Don't forget to vote

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-06-2019, 05:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Y'all and your fancy electronic machines. Never even had the option to use one.

Yeah, I never knew they were so widespread. I've always had to just use a pen to fill in bubbles on a paper ballot. We then feed it into a machine now that scans it (and makes sure you are aware if you didn't fully fill out your ballot), but I have never even seen a fully electronic voting machine in person. 

[Dill]

(11-06-2019, 05:55 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: [url=https://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/][/url]So, did the southern states switch their votes out of spite because a Democrat proposed the civil rights act legislation and his Vice President, also a democrat, passed it? Did the Republicans shift their strategy after the Civil Rights act to pick up the southern racists (coined: the Southern Strategy)? Did some Democrats switch parties after the civil rights act? Did the two parties kind of mix and meld based more on geography than party and re-emerge as they today? Was it a combination of all these things? Or did something completely unrelated to the Civil Rights Act cause that particular voter base shift?

The truth is Democrats and Republicans of the past were, generally speaking, more right wing than the average person is today, so they'd all probably identify as Republicans if they were plopped into modern politics anyway. So the switch of the 1960s doesn't really concern me. I focus more on the actual policies of the politicians of today, rather than discussing what the politicians of the past may have done and who gets credit for what policies.

The bolded=YES!  As for "melding" based on geography and other causes, part of the shift to Republican dominance has to do with the kinds of people moving to some places like Georgia and Florida from northern states (Dinesh d'Souza argues this). But for the most part, the Dem stand on civil rights, coupled with the Repubs SOUTHERN STRATEGY, best explains the long term trend.  Most of my elderly family members from Texas shifted from Dem to Republican, once LBJ was no longer running--and Dems' firm stand on civil rights was their central gripe. The one exception was my grandfather, who voted four times for FDR and just couldn't change.

I should add that after 1980, a "cleansing" of the GOP began, as it drove further and further right, forcing their "liberals" to become independents or Democrats. Seems like each new generation became more radical, defining the previous generation of radicals as "RINOs."  The parties have, over the last 50 years, 'unmixed'--one to become more purely "conservative" (until Trump) and one more purely "liberal." (Though both are still versions of "liberal"--not socialist or fascist (yet)).

You make an interesting point about how our ancestors might vote today-- BOTH Dems and Repubs. They would certainly have problems with gays, blacks and women running for office. Over the long term, progressive values have tended to win out in the US. As time passes, conservatives embrace what conservatives formerly opposed as what conservatives have always stood for, and the historical struggle--history itself--is revised and to some degree erased. That's why it is better to discuss historical trends with substantive labels like "liberal" or "conservative" rather than party brands.

As it turns out, "the switch" is still pretty important, because few Republicans would want to publicly acknowledge that our ancestors would prefer their party for the retrograde reasons given above.  So the debate over "the switch" remains a debate about the heart and soul of each party. And it remains central to political strategy, as on the conservative side it is consistently denied that protests, strikes "resistance" and feminists and unions and the like have had an important hand in shaping what the country presently values.

That is why it is so important for Ann Coulter, d'Souza, Hannity, Levin, Tucker and the rest to remind us that the Dems were the party of the Klan and the Republicans were the party of Lincoln and Reconstruction, more Repubs voted for the Civil Rights Act, etc., forgetting (deliberately) to add BEFORE THE SWITCH (which they utterly deny occurred; southerners in formerly segregated states just began recognizing how sensible Republican economic doctrine was for the country, lol. REAGAN won them over) .

And that is why it is so important for Dems to explain why, even though they WERE the party of segregation in the 1950s, 90% of African Americans NOW consistently vote Democrat-- I.e., AFTER THE SWITCH.

NB: not sure our ancestors would have preferred Trump to other candidates. The vulgarity and incompetence would be every bit as shocking as a woman president.

[Benton]

(11-06-2019, 11:58 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: That's a great line.

An old boss of mine attributed it to a bevin staffer, but not sure where he saw that. I think it sums up a lot of how people feel about a large number of Republicans. If they want to gain in 2020 stop being assholes.

[CJD]

(11-06-2019, 07:43 PM)Dill Wrote: The bolded=YES!  As for "melding" based on geography and other causes, part of the shift to Republican dominance has to do with the kinds of people moving to some places like Georgia and Florida from northern states (Dinesh d'Souza argues this). But for the most part, the Dem stand on civil rights, coupled with the Repubs SOUTHERN STRATEGY, best explains the long term trend.  Most of my elderly family members from Texas shifted from Dem to Republican, once LBJ was no longer running--and Dems' firm stand on civil rights was their central gripe. The one exception was my grandfather, who voted four times for FDR and just couldn't change.

I should add that after 1980, a "cleansing" of the GOP began, as it drove further and further right, forcing their "liberals" to become independents or Democrats. Seems like each new generation became more radical, defining the previous generation of radicals as "RINOs."  The parties have, over the last 50 years, 'unmixed'--one to become more purely "conservative" (until Trump) and one more purely "liberal." (Though both are still versions of  "liberal"--not socialist or fascist (yet)).

You make an interesting point about how our ancestors might vote today-- BOTH Dems and Repubs. They would certainly have problems with gays, blacks and women running for office. Over the long term, progressive values have tended to win out in the US. As time passes, conservatives embrace what conservatives formerly opposed as what conservatives have always stood for, and the historical struggle--history itself--is revised and to some degree erased. That's why it is better to discuss historical trends with substantive labels like "liberal" or "conservative" rather than party brands.

