Urban Legends: The Dixiecrats and The GOP
By: Everett Dirksen (Freedoms Journal Institute for the Study of Faith and Public Policy)
Black conservatives dispelling urban legends. What today is called conservatism was extraordinarily liberal when the American Revolution was fought and the United States was founded.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Over the years there has been a concerted effort, on behalf of many, to rewrite political history, especially when it comes to the Democrat Party. These rewrites, half-truths or urban legends misrepresent historical fact; and unfortunately have led astray countless numbers of people through politically charged falsehoods. One such legend, which seeks to rewrite history, is that of the Dixiecrats. As the legend goes, those Dixiecrats who broke from the Democrat party in 1948 all joined the Republican Party (see the articles by Roland Martin and Clarence Page ).
According to Page's reconstruction of history, Goldwater votes against the 1964 Civil rights act; and it takes moderate Republicans, led by Everett Dirksen, to ensure that the act becomes law over the obstruction of the Southern segregationists. What Page fails to mention, is that Goldwater and other conservatives supported the 1957 and 1960 Civil rights acts. He then goes on to say, "…many of those same conservative southern Democrats turned Republican. They helped form the core of the historic "Southern strategy," using racial resentments and states' rights arguments to rebuild the conservative movement after Goldwater's resounding defeat." Unfortunately for Page, the historical record and pure logic don't bear out this assumption.
The Dixiecrats
During the Philadelphia nominating convention of the Democrat Party in 1948, a number of disgruntled southern segregationist Democrats stormed out in protest. They were upset about planks in the new platform that supported Civil Rights. [1]
They left to form a new Party called the State's Rights Democratic Party also known as the Dixiecrats. Segregationist like George Wallace and other loyalists, although upset, did not bolt from the party; but instead supported another candidate against Harry Truman. According to Kari Frederickson, the goal for the Dixiecrats " was to win the 127 electoral-college votes of the southern states, which would prevent either Republican Party nominee Thomas Dewy or Democrat Harry Truman from winning the 266 electoral votes necessary for election. Under this scenario, the contest would be decided by the House of Representatives, where southern states held 11 of the 48 votes, as each state would get only one vote if no candidate received a majority of electors' ballots. In a House election, Dixiecrats believed that southern Democrats would be able to deadlock the election until one of the parties had agreed to drop its civil rights plank ." [2]
Notably, this stated aim is apparent in the third plank of the Dixiecrat's platform which states, "We stand for social and economic justice, which, we believe can be guaranteed to all citizens only by a strict adherence to our Constitution and the avoidance of any invasion or destruction of the constitutional rights of the states and individuals. We oppose the totalitarian, centralized bureaucratic government and the police nation called for by the platforms adopted by the Democratic and Republican Conventions." [3]
What is, even more, telling, and speaks directly to the incredulous nature of this urban legend, is the fact that the Dixiecrats rejected the Civil rights platforms of not one, but both parties. Republicans had always supported civil rights since their inception (see GOP party platform here ). What was new is that the Democrats, led by Harry Truman, were publicly taking a stand for Civil rights (see Democrat Party Platform here ). The 'totalitarian, centralized bureaucratic government", according to the Dixiecrats, was the federal government's enforcement of the 14th and 15th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. With both parties, now, standing for Civil rights the segregationist had no party to go too. Thus, they started their own with the idea of causing a stalemate, which they hoped to break, once both parties relinquished their pro-civil rights planks.
Which way did they go?
The strategy of the State's Rights Democratic Party failed. Truman was elected and civil rights moved forward with support from both Republicans and Democrats. This begs an answer to the question: So where did the Dixiecrats go? Contrary to legend, it makes no sense for them to join with the Republican Party whose history is replete with civil rights achievements. The answer is, they returned to the Democrat party and rejoined others such as George Wallace, Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, and Ross Barnett. Interestingly, of the 26 known Dixiecrats (5 governors and 21 senators) only three ever became Republicans: Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and Mills E. Godwind, Jr. The segregationists in the Senate, on the other hand, would return to their party and fight against the Civil Rights acts of 1957, 1960 and 1964. Republican President Dwight Eisenhower proffered the first two Acts.
Eventually, politics in the South began to change. The stranglehold that white segregationist Democrats once held over the South began to crumble. The "old guard" gave way to a new generation of politicians. The Republican Party saw an opportunity to make in-roads into the southern states appealing to southern voters. However, this southern strategy was not an appeal to segregationists, but to the new political realities emerging in the south. [4]
Conservatives vs. Segregationists
Despite this, and other overwhelming evidence to the contrary, these same "revisionists" would have you believe that conservatives and segregationists are synonymous. This could not be further from the truth. By definition, conservatives today are what were once called "classical liberals", which Barry Goldwater clearly was. It should be noted here, that although in his latter years Goldwater sounded more like a Libertarian; [5] "classical liberals" believe, among other things, in liberty to reach one's fullest potential, own property, start a business, vote and worship without the assistance or interference of the Federal Government. [6] [FJM has dubbed these the R.I.S.E. principles, which stands for Responsible government, Individual liberty and fidelity, Strong family values and Economic empowerment (See R.I.S.E principles)].
As a matter of historical record, conservatives (classical liberals) have always taken seriously the US Constitution's limiting of the scope and reach of government. This includes the very nature and letter of the Bill of Rights, especially the tenth amendment.
For example, conservative ideology differs from the segregationists in that segregationist used the tenth amendment to nullify the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments, as well as the Declaration of Independence.[7] An often misrepresented fact is, that Dixiecrats, not Republicans, tried to exalt states rights over the rights guaranteed to African Americans challenging the merits of the 14th amendment section one, which states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This amendment granted former slaves full citizenship and equal protection under the law, which segregationist tried to deny Blacks through black codes, Jim Crow, lynching and/or a rigged jury.
Additionally, the 15th amendment gave African Americans the right to vote. It states in Section 1. "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." Segregationists denied this right through poll taxes and intimidation (the KKK).
The truth is, that "true" conservatives would (did) not agree with the segregationist interpretation of the Constitution, especially that of the tenth amendment. Conservatives, past and present, however, do believe in responsible or limited government; but certainly not at the expense of turning the Constitution on its head to do so. Conservatives hold that the Constitution limits the Federal government to the enumerated powers explicit in the document, and therefore the Fed has no power when it tries to move past its constitutional restraints. All other powers belong to the states and the people. Bottom line, a person advocating for state's rights should be able to do so without being labeled a segregationist. For conservatives, "the rights of the people" include all races, creeds, ethnicities, and colors—all U.S. citizens.
Conclusion
While the notion that Dixiecrats all became Republicans is nothing more than another in a line of dubious urban legends; it's clear that for generations its stories have been told (and retold) to manipulate and discourage Blacks from considering the Republican Party and, or more importantly, the tenets of conservative ideas. Unfortunately, the references made to State's Rights commonly attributed to conservative ideology are still being widely used to link conservatives with segregationists. This, too, is nothing more than an urban legend. Sadly, these live on to smear and misrepresent not only our history but also the character and reputation of men and women of principle.
