• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What about the big switheroo? When republicans became democrats and democrats became republicans?

Virgil Jones

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2019
Messages
1,592
Reaction score
213
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
This supposed switch apparently happened according to democrats with the passage of the Civil Rights Act. The "switch" story suggests that suddenly white southerners became Republicans. There is some truth to that if you consider the 1930s to 1970s. What I find interesting, is why did all the Northern Republicans suddenly "switch" to the racist party, known as democrats?
 
This supposed switch apparently happened according to democrats with the passage of the Civil Rights Act. The "switch" story suggests that suddenly white southerners became Republicans. There is some truth to that if you consider the 1930s to 1970s. What I find interesting, is why did all the Northern Republicans suddenly "switch" to the racist party, known as democrats?

Well, Virgil, like you alluded to, back in the day, the southern democrat party was full on racists. But when the dem's started pushing civil rights and all, all the racist democrats flocked to the Republican Party, where they remain at to this day.

If it were 1960, I'd say you're right. But it's 2019. The racist element finds the GOP a better place to hang their hood.
 
Well, Virgil, like you alluded to, back in the day, the southern democrat party was full on racists. But when the dem's started pushing civil rights and all, all the racist democrats flocked to the Republican Party, where they remain at to this day.

If it were 1960, I'd say you're right. But it's 2019. The racist element finds the GOP a better place to hang their hood.

Most blacks switched to the democrat party over New Deal elements brought in by Roosevelt administration. It had more to do with opportunities to get free stuff, highlighted further when LBJ offered "something to those n-words to get them voting for the democrats for 100 years"
 
Well, Virgil, like you alluded to, back in the day, the southern democrat party was full on racists. But when the dem's started pushing civil rights and all, all the racist democrats flocked to the Republican Party, where they remain at to this day.

If it were 1960, I'd say you're right. But it's 2019. The racist element finds the GOP a better place to hang their hood.

Why would racist democrats suddenly switch targets and covet black votes?
 
I say the entire process makes no sense whatsoever
 
the "big switch" never happened. The conditions and events that set the terms for politics and political leanings either no longer exist, or have largely faded away. There was never a big switch, the democrats and republicans just evolved on their own in a somewhat independent manner, and as the economy and political eras changed under the leadership of different presidents, the parties have, and continue, to define themselves in more and more divergent ways.
 
It was mentioned during one of theose "Who do you think you are" progs that a relative of the subject had been one of the last black men standing in Texas as a local Republican representative in the early years of the last century. Policies were moving away from black people's needs and active disenfranchisement was beginning in the south..
 
the "big switch" never happened. The conditions and events that set the terms for politics and political leanings either no longer exist, or have largely faded away. There was never a big switch, the democrats and republicans just evolved on their own in a somewhat independent manner, and as the economy and political eras changed under the leadership of different presidents, the parties have, and continue, to define themselves in more and more divergent ways.

^
Never heard of Nixon's Southern Strategy, after the Civil Rights Act was passed. I was alive to see it, as it happened, so your lies don't affect me one bit.
 
^
Never heard of Nixon's Southern Strategy, after the Civil Rights Act was passed. I was alive to see it, as it happened, so your lies don't affect me one bit.

The Southern Strategy of course happened, but it wasn't a full on "Dems became Republicans and Republicans became Dems" like the wingnut liars attempt to frame it as, and then defeat it.

A few Democrats became Republicans -- Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms, mainly. Most of the Southern Dems were old as **** and just died in office, retired or were primaried out.

The VOTERS in the South, to whom the GOP was anathema because of Lincoln and the Civil War, warmed up to the Nixon-era rhetoric of maintaining white supremacy in the years after segregation was ended, Reagan's dogwhistles in 1976 and 1980, and the idea that the Democratic Party was the party of Northeastern Elites, West Coast liberals and black people (who had all abandoned the GOP long before). It wasn't so much of an instant flip as an accelerated shift.
 
^
Never heard of Nixon's Southern Strategy, after the Civil Rights Act was passed. I was alive to see it, as it happened, so your lies don't affect me one bit.

