The Migration of Southern Racist Dems into the GOP explained

[WillJ8787]

Source:
https://newrepublic.com/article/149554/dinesh-dsouza-gets-history-lesson-twitter


Even the New Republic talks about this correctly. I guess they are not racist enough to be considered Republicans today so it will get rejected by Chairman Corndog and Wrongway.

History and facts....troublesome to those who want to rule over us Intheir Facist authoritarian ways(Far Right Republicans).

 

[Lazaran]

.
They happily go through life being gaslighted by republicans, and trying to gaslight everyone they encounter.

Facts like those presented in the link would cause their gaslights to explode and burn their narrative to the ground.

They will all respond with - tf;dr - too factual; didn't read.

*nods*

 

[Rightguide]

Source:
https://newrepublic.com/article/149554/dinesh-dsouza-gets-history-lesson-twitter


Even the New Republic talks about this correctly. I guess they are not racist enough to be considered Republicans today so it will get rejected by Chairman Corndog and Wrongway.

History and facts....troublesome to those who want to rule over us Intheir Facist authoritarian ways(Far Right Republicans).

Only one of the Dixecrats left the Democrat Party.

 

[Lazaran]

.
The southern strategy was designed by republicans to attract racist voters, not to convert racist bureaucrats that happened to be Democrats.

It worked..

 

[YDB95]

Only one of the Dixecrats left the Democrat Party.

Sen. Strom Thurmond, D-SC, switched to the Republicans in 1964. Rep. Albert Watson, also of South Carolina, switched the following year. That's two, Rightguide, and it's not counting future officeholders like Ronald Reagan who also switched parties around the same time for the same reason.

 

[OldJourno]

Sen. Strom Thurmond, D-SC, switched to the Republicans in 1964. Rep. Albert Watson, also of South Carolina, switched the following year. That's two, Rightguide, and it's not counting future officeholders like Ronald Reagan who also switched parties around the same time for the same reason.

Reagan's from the Deep South? Who knew?

 

[YDB95]

Reagan's from the Deep South? Who knew?

If you're going to be that literal, very few members of Congress - even from the Deep South - who were involved with the Dixiecrat revolt were still in Congress in 1964. Besides, you know what I meant.

 

[OldJourno]

Source:
https://newrepublic.com/article/149554/dinesh-dsouza-gets-history-lesson-twitter


Even the New Republic talks about this correctly. I guess they are not racist enough to be considered Republicans today so it will get rejected by Chairman Corndog and Wrongway.

History and facts....troublesome to those who want to rule over us Intheir Facist authoritarian ways(Far Right Republicans).

Even the New Republic? You say this like it's breakthrough reportage that the New Republic, founded by progressives over 100 years ago, wrote some fiction about the rise of the GOP in the South. It's a liberal rag.
Maybe you geniuses might think about what the Democrat party was doing (LBJ's Great Society welfare state comes to mind) when Nixon benefited from what came to be known as the Solid South.

 

[YDB95]

Even the New Republic? You say this like it's breakthrough reportage that the New Republic, founded by progressives over 100 years ago, wrote some fiction about the rise of the GOP in the South. It's a liberal rag.
Maybe you geniuses might think about what the Democrat party was doing (LBJ's Great Society welfare state comes to mind) when Nixon benefited from what came to be known as the Solid South.

First of all, "Democrat Party" is a slur popularized by Joe McCarthy. Is that company you want to keep? (The pathetic thing is, it probably is.) Secondly, it already was called the Solid South before then, it just used to be solid blue before it was solid red. (You could argue it isn't really anymore, with Virginia increasingly blue, Georgia a step behind, and North Carolina and Texas heading that way.)

Third, as far as Nixon benefitting from backlash against the Great Society, you're probably right. But I don't see how that's anything to be proud of.

 

[Rightguide]

Sen. Strom Thurmond, D-SC, switched to the Republicans in 1964. Rep. https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/05/04/how-critical-race-theory-is-taught-in-public-schools/, also of South Carolina, switched the following year. That's two, Rightguide, and it's not counting future officeholders like Ronald Reagan who also switched parties around the same time for the same reason.

Reagan wasn't a Dixecrat. Thurmond was the sole Dixecrat Senator. Watson was the sole House Dixecrat who came to the GOP, the other 200 Dixecrat House and Senate members, Governors, and high elected officials, remained until the end in the Democrat Party. We can recall that Jesse Helms of North Carolina, John Tower of Texas, and former Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, all switched from the Democratic Party to the GOP, none of whom were ever Dixecrats.

The alleged Nixon "Southern Strategy" is BS. Richard Nixon never made a racist public statement in his life. Why would any racist Democrat have believed they could shelter in the GOP? Leftists say it was because Nixon enticed them with a "dog Whistle," a secret code of some kind that only racists could hear, which begs the question, how could only you, the Democrats, and the media hear it?