[1] See Democrat Party Platform: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29599#axzz1b4XiqKeL
[2] http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/Article.jsp?id=h-1477
[3] Read more at the American Presidency Project: www.presidency.ucsb.edu http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=2585#ixzz1b5UtKNCZ
[4] I will talk more about the Southern Strategy in another article
[5] Goldwater changed his mind on homosexuality and the legalization of drugs
[6] Under the rubric of "conservative" some have identified other subgroups such as fiscal, social, and national security conservatives.
[7] Republicans passed and helped ratify the 13 th , 14 th and 15 th amendments to the constitution. The 13 th amendment abolished slavery.
Tags
Who is online
138 visitors
If the voices of Black conservatives create cognitive dissonance for today's liberals then, perhaps, those liberals need to reevaluate their beliefs. The real history of the United States isn't what today's liberals have been spoon fed.
Insult?! You open a "welcoming" article with an insult. "Spoon-fed"? We, liberals, don't need condescension or a Dixiecrat history lesson to realize that Trump supporters, including the "hanger-on" republicans and conservatives who SAY they are there for the "goodies" and not the rest of it, have hi-jacked a party that was already internally atrophying and aging out due to lack of modernization in its thinking.
Liberals don't want to return to yesterday's values. There are other values in the hear and now that demand/insist upon us living for what is to come.
Fact: Strum Thurmond was the president of the Dixiecrat Party, who landed in the Republican Party and did not leave the Republican Party.
[deleted Skirting]
[deleted Meta]
It's a challenge, not an insult. If today's liberals are unwilling to reevaluate their beliefs then they will not grow.
Yesterday's liberals are now called conservatives. That's one of the points raised in the seeded article. The R.I.S.E. principles were the bedrock of American liberal/progressive values until the Democratic Party began rewriting history and creating urban legends.
We're NOT talking about the same thing, obviously. Eh?
Obviously. I'm attempt to discuss history instead of urban legends.
What are you attempting to discuss?
I am discussing today's liberals at that juncture in discussion. Besides, I still don't get any sense of why you feel it heedful to explain minutia about liberals/conservatives of old-as if to say it bears on today. You may think it does, but it does not. As will be remarked on at some point later!
If the history of slavery is relevant today then that means the history of liberal/progressive values are also relevant.
Just because today's liberals call those original liberal/progressive values conservative doesn't make it so. Urban legends really don't describe history.
I am not sure what the "heaven" you are talking about. Because to suggest that political parties can't change political poles and attitudes is incorrect. It has happened. But, I will give it time to clear itself up! Moving on. . . .
It's easy to rattle off a tag-line that political parties can change. But that doesn't really address whether or not the parties have really changed.
It's possible to cite all sorts of legislation and executive orders as a claim that attitudes have changed over the last 240 years. But the United States wasn't established on attitudes. The United States was established on a set of liberal/progressive values that are embedded in the country's founding documents as the authority for creating a government and a sovereign nation.
Can Congress legislate away rights enumerated in the Constitution? Can Congress endow rights through legislation without amending the Constitution? What does the oath to defend and protect the Constitution really mean?
Does obtaining political control of government allow a party to do as it damn well pleases? That's how the institution of slavery was protected and perpetuated. That's how Congress legislated away rights and endowed rights through legislation. Has the party that protected and perpetuated the institution of slavery really changed its governing philosophy? Has the Democratic Party really changed?
You should ask yourself why if the republican party has not changed, how the heaven Strum Thurmond, former president of the Dixiecrats (defunct), "grim reaper" of civil rights for blacks and other minority groups, defender of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy was accepted into the republican party with his democratic party seniority still intact!
Strom Thurmond left the Democratic Party to run for President and then returned to the Democratic Party. Strom Thurmond was welcomed into the Democratic Party before he was welcomed into the Republican Party.
That says more about both political parties than it does about Black conservatives dispelling urban legends.
Well, it certainly says what you will not about the Republican Party of Today! Trying to bury the meaning in a word salad failed.
Nerm! What does it say about the Republican Party that Strom Thurmond unchanged from his segregation roots was admitted to the Republican Party as Senator in 1964?
You're big on discussion; do discuss this.
Yes! In the era of Truman, the democratic party chose a black coalition of voters over the Old Segregation South! Change was underway. Black 'flooded' the democratic party since.
Hadn't those Black voters historically been Republicans? Seems to me that, at some point, the Black population switched parties, too.
Strom Thurmond switching parties doesn't seem as important as the Black population switching parties.
Strom Thurmond was a "life-long" segregationist (his temperament moderated as he got older). That places Strom Thurmond and his 1964 arrival in the republican party in a separate category. There is no way blacks joined the democratic party in order to support or become a collection of segregationists!
Nerm, let's not belabor history. This is written down for all to look upon, peruse, and accept as is.
When Truman ran for the presidency in '48 there was already a recognition World War II had tapped into the American psyche on race relations, issues changed, and voting patterns changed.
And the seeded article separates that history from urban legend.
The history outlined in the seeded article is presented from the viewpoint of Black conservatives. Are you attempting to suggest that Black conservatives are segregationist, neo-Confederate, white supremacists?
At this point, I have no idea what you are discussing. (You appear to be making oblique references to other matters all the time.)
The seeded article explicitly states that the Dixiecrats (and Strom Thurmond) opposed the civil rights of the Republican Party. The seeded article also explicitly states that only three Dixiecrats actually switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party.
The seeded article explicitly states that the Dixiecrats remained in the Democratic Party. The notion that the Dixiecrats switched to the Republican Party and somehow made the Republican Party segregationist is an urban legend that isn't supported by history.
Who says Strom Thurmond made the Republican Party a segregationist party? Who? Name that one here.
Nevertheless, what caused the 'evacuation' of Strom Thurmond and two other segregationist democrats from their democratic party of old and their "insertion" into the Republican Party of old?
Moreover, Strom Thurmond came over to the republican party with his democratic party seniority still intact!
Stop ducking the issues and come on with it!
(I have started to explain President Truman's political stance which caused Strom political "digestion" and "rejection" issues @1.1.13.
It may not be supported by your article but
living there, meeting Strom, meeting his black daughter years later, and knowing many Gullah peoples from Dafuskie Island that used to row over to work at the Naval Hospital
I think the "urban legend" is quite real.
n what basis did the Republican Party offer and establish him a political home?
Thurmond was a conservative, and Conservatives started leaving the democratic party after their hard left turn, you know the party of acid, abortion and amnesty. The liberal segregationists remained Democrats, supported LBJ's war on poverty etc..
Why didn't Thurmond, the former president of the defunct Dixiecrat Party, go back to his old party after his own party venture failed?the defunct Dixiecrat Party, go back to his old party after his own party venture failed?
He did.
He DID. He ran as a Democrat and was elected U.S. Senator, twice.
He didn't switch parties until 1964. He left the Dixiecrat party after the failed election of 1948.
He was the first Republican Senator from South Carolina since the 1800's when he switched parties, and was the only Republican elected since the 1800s as Senator until Lindsay Graham in 2003.
Try again. You will need more subject matter to boot. (Hint: Was Strum Thurmond against the civil rights plank in the (Truman presidential campaign -democratic party platform?)