I've heard of Nixon's southern strategy, I'm taking ALL the research into this into account, not just your outdated, tinted glasses. This is not 1970, and even if it were, the conditions that defined the parties at that time were not nearly as concrete as the conditions now. As I said, the big switch never happened. I don't know anyone that goes into a polling booth thinking about what nixon did. Maybe you do, but generally, people are thinking about thinks like Syria, or Abortion, or Medical care, or gun rights, to name a few. Those weren't issues in Nixon's time, except maybe abortion, but Nixon was elected before RvW so, it was at a much less extent.
 
Last edited:
Most blacks switched to the democrat party over New Deal elements brought in by Roosevelt administration. It had more to do with opportunities to get free stuff, highlighted further when LBJ offered "something to those n-words to get them voting for the democrats for 100 years"

FDR NEVER offerd something for nothing. Pick up a history book, almost all the government programs initiated by FDR involved working for that goverment paycheck. Google is your friend, use it and stop looking ignorant.
 
Most blacks switched to the democrat party over New Deal elements brought in by Roosevelt administration. It had more to do with opportunities to get free stuff, highlighted further when LBJ offered "something to those n-words to get them voting for the democrats for 100 years"

link ?
 
Why would racist democrats suddenly switch targets and covet black votes?

They didn't. They switched parties. They became republican. I'm sure they would LIKE to have the black vote but they ain't getting it.

Who knows, in 50 years the pendulum might swing the other way and the Republicans might actually work on getting the black vote. But I don't see that happening anytime soon.
 

When the democrats finally decided to combat racism and offer African Americqns a better deal, they picked up more of the black vote. Of course, they paid a price as well as all the racist democrats went over to the republican party where they remain to this day. You really need a link to convince you what is a well known historical fact? Very well. Here ya go.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats

The night that Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, his special assistant Bill Moyers was surprised to find the president looking melancholy in his bedroom. Moyers later wrote that when he asked what was wrong, Johnson replied, “I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come.” <snip>

https://www.history.com/news/how-the-party-of-lincoln-won-over-the-once-democratic-south

Senator Ted Cruz recently defended his party’s racism by essentially saying, Well, Democrats are racist, too!

His evidence: Dixiecrats, the keepers of Jim Crow. But the Dixiecrats largely left the Democrats to become Republicans.

Here’s why that happened.
<snip>
https://medium.com/everyvote/how-the-republicans-and-democrats-switched-on-civil-rights-in-5-racist-steps-92c1b41480b

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2017/08/how-southern-democrats-became-republicans-a-case-study-of-carroll-county-mississippi.html
 

[video]https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-ab&q=Hillary%27s+America:+The+Secret+History+of+the+D emocratic+Party&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAONgFuLUz9U3MDSPzzJR4tVP1zc0TDYo sTQuKivWkshOttIvSM0vyEkFUkXF-XlWufllmanFjxgDuQVe_rgnLOUxac3Ja4xOXDiVCqlxsbnmlWS WVArJcPFKISzTYJDi5kJweRax2npk5uQkFlWqFys45qYWZSYnW imEZKQqBKcmF6WWKHhkFpfkF1Uq5KcplABFXVJz85OLEksykxU CEotKKgGiRofuygAAAA&npsic=0&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi0uJffpJngAhVJiqwKHaYCAj8Q-BYINA[/video]
 
Why would racist democrats suddenly switch targets and covet black votes?

Umm maybe they thought it was the right thing to do? Johnson knew he would lose the democratic south if he got civil rights passed. It was one of the best decisions the democratic party ever did, reject racism. Those folks didn't move but they sure switched parties to the R side.
 
Umm maybe they thought it was the right thing to do? Johnson knew he would lose the democratic south if he got civil rights passed. It was one of the best decisions the democratic party ever did, reject racism. Those folks didn't move but they sure switched parties to the R side.

Do you think maybe they were pissed at white people for rejecting their racist views, and decided to target white people instead?
 
This supposed switch apparently happened according to democrats with the passage of the Civil Rights Act. The "switch" story suggests that suddenly white southerners became Republicans. There is some truth to that if you consider the 1930s to 1970s. What I find interesting, is why did all the Northern Republicans suddenly "switch" to the racist party, known as democrats?

It wasn't "sudden"...like all other reboots, except maybe one recent one, it took a bit of time.
Yes it is true that the Democrats of the Civil War era were the segregationists and the birthplace of the Klan, while the Republicans were what one might consider the "liberal" party, by virtue of the fact that more Republicans were abolitionist.

