June 18, 2022
The "Great Switch" is a Lie
Timothy Birdnow
On Facebook a guy named Jeff Robinette repeats the tired, exploded claim of "the Great Switch" where the racist Democrats supposedly became Republicans.
Jeff says:
So you do realize the two platforms changed during the 60s. It’s about platform and not the name of the party. If you don’t know what I mean, Google it.
End.
He's going to take quite a spanking in this thread.
Al Moscowitz Responds:
Oh believe me, I know EXACTLY what you mean...
Can you imagine a democrat today making Kennedy's inaugural speech.
"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country..."
The other democrats would stone him/her/it to death.
But... if you somehow mean that the Republicans today are like the democrats of old (as when the democrats supported continuing slavery, founded the KKK, etc.), then I couldn't disagree with you more. And I'm sure you are not suggesting that democrats are no longer racist... Joe Biden is the most racist politician in the history of politics. And remember, under my mantra, "Direction" is not important when calling out racism.
Although there are many, many RINOs these days who profess to be Republicans but support the democrat mainline instead, the fundamentals of the Republican party remain consistent - especially when it comes to supporting the constitution, championing self-sufficiency and freedom, etc. The problem is that it's hard to find a true republican these days... Ron DeSantis is a good example of a solid, conservative republican. Mitt Romney is a perfect example of an immoral, spineless traitor to his party.
BTW - you do understand that Google regurgitates OPINIONS, right? It's not a replacement for critical analysis...
In any case, I think we both agree that ending slavery was a good thing. I just wish more people realized that creating total dependency on government for subsistence is nearly as bad as forced servitude. And that means that the democrats haven't changed their goals, they have only gotten more stealthy in the means of achieving those goals.
George Halas responds:
After the assassination of President John F. Kennedy--a strong proponent of civil rights--in late 1963, Southern Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson saw it as his mission to pass the Civil Rights Act as a tribute to Kennedy, who had first proposed the bill five months before he was killed. Democrats in the Senate, however, filibustered it.
In June of 1964, though, the bill came up again, and it passed...over the strenuous objections of Southern Democrats. 80% of House Republicans voted for the measure, compared with just 61% of Democrats, while 82% of Republicans in the Senate supported it, compared with 69% of Democrats.
Nearly all of the opposition was, naturally, in the South, which was still nearly unanimously Democratic and nearly unanimously resistant to the changing country. One thing that most assuredly didn't change, though, was party affiliation. A total of 21 Democrats in the Senate opposed the Civil Rights Act. Only one of them, "Dixiecrat" Strom Thurmond, ever became a Republican. The rest, including Al Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd--a former Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan--remained Democrats until the day they died.
Moreover, as those 20 lifelong Democrats retired, their Senate seats remained in Democrat hands for several decades afterwards. So too did the overwhelming majority of the House seats in the South until 1994, when a Republican wave election swept the GOP into control of the House for the first time since 1952. 1994 was also the first time Republicans ever held a majority of House seats in the South--a full 30 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act.
From there, Republicans gradually built their support in the South until two more wave elections in 2010 and 2014 gave them the overwhelming majorities they enjoy today.
If this was a sudden "switch" to the Republican Party for the old Democrat segregationists
The reality is that it didn't. After the 1964 election--the first after the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the opportune time for racist Democrat voters to abandon the party in favor of Republicans--De
In fact, voting patterns in the South didn't really change all that much after the Civil Rights era. Democrats still dominated Senate, House, and gubernatorial elections for decades afterward. Alabama, for example, didn't elect a Republican governor until 1986. Mississippi didn't elect one until 1991. Georgia didn't elect one until 2002.
In the Senate, Republicans picked up four southern Senate seats in the 1960s and 1970s, while Democrats also picked up four. Democratic incumbents won routinely. If anything, those racist southern voters kept voting Democrat.
So how did this myth of a sudden "switch" get started?
It's rooted in an equally pernicious myth of the supposedly racist "Southern Strategy" of Richard Nixon's 1968 presidential campaign, which was accused of surreptitiously
Even before that, though, modern-day Democrats point to the 1964 presidential campaign of Republican Barry Goldwater, who refused to back the 1964 Civil Rights Act as proof that the GOP was actively courting racist southern voters. After all, they argue, Goldwater only won six states--his home state of Arizona and five states in the deep south. His "States' Rights" platform had to be code for a racist return to a segregated society, right?