Thurmond became a Democrat after leaving dixiecrat party disappeared. That's a fact you have to deal with.
I believe one thing that isn't discussed very often was that while the Republican party was engaging in the 'Southern strategy' appealing to the many disaffected racist whites in the South, the Democrat party was appealing to the long disaffected black populations that had essentially been denied the vote in the South for centuries.
"I'll have these n^%$$%& voting Democrat for the next 200 years" LBJ (alleged, not confirmed).
I think the way LBJ supposedly said it was horrid, but I also recognize that rightly giving black Americans rights they had previously been denied in order to pander to them is far better than pandering to the white bigots who were determined to keep black Americans from voting.
"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are." - Republican strategist Kevin Phillips in 1970 interview
We really don't call them "Negrophobe whites" anymore, we call just them call them conservative Republicans. They make themselves known by continuing to wave and defend confederate flags, some even waving swastika flags, defending confederate monuments and their unwavering support for the most racist divisive piece of shit President in history, Donald J. Trump.
Good catch! You are correct. I am wrong on #2 @1.1.19. I withdraw the question.
@1.1.19 Question #1 still is open.
Good catch! You are correct. I am wrong on #2 @1.1.19. I withdraw the question.
@1.1.19 Question #1 still is open.
And, "states rights.' (AKA: Anti-civil rights. No federal leadership on the subject of civil rights.)
If you have any links to the GOP offering him anything at all, please present it.
People usually just declare themselves to be members of a party.
Invites not necessary.
Which at times will mean people the establishment party members don't want will sometimes become members anyway.
I am sure the GOP welcomed a Democrat-turned-Republican U.S. Senator, especially from the South, where the GOP had little sway. They probably didn't mind getting him anymore than the Democratic Party minded Southern Democrats giving them control for decades.
You can deal with the question any way you wish, Texan. Thurmond, was a segregationist until his old age and that was not in 1964 when he became a republican senator. You have a question concession already from me-it is enough.
I will repeat and rephrase the question.
Strom Thurmond was the Democratic governor of South Carolina in 1948 when he ran for President as the State's Rights Democratic Party candidate. Thurmond was elected to the Senate as a write-in Democratic candidate in 1954 (the nominated candidate died before the election) and won re-election to the Senate as a Democrat in 1956. Strom Thurmond was a Democrat before and after the Dixiecrat's party failed. Thurmond did not switch parties until 1964.
Dwight Eisenhower integrated southern schools following the 1954 Brown vs Board of Education decision. Strom Thurmond filibustered the 1957 Civil Rights Act proposed by Dwight Eisenhower and supported by an overwhelming majority of Republicans.
Why would southern Democrats opposed to the 1964 Civil Rights Act think they would be welcomed into the Republican Party when Republicans had supported the Civil Rights Act by an overwhelming majority?
The urban legend that Dixiecrats became Republicans is not supported by history.
Asked and answered. You keep asking the same thing, just with a little twist to it. If you can't see I already answered it, that's on you.
Exactly.
Every single Republican legislator in the South voted against the 1964 civil rights act.
1964 Civl Rights Act Vote By party and region [ edit ]
The House of Representatives:
NB : Four Representatives voted 'Present', while 12 did not vote.
The Senate:
The only 'urban legend' about the Dixiecrats is that Republicans, even though they admitted to it and the evidence is born out in history, didn't employ the 'Southern strategy" tactic and somehow don't control the conservative white majority in the former confederate States who have lived there and controlled those States for the last 240 years. The only thing that has changed is political party control, not the people who lived there or who give power to the party in control. The same racist whites who considered themselves Conservative Democrats now vote Republican, it's an established fact which no amount of hilariously flawed rhetoric can conceal.
"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that ... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans . That's where the votes are." - Republican strategist Kevin Phillips in 1970 interview
I have quoted it several times and have yet to get an actual response to the actual quote from Republicans, all I've gotten are deflection claiming it didn't happen overnight so maybe it didn't happen. What a weak sniveling deflection, it shouldn't even be counted as a response it's so fucking stupid. A 'strategy' isn't something that shows results in a single battle, it is a long term effort to move an electorate to one side or another. Republicans used the strategy to move the white racist electorate towards their party by championing things they believed they would support and putting up almost all white male candidates they felt would be most attractive to the disaffected white racist conservative Democrats. This tactic proved fruitful and they were able to gain a majority by the 1990's and have continued building their majority since then in those former confederate States. That's why the Republican party defends confederate monuments, supports flying the confederate flag as State houses, supports onerous voter ID laws that the courts found "target African Americans with almost surgical precision". That's why the Republican party came out to defend the worthless piece of shit bigots marching with their tiki torches in Charlottesville and why their President called those waving swastika flags and confederate flags "fine people". You'd have to either be fucking blind or just a complete fucking idiot ideologue in full denial not to see it. Stop trying to distance yourselves, it's not working, it just looks like a dumb shit with a piece of KKK or Nazi toilet paper stuck to their shoe running away from a bathroom trying not to be noticed. It's embarrassing, just stop it already. Accept it's on your shoe and remove it, tell those piece of shit bigots and white supremacists to go fuck themselves and that you don't want their support.
Strum Thurmond was against the civil rights plank in the 1948 Truman presidential campaign -democratic party platform and had enough the second time a civil rights act passed in the Johnson Administration. So he 'bounced' parties and the republican party accepted his racist-segregationist self.
Already explained it all to you.
I can't understand it for you.
I won't permit these 'supporters' to get away with their alternative reality on the history of race relations throughout the segregated south-or north! Not as long as I am around!
It conveniently escapes their notice that the Truman presidency was the "grinder" which lit the white bigoted southern male teeth on edge, even more so, those bigoted southern males had no intention of ever completely "settling in" with their black counterparts in a NEW democratic party-wherein Truman INTEGRATED the military services in 1948. And Johnson sent them farther packin' with his double whammy of civil and voting rights acts.
Well Texan, you can drop out any time you wish. Otherwise, hang in there, [removed]
??
?? —What?
I can't understand it for you.
Ha Ha! Good one!!
Now, moving on to substance, what is your exact point that you are trying to make. Spit it out, quit dancing around it. Say it.
And please, for God's sake, don't let it be some bull about how Southern Democrats switched parties and started voting Republicans into office.
Already explained it all to you.
Don't try to fake me out, Texan121*.
Before the South turned consistenly red in 2000,
Stevenson, twice, Kennedy, LBJ, Carter, and Clinton split the south.
hat republicans, plural, for president won the southern majority of voters after Truman's four years?
Nixon, Reagan, and George Bush in 1988
Before 2000, Republicans did well in the South when they did well everywhere, .
So white southern racists, which obviously comprise the majority of southern voters, just didn't feel that Democrats were sincere enough after having control of the southern states since the late 1800's and switched parties?
Include Eisenhower (1952 and 1956) and Barry Goldwater 1964 to your republican list (Nixon, Reagan, Bush). And the emphasis is on the South not "everywhere."
