The Switch That Never Happened

[Nebuchadnezzar]

https://amgreatness.com/2018/07/29/the-switch-that-never-happened-how-the-south-really-went-gop/

Even Hitler was quoted as saying "2+2=4". I get it, D'nesh D'souza is an evil, EVIL Republican racist, but the evidence is clear.

Oh, but, but, but...so in so said, doesn't refute the evidence. 

The switch never happened no matter how hard you try to say it did. Just own it and move on, become the party of "We made a mistake and fixed it" instead of rewriting history.

It won't matter though.

[Dill]

(10-08-2018, 07:59 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: https://amgreatness.com/2018/07/29/the-switch-that-never-happened-how-the-south-really-went-gop/

Even Hitler was quoted as saying "2+2=4". I get it, D'nesh D'souza is an evil, EVIL Republican racist, but the evidence is clear.

Oh, but, but, but...so in so said, doesn't refute the evidence. 

The switch never happened no matter how hard you try to say it did. Just own it and move on, become the party of "We made a mistake and fixed it" instead of rewriting history.

It won't matter though.

Ha ha, so you are back to the Democrats as the party of segregation. Did you actually read your article Neb? --or better yet, the scholarship it cites?
All those Dem segregationists never switched parties. They embraced the Civil Rights movement!
Blacks switched parties in the 1930s to get FDR "crumbs." Lol.

People who really use evidence-based arguments like to lay out that evidence.  

Maybe you could unpack a bit of the "evidence" you refer to above. Otherwise it just looks like they snowed you. Again.

[Belsnickel]

So interestingly, I also don't agree with the idea that there was a complete flip-flop. But what is in that article is crap.

Let's be honest, both parties were racist as hell. People can talk about the Republicans being the party of Lincoln and freeing the slaves, but that doesn't mean they weren't racist. They still didn't want them around them. They wanted to ship them out, if anything. Democrats and Republicans in the years following were guilty of racist policies, and this includes FDR and his New Deal.

The big difference between the politics of then and now is that the parties were more big tents. There was a wider spectrum of ideologies through the late 19th and early 20th centuries within the parties. You would find liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. When you read about the political battles during the early 20th century it is very interesting to see the divisions within the parties which was much wider than it is today. So what happened?

This is where we get that change that was caused by the Southern Strategy. But let's not kid ourselves, the Democrats signed onto the Civil Rights legislation for the political advantage. They were banking on it gaining them the black voting bloc for years to come. This is why it seems to be something they have taken for granted as they have failed time and time again to push any effective legislation. The Southern Strategy, though, and the way that caused the conservative Democrats in the south to move Republican was a real thing. The racism, overt and covert, was and is existent in the language that is used to court these voters.

In all seriousness, D'Souza is a hack. His writing is aimed at a partisan audience and is filled with revisionist history and some outright lies.

[BmorePat87]

This is the garbage that people write to help justify responding to any current KKK/Neo-Nazi news story with "The Democrats are the Party of the KKK!!!!".

[*Nately120*]

The guy who wrote this isn't even white.

[fredtoast]

(10-08-2018, 07:59 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: The switch never happened no matter how hard you try to say it did.

First of all the switch did happen.  Even the source you cited admitted as much.

"Why did blacks, who were once uniformly Republican, become as they are now almost uniformly Democratic? Why did the South, once the “solid South” of the Democratic Party, become the base of the Republican Party?" 


After that all you have is an opinion piece.  And in order to accept that opinion you have to say that minorities are just too stupid to understand simple concepts that white Republicans do.

I reject that hypothesis.  Instead I think minorities are smart enough to know who is on their side.  Blacks first turned en masse from Republican to Democrat during the depression when they needed help from the government.  Then Goldwater and the right wing Republicans opposed the Civil Rights Act in the '60's.  Blacks would have had to have been foolish to not turn away from them.  


And the voting patterns in the south are clear.  The white conservative democrats who also opposed the Civil Rights Act became Republicans.

[Benton]

It wasn't like everyone woke up the day after and switched voter registration, no. As Matt mentioned, both parties were racist, just in different ways. A lot of it was still held over from norms in place after the Civil War. Most of those are gone, along with the people (the last Civil War veterans were around in the 1950s, so you're finally getting to the point where their direct descendants are far enough removed not to have nostalgic feelings towards either side). In other words, Civil Rights — and the way members of each party voted — was mostly due to geography and culture, not party platforms.

And there's still some pockets where it's still that way. Go to Jackson, Mississippi and you'll find a good portion of folks that don't understand "what the fuss was all about."

Regardless, that doesn't matter a whole lot with what's going on today. The GOP had people who supported civil rights a half century ago. so did the Democrats. Now, only one party is opening their umbrella to include Nazis and admitted racists.

[GMDino]

I really thought this thread was going to be a lot dirtier than it is.  " "

[Dill]

(10-09-2018, 04:47 PM)GMDino Wrote: I really thought this thread was going to be a lot dirtier than it is.  " "

It is no fun. That's for sure. 

D'Souza "scholarship" circulates without resistance around Fox, the Daily mail, WND and Breitbart, and Free Republic, but collapses outside that bubble. It cannot be defended on scholarly factual grounds. One can only defend it by attacking critics.