In Senate cloakrooms and staff meetings, Johnson was practically a connoisseur of the word. According to Johnson biographer Robert Caro, Johnson would calibrate his pronunciations by region, using “nigra” with some southern legislators and “negra” with others. Discussing civil rights legislation with men like Mississippi Democrat James Eastland, who committed most of his life to defending white supremacy, he’d simply call it “the ni++er bill.”
Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
When faced with the sobering reality that Democrats supported slavery, started the Civil War when the abolitionist Republican Party won the Presidency, established the Ku Klux Klan to brutalize newly freed slaves and keep them from voting, opposed the Civil Rights Movement, modern-day liberals reflexively perpetuate rather pernicious myth--that the racist southern Democrats of the 1950s and 1960s became Republicans, leading to the so-called "switch" of the parties.
This is as ridiculous as it is easily debunked.
The Republican Party, of course, was founded in 1848 with the abolition of slavery as its core mission. Almost immediately after its second presidential candidate, Abraham Lincoln, won the 1860 election, Democrat-controlled southern states seceded on the assumption that Lincoln would destroy their slave-based economies.
Once the Civil War ended, the newly freed slaves as expected flocked to the Republican Party, but Democrat control of the South from Reconstruction until the Civil Rights Era was near total. In 1960, Democrats held every Senate seat south of the Mason-Dixon line. In the 13 states that made up the Confederacy a century earlier, Democrats held a staggering 117-8 advantage in the House of Representatives. The Democratic Party was so strong in the south that those 117 House members made up a full 41% of Democrats' 283-153 advantage in the Chamber.
Likewise, throughout the late 1950s and early 1960s, Democratic governors and overwhelmingly Democratic State Legislatures controlled the South, which steadfastly opposed the push for civil rights. In contrast, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, openly praised school desegregation in the Brown v. Board of Education decision and sent federalized Arkansas National Guard troops to Little Rock to protect nine black students after Democratic Governor Orval Faubus threatened to keep them out of a previously all-white high school.
Eisenhower was a phenomenally popular war hero when he was elected in 1952, and even though only one Republican had ever before won any southern states in the Electoral College (Herbert Hoover in 1928), Eisenhower began to make inroads for the Republican Party; winning Florida, Texas, Virginia, and Tennessee. In his landslide victory four years later, Eisenhower picked up Louisiana and Kentucky.
His personal appeal, though, didn't transcend the Democratic Party's hold on the South, and when he left office in 1961, that hold was arguably stronger than it had been in decades. As Southern Democrats clung to traditional segregation, though, the rest of the country was changing, and the push for civil rights had begun.
After the assassination of President John F. Kennedy--a strong proponent of civil rights--in late 1963, Southern Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson saw it as his mission to pass the Civil Rights Act as a tribute to Kennedy, who had first proposed the bill five months before he was killed. Democrats in the Senate, however, filibustered it.
In June of 1964, though, the bill came up again, and it passed...over the strenuous objections of Southern Democrats. 80% of House Republicans voted for the measure, compared with just 61% of Democrats, while 82% of Republicans in the Senate supported it, compared with 69% of Democrats.
Nearly all of the opposition was, naturally, in the South, which was still nearly unanimously Democratic and nearly unanimously resistant to the changing country. One thing that most assuredly didn't change, though, was party affiliation. A total of 21 Democrats in the Senate opposed the Civil Rights Act. Only one of them, "Dixiecrat" Strom Thurmond, ever became a Republican. The rest, including Al Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd--a former Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan--remained Democrats until the day they died.
Moreover, as those 20 lifelong Democrats retired, their Senate seats remained in Democrat hands for several decades afterwards. So too did the overwhelming majority of the House seats in the South until 1994, when a Republican wave election swept the GOP into control of the House for the first time since 1952. 1994 was also the first time Republicans ever held a majority of House seats in the South--a full 30 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act.
From there, Republicans gradually built their support in the South until two more wave elections in 2010 and 2014 gave them the overwhelming majorities they enjoy today.
If this was a sudden "switch" to the Republican Party for the old Democrat segregationists, it sure took a long time to happen.
The reality is that it didn't. After the 1964 election--the first after the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the opportune time for racist Democrat voters to abandon the party in favor of Republicans--Democrats still held a 102-20 House majority in states that had once been part of the Confederacy. In 1960, remember, that advantage was 117-8. A pickup of 12 seats (half of them in Alabama) is hardly the massive shift one would expect if racist voters suddenly abandoned the Democratic Party in favor of the GOP.
In fact, voting patterns in the South didn't really change all that much after the Civil Rights era. Democrats still dominated Senate, House, and gubernatorial elections for decades afterward. Alabama, for example, didn't elect a Republican governor until 1986. Mississippi didn't elect one until 1991. Georgia didn't elect one until 2002.
In the Senate, Republicans picked up four southern Senate seats in the 1960s and 1970s, while Democrats also picked up four. Democratic incumbents won routinely. If anything, those racist southern voters kept voting Democrat.
So how did this myth of a sudden "switch" get started?