Here is a link to past elections. In it you will find that Republicans have won large swaths of the country in almost every single election. Including the South. Why is it somehow different if people in the South voted Republican for President than it is for people in the Midwest?
1964 and 1976 are the last two elections a Democrat won the South.
And did you know that almost every single state that voted for Strom Thurmond in 1948 went right back to voting Democrat for the next three elections? And continued to vote for their friendly local and state Jim Crow Democrats for decades?
https://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/
That quote conveniently leaves out the last line.
"Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.”
Nixon's Southern Strategy - The New York Times
I am not a Republican so I can address that manipulated quote directly. The Black population began realigning toward Democrats in the 1930s. Franklin Roosevelt received 70 to 80 pct of the Black vote before World War II and Harry Truman received 80 pct of the Black vote to defeat Dewey Party identification among Black voters began to change significantly with 1948 Truman/Dewey matchup. The New Deal was a big impetus for Black voters to switch to the Democratic Party; particularly Black voters who had migrated to northern cities.
The Black population didn't suddenly begin voting for Democrats following the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Party realignment among the Black population began with the New Deal policies of Roosevelt and Truman. Party identification among Black voters began to shift in 1948.
The idea that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was responsible for shifting Black voters toward the Democratic Party is another urban legend.
The Republican Southern Strategy was really about adopting a more conservative platform. That conservative shift changed the power dynamic within the party away from moderate Eisenhower Republicans. The shift toward conservative politics was more appealing to southern conservative Democrats than the Democratic Party's shift toward liberal politics. The Republican southern strategy wasn't about race relations. Democrats creating urban legends about the southern strategy has done more to solidify Republican support in the south than have any appeals to segregationists and racists.
Conservative isn't the same as racist. Unless, of course, Black conservatives are racists, too.
You mean all 12 of them? Versus the 112 Democrats at that time who dominated the south for decades, 103 of which voted Nay on the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Let's put the numbers in perspective here.
All told, of the 171 Republicans in the House at the time, 136 voted Yea = 80%, 35 voted Nay = 20%
On the other hand, of the 244 Democrats in the House then, 153 voted Yea = 63%, 91 voted Nay = 37%
In the Senate, of the 33 Republicans in the Senate 27 voted Yea = 82%, 6 voted Nay = 18%
On the other hand, of the 67 Democrats in the Senate 46 voted Yea = 69%, 21 voted Nay = 31%
For the Voting Rights Act of 1965
All told, of the 140 Republicans in the House at the time, 112 voted Yea = 80%, 23 voted Nay = 16%
On the other hand, of the 293 Democrats in the House then, 221 voted Yea = 75%, 62 voted Nay = 21%
Any way you cut this, the Republican party that historically favored Civil Rights voted for it upwards of 80% even through the major legislation of 1964 and 1965 when Congress and the Whitehouse were dominated by Democrats. Still, upwards of 33% of Democratic Party voted against it. This legislation did, however, represent at the time a coming together of the parties on matters of Civil Rights and the beginning of the end of the legislative stranglehold Southern Democrats placed on nearly every civil rights bill to go before Congress up to that time.
Even so, Democrats like Governor George Wallace continued to resist the Civil Rights movement and reversal of Southern-Democratic Jim Crow laws and ran against Nixon and Humphrey as an American Independent candidate aligned with the Dixiecrats in the 1968 election. Wallace's strategy was not to swing the vote away from Humphrey to Nixon, but rather to prevent either of those candidates from winning a preliminary majority in the electoral college. He, like most of the other Dixiecrats holding public office (as pointed out by others above), never switched over to the Republican party, but rather fell back in with the Democratic party in the late 60's and early seventies. At one point in Sept 1968 Wallace polled at 21% vs. 28% and 43% for Humphrey and Nixon respectively. The final vote of course ended with Nixon at 43.42%, Humphrey with 42.72% and Wallace with 13.53% of the popular vote. Clearly the votes lost by Wallace ended up with Humphrey, not Nixon. So even then a good portion of segregationist/Dixiecrat voters stayed with the Democrats despite the so-called "Southern strategy". Nixon won re-election in 1972 in a landslide based mainly on the recovery of the economy from the 1970 recession and a weak opponent in McGovern, actually winning 36% of the Democratic vote and not only from the south but all over the country.
That screed completely ignores role Lyndon Johnson's Great Society and War on Poverty played in turning the southern white population toward the Republican Party.
Are there any conservatives left in the Democratic Party? Are there any liberals left in the Republican Party?
The partisan rift in the United States is really about differences between modern liberals and modern conservatives. Modern liberals are influenced by anarchists, anti-establishment activists, and socialist revolutionaries. Liberal Democrats have transformed civil rights into racial liberation. Modern liberals advocate central planning, social conformity, dogmatic ideology, and historical revision. Modern liberals are transforming the United States into the same type of institution as the Catholic Church. The liberal dogma may be different but the institutional authority over society is exactly the same.
Neo-liberals transformed conservatism into little more than technocratic piracy. Today's conservatives are as far left on economics as are modern liberals on social issues. Neo-liberals have already made the United States socialist by using middlemen to plunder the productive economy. Neo-liberal conservatives have made money the new God. Neo-liberal conservatives have pursued a world order than eliminates barriers for plundering and exploiting the world just as they have the United States.
The American liberal/progressive values that was the bedrock of conservative principles in the first half of the 20th century have been lost. Modern Republicans and modern Democrats have combined forces to control and exploit the people of the United States. Civil liberties are no longer being protected; civil liberties have become political weapons to further control and exploit the people of the United States.
The United States may still be the United States - but - the United States is no longer America.
Well, when someone is obsessed with race, they assume everyone else is to. So they believe issues like war, the economy and it's myriad of associated issues, the expansion of massive government programs, social issues like abortion, immigration, justices, etc... don't matter to voters. They think everyone's vote is a response to a vote that took place 55 years ago.
Stevenson won the South in 1952, while Eisenhower won a plurality of the popular vote in the south by .9 percent in 56 (while winning the nationwide vote by 15%). Goldwater lost the south in 64.
It's funny though, that people still claim the 64 civil rights bill turned the south republican even though, as you point out, Eisenhower had already broken up the solid south and won more votes than his democratic opponent in 1956.
And the emphasis is on the South not "everywhere."
What point do you think you are making? Republicans in the 50 years after Truman's win did well in the South when they did well nationally, which blows up the argument that they won by appealing to southern voters. Nixon .Reagan, Bush all would have won without the South. Ford and Nixon lost in 60 because they lost the south and did much better outside of it.
Good point.
IMO part of the reason we are seeing more racial unrest is because civil rights have become a nuisance for both political parties.
At least you're finally admitting it.
I agree.
That's nothing but bullshit rhetoric being force fed to gullible right wing conservatives. The true 'anti-establishment activists' are the right wing militias, right wing extremists, right wing 'sovereign citizens' and other poor white nationalists who feel left behind and forgotten by society that has moved on without them and no longer reflects their white supremacist views or their desire for a white Christian patriarchy.
Just more bullshit. Progressives and liberals advocate equality and social justice which require a clear vision or Americas past, not the rose tinted alternative-fact version all the 'my country, right or wrong' idiots and confederate loving white supremacists espouse.