Nixon supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, put in place the first affirmative action program in 1969, in 1970 he desegregated southern schools. Keeping all of this in mind, ask yourself how could someone trying to build a basis for enticing racist southerners to switch parties expect to be successful with this record? The truth is he wouldn't and Nixon had no such intention. It's all leftist fantasy that fails to stand up to scrutiny.

So how did the South go Republican in some places? The more industrialized and less racist the South became the more Republicans migrated away from big northern liberal cities into the South. The GOP was anti-Communist, pro-life, pro free enterprise, anti-Jim Crow, and Christian principled, all of which served to draw in new constituencies, than the tired old race-centric Democrat Party.

 

[RoryN]

If you're going to be that literal

Only when it suits their narrative.

 

[Rightguide]

First of all, "Democrat Party" is a slur popularized by Joe McCarthy.

Actually, it's the only true characterization one can make in view of the fact there's very little of anything that can be described as "democratic" in the present Marxist/Socialist/orientation of the authoritarian leadership and policies of the contemporary Democrat Party. As in the "Democratic" People's Republic of Korea, which of course is neither democratic or a republic.

 

[YDB95]

Reagan wasn't a Dixecrat. Thurmond was the sole Dixecrat Senator. Watson was the sole House Dixecrat who came to the GOP, the other 200 Dixecrat House and Senate members, Governors, and high elected officials, remained until the end in the Democrat Party. We can recall that Jesse Helms of North Carolina, John Tower of Texas, and former Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, all switched from the Democratic Party to the GOP, none of whom were ever Dixecrats.

Reagan, Helms and Lott were all Democrats before they ran for office, and they switched parties because they were following the racist vote. You're splitting hairs here (and also conveniently forgetting that a lot of Republicans were elected from the South in 1964, usually the first ones from those districts since Reconstruction. They weren't there long, but still...) As for Tower, he was already a Republican when he was elected to the Senate in 1961, the only Southern Republican senator at the time, and guess what? He voted against the Civil Rights Act. His Democratic colleague, Ralph Yarborough, was the only Southern senator of either party to vote for it, and he easily won re-election that fall against an empty suit named George Bush.

The alleged Nixon "Southern Strategy" is BS. Richard Nixon never made a racist public statement in his life.

That is exactly how the Southern strategy works. You say things that could be construed as racist but are not racist on the surface, so you can then claim "that's not what I said" - but the message gets through to the right people. And yes, the Southern strategy was and is real. The chairman of the RNC even apologized for it once, although that hasn't stopped the practice of dogwhistle politics on the right.

Why would any racist Democrat have believed they could shelter in the GOP?

Because the 1964 GOP nominee openly courted their votes with his loud and proud opposition to civil rights reform. It ain't brain surgery!

Leftists say it was because Nixon enticed them with a "dog Whistle," a secret code of some kind that only racists could hear, which begs the question, how could only you, the Democrats, and the media hear it?

When Ronald Reagan referred to "a strapping young buck" buying T-bone steaks with food stamps, or the "welfare queen" from Chicago, it played to a number of stereotypes about Blacks without actually identifying the people in question as Black. Again, you don't need a secret decoder ring to get the message.

Nixon supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, put in place the first affirmative action program in 1969, in 1970 he desegregated southern schools. Keeping all of this in mind, ask yourself how could someone trying to build a basis for enticing racist southerners to switch parties expect to be successful with this record? The truth is he wouldn't and Nixon had no such intention. It's all leftist fantasy that fails to stand up to scrutiny.

Not if you read the book instead of just the summary: https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...hern-schools/DC7159BF3BF9C3082248D310C25911E4
You're not only cherrypicking here, you're also ignoring volumes of context. At best, he did a little because he was forced into doing so. Also, his record only looks "pro-civil rights" compared to other Republicans who followed.

So how did the South go Republican in some places? The more industrialized and less racist the South became the more Republicans migrated away from big northern liberal cities into the South. The GOP was anti-Communist, pro-life, pro free enterprise, anti-Jim Crow, and Christian principled, all of which served to draw in new constituencies, than the tired old race-centric Democrat Party.

WOW.
That is some remarkable revisionist history, right there. I don't even really know where to begin. But I suppose that's the point.
Just for one thing, if your argument here were true, the Southern Republicans we've seen since then would never have included the likes of Helms, Lott, Gingrich, Duke, Paula Hawkins, Saxby Shameless, George "Macaca" Allen, Jeremiah Denton, Phil Gramm, Jeff Sessions, and more recently Ted Cruz,
Cindy Hyde Smith, Steve Scalise, and Marjorie "Kick that bitch out of Congress" Greene. In other words, no, Rightguide, it is not a coincidence that the South flipped to the Republicans at exactly the time the Dems turned their backs on racism and the GOP picked up the mantle.

 

[Lazaran