It's rooted in an equally pernicious myth of the supposedly racist "Southern Strategy" of Richard Nixon's 1968 presidential campaign, which was accused of surreptitiously exploiting the innate racism of white southern voters.
Even before that, though, modern-day Democrats point to the 1964 presidential campaign of Republican Barry Goldwater, who refused to back the 1964 Civil Rights Act as proof that the GOP was actively courting racist southern voters. After all, they argue, Goldwater only won six states--his home state of Arizona and five states in the deep south. His "States' Rights" platform had to be code for a racist return to a segregated society, right?
Hardly. Goldwater was actually very supportive of civil rights for black Americans, voting for the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts and even helping to found Arizona's chapter of the NAACP. His opposition to the 1964 Act was not at all rooted in racism, but rather in a belief that it allowed the federal government to infringe on state sovereignty.
The Lyndon B. Johnson campaign pounced on Goldwater's position and, during the height of the 1964 campaign, ran an ad titled "Confessions of a Republican," which rather nonsensically tied Goldwater to the Ku Klux Klan (which, remember, was a Democratic organization).
The ad helped Johnson win the biggest landslide since 1920 and for the first time showed Democrats that accusing Republicans of being racist (even with absolutely no evidence to back this up) was a potent political weapon.
It would not be the last time they used it.
Four years later, facing declining popularity ratings and strong primary challenges from Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy, Johnson decided not to run for re-election. As protests over the Vietnam War and race riots following the death of Martin Luther King, Jr. raged in America's streets, Republican Richard Nixon, the former Vice President, launched a campaign based on promises of "restoring law and order."
With the southerner Johnson out of the race and Minnesota native Hubert Humphrey as his opponent, Nixon saw an opportunity to win southern states that Goldwater had, not through racism, but through aggressive campaigning in an area of the country Republicans had previously written off.
Yet it didn't work. For all of Nixon's supposed appeals to southern racists (who still voted for Democrats in Senate and House races that same year), he lost almost all of the south to a Democrat--George Wallace, who ran on the American Independent ticket and won five states and 46 electoral votes.
It shouldn't have been surprising that Nixon ran competitively in the South, though. He carried 32 states and won 301 electoral votes. Four years later, he won every state except Massachusetts. Was it because of his racism? Had he laid the groundwork for racist appeals by Republicans for generations to come?
Of course not. The supposedly racist southern Republicans who voted for Nixon in 1972 also voted to re-elect Democrat Senators in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia. Republicans gained only eight southern seats in the House even though their presidential candidate won a record 520 electoral votes.
After Nixon resigned in disgrace in 1974, Democrat Jimmy Carter swept the South en route to the presidency in 1976. Did Carter similarly run on racist themes? Or was he simply a stronger candidate? After Ronald Reagan carried the south in two landslides (including the biggest in U.S. history in 1984) and George H.W. Bush ran similarly strongly in 1988 while promising to be a "third Reagan term," Democrat Bill Clinton split the southern states with Bush in 1992 and with Bob Dole in 1996.
All the while, Democrats kept winning House, Senate, and gubernatorial elections. Only in 2000 did southern voters return to unanimous Electoral College support for a Republican presidential candidate.
Since then, the south has voted reliably Republican (with the exception of Florida and North Carolina) in every presidential election as it has consistently voted for Republicans in Senate, House, and Governor's races.
Yet this shift was a gradual, decades-long transition and not a sudden "shift" in response to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. Racism didn't turn the South Republican--if it did, then why did it take 30 years for those racist voters to finally give the GOP a majority of southern House seats? Why did it take racist voters in Georgia 38 years to finally vote for a Republican governor? And why did only one southern Democrat ever switch to the Republican Party?
The myth of the great Republican-Democrat "switch" summarily falters under the weight of actual historical analysis, and it becomes clear that prolonged electoral shifts combined with the phenomenal nationwide popularity of Republicans Richard Nixon in 1972 and Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 were the real reason for the Republican strength in the south.
Reagan in particular introduced the entire nation to conservative policies that it found that it loved, sparking a new generation of Republican voters and politicians who still have tremendous influence today.
Racism had nothing to do with it. That is simply a Democratic myth.
=======
Read it, understand it, let it change your opinion. And if not: well if facts don't affect you, there's no point in talking with you.
Prove it show us how this is not the case. So far I have seen slanders and people saying wrong....you have nothing then. I am not sure why the love affair with the idea that the Republican Party of today is the same as one 150+ years ago.
It's obviously not. If nothing else due to the differences in times and issues. It's bloody obvious by everything from electoral voting maps to people like Reagan moving over to the Republicans.
And we still see a shift in parties today. In fact many here are clamoring for blue dog democrats to come on board. The Republican party used to be comprised of people hard set against gay marriage and other social issues. Now they have softened and we openly have gay people in the Republican party.
I mean seriously....things have changed just in the last 20 years. What I am seeing are people just covering their mouths and ears and ignoring what you can plainly see. Probably for ideological reasons. But the truth is the truth no matter how you slice it.