And they're all controlled by the scary invisible 'Deep State', right? What a bunch of rhetorical conspiracy theory nonsense. The 'establishment' aka modern Democrats and modern Republicans are trying to keep Americans safe and prosperous. It's true that due to such horrid rulings as Citizens united that there is a lot more corporate money being fed into the political system than ever before, and some politicians are only doing their donors bidding which is true in both parties, but overall I believe the centrists in both parties are trying to do the best they can for their constituents within the system they've been given.
The United States is no longer United and haven't really been since the civil war. There are two Americas, one mostly based in the southern former confederate States that pines for the day that the "South will Rise Again!" and still flies confederate flags and finds nothing wrong with "separate but equal" apartheid where they don't have any problems with black Americans as long as those blacks stay in their lane across the tracks. They are the same white conservative Christians who fought against the civil rights act and voting rights act and were using police dogs and turning fire hoses on black children who had the temerity to challenge their segregationist rule and tried to attend whites only schools.
Then you have the other America that has embraced diversity, embraced equality and social justice for minorities and the lgtbq community since they are all law abiding tax paying American citizens just like anyone else and shouldn't be treated as second class citizens. This is the vibrant growing multi-cultural, multi-ethnic America that believes in supporting the diversity found instead of trying to bleach our culture into a single bland 1950's "Leave it to Beaver" society where only the white privileged see life as having been better then than it is now. The liberals and progressives have continued to move us closer to a more perfect union by fighting conservatives bans on interracial marriage, fighting bans on gay marriage, fighting laws that have discriminated against minorities for decades.
That's the true rift in America is between conservative values that tend to support their desired white Christian patriarchy versus liberals and progressives who believe all cultures, races, genders, gender identities, immigrants and diversity should be celebrated and given the same rights as any other citizen in America. These two visions for America are diametrically opposed, but thankfully liberals and progressives have been gaining ground for the last 240 years and show no signs of slowing. Yes, recently conservatives have pushed back on this vision, they elected an openly bigoted narcissist and accused sexual predator as their representative showing how much contempt they have for liberals and progressives desire for diversity, but the pendulum will swing back even harder this time and we will see conservatives get crushed for being so foolish as to elect such a racist loser to represent them.
The Dixiecrats/Republican Party connection is what we are discussing on this thread, thereabouts.
Although all these diverging interjections are making this discussion protracted, hard to remember, and unwieldy.
Not necessary, thank you.
So when are you going to "deflect" to the REPUBLICANS giving a home to good old Strum Thurmond?
(Frankly, I am feeling this discussion is limping along. It's too diluted.)
So, for some reason known only to you, where voters live is important now.
Do you want to talk about how only 3 people holding office at the federal level switched parties, or do you want to talk about how DEMOCRATS continued to elect the same people into office?
Shall we talk about the Democratic Party giving racist Southern Jim Crow DEMOCRATS a home FOR DECADES because it meant DEMOCRATS could keep their slimy hold on America?
I was not aware that New York City, Chicago, Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland, and Los Angeles had moved to the segregationist south. When did this happen?
I was not aware that New York City, Chicago, Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland, and Los Angeles were controlled by conservative politics. When did this happen?
I was not aware that the carefully crafted academic view of race relations and American history was conservative and corrupting college education with segregationist views. When did this happen?
I wasn't aware that Democratic political promises to treat the Black population differently through authoritarian benevolence was civil rights. When did this happen?
OKAY, then TALK about it.
Here is my take:
Strom Thurmond was a Democrat. He didn't like certain policies being pushed by Democrats AND Republicans. He joined a NEW party, and ran for President on that party's ticket. He lost, He left that party and rejoined the Democratic Party.
Later on, (much later, actually) he switched to the Republican Party.
End of story.
And, the FEPC (Fair Employment Practice Committee) bill, which would have ended discrimination in defense employment:
This "Act" failure and several other "anti" actions Truman failed to support or 'put teeth into" caused African Americans to go back and forth between the Democratic and Republican parties, until they ultimately settled majorly into the democratic party—with the racist, segregationist gone finally!
Now to the question I asked early on, which has not been properly answered:
Why did the Republican Party in 1964 accept Thurmond's unchanged racist, segregationist 'butt' into their party?
This "story" continues. . . .
Of course, Black conservatives do not have to be racists. Conservatives do not have to be racists.
Conservatives can be both conservative and racists, nevertheless, yes?
Sorry (not!) that you deemed the answer you got unsatisfactory.
Sounds like a personal issue to me.
As has been explained, people are free to join a political party. Did you ever to bother to ask why Thurmond was comfortable enough to return to the Democratic Party, or why Southern Democrats continued to dominate the South for decades after the Civil Rights Bill passed?
of course not!
Cute sounding, but not sure what that means. Care to explain it?
All of which can be remedied if conservatives and liberals would simply drop their rocks and return to living in peace with one another - will liberties, justice, and cooperation for all who obey the laws of the United States without prejudice and bias toward any law-abiding citizens.
(However, we just got 'fed' republican double-cross conduct in the senate as McConnell wielded raw power to disenfranchise the House and stack the federal court system with conservative-biased judges. How can peace be afforded after such one-way dealings?)
We are talking about the Deep South. I have no idea why that focus is a distraction for you (and yours). No matter. Moving on. Today, the South is partially red-republican as you certainly know.
Black Americans are not "settled in" with any racists white southerners, because one or the other group had to depart the Democratic Party over civil rights legislation.
Do tell us all about this disenfranchising of the House you claim, and explain why the speaker of the House could possibly stand for it?
I don't have you tell you anything. Get a 'paper' and read about it for yourself.
Why, no, you don't. You can take your ball and run home.
I figured it was yet another unsubstantiated bullshit claim that you can't defend or even attempt to justify.
Thanks for the usual.
You can't explain why the republican party was anything Thurmond would consider anymore than the changing democratic party! At-known why the Republican Party which could have denied Thurmond a party shift and certainly denied him party seniority did permit him both: party entrance and seniority.
We all know the Democratic Party was undergoing change and that it change can occur immediately or over a long-haul period. Please don't feign innocence over "strategic processes in politics," Texan. —We don't need to drag this out.
The argument presented here for discussion is that republicans have never welcomed racist conservatives from the deep south into the party. Well, I have demonstrated that is a lie. Strum Thurmond came over with two other racist-segregationists to the Republican Party and Strum thrived in the Republican Party.
Your deflection to whataboutisms is irrelevant to Strum Thurmond or the Republican Party of old activities.
Do not curse at me.
The reason you are seeing more racial unrest is because conservatives in the "states rights" wing of the Republican Party, won't recognize civil rights fairly for all citizens of the United States. Instead, conservatives 'wage political wars and skirmishes' against liberals as a way of life! Something liberals will never find acceptable.
Make up your mind! I thought you were taking your ball and running home!
Don't tease!
BTW, his name was StrOm, not Strum.
You may wish to paint the GOP as a racist party based on Thurmond, but that is a childish, immature, and ridiculous ploy people interested in honest debate would never employ.
Why did the Democrats welcome Thurmond INTO their party to begin with, or Byrd?