During the 1920's Klan membership skyrocketed, and members were absolutely Democrats. Beginning around the time of World War Two postwar era, with the eventual desegregation of the armed forces and the postwar boom of returning veterans to all points in the nation, a slow transformation began, and at the outset it was not as binary as one might think, because Republicans were essential to the passage of the very first "civil rights" laws, which of course did not sit well with The Solid South. (Democrats)

The first marches and demonstrations generated enormous backlash from Solid South Democrats, but the rest of the nation was shocked to see the events unfold on national TV. Eventually the Southern Democrats slowly became isolated from the rest of their peers in the East, North and West, but as you well know, racism was not strictly confined to the Deep South.
Still, sufficient numbers of Democrats began to become more socially liberal.

The Goldwater contingent on the Republican side, while initially supporting desegregation on a moral level, objected to federal interference, preferring to keep it as a matter for the individual states. But as the violence heated up, federal law enforcement felt compelled to step in and, in a continuance of early Kennedy efforts, the Johnson administration ramped up federal efforts to stem the tide, and with the support of civil rights leaders like King, Democrats outside the South became rather solidified in their support.

Gradually, Southern Dems turned to independent efforts like George Wallace's American Independent Party. (1968) The result, together with sustained infighting from far Left progressives over Humphrey, was that Wallace's AIM siphoned off votes that might have gone to the Dems and between that and the North/East/West far Left sitting out the Dem vote over Chicago's events, Nixon won.

From Wiki:

"As the civil rights movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South who had traditionally supported the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party."

Hammering home the impression that Democratic candidates were depicted as permissive liberals further cemented animosity in the South. Lyndon Johnson remarked upon signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that "We have lost the South for a generation."
He was only off by five years maybe but in the end, the result has lasted much longer than a single generation.

If you'd like an example of a rapid party reboot, the conversion of the GOP from a moderate center-Right party to the Tea Party is a good example. It took one billion dollars and one election cycle (2010) to dislodge a great many "RINO traitors" from the GOP ranks. Not really a transformation from Right to Left all, it was a reinforcement of hardcore Right and far Right ideologies that pushed out a lot of moderates.

But even that reboot wasn't quite as "sudden" as one might think, either. It had its roots in the 1980's and 1990's.
Stalwart conservatives like Goldwater chafed at the influence of the religious Moral Majority.



So that's what I have for you right now, hope it helps.
I am not a hater of conservatism, I hold some conservative views of my own, even as a liberal.
 
It wasn't "sudden"...like all other reboots, except maybe one recent one, it took a bit of time.
Yes it is true that the Democrats of the Civil War era were the segregationists and the birthplace of the Klan, while the Republicans were what one might consider the "liberal" party, by virtue of the fact that more Republicans were abolitionist.

During the 1920's Klan membership skyrocketed, and members were absolutely Democrats. Beginning around the time of World War Two postwar era, with the eventual desegregation of the armed forces and the postwar boom of returning veterans to all points in the nation, a slow transformation began, and at the outset it was not as binary as one might think, because Republicans were essential to the passage of the very first "civil rights" laws, which of course did not sit well with The Solid South. (Democrats)

The first marches and demonstrations generated enormous backlash from Solid South Democrats, but the rest of the nation was shocked to see the events unfold on national TV. Eventually the Southern Democrats slowly became isolated from the rest of their peers in the East, North and West, but as you well know, racism was not strictly confined to the Deep South.
Still, sufficient numbers of Democrats began to become more socially liberal.

The Goldwater contingent on the Republican side, while initially supporting desegregation on a moral level, objected to federal interference, preferring to keep it as a matter for the individual states. But as the violence heated up, federal law enforcement felt compelled to step in and, in a continuance of early Kennedy efforts, the Johnson administration ramped up federal efforts to stem the tide, and with the support of civil rights leaders like King, Democrats outside the South became rather solidified in their support.

Gradually, Southern Dems turned to independent efforts like George Wallace's American Independent Party. (1968) The result, together with sustained infighting from far Left progressives over Humphrey, was that Wallace's AIM siphoned off votes that might have gone to the Dems and between that and the North/East/West far Left sitting out the Dem vote over Chicago's events, Nixon won.