Hardly. Goldwater was actually very supportive of civil rights for black Americans, voting for the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts and even helping to found Arizona's chapter of the NAACP. His opposition to the 1964 Act was not at all rooted in racism, but rather in a belief that it allowed the federal government to infringe on state sovereignty.
The Lyndon B. Johnson campaign pounced on Goldwater's position and, during the height of the 1964 campaign, ran an ad titled "Confessions of a Republican," which rather nonsensically tied Goldwater to the Ku Klux Klan (which, remember, was a Democratic organization).
The ad helped Johnson win the biggest landslide since 1920 and for the first time showed Democrats that accusing Republicans of being racist (even with absolutely no evidence to back this up) was a potent political weapon.
It would not be the last time they used it.
Four years later, facing declining popularity ratings and strong primary challenges from Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy, Johnson decided not to run for re-election. As protests over the Vietnam War and race riots following the death of Martin Luther King, Jr. raged in America's streets, Republican Richard Nixon, the former Vice President, launched a campaign based on promises of "restoring law and order."
With the southerner Johnson out of the race and Minnesota native Hubert Humphrey as his opponent, Nixon saw an opportunity to win southern states that Goldwater had, not through racism, but through aggressive campaigning in an area of the country Republicans had previously written off.
Yet it didn't work. For all of Nixon's supposed appeals to southern racists (who still voted for Democrats in Senate and House races that same year), he lost almost all of the south to a Democrat--Georg
It shouldn't have been surprising that Nixon ran competitively in the South, though. He carried 32 states and won 301 electoral votes. Four years later, he won every state except Massachusetts. Was it because of his racism? Had he laid the groundwork for racist appeals by Republicans for generations to come?
Of course not. The supposedly racist southern Republicans who voted for Nixon in 1972 also voted to re-elect Democrat Senators in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia. Republicans gained only eight southern seats in the House even though their presidential candidate won a record 520 electoral votes.
After Nixon resigned in disgrace in 1974, Democrat Jimmy Carter swept the South en route to the presidency in 1976. Did Carter similarly run on racist themes? Or was he simply a stronger candidate? After Ronald Reagan carried the south in two landslides (including the biggest in U.S. history in 1984) and George H.W. Bush ran similarly strongly in 1988 while promising to be a "third Reagan term," Democrat Bill Clinton split the southern states with Bush in 1992 and with Bob Dole in 1996.
All the while, Democrats kept winning House, Senate, and gubernatorial elections. Only in 2000 did southern voters return to unanimous Electoral College support for a Republican presidential candidate.
Since then, the south has voted reliably Republican (with the exception of Florida and North Carolina) in every presidential election as it has consistently voted for Republicans in Senate, House, and Governor's races.
Yet this shift was a gradual, decades-long transition and not a sudden "shift" in response to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. Racism didn't turn the South Republican--if it did, then why did it take 30 years for those racist voters to finally give the GOP a majority of southern House seats? Why did it take racist voters in Georgia 38 years to finally vote for a Republican governor? And why did only one southern Democrat ever switch to the Republican Party?
The myth of the great Republican-Democrat "switch" summarily falters under the weight of actual historical analysis, and it becomes clear that prolonged electoral shifts combined with the phenomenal nationwide popularity of Republicans Richard Nixon in 1972 and Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 were the real reason for the Republican strength in the south.
Reagan in particular introduced the entire nation to conservative policies that it found that it loved, sparking a new generation of Republican voters and politicians who still have tremendous influence today.
Racism had nothing to do with it. That is simply a Democratic myth.
https://newstalk1130.iheart.com/featured/common-sense-central/content/2018-05-01-the-myth-of-the-republican-democrat-switch/
Jeff Robinette retorts:
George Halas both parties worked together to stop slavery. Now Al here brought party into the discussion. It’s not about party. Lincoln was a progressive President. Democrats have been more progressive for quite some time, starting around Kennedy.
Al Moscowitz responds:
Jeff Robinette Al brought HISTORY into the discussion - namely that the Republican party was founded SPECIFICALLY to end slavery.
The discussion surrounding today's political affiliations took off from there...
I've actually been silent while reading Mr. Halas' comments. He didn't need any help, but since you called me out, here goes! 😉
I honestly cannot fathom how any educated person can support democrat policies today. As just one example, and there are dozens, some people might call refusing to give a definition of a woman during congressional testimony "progressive" - I call it ignorant, obstinate and ludicrous.