Why did Democrats welcome him back with open arms after 1948?
See, you like to ask all the questions and then bitch about the answers you get--all the while refusing to answer any questions yourself.
that is not debating.
Go home.
Don't forget your ball.
I 'caught' that admission too.
Just waited on you to come in!
I didn't. Read my post again if necessary.
Or not.
I don't have any problems with what I wrote, and it isn't my problem if others do.
Try not to get carried away with paltry distracting ad hominem attacks. It is a sign of no proper argument and desperation.
You got the message. Moving on.
I have seen these pathetic arguments before, and where they always, always, ALWAYS fall flat is when the person posing the argument simply is asked to explain certain things, which is when the debate ends and that side constantly and consistently ignores those questions.
Above is perfect examples of what I am talking about.
Get on topic. That's not it.
Got it, discarded it with the rest of the trash.
You seem to wish to deflect now. Moving on. See ya!
Been on topic, but you refuse to engage in real conversation by refusing any questions.
Not my issue on this thread. You can talk about it if you wish, nevertheless.
Bottom line here:
Any politician can join any party.
One person does not the party make.
Simple concept JUST out of the reach of some to grasp.
You keep trying to be condescending.
Bottom line: Political parties decide who can join their ranks by their policies and platform. Thurmond, racist and segregationist found his new home in the republican party and retired there.
End of (Thurmond) story.
Gee, Robert Byrd, notable KKK leader, found a "home" in the Democratic Party and STAYED there his whole life once he arrived.
Does that mean the Democratic Party embraced Byrd's racism?
Did the Democratic Party encourage Byrd's choice of policies of racism?
Byrd denounced racism. Why can't Trump?
Yeah. Catch up. We're, you and me, not doing whataboutism. I've moved on. You should too.
I know you are late to the party, but once again, this isn't about Trump or some folks' obsession with him.
You keep saying it, but here ya are--still.
Well, of course you don't want the same standards you attempt to apply to Republicans to apply to Democrats, too!
Who couldn't see THAT coming?
LMAO
Whataboutism is not a standard. It is a ploy. See @1.1.73.
Just so you know what and why:
I am going to take a different tack from now on with your condescending attitude and thank you for taking time out of your busy afternoon to spend it with me.
Crapola. You wish to impugn the reputation of the GOP by continuing to assert that they gave a welcoming "home" to Thurmond while looking the other way when Democrats did the same exact thing for Byrd. You keep trying to imply (without ever actually voicing the words) that the GOP is racist because of Thurmond, but seem incapable of seeing that the Democrats did the SAME thing you keep harping on.
Take your whataboutisms and forget them.
it's a piss=poor argument.
1.1.73 CB replied to Texan1211 @ 1.1.66 2 hours ago
same old same old.
And now, since you flat-out refuse to answer anything at all, I will "move on"!
Watch and learn what that is!
Great article! Thanks for seeding it.
Hanging just outside the political "boneyard," since the Dixiecrat Party with its states rights platform is defunct; which of the two party promotes states rights present day:
What occurred that supplanted "states rights" in the first place? (Hint: The Civil War began April 12, 1861 - ended May 9, 1865.)
The first Democratic Republican party was conservative and later became the Andrew Jackson Democratic party of conservatives.
The Federalists and Jeffersonians gradually gave way to the Whigs more liberal anti slavery beliefs, eventually becoming the National Republican Party of Lincoln.
Try as some people do to stick to party names, the substance was always in the ideologies which have ebbed, flowed and swapped positions over time.
Seems a simple concept, but alas...
The question really is why are the majority of minorities, Black, Native Americans, Hispanics, Pacific Islanders, and Asians democrats.
I hear you well, SP. I am confused (truthfully- big ?? ??) as to why some people are delving and "walking" through this minutia, slow and tediously, as if it has bearing and meaning on today's liberals, progressives, and democrats.
I am getting to that very point! I could point out that the NAACP and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) both have histories steeped in the past and present in the Democratic Party - not in the Republican Party .
Southern Christian Leadership Conference president Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
National Archives, Washington, D.C. (542014 ) Source for this image: BRITTANICA
I think it is funny that this piece from some religious conservative organization is trying to write its own history.
A quick search of their articles lists how Liberals are bad, how Liberals are taking over university, etc...
Some acting like this piece would be any kind of authority is hilarious.
I think it's funny that some think there was some massive movement from one party to the other because............
No one ever said there was a massive movement. What is said is that the parties ideologies and members have changed over time.
The only ones that deny this are the ones trying to deny what their own party has become.
The parties have changed and members switched.
There were other parties and factions involved.
We ended up where we are today.
No doubt. What history did this religious conservative piece re-write?
By saying that the republican party today does not consist of what it does.
Denial.
Which is?
If you have to ask, you are in denial as well.
A non answer? No worries, I'm sure some of the usual suspects will be by eventually to clarify whatever it is you might mean.
I am not afraid to say it, it is just you will somehow deny it.
Most of the nationalists, the isolationists, the racists, the segregationists have moved into the republican camp...
Do you think those groups comprise the majority of the republican party?
Never said they made a majority yet the majority of them camp there.
Partisan opinion is still just opinion. I'm sure you know what they say about opinions and assholes.
So I was right. You are going to deny it...
Nope
What was it you said? Putting words in my mouth....bad form man.
How so? You said you don't deny what I said, so all seems good.
That's not what I said.
States rights are embedded in the Affordable Care Act. That's why Obamacare utilizes state run insurance exchanges. That's also why states review and approve/disapprove premium prices requested by insurance companies. States rights was also embedded in the expansion of Medicaid.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo claimed states rights as authority for response to the pandemic. Gov. Cuomo threatened court challenges to proposals for closing the borders of New York based upon states rights.
Sanctuary states and cities are claiming states rights protected by the 10th amendment.
So, the answer to your question 'which of the two party [sic] promotes states rights present day' is that both parties do. The Democratic Party has not abandoned the 10th amendment and certainly has not called for repeal of the 10th amendment.
I understand that. And that is not the focus of my comment. As you well know, states want to limit or diminish the power of the federal system to control many national over-arching policies within their borders.
Moreover, the AFFORDABLE CARE ACT is a federal health plan given to the states to act upon. Of course, the ACA was well-coordinated with the states in mind. As you well should know. (Largely, that did not save it from being hated in red-states.)
Of course, states have 10th amendment rights, but no longer can states override federal authorizations/control in key policies deemed constitutional. Red states have a problem with this and it a constant 'bone of legal and organ contention' between the two entities. -This is what I meant and is the focus of my comment
Both parties support states' rights in one way or another.
I think this is an important point. The Democratic Party has sort of taken possession of the term “liberal” and twisted it into something different than it used to mean. If liberalism is about liberty, it’s hard to see how the constant empowerment of a strong central government regulating more and more of our lives serves the cause of liberty.
Absolutely. Just because some racist assholes wanted to use states rights to inflict injustice on some, that does not mean we should forever abandon the principle that our country is a union of sovereign states.