From Wiki:



Hammering home the impression that Democratic candidates were depicted as permissive liberals further cemented animosity in the South. Lyndon Johnson remarked upon signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that "We have lost the South for a generation."
He was only off by five years maybe but in the end, the result has lasted much longer than a single generation.

If you'd like an example of a rapid party reboot, the conversion of the GOP from a moderate center-Right party to the Tea Party is a good example. It took one billion dollars and one election cycle (2010) to dislodge a great many "RINO traitors" from the GOP ranks. Not really a transformation from Right to Left all, it was a reinforcement of hardcore Right and far Right ideologies that pushed out a lot of moderates.

But even that reboot wasn't quite as "sudden" as one might think, either. It had its roots in the 1980's and 1990's.
Stalwart conservatives like Goldwater chafed at the influence of the religious Moral Majority.



So that's what I have for you right now, hope it helps.
I am not a hater of conservatism, I hold some conservative views of my own, even as a liberal.


Thank your for sharing, I hold some liberal views of my own, as a classical liberal and a conservative. To say things are confusing as hell these days is a classical way of saying that it is confusing as hell.
 
Most blacks switched to the democrat party over New Deal elements brought in by Roosevelt administration. It had more to do with opportunities to get free stuff, highlighted further when LBJ offered "something to those n-words to get them voting for the democrats for 100 years"

Why do you call it "free stuff" when not everything is free? Social Security isn't free, you have to pay into it your entire working life until age 65. Same with Medicare. These aren't free, they are paid entitlements.

Pointing out that LBJ was a stodgy old Texas bigot with a flair for pragmatism doesn't negate the fact that he ended up doing something for a large part of the American population, a segment of people which I gather you have a great deal of hatred for.

Not my problem, and neither is LBJ, but just calling New Deal elements "free stuff" is flat out ignorant.
The New Deal was much more than a simple social contract to protect working poor, elderly, disabled and the destitute.
It was also a very complex set of regulations that harnessed the economy into a tool that SERVED working families first, oligarchs second, and yet somehow there were plenty of filthy rich people still walking around and enjoying their fortunes nonetheless.
And nothing that has evolved in the forty years since Reaganomics began the slow and methodical stripping away of the New Deal has ever matched the economic performance of the New Deal era...NOTHING.

I was alive then, I grew up then, I benefited from the ordinary features of the New Deal in ways too numerous to count and my upbringing was not as working poor or in destitution at all. I grew up as ordinary middle class.
But I know what the cost of living was in the 1970's when I first went out on my own, and I knew what to expect from my thirty hours, even as a low wage student paying my way through school and working part time.

It was enough for a roof, enough to put gas in my old heap, enough to put food in my stomach and enough to get by.
I wasn't rich, I had "enough", that's all.
My upward mobility arrived as I graduated college, and it was swift and sure.

Ask anyone working at the starter jobs of today and living on their own if they have "enough"...enough to pay for health insurance, school, car payments, rent, utilities, ask them if they feel like they have upward mobility.

You can go from 1980 to today and if you try to compare the economy for the middle class in any segment of those forty years to the years between 1947 and 1980, you will NOT find any period where working class people could do ANYWHERE near as well as they did during the New Deal era.

And the reason it even took so long for the New Deal to do what it promised to do lies in the history of the New Deal itself.

Even strict monetarists like Milton Friedman, who opposed the policies of the first phases of the New Deal, had this to say:

"...providing relief for the unemployed, providing jobs for the unemployed, and motivating the economy to expand ... an expansive monetary policy. Those parts of the New Deal I did support."

Conservative critics of the New Deal seem hell bent on ignoring that it built or renovated 2,500 hospitals, 45,000 schools, 13,000 parks and playgrounds, 7,800 bridges, 700,000 miles (1,100,000 km) of roads, 1,000 airfields and employed 50,000 teachers through programs that rebuilt the country's entire rural school system.

Furthermore, Eisenhower's CONTINUATION and EXPANSION of New Deal policies glorified liberal Republicanism by building an entire Interstate (and Defense) Highway System, electrifying the entire rural South, erecting several large hydro-generating dams, and modernizing our telecommunications system. He also signed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, enacted the National Defense Education Act and created the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

He was perhaps the greatest Republican president of the twentieth century.
 
Back
Top Bottom