I will admit that I find it quite comical and even entertaining when someone who refuses to give a definition of a woman accuses me of ignoring science.
THAT'S my opinion regarding political party affiliation in today's political climate.
None of that has anything to do with the substantive part of my original post - and that is that the veterans of that time deserve to be honored. Talk is cheap. There is nothing more laudable that giving one's life toward the furtherance of a just cause and, in my opinion, the people who enjoy the freedom that they provided need to be reminded so that they may remain humbly thankful.
I hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. If you make any apple pies, remember, I will be in and around town in August. Save me a piece! 🙂
Tim adds:
Jeff Robinette you claim "both parties worked together to stop slavery." but what evidence to you have to support that claim? Who exactly in the Democratic Party was trying to get rid of slavery? I find no significant opposition to slavery from the Democrats. In fact, they seceded from the Unon to prevent abolition (well, for other reasons too, many of which I agree with.) Your statement is wholly unsuppportable and a basic bit of research easily proves it. The GOP was the anti-slavery party, the Democrats the pro-slavery.
I would add the Jim Crow laws were implemented by the Democrats AFTER the end of slavery, which disproves your point.
And of course the Republicans are the ones who passed the Civil Rights Act George Halas. It wasn't the Democrats, who were busy blocking school doors and the like.
The reason the South now votes Republican is because of demographic changes; a lot of corporations moved down there for cheap labor and low taxes and brought a lot of new people with them. The Cubans settled in south Florida too. And the Southerners finally just woke up to the fact that, besides the racism peddled by the Democrats, they had much more in common with the Reagan-era GOP. The change came in the '80's and it was not a great shift pushed by the Civil Rights Act (which the GOP sponsored, not the Democrats.)
Take a look at Nikki Haley; she is a prime example of what changed the south from deep blue to red.
On Facebook a guy named Jeff Robinette repeats the tired, exploded claim of "the Great Switch" where the racist Democrats supposedly became Republicans.
Jeff says:
So you do realize the two platforms changed during the 60s. It’s about platform and not the name of the party. If you don’t know what I mean, Google it.
End.
He's going to take quite a spanking in this thread.
Al Moscowitz Responds:
Oh believe me, I know EXACTLY what you mean...
Can you imagine a democrat today making Kennedy's inaugural speech.
"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country..."
The other democrats would stone him/her/it to death.
But... if you somehow mean that the Republicans today are like the democrats of old (as when the democrats supported continuing slavery, founded the KKK, etc.), then I couldn't disagree with you more. And I'm sure you are not suggesting that democrats are no longer racist... Joe Biden is the most racist politician in the history of politics. And remember, under my mantra, "Direction" is not important when calling out racism.
Although there are many, many RINOs these days who profess to be Republicans but support the democrat mainline instead, the fundamentals of the Republican party remain consistent - especially when it comes to supporting the constitution, championing self-sufficiency and freedom, etc. The problem is that it's hard to find a true republican these days... Ron DeSantis is a good example of a solid, conservative republican. Mitt Romney is a perfect example of an immoral, spineless traitor to his party.
BTW - you do understand that Google regurgitates OPINIONS, right? It's not a replacement for critical analysis...
In any case, I think we both agree that ending slavery was a good thing. I just wish more people realized that creating total dependency on government for subsistence is nearly as bad as forced servitude. And that means that the democrats haven't changed their goals, they have only gotten more stealthy in the means of achieving those goals.
After the assassination of President John F. Kennedy--a strong proponent of civil rights--in late 1963, Southern Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson saw it as his mission to pass the Civil Rights Act as a tribute to Kennedy, who had first proposed the bill five months before he was killed. Democrats in the Senate, however, filibustered it.
In June of 1964, though, the bill came up again, and it passed...over the strenuous objections of Southern Democrats. 80% of House Republicans voted for the measure, compared with just 61% of Democrats, while 82% of Republicans in the Senate supported it, compared with 69% of Democrats.
Nearly all of the opposition was, naturally, in the South, which was still nearly unanimously Democratic and nearly unanimously resistant to the changing country. One thing that most assuredly didn't change, though, was party affiliation. A total of 21 Democrats in the Senate opposed the Civil Rights Act. Only one of them, "Dixiecrat" Strom Thurmond, ever became a Republican. The rest, including Al Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd--a former Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan--remained Democrats until the day they died.