Well Tacos, the elephant in the room is that states rights advocates of old access to rights diminished when they seceded during the Civil War. The Union forces as a due course achieved the cohesion of the union through blood spillage on both sides. The side working and fighting to hold the union together decided that no individual state or collection of states can pull away on its or their own. Thus, in this quadrant of 'merica there is precedent for centralized control.
Again, some don't like to consider the practical application of this line of thinking as it relates to "stuffy" old transcendent documents, but the Civil War was impactful to the whole of governance and the view of governance.
The states haven't been completely sovereign for a long time.
And I wouldn’t want them to be totally sovereign. But it’s an issue of whether or not anyone in government is trying to prioritize the liberty of individuals. At the macro level, states push back on federal control. Some federal control is obviously necessary. Even the founders recognized this. But the mindset in this country has changed to where we now expect government to try to control everything, and we want it controlled the way we like, rather than trying a little more live and let live. Wanting to live your life your way shouldn’t automatically be dismissed as something negative.
To be honest, I don't think anyone in Washington has any individual rights in mind.
Just their own rights. The "right" to their power.
While it's easy to point to things like freedom of speech and freedom of religion as being liberal ideas, IMO that is only a superficial view of history. Making the government accountable to the citizenry was a very liberal/progressive idea.
The people of the United States are the protectors of the liberal/progressive values that provided the authority to establish a sovereign nation and a government.
Just because states rights were claimed as justification doesn't make it so. What really happened was that political control of government allowed legislating away rights enumerated in the Constitution and allowed endowing rights through legislation without amending the Constitution. The states rights claim was really based upon majority rule allowed ignoring the Constitution. And that majority rule was achieved through politically manipulated democratic process of voting.
States rights is a smoke screen. The real history is that majority rule was claimed as authority to ignore the Constitution.
Walk with me while I take this devil out for a walk will you? The Constitution is a great document. It really is. However, when constituent groups learned they could manipulate the document simply by not letting it evolve further-certain groups sat down on their dirty politics and local governance and did just that! They thought to hold up progress simply by being the "immovable political object.'
Such a position, while sub-constitutional, ultimately would be self-defeating. As this nation could not be a world leader and at the same time set out to stifle its own growth. Thus, Congress added to advance legislation, and where congresses were "principled-out" and stalled, courts proceeded to take up the 'slack.'
The constitution is being ignored, because it is an ancient document locked in amber at various stages of amendment by today's conservatives, who somehow see it as a tool for their welfare and a means to control and hols sway over the lives of millions of others in our country.
There are 27 amendments to the Constitution. The idea that the Constitution cannot be changed is a lie.
Then explain the 17 amendments added to the Constitution since its ratification. Your are playing the bar game of pedantic semantics. It's true that the original document isn't rewritten. But the process created to amend the Constitution does change the Constitution.
Changing the Constitution does require consent of the country. That is a more arduous process than manipulating elections to obtain control of government.
Again, you miss the point sitting 'plated' before you. I don't need you to lecture me on the amendments to the Constitution. And for that matter, the original constitution and its amendments are literally: The Constitution of the United States (wholly). Any separation of the additions out are purely for discussion about time and place of entry into the document.
Of course, the constitution can be changed! As you finally acknowledged, red-state conservatives have no plan or interest in changing the document further to advance civil rights, social equality, and any other such issues that confront more modern 'merica.
So let's not stir around any longer in minutia, and beat a direct path into a healthy discussion going forward.
Try this: Tell me that republicans are willing to allow the Constitution to treat all citizens equally (and not make 'sport' of them) and make voting something good instead of a diabolical competition to get ballot inserted in 'box' and counted.
The Republican Party has been the party of civil rights since its founding. And there is still agreement among Republicans on issues of civil rights that is consistent with the history of the Republican Party. The American liberal/progressive values at the core of the abolitionist movement was that men had taken from African slaves what God had given. While in today's political environment that can easily be turned into a claim that Republicans gave African slaves their freedom; the real liberal/progressive abolitionists believed they were returning God's gift to African slaves. Republican civil rights are based upon the simple (and obvious) belief than men cannot improve upon the will of God.
Anarchists, anti-establishment activists, and socialist revolutionaries have appropriated the label of 'liberal' and created a false etymology. These false liberals have twisted the meaning of civil rights into a false pursuit of racial liberation. Today's civil rights has become a struggle for 'separate but equal' treatment under the law. The Democratic Party, consistent with its history, has been quite happy to accommodate that 'separate but equal' false civil rights to establish de facto segregation of the Black population. How can equality be achieved by treating the Black population differently? How can Democrats improve upon the will of God?
"Gobbly-gook." Please explain these lines of argument you are hanging the whole of your comment on.
The Republican approach to civil rights has been based upon a founding principle of protecting civil liberties. God endowed mankind with rights; the founding documents and Constitution of the United States did not create these rights. The purpose of the checks and balances embedded in the Constitution and our form of government as a republic was intended to protect civil liberties.
Only people of moral character and good conscience exercising their civil liberties to speak and participate in the governing of society can protect the rights endowed by God. When government takes away civil liberties then the rights endowed by God can no longer be protected.
You are appealing to natural law? Who and where are we to find these "people of moral charactr and good consciences" you speak of currently? And which set of moral laws will you state further us along as a just society? Please be explicit.
We get it, the white racists and former Southern Democrats who continue to wave their confederate flags and defend their confederate monuments don't want anyone to know they used to register as Democrats. They are determined to paint over their stripes and claim themselves never-racist Republicans. The facts show that those folk didn't die out or move, they still live there and are the white majority in the South to this day. They show it in their marches to protect their beloved confederate monuments as they come out in droves waving their swastikas and confederate flags chanting "Jews will not replace us!". They show it in their relentless defense of the confederate flag as they continue to claim it means something else to them and isn't really a symbol of racist hate as it has been for the last 150 years. They bitterly gnash their teeth at the "invasion" of non-white Christians coming over the southern border and cheer when their bigoted President calls Mexicans "rapists". These bigots haven't changed anything but their party, and the only defense these sniveling pieces of shit have against this fact is that because it didn't happen over night, therefore, it didn't happen. Apparently they believe the "Southern Strategy" should have converted every racist Southern Democrat in one fell swoop back in the late 1960's. This of course didn't happen because not even the Republicans who have admitted to employing the Southern Strategy thought it would happen overnight.
"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are." - Republican strategist Kevin Phillips in 1970 interview with the NYT.
It was a long term strategy of rebuilding the South in their image, and they were successful, it just took 30 years. They gave the shamed racist Southern Democrats a new coat of paint so they could retain power, continue to discriminate quietly, tear down the voting rights act (which they essentially did in 2013) and push their white Christian patriarchy agenda under a new label, the label that was previously owned by Lincoln but now a party Lincoln wouldn't even recognize and would better fit his conservative assassin than himself. But they aren't fooling anyone but themselves.
Regurgitating political talking points won't convince anyone that Black conservatives are segregationist, neo-Confederate, white supremacists.
In fact, that regurgitated political screed seems rather racist.
Is it any wonder that the once Grand Old Party of Abraham Lincoln is now known merely as the gop?
More like goop since Trump took over.