You've been reported already. Not sure how they do this stuff here. But your comments and attitude are way out of line. I have tried blocking you to no avail.
Texas changed over after 1976 to all republican after voting for carter. Has Texas changed its political leanings? Were there hardcore leftists in Texas? Obviously not.
In fact this has occurred in most of the South over time during the 19th century. Look at the Southern states
Again they were Democrat and started voting Republican. So you are trying to tell me and everyone else here that politics within states can change but not the political platforms of the parties?
No one is buying it. There was a political shift from Democrat to Republican, whether you like or not. The parties themselves were different from today's parties even without that.
Most of the small government types left the Democrat party and joined with the Republicans. It was not a clean swap, as some things just change with the times and some elements of the old Republican party stayed steady and the Democrats retained some of their old platform.
This is why Reagan left parties. If I was alive in the 1800s I would have voted Democrat. Today I vote Republican for exactly the SAME reasons. So just saying something has been "refuted" is saying nothing.
You just need to deal with the fact that politics of the 2000s is different from that of the 1800s and even the 1900s. How in the world anyone can try and maintain the idea that this is not the case is beyond me.
The Democratic party is a racist legacy of the past that deserves to be toppled. We simply can’t abide to have a party name with such a history of racism to operate within the U.S.A.
If I was alive in the 1800s I would have voted Democrat.
You're a fan of Andrew Jackson? Do you hate Native Americans or something? Frankly, if you would have voted Democrat in the 1800's you should be voting for them now, the vocabulary has changed but the governing philosophy is the same.
Ok..whatever. If it makes you feel good to say that. This shit reminds me of people just rooting for their favorite sports team.
Not even sure where racism even comes in here. In the 1800s EVERYONE was racist, especially by today's standards. Jefferson wanted to abolish slavery but deport all black Americans back to Africa and so did Lincoln.
Lincoln and Jefferson would have likely been in opposition to each other for other reasons. Mostly mercantilism vs small government agrarian culture. Things are not as cut and dry as people try and make it out to be.
When did the platforms change? Specifically, who are the democrat party members that left in droves as you claim to the republican party during this time? Looking at all of the KKK leaders, leaders of other racist organizations, every democrat congressmen & senators between 1860-2000, and every person who voted against the civil rights act of 1964, less than 1% (14 / ~1600) ever "switched" parties. The rest remained racist democrats until the day they died. So then, specifically, where is this large group of democrat party members that switched? Who are they specifically?
If I was alive in the 1800s I would have voted Democrat.
So what you're saying is that if you were alive in the 1800s you would have supported a racist democrat party. I see. You know, the same racist democrat party that voted as such:
-13th Amendment: Abolish Slavery (1865) - 100% Republican support / 23% Dem Support
-14th Amendment: Citizenship to freed slaves (1868) - 94% Republican support / 0% Dem Support
-15th Amendment (1870): Right to vote for all: 100% Republican support / 0% dem support
Well I think you just have a very narrow minded way of looking at the parties. There is more going on than RACISM. It's also more complex than what is presented. Even the Civil War was not fought primarily about slavery but as a mean to forcibly retain states.
You look at slavery through modern eyes. Back then as bad as it sounds today there were people who simply were not that bothered by it on both sides of the isle. It was a convenient wedge issue between North and South and there were moral thinkers throughout the US who sought it's abolition.
Lincoln however, had ending slavery as a secondary goal, and one that was not necessary if it meant dissolution of the United States. His own words confirm this. He also though blacks were lesser as a race and that they could never integrate and function in society. He was planning on deporting them before he was killed.
Meanwhile you are missing the bulk of the disagreement. The agrarian South like small government and more importantly felt the mercantile North was using public office to promote it's own interests at the expense of the South. Back then it was tariffs that many felt were selectively being applied to Southern goods.
In any case at the same time among many and definitely inside the Republican Party at the time there was also a desire to promote public works. Mainly things like the railroad. And to expand the role of the federal government as a whole.
This sort of thing is mostly in the Democrat party today. They see benefit in greater federal power and want to expand the role of the federal government. As far as the transition period, most say around the time of Woodrow Wilson, but there was a time of confusion and this is where most of the nasty stuff gets passed legislatively.
Say if we look at Hoover before FDR, they were from different parties but both drank the progressive kool aid to different degrees. Not only that you have people that vote for political parties like their favorite sports team. So a shift from one party to another is not going to happen overnight. That is why we see the gradual change from blue to red. Some localities had traditional Democrats who were not progressive and with the Republicans vise versa.
So to say exactly when everything perfectly melded together is not going to happen. We still see Rhinos in the Republican party and Blue Dogs in the Democrat party, although they are mostly being jettisoned.
But if one just uses common sense and looks at the electoral maps. I mean Texas? They have always been small town, leave us the fuck a lone people. They were traditionally Democrat voting until after Carter. And a lot of it just has to do with the North/South divide. Southern states were rural small town and had politics that mimicked it. The North was mercantile and larger city driven and had politics that mimicked it. This political situation continued for awhile but by around 1900 things and the world started to change.