Moreover, as those 20 lifelong Democrats retired, their Senate seats remained in Democrat hands for several decades afterwards. So too did the overwhelming majority of the House seats in the South until 1994, when a Republican wave election swept the GOP into control of the House for the first time since 1952. 1994 was also the first time Republicans ever held a majority of House seats in the South--a full 30 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act.
From there, Republicans gradually built their support in the South until two more wave elections in 2010 and 2014 gave them the overwhelming majorities they enjoy today.
If this was a sudden "switch" to the Republican Party for the old Democrat segregationists
The reality is that it didn't. After the 1964 election--the first after the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the opportune time for racist Democrat voters to abandon the party in favor of Republicans--De
In fact, voting patterns in the South didn't really change all that much after the Civil Rights era. Democrats still dominated Senate, House, and gubernatorial elections for decades afterward. Alabama, for example, didn't elect a Republican governor until 1986. Mississippi didn't elect one until 1991. Georgia didn't elect one until 2002.
In the Senate, Republicans picked up four southern Senate seats in the 1960s and 1970s, while Democrats also picked up four. Democratic incumbents won routinely. If anything, those racist southern voters kept voting Democrat.
So how did this myth of a sudden "switch" get started?
It's rooted in an equally pernicious myth of the supposedly racist "Southern Strategy" of Richard Nixon's 1968 presidential campaign, which was accused of surreptitiously
Even before that, though, modern-day Democrats point to the 1964 presidential campaign of Republican Barry Goldwater, who refused to back the 1964 Civil Rights Act as proof that the GOP was actively courting racist southern voters. After all, they argue, Goldwater only won six states--his home state of Arizona and five states in the deep south. His "States' Rights" platform had to be code for a racist return to a segregated society, right?
Hardly. Goldwater was actually very supportive of civil rights for black Americans, voting for the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts and even helping to found Arizona's chapter of the NAACP. His opposition to the 1964 Act was not at all rooted in racism, but rather in a belief that it allowed the federal government to infringe on state sovereignty.
The Lyndon B. Johnson campaign pounced on Goldwater's position and, during the height of the 1964 campaign, ran an ad titled "Confessions of a Republican," which rather nonsensically tied Goldwater to the Ku Klux Klan (which, remember, was a Democratic organization).
The ad helped Johnson win the biggest landslide since 1920 and for the first time showed Democrats that accusing Republicans of being racist (even with absolutely no evidence to back this up) was a potent political weapon.
It would not be the last time they used it.
Four years later, facing declining popularity ratings and strong primary challenges from Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy, Johnson decided not to run for re-election. As protests over the Vietnam War and race riots following the death of Martin Luther King, Jr. raged in America's streets, Republican Richard Nixon, the former Vice President, launched a campaign based on promises of "restoring law and order."
With the southerner Johnson out of the race and Minnesota native Hubert Humphrey as his opponent, Nixon saw an opportunity to win southern states that Goldwater had, not through racism, but through aggressive campaigning in an area of the country Republicans had previously written off.
Yet it didn't work. For all of Nixon's supposed appeals to southern racists (who still voted for Democrats in Senate and House races that same year), he lost almost all of the south to a Democrat--Georg
It shouldn't have been surprising that Nixon ran competitively in the South, though. He carried 32 states and won 301 electoral votes. Four years later, he won every state except Massachusetts. Was it because of his racism? Had he laid the groundwork for racist appeals by Republicans for generations to come?
Of course not. The supposedly racist southern Republicans who voted for Nixon in 1972 also voted to re-elect Democrat Senators in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia. Republicans gained only eight southern seats in the House even though their presidential candidate won a record 520 electoral votes.
After Nixon resigned in disgrace in 1974, Democrat Jimmy Carter swept the South en route to the presidency in 1976. Did Carter similarly run on racist themes? Or was he simply a stronger candidate? After Ronald Reagan carried the south in two landslides (including the biggest in U.S. history in 1984) and George H.W. Bush ran similarly strongly in 1988 while promising to be a "third Reagan term," Democrat Bill Clinton split the southern states with Bush in 1992 and with Bob Dole in 1996.
All the while, Democrats kept winning House, Senate, and gubernatorial elections. Only in 2000 did southern voters return to unanimous Electoral College support for a Republican presidential candidate.
Since then, the south has voted reliably Republican (with the exception of Florida and North Carolina) in every presidential election as it has consistently voted for Republicans in Senate, House, and Governor's races.