If today, JFK said what he said in the 60s, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country", the left would call him a racist.
How The Republican Party Became The Party Of Racism
://www.theroot.com/how-the-republican-party-became-the-party-of-racism-1827779221
Here's a joke: What's the difference between a Klan rally and a Republican Convention?
Answer: The dress code.
Here's another one: How white is the Republican Party?
According to Pew Research, 83 percent of the registered voters who identify as Republican are non-Hispanic whites. The Republican Party is whiter than Tilda Swinton riding a polar bear in a snowstorm to a Taylor Swift concert.
Why isn't anyone laughing? Is this thing on?
And not only is the Grand Ole Party unapologetically white, recently it has been disposing of its dog whistles in favor of bullhorns, becoming more unabashedly racist every day. Aside from its leader excusing a white supremacist murder, calling Mexicans "rapists," referring to "shithole countries" and settling multiple discrimination lawsuits, there is an abundance of evidence that shows the party's racism.
Nearly half of the country (49 percent) believes Donald Trump is racist but 86 percent of Republicans say he is not, according to a recent Quinnipiac University poll. The same survey shows that 79 percent of Republicans approve of the way the president handles race. Other data points include:
Some would argue that having a racist as the head of a party doesn't necessarily make the entire party racist, which is true. But there is not a single significant poll that shows Republican voters with lower negative feelings about non-white populations versus Democrats or independents. They have become the party of racism.
But how did the party get that way?
Stop me if you've heard this one before: The Democrats are the real racists because the GOP is the party of Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr. Surely you've read the oft-repeated anecdote about how the Republican Party ended slavery and most importantly, fought for the passage of the Civil Rights Act.
All of this is correct.
They say the best jokes are based in reality. So when accusations of racism enter into any political debate, conservatives invariably regurgitate those previously-mentioned bullet points from the recurring, well-rehearsed Republican comedy routine.
What they fail to mention, however, is that the party to which they refer to no longer exists. The only thing that remains of the original Republican Party is the name. And how the Grand Ole Party transformed itself from the party of Lincoln into the current version—a white, Southern party rife with racial resentment—has become a forgotten tale that takes advantage of America's lack of historical knowledge and abundance of short-term memory when it comes to race.
It is true that the Republican Party was founded on the principles of anti-slavery. They were so in favor of ending America's peculiar institution that they were often called "Black Republicans" as a slur. They also believed in welcoming immigrants with open arms, elected the first woman to Congress and supported black suffrage.
In fact, most blacks identified with the GOP from Reconstruction until the election of Franklin Roosevelt. Until Carol Mosely Braun's election in 1992, every African American who served in the United States Senate belonged to the Republican Party. Twenty-one black men served in the House of Representatives before a black Democrat was elected. It was the party of progressive values.
The Democratic Party, on the other hand, was the party of the South. It was the party of social conservatism. It wanted to preserve slavery and segregation. It opposed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. It was the party of states rights, small government and Jim Crow.
The Democrats wouldn't even allow blacks at the convention until 1924, mostly to appease the Southern base of the party still butthurt about losing the Civil War (they still haven't gotten over that one). After the Civil War, the Democrats in the "Solid South" blamed Republicans for ending slavery and refused to vote for them.
Then something happened.
That something was racism.
After Democratic President Harry Truman's desegregated the Army and the Democratic Party said they would support laws that ended Jim Crow, 35 delegates from the Deep South walked out of the 1948 Democratic National Convention and formed the Dixiecrat Party. They elected Strom Thurmond as their leader, who would never identify as a Democrat again.
In 1957, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower sent federal troops into Arkansas to desegregate Little Rock Central High School. In 1963, John F. Kennedy, a Democrat, broke with the party ideology and used Eisenhower's playbook to federalize the Alabama National Guard and force the desegregation at the University of Alabama.
Then came the breaking point that would basically change the party affiliation of Southern voters. Shortly before the election of 1964, Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act.
The "Solid South" would never vote for a Democrat president again.
If Ku Klux Klan members started wearing Black Lives Matter T-shirts, would that automatically make them a civil rights organization? Suppose Donald Trump changed his name to Malcolm X. Would he immediately become a human rights activist?
That's what happened to the Republican Party.
Republicans would like you to believe that Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Democrats opposed it, which is only partially true. To understand the change in both parties' ideology, all one has to do is count the votes.
As you can see, it wasn't the Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act and the Republicans who favored it. Everyone supported the Civil Rights Act except the South. It was Southern politicians from both parties who voted against the legislation. The reason Republicans say they supported the bill is that there weren't very many Southern Republicans in Congress in 1964.
The Civil Rights Act was signed on July 2, 1964. In the presidential elections that year, 94 percent of nonwhite voters voted for Johnson boosting him to a win over Barry Goldwater.
But Goldwater, a Republican, managed to win five Southern states in that election, which was unheard of for a Republican. How did Goldwater do that? He won those states by opposing the Civil Rights Act.
After the bill passed, Strom Thurmond left the Democratic Party, as did many Southern whites. In 1968, he teamed up with Richard Nixon, the 1968 Republican presidential candidate, and convinced Nixon that a Republican could win the South if he was willing to dog-whistle racism to the Southern voters.
Along with H.R. Haldeman, they developed the "Southern Strategy," by emphasizing to white voters in the South that: "[T]he whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognized this while not appearing to."
Nixon won the 1968 election by carrying seven southern states, a remarkable feat for a Republican. In the 1972 election, he doubled down on the racist rhetoric and won every single state in the South.
Since that election, no Democratic candidate has won a majority of the old Confederate states formerly known as the "Solid South." The old Confederate states fused into a Republican voting block few Democrats have been able to penetrate.
In 1981, Lee Atwater, the political campaign architect who refined the Southern Strategy for Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, described the Republican party's winning template:
Not only did the pro-segregation, anti-black Southerners switch sides, but they brought their political ideology with them. The Democratic Party is now the progressive party that welcomes immigrants and the Republican Party has become the party of small government, law and order and conservatism. In 2016, 73 percent of white voters in the South voted Republican.
It is now the party of the alt-right. It is the party of the Willie Horton ad and birtherism. It is the party of Donald Trump, the "Muslim ban," the border wall, David Duke and all the other white supremacists running for election on the Republican ticket in the midterm elections.
It is the party of white people.
And none of this is to say that all Republicans are racist. There is a legitimate debate to be had about economic conservatism, small government and trickle-down economics (Well... Maybe not trickle-down economics), but the GOP has doubled down on racism. It has made a concerted effort to bring bigots into its big tent.
Republican leaders like Steve King (R-Iowa) now spout white supremacist theories asking what nonwhites have done for civilization. They appeal to Islamophobia and its anti-immigrant base by repeating rhetoric that has no basis in fact. They rally right-wing support under the guise of "patriotism" and "American values."
But it is racism
It is the Republican Party.
So, while Black History facts credit Sean "Puffy/P. Diddy/Diddy/Puff Daddy/Brother Love" Combs with convincing people to wear bleached linen outfits to shindigs, his decadent bashes could never compare with the Republicans' all-white party.
That's no joke.
Good overall, JR! (Thank you!)