Now we see its mostly rural America against the larger cities throughout the country. And this time around Republicans are finding support in rural America. I came from a Republican household, have always voted Republican, but do so based on my principles.
Sounds like you can’t actually name any democrat part members that’s switched. Because less than 1% did. Democrats were and still are the party of racism.
Its short and sweet. There is more on this. But the parties changed. The fact is relatively speaking for the times the Republican party was the party of big government in the 1800s. That changed once the Democrat party also became the party of big government for different reasons.
And while this transition happened the Constitution got roughshod ran over it as there was no opposition to any of it and the people were not keen to it yet. This is why it's dangerous to not just be a lap dog of one party or the other. AKA voting like its your favorite sports team.
You have to hold them accountable like the Tea Party and others have done to Republicans lately. And this was in response to Bush era Rhino politics....the people are fooled initially but figure it out and respond.
In the case of the early 20th century it was so severe that people ended up moving between parties. Also there was no "clean" move from one party to the other. Even the Republicans retained a lot of their big government tendencies from the past, just much more moderate than the Democrats.
The old Democrat party of the 1800s of small government essentially died. But the refugees definitely found the best ally they could with the Republicans later on.
Seems like you might be able to answer this as well since you agree with the assertion.
When did the platforms change? Specifically, who are the democrat party members that left in droves as you claim to the republican party during this time? Looking at all of the KKK leaders, leaders of other racist organizations, every democrat congressmen & senators between 1860-2000, and every person who voted against the civil rights act of 1964, less than 1% (14 / ~1600) ever "switched" parties. The rest remained racist democrats until the day they died. So then, specifically, where is this large group of democrat party members that switched? Who are they specifically?
Spez: Here, I’ll start your list off of racist southern democrats who made the switch to the Republican Party...Strom Thurmond. Your turn.
Democrats have always been masters of media manipulation all the way back to Andrew Jackson they’ve been trying to make the right look bad and the left look good doesn’t matter if they’re litterally committing genocide.
Maybe now, but 60-70 years ago I'd disagree. Before Johnson's "Great Society" and the following plethora of social programs intended to "help"' black income was on the rise, they had some of the lowest rates of out of wedlock births, they were more conservative in many cases than the white population.
It took decades of these programs, along with actual attempts to destabilize black communities to turn the black urban population into what we're familiar with. The Democrats actively hurt the black communities under the guise of helping them -- only leaving them as fawning, uneducated sycophants.
Bullets in leftists all covered in stitches
Begging for meals of soy like such bitches
LARPing from basements all acting like kings
These are a few of my least favorite things 🎶
While I'd like to see Atlanta get theirs because of the terrible policies lets not forget that Georgia went for Donald J. Trump and +16 Electoral votes... Also not all of Atlanta is blue. Unfortunately Democrats outnumber conservatives, BUT in 2016 the Atlanta Election results (Fulton Co) were 117,365 votes for Trump (28%). Maybe this is the RED PILL the other 71% have been waiting for.
I really disagree with this not my problem mentality. Almost every major city is dem run (into the ground). Americans deserve better than this, there are conservatives living there, and even people who vote dem bec they’re hoodwinked or ignorant deserve better and to see the light. This shit is spreading all over and will destroy our great country if we take that attitude of whatever it’s on them. There are no magical borders around these cities that stop this crap from gaining momentum. It’s fun watching Antifastan implode bec it’s so ridiculous. But cops walking out all over the place in regular towns is no joke and we should be concerned.
I back LEO but I feel bad for the average person in the area. Plenty of locals support LEO's and didn't agree with any of this. A Republican in Atl can only do so much
This clearly can’t be right. Democrats have always said there was a party switch right after all the southern democrats voted against civil rights.
Yep! Just like cops and robbers did a switch too where cops loot banks and robbers catch them!
Yeah, the parties switched because of the civil rights legislation signed by this democrat:
ActBlue has already funneled a billion dollars to Dem candidates this election cycle.
https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/expenditures.php?cycle=2020&cmte=C00401224
"Contributions to federal candidates: $1,057,598,402"
They joined with the communists. Read this:
https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/watchwomanonthewall/2011/04/the-45-communist-goals-as-read-into-the-congressional-record-1963.html
We see a lot of this from BLM and the media:
Negro
Negra
Negraga
Johnson has the FF lingo down to a T.
Fuck off commie
Ok but he isnt wrong.
Yes he is :)
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6jawf5/the_big_switch_is_a_lie_nobody_switched_the/
No he isn't
The Republican Party has NEVER in it's entire history been the racist party:
https://newstalk1130.iheart.com/featured/common-sense-central/content/2018-05-01-the-myth-of-the-republican-democrat-switch/
This is as ridiculous as it is easily debunked.
The Republican Party, of course, was founded in 1848 with the abolition of slavery as its core mission. Almost immediately after its second presidential candidate, Abraham Lincoln, won the 1860 election, Democrat-controlled southern states seceded on the assumption that Lincoln would destroy their slave-based economies.
Once the Civil War ended, the newly freed slaves as expected flocked to the Republican Party, but Democrat control of the South from Reconstruction until the Civil Rights Era was near total. In 1960, Democrats held every Senate seat south of the Mason-Dixon line. In the 13 states that made up the Confederacy a century earlier, Democrats held a staggering 117-8 advantage in the House of Representatives. The Democratic Party was so strong in the south that those 117 House members made up a full 41% of Democrats' 283-153 advantage in the Chamber.
Likewise, throughout the late 1950s and early 1960s, Democratic governors and overwhelmingly Democratic State Legislatures controlled the South, which steadfastly opposed the push for civil rights. In contrast, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, openly praised school desegregation in the Brown v. Board of Education decision and sent federalized Arkansas National Guard troops to Little Rock to protect nine black students after Democratic Governor Orval Faubus threatened to keep them out of a previously all-white high school.
Eisenhower was a phenomenally popular war hero when he was elected in 1952, and even though only one Republican had ever before won any southern states in the Electoral College (Herbert Hoover in 1928), Eisenhower began to make inroads for the Republican Party; winning Florida, Texas, Virginia, and Tennessee. In his landslide victory four years later, Eisenhower picked up Louisiana and Kentucky.
His personal appeal, though, didn't transcend the Democratic Party's hold on the South, and when he left office in 1961, that hold was arguably stronger than it had been in decades. As Southern Democrats clung to traditional segregation, though, the rest of the country was changing, and the push for civil rights had begun.
After the assassination of President John F. Kennedy--a strong proponent of civil rights--in late 1963, Southern Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson saw it as his mission to pass the Civil Rights Act as a tribute to Kennedy, who had first proposed the bill five months before he was killed. Democrats in the Senate, however, filibustered it.
In June of 1964, though, the bill came up again, and it passed...over the strenuous objections of Southern Democrats. 80% of House Republicans voted for the measure, compared with just 61% of Democrats, while 82% of Republicans in the Senate supported it, compared with 69% of Democrats.
Nearly all of the opposition was, naturally, in the South, which was still nearly unanimously Democratic and nearly unanimously resistant to the changing country. One thing that most assuredly didn't change, though, was party affiliation. A total of 21 Democrats in the Senate opposed the Civil Rights Act. Only one of them, "Dixiecrat" Strom Thurmond, ever became a Republican. The rest, including Al Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd--a former Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan--remained Democrats until the day they died.
Moreover, as those 20 lifelong Democrats retired, their Senate seats remained in Democrat hands for several decades afterwards. So too did the overwhelming majority of the House seats in the South until 1994, when a Republican wave election swept the GOP into control of the House for the first time since 1952. 1994 was also the first time Republicans ever held a majority of House seats in the South--a full 30 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act.
From there, Republicans gradually built their support in the South until two more wave elections in 2010 and 2014 gave them the overwhelming majorities they enjoy today.
If this was a sudden "switch" to the Republican Party for the old Democrat segregationists, it sure took a long time to happen.
The reality is that it didn't. After the 1964 election--the first after the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the opportune time for racist Democrat voters to abandon the party in favor of Republicans--Democrats still held a 102-20 House majority in states that had once been part of the Confederacy. In 1960, remember, that advantage was 117-8. A pickup of 12 seats (half of them in Alabama) is hardly the massive shift one would expect if racist voters suddenly abandoned the Democratic Party in favor of the GOP.
In fact, voting patterns in the South didn't really change all that much after the Civil Rights era. Democrats still dominated Senate, House, and gubernatorial elections for decades afterward. Alabama, for example, didn't elect a Republican governor until 1986. Mississippi didn't elect one until 1991. Georgia didn't elect one until 2002.
In the Senate, Republicans picked up four southern Senate seats in the 1960s and 1970s, while Democrats also picked up four. Democratic incumbents won routinely. If anything, those racist southern voters kept voting Democrat.
So how did this myth of a sudden "switch" get started?
It's rooted in an equally pernicious myth of the supposedly racist "Southern Strategy" of Richard Nixon's 1968 presidential campaign, which was accused of surreptitiously exploiting the innate racism of white southern voters.
Even before that, though, modern-day Democrats point to the 1964 presidential campaign of Republican Barry Goldwater, who refused to back the 1964 Civil Rights Act as proof that the GOP was actively courting racist southern voters. After all, they argue, Goldwater only won six states--his home state of Arizona and five states in the deep south. His "States' Rights" platform had to be code for a racist return to a segregated society, right?
Hardly. Goldwater was actually very supportive of civil rights for black Americans, voting for the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts and even helping to found Arizona's chapter of the NAACP. His opposition to the 1964 Act was not at all rooted in racism, but rather in a belief that it allowed the federal government to infringe on state sovereignty.
The Lyndon B. Johnson campaign pounced on Goldwater's position and, during the height of the 1964 campaign, ran an ad titled "Confessions of a Republican," which rather nonsensically tied Goldwater to the Ku Klux Klan (which, remember, was a Democratic organization).
The ad helped Johnson win the biggest landslide since 1920 and for the first time showed Democrats that accusing Republicans of being racist (even with absolutely no evidence to back this up) was a potent political weapon.
It would not be the last time they used it.
Four years later, facing declining popularity ratings and strong primary challenges from Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy, Johnson decided not to run for re-election. As protests over the Vietnam War and race riots following the death of Martin Luther King, Jr. raged in America's streets, Republican Richard Nixon, the former Vice President, launched a campaign based on promises of "restoring law and order."
With the southerner Johnson out of the race and Minnesota native Hubert Humphrey as his opponent, Nixon saw an opportunity to win southern states that Goldwater had, not through racism, but through aggressive campaigning in an area of the country Republicans had previously written off.
Yet it didn't work. For all of Nixon's supposed appeals to southern racists (who still voted for Democrats in Senate and House races that same year), he lost almost all of the south to a Democrat--George Wallace, who ran on the American Independent ticket and won five states and 46 electoral votes.
It shouldn't have been surprising that Nixon ran competitively in the South, though. He carried 32 states and won 301 electoral votes. Four years later, he won every state except Massachusetts. Was it because of his racism? Had he laid the groundwork for racist appeals by Republicans for generations to come?
Of course not. The supposedly racist southern Republicans who voted for Nixon in 1972 also voted to re-elect Democrat Senators in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia. Republicans gained only eight southern seats in the House even though their presidential candidate won a record 520 electoral votes.
After Nixon resigned in disgrace in 1974, Democrat Jimmy Carter swept the South en route to the presidency in 1976. Did Carter similarly run on racist themes? Or was he simply a stronger candidate? After Ronald Reagan carried the south in two landslides (including the biggest in U.S. history in 1984) and George H.W. Bush ran similarly strongly in 1988 while promising to be a "third Reagan term," Democrat Bill Clinton split the southern states with Bush in 1992 and with Bob Dole in 1996.
All the while, Democrats kept winning House, Senate, and gubernatorial elections. Only in 2000 did southern voters return to unanimous Electoral College support for a Republican presidential candidate.
Since then, the south has voted reliably Republican (with the exception of Florida and North Carolina) in every presidential election as it has consistently voted for Republicans in Senate, House, and Governor's races.
Yet this shift was a gradual, decades-long transition and not a sudden "shift" in response to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. Racism didn't turn the South Republican--if it did, then why did it take 30 years for those racist voters to finally give the GOP a majority of southern House seats? Why did it take racist voters in Georgia 38 years to finally vote for a Republican governor? And why did only one southern Democrat ever switch to the Republican Party?
The myth of the great Republican-Democrat "switch" summarily falters under the weight of actual historical analysis, and it becomes clear that prolonged electoral shifts combined with the phenomenal nationwide popularity of Republicans Richard Nixon in 1972 and Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 were the real reason for the Republican strength in the south.
Reagan in particular introduced the entire nation to conservative policies that it found that it loved, sparking a new generation of Republican voters and politicians who still have tremendous influence today.
Racism had nothing to do with it. That is simply a Democratic myth.
=======
Read it, understand it, let it change your opinion. And if not: well if facts don't affect you, there's no point in talking with you.
lmao im not reading all that bullshit. All those words and you are still dead ass wrong.
Prove it show us how this is not the case. So far I have seen slanders and people saying wrong....you have nothing then. I am not sure why the love affair with the idea that the Republican Party of today is the same as one 150+ years ago.
It's obviously not. If nothing else due to the differences in times and issues. It's bloody obvious by everything from electoral voting maps to people like Reagan moving over to the Republicans.
And we still see a shift in parties today. In fact many here are clamoring for blue dog democrats to come on board. The Republican party used to be comprised of people hard set against gay marriage and other social issues. Now they have softened and we openly have gay people in the Republican party.
I mean seriously....things have changed just in the last 20 years. What I am seeing are people just covering their mouths and ears and ignoring what you can plainly see. Probably for ideological reasons. But the truth is the truth no matter how you slice it.
too long didn't read
How about trying to refute what was written. This kinda of shit posting is poison. It's obvious you are forced to agree with me.
Again fuck off commie
Time to bash and kill some commies!
You've been reported already. Not sure how they do this stuff here. But your comments and attitude are way out of line. I have tried blocking you to no avail.
Reported for what calling you out
ok...good luck
It's been refuted dozens of times on the old t_d. We don't need to give a shit about it anymore.
No it has not. You don't get to decide what is and what is not "refuted". I'd argue its the other way around.
The Democrat Party of 1880 is not the Democrat Party of 2020. This is obvious to anyone who is remotely intellectually honest.
Voting from Texas https://www.270towin.com/states/Texas
Texas changed over after 1976 to all republican after voting for carter. Has Texas changed its political leanings? Were there hardcore leftists in Texas? Obviously not.
In fact this has occurred in most of the South over time during the 19th century. Look at the Southern states
https://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/
Again they were Democrat and started voting Republican. So you are trying to tell me and everyone else here that politics within states can change but not the political platforms of the parties?
No one is buying it. There was a political shift from Democrat to Republican, whether you like or not. The parties themselves were different from today's parties even without that.
Most of the small government types left the Democrat party and joined with the Republicans. It was not a clean swap, as some things just change with the times and some elements of the old Republican party stayed steady and the Democrats retained some of their old platform.
This is why Reagan left parties. If I was alive in the 1800s I would have voted Democrat. Today I vote Republican for exactly the SAME reasons. So just saying something has been "refuted" is saying nothing.
You just need to deal with the fact that politics of the 2000s is different from that of the 1800s and even the 1900s. How in the world anyone can try and maintain the idea that this is not the case is beyond me.
The Democratic party is a racist legacy of the past that deserves to be toppled. We simply can’t abide to have a party name with such a history of racism to operate within the U.S.A.
Perhaps you'd like to debate it with Bevelyn Beatty
https://thedonald.win/p/FzFpOjwW/black-female-street-preacher-bev/c/
You're a fan of Andrew Jackson? Do you hate Native Americans or something? Frankly, if you would have voted Democrat in the 1800's you should be voting for them now, the vocabulary has changed but the governing philosophy is the same.
The Republican party has NEVER been the racist party.
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6jawf5/the_big_switch_is_a_lie_nobody_switched_the/
Ok..whatever. If it makes you feel good to say that. This shit reminds me of people just rooting for their favorite sports team.
Not even sure where racism even comes in here. In the 1800s EVERYONE was racist, especially by today's standards. Jefferson wanted to abolish slavery but deport all black Americans back to Africa and so did Lincoln.
Lincoln and Jefferson would have likely been in opposition to each other for other reasons. Mostly mercantilism vs small government agrarian culture. Things are not as cut and dry as people try and make it out to be.
It's fine grab the pom poms and go to town.
When did the platforms change? Specifically, who are the democrat party members that left in droves as you claim to the republican party during this time? Looking at all of the KKK leaders, leaders of other racist organizations, every democrat congressmen & senators between 1860-2000, and every person who voted against the civil rights act of 1964, less than 1% (14 / ~1600) ever "switched" parties. The rest remained racist democrats until the day they died. So then, specifically, where is this large group of democrat party members that switched? Who are they specifically?
So what you're saying is that if you were alive in the 1800s you would have supported a racist democrat party. I see. You know, the same racist democrat party that voted as such:
-13th Amendment: Abolish Slavery (1865) - 100% Republican support / 23% Dem Support
-14th Amendment: Citizenship to freed slaves (1868) - 94% Republican support / 0% Dem Support
-15th Amendment (1870): Right to vote for all: 100% Republican support / 0% dem support
Well I think you just have a very narrow minded way of looking at the parties. There is more going on than RACISM. It's also more complex than what is presented. Even the Civil War was not fought primarily about slavery but as a mean to forcibly retain states.
You look at slavery through modern eyes. Back then as bad as it sounds today there were people who simply were not that bothered by it on both sides of the isle. It was a convenient wedge issue between North and South and there were moral thinkers throughout the US who sought it's abolition.
Lincoln however, had ending slavery as a secondary goal, and one that was not necessary if it meant dissolution of the United States. His own words confirm this. He also though blacks were lesser as a race and that they could never integrate and function in society. He was planning on deporting them before he was killed.
Meanwhile you are missing the bulk of the disagreement. The agrarian South like small government and more importantly felt the mercantile North was using public office to promote it's own interests at the expense of the South. Back then it was tariffs that many felt were selectively being applied to Southern goods.
In any case at the same time among many and definitely inside the Republican Party at the time there was also a desire to promote public works. Mainly things like the railroad. And to expand the role of the federal government as a whole.
This sort of thing is mostly in the Democrat party today. They see benefit in greater federal power and want to expand the role of the federal government. As far as the transition period, most say around the time of Woodrow Wilson, but there was a time of confusion and this is where most of the nasty stuff gets passed legislatively.
Say if we look at Hoover before FDR, they were from different parties but both drank the progressive kool aid to different degrees. Not only that you have people that vote for political parties like their favorite sports team. So a shift from one party to another is not going to happen overnight. That is why we see the gradual change from blue to red. Some localities had traditional Democrats who were not progressive and with the Republicans vise versa.
So to say exactly when everything perfectly melded together is not going to happen. We still see Rhinos in the Republican party and Blue Dogs in the Democrat party, although they are mostly being jettisoned.
But if one just uses common sense and looks at the electoral maps. I mean Texas? They have always been small town, leave us the fuck a lone people. They were traditionally Democrat voting until after Carter. And a lot of it just has to do with the North/South divide. Southern states were rural small town and had politics that mimicked it. The North was mercantile and larger city driven and had politics that mimicked it. This political situation continued for awhile but by around 1900 things and the world started to change.
Now we see its mostly rural America against the larger cities throughout the country. And this time around Republicans are finding support in rural America. I came from a Republican household, have always voted Republican, but do so based on my principles.
Sounds like you can’t actually name any democrat part members that’s switched. Because less than 1% did. Democrats were and still are the party of racism.
Also there is this
https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html
Its short and sweet. There is more on this. But the parties changed. The fact is relatively speaking for the times the Republican party was the party of big government in the 1800s. That changed once the Democrat party also became the party of big government for different reasons.
And while this transition happened the Constitution got roughshod ran over it as there was no opposition to any of it and the people were not keen to it yet. This is why it's dangerous to not just be a lap dog of one party or the other. AKA voting like its your favorite sports team.
You have to hold them accountable like the Tea Party and others have done to Republicans lately. And this was in response to Bush era Rhino politics....the people are fooled initially but figure it out and respond.
In the case of the early 20th century it was so severe that people ended up moving between parties. Also there was no "clean" move from one party to the other. Even the Republicans retained a lot of their big government tendencies from the past, just much more moderate than the Democrats.
The old Democrat party of the 1800s of small government essentially died. But the refugees definitely found the best ally they could with the Republicans later on.
What do you mean switched? Reagan? He switched and stated the reason just as I have.
Good enough? Hero savior of the Republican Party? Why do you hate Reagan so much?
Seems like you might be able to answer this as well since you agree with the assertion.
When did the platforms change? Specifically, who are the democrat party members that left in droves as you claim to the republican party during this time? Looking at all of the KKK leaders, leaders of other racist organizations, every democrat congressmen & senators between 1860-2000, and every person who voted against the civil rights act of 1964, less than 1% (14 / ~1600) ever "switched" parties. The rest remained racist democrats until the day they died. So then, specifically, where is this large group of democrat party members that switched? Who are they specifically?
Spez: Here, I’ll start your list off of racist southern democrats who made the switch to the Republican Party...Strom Thurmond. Your turn.
I'm not reading all that and you are still wrong
So you concede. Thank you for your time.
K
To what so far we have
"fuck off commie"
and
"you're wrong"
Yeah thats winning me over.
u/eupraxia128 gave a detailed rebuttal which you have conveniently ignored.
Lol which? There has not been any. Are you willfully ignoring this or what? If you don't want to debate or have anything to add why bother posting?
I literally gave you the name of the poster you utter fucking clown.
Here the direct link to the comment seeing as simple tasks like reading comprehension or searching a thread elude you.
https://thedonald.win/p/FzFxNA51/x/c/12ih56KnIu
More angry insults....losing the argument?
same
No, you just ignored the posts pointing out why you were wrong.
Doubt
"Hurr durr Doubt"
Not fancying addressing u/eupraxia128's points then?
Hmm wonder why.
I'll feel sorry for all those fat surly bitches who work TSA at the Atlanta airport.
Oh, wait. No I won't.
I mean I don't, bc I live here.
I. Don't. Care.
Tommy Lee Jones!
Atlanta is the system. If there is institutional racism, then it is Democrat driven racism.
I'll give the Democrats credit; they did an amazing job tricking the black population that they're on the same side.
Democrats have always been masters of media manipulation all the way back to Andrew Jackson they’ve been trying to make the right look bad and the left look good doesn’t matter if they’re litterally committing genocide.
I dont think that's a tough population to manipulate
Maybe now, but 60-70 years ago I'd disagree. Before Johnson's "Great Society" and the following plethora of social programs intended to "help"' black income was on the rise, they had some of the lowest rates of out of wedlock births, they were more conservative in many cases than the white population.
It took decades of these programs, along with actual attempts to destabilize black communities to turn the black urban population into what we're familiar with. The Democrats actively hurt the black communities under the guise of helping them -- only leaving them as fawning, uneducated sycophants.
K
Bullets in leftists all covered in stitches Begging for meals of soy like such bitches LARPing from basements all acting like kings These are a few of my least favorite things 🎶
I busted out laughing when I saw that on his profile. 🤣
Well you getthat be right you voted for the prick so now bend over and take the Dick.
While I'd like to see Atlanta get theirs because of the terrible policies lets not forget that Georgia went for Donald J. Trump and +16 Electoral votes... Also not all of Atlanta is blue. Unfortunately Democrats outnumber conservatives, BUT in 2016 the Atlanta Election results (Fulton Co) were 117,365 votes for Trump (28%). Maybe this is the RED PILL the other 71% have been waiting for.
The best thing Republicans ever did for Atlanta is burn it to the ground.
I really disagree with this not my problem mentality. Almost every major city is dem run (into the ground). Americans deserve better than this, there are conservatives living there, and even people who vote dem bec they’re hoodwinked or ignorant deserve better and to see the light. This shit is spreading all over and will destroy our great country if we take that attitude of whatever it’s on them. There are no magical borders around these cities that stop this crap from gaining momentum. It’s fun watching Antifastan implode bec it’s so ridiculous. But cops walking out all over the place in regular towns is no joke and we should be concerned.
I back LEO but I feel bad for the average person in the area. Plenty of locals support LEO's and didn't agree with any of this. A Republican in Atl can only do so much
Y'all ain't never dealt with Atlanta police. They are horrible. Lots of people in Atlanta would be glad to see them go.
Haha not until they need them.