As it turns out, "the switch" is still pretty important, because few Republicans would want to publicly acknowledge that our ancestors would prefer their party for the retrograde reasons given above.  So the debate over "the switch" remains a debate about the heart and soul of each party. And it remains central to political strategy, as on the conservative side it is consistently denied that protests, strikes "resistance" and feminists and unions and the like have had an important hand in shaping what the country presently values.

That is why it is so important for Ann Coulter, d'Souza, Hannity, Levin, Tucker and the rest to remind us that the Dems were the party of the Klan and the Republicans were the party of Lincoln and Reconstruction, more Repubs voted for the Civil Rights Act, etc., forgetting (deliberately) to add BEFORE THE SWITCH (which they utterly deny occurred; southerners in formerly segregated states just began recognizing how sensible Republican economic doctrine was for the country, lol. REAGAN won them over) .

And that is why it is so important for Dems to explain why, even though they WERE the party of segregation in the 1950s, 90% of African Americans NOW consistently vote Democrat-- I.e., AFTER THE SWITCH.

NB: not sure our ancestors would have preferred Trump to other candidates. The vulgarity and incompetence would be every bit as shocking as a woman president.

The reason I brought up the geographical data is because when it came to the Civil Rights Act, the people who voted didn't really vote along party lines...they voted along geographical lines. Both Republicans and Democrats from the South more often voted against it. Both Republicans and Democrats from the North more often voted for it.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights

Quote: In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it.

Regarding the switch, does that mean that FDR and JFK were Republicans, in hindsight, since they were Democrats pre-switch? And what relevance does that have when you name the Green New Deal after the New Deal claiming FDR as a consummate Democrat, despite the switch?

It's questions like that that make me not even sure what the point of calling out the switch even means. Awarding "credit" to parties for this or that based off of what those politicians considered themselves at the time just seems arbitrary. Both parties have evolved over time.

I understand that everyone wants to be on "the right side of history." That's why the Republicans constantly call themselves "the Party of Lincoln" as if that means anything in a time when they have relatively few black people supporting them due to their lack of policies that would help and support the black communities. 

They call themselves that not because it's true (which it is), but because they want people to disregard their current stances and think about what their party once was as a reason to support them now.

How could the party of Lincoln, the man who freed the slaves, also run the Southern Strategy to win votes in the South based on racism? 

Because, turns out, politicians are pragmatic and will do what they need to retain power. And the party of people who freed the slaves are completely unrelated to the party of people who instituted the Southern Strategy, even if they use the same party title.

It's complete nonsense and serves no purpose in modern politics other than to confuse, tribalize and obfuscate the truth from the general public.

In a perfect world, parties wouldn't exist. People would just run on their platforms and the people would elect the person with whom they agree on the most policies. The problem with that is two fold. 
1. The general public doesn't want to have to learn about every single politician and parties give them a good short hand device and 
2. The politicians don't want to have to stand by each of their policies individually, rather they just want to "toe the line" of their party and collect the votes that are inherent to their party.

This became a bit more of a rant than I originally intended. The point being, something can be factually accurate and also completely irrelevant. And that's how I view the historical context of political parties to today's politics.

[Dill]

(11-07-2019, 09:45 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Regarding the switch, does that mean that FDR and JFK were Republicans, in hindsight, since they were Democrats pre-switch? And what relevance does that have when you name the Green New Deal after the New Deal claiming FDR as a consummate Democrat, despite the switch?

It's questions like that that make me not even sure what the point of calling out the switch even means. Awarding "credit" to parties for this or that based off of what those politicians considered themselves at the time just seems arbitrary. Both parties have evolved over time.

I understand that everyone wants to be on "the right side of history." That's why the Republicans constantly call themselves "the Party of Lincoln" as if that means anything in a time when they have relatively few black people supporting them due to their lack of policies that would help and support the black communities. 

They call themselves that not because it's true (which it is), but because they want people to disregard their current stances and think about what their party once was as a reason to support them now.

How could the party of Lincoln, the man who freed the slaves, also run the Southern Strategy to win votes in the South based on racism? 

Because, turns out, politicians are pragmatic and will do what they need to retain power. And the party of people who freed the slaves are completely unrelated to the party of people who instituted the Southern Strategy, even if they use the same party title.

It's complete nonsense and serves no purpose in modern politics other than to confuse, tribalize and obfuscate the truth from the general public.
.....
This became a bit more of a rant than I originally intended. The point being, something can be factually accurate and also completely irrelevant. And that's how I view the historical context of political parties to today's politics.

Good info in this post, C-dawg.  A couple of comments on your conclusions, though.

No, acknowledging "the switch" doesn't make FDR and JFK Republicans, even in hindsight. The Green New Deal carries over the recognition from the old New Deal that there are problems which cannot be solved by individuals and private business, problems so large the government needs to address them in coordinated fashion via policy. Even Southern Democrats agreed with this--until segregation became the problem government needed to address.

The party that freed the slaves is not completely unrelated to the party of today--at least up to Trump--as it was the party of big business, free labor, and free trade even back then.

So "the switch" is pretty much limited to the race issue.

I agree that Republicans call themselves "the party of Lincoln" to distract from current party ethos which includes, for example, attacking "real" racism. And its effect is to "obfuscate" current political issues, including what the Dems stand for.

But that obfuscation is precisely why journalists and historians and whomever in forums like this need to get "the switch" right, not throw it out.

I.e., the more strident and aggressive the obfuscation,the more, not less relevant, the factual accuracy becomes. 

We need to use history as a buttress against obfuscation. Dismissing "the switch" just helps the obfuscators, who want you to disregard it as they continue obfuscating.