Yet this shift was a gradual, decades-long transition and not a sudden "shift" in response to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. Racism didn't turn the South Republican--if it did, then why did it take 30 years for those racist voters to finally give the GOP a majority of southern House seats? Why did it take racist voters in Georgia 38 years to finally vote for a Republican governor? And why did only one southern Democrat ever switch to the Republican Party?
The myth of the great Republican-Democrat "switch" summarily falters under the weight of actual historical analysis, and it becomes clear that prolonged electoral shifts combined with the phenomenal nationwide popularity of Republicans Richard Nixon in 1972 and Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 were the real reason for the Republican strength in the south.
Reagan in particular introduced the entire nation to conservative policies that it found that it loved, sparking a new generation of Republican voters and politicians who still have tremendous influence today.
Racism had nothing to do with it. That is simply a Democratic myth.
https://newstalk1130.iheart.com/featured/common-sense-central/content/2018-05-01-the-myth-of-the-republican-democrat-switch/
Jeff Robinette retorts:
George Halas both parties worked together to stop slavery. Now Al here brought party into the discussion. It’s not about party. Lincoln was a progressive President. Democrats have been more progressive for quite some time, starting around Kennedy.
Al Moscowitz responds:
Jeff Robinette Al brought HISTORY into the discussion - namely that the Republican party was founded SPECIFICALLY to end slavery.
The discussion surrounding today's political affiliations took off from there...
I've actually been silent while reading Mr. Halas' comments. He didn't need any help, but since you called me out, here goes! 😉
I honestly cannot fathom how any educated person can support democrat policies today. As just one example, and there are dozens, some people might call refusing to give a definition of a woman during congressional testimony "progressive" - I call it ignorant, obstinate and ludicrous.
I will admit that I find it quite comical and even entertaining when someone who refuses to give a definition of a woman accuses me of ignoring science.
THAT'S my opinion regarding political party affiliation in today's political climate.
None of that has anything to do with the substantive part of my original post - and that is that the veterans of that time deserve to be honored. Talk is cheap. There is nothing more laudable that giving one's life toward the furtherance of a just cause and, in my opinion, the people who enjoy the freedom that they provided need to be reminded so that they may remain humbly thankful.
I hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. If you make any apple pies, remember, I will be in and around town in August. Save me a piece! 🙂
Tim adds:
Jeff Robinette you claim "both parties worked together to stop slavery." but what evidence to you have to support that claim? Who exactly in the Democratic Party was trying to get rid of slavery? I find no significant opposition to slavery from the Democrats. In fact, they seceded from the Unon to prevent abolition (well, for other reasons too, many of which I agree with.) Your statement is wholly unsuppportable and a basic bit of research easily proves it. The GOP was the anti-slavery party, the Democrats the pro-slavery.
I would add the Jim Crow laws were implemented by the Democrats AFTER the end of slavery, which disproves your point.
And of course the Republicans are the ones who passed the Civil Rights Act George Halas. It wasn't the Democrats, who were busy blocking school doors and the like.
The reason the South now votes Republican is because of demographic changes; a lot of corporations moved down there for cheap labor and low taxes and brought a lot of new people with them. The Cubans settled in south Florida too. And the Southerners finally just woke up to the fact that, besides the racism peddled by the Democrats, they had much more in common with the Reagan-era GOP. The change came in the '80's and it was not a great shift pushed by the Civil Rights Act (which the GOP sponsored, not the Democrats.)
Take a look at Nikki Haley; she is a prime example of what changed the south from deep blue to red.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:34 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 2231 words, total size 15 kb.
1
Kanpur Matka! Day chart Matka ! Kanpur Satta Chart ! kanpur Matka Result ! Kanpur Satta Result ! Dubai Matka Result ! Dubai Satta Matka ! Dubai Satta matka ! Dubai Matka Chart ! Kanpur Panel Chart ! Kanpur Bazar satta Matka ! Birbal matka ! Birbal satta Matka ! Taj Morning matka ! Bombay Morning Matka ! Kalyan Matka ! Kalyan Matka Result ! Kanpur satta Matka ! Kanpur Satta Result ! Gulam day Matka ! Gokul day Satta Matka ! Satta Matka ! CHARMINAR SATTA ! Kanpur matka Result Today Fixx Result !
Posted by: Kanpur Matka at September 22, 2022 04:42 AM (zm4ix)
33kb generated in CPU 0.0748, elapsed 0.9187 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.9078 seconds, 159 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 0.9078 seconds, 159 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
