,” Jennings interjected. “Just FYI. Those were Democrats.”

Roginsky then tried to argue that people like Jennings support the suppression of peaceful protests today. But she had already lost the debate.

“That was your party,” a chuckling Jennings continued. “But thank you for reminding everybody that Democrats were against civil rights.”

At that point, Roginsky grew agitated, ostensibly at Jennings’ interruptions but in reality due to her own embarrassing argument.

“You’re the one that brought up Democrats,” Jennings said, needling the prickly Roginsky. “I agree with you. Democrats shouldn’t have been against civil rights.”

Southern Democrats, of course, did indeed oppose the civil rights movement of the 1960s. But that does not even begin to tell the sordid history of the Democratic Party.

At a time when white supremacy actually existed, Democrats did everything possible to sustain it.

For instance, in the 1830s, the Democrats established themselves as the party of Indian Removal under President Andrew Jackson.

In the years preceding the Civil War, Democrats both North and South demanded the extension of slavery into the territories. Meanwhile, the Republican Party emerged in 1854 for the sole reason of keeping slavery out of said territories.

Speaking of Republicans, Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 election after pledging to keep slavery from spreading westward and expressing moral repugnance to the institution. Southern Democrats responded to Lincoln’s campaign rhetoric by removing him from state ballots.

Why do Democrats always try to prevent voters from choosing a candidate who elitist Democrats, in this case slaveholders, despise?

Then, when Democrats lost the 1860 election, they took their toys and went home. More specifically, seven Democrat-controlled Southern states seceded from the Union before Lincoln even took office. Four more states followed shortly thereafter, joining the new Confederacy.

After the conflict, Democrats won a decades-long war of attrition in the South, ignoring constitutional amendments and relegating freed blacks to second-class citizenship.

In short, the 19th-century Democratic Party was filled with authoritarian elitists such as the former slaveholders who, in the 1870s and 1880s, wrested control of their states from the Reconstruction governments. Their descendants — Democrats all — still held power in the South by the 1960s.

Today, those same strands of racism and authoritarian elitism define the Democratic Party.

Special thanks to Roginsky — and to Jennings, of course — for reminding us who the Democrats are and have always been.




Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.



" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases

Related Articles

Back to top button
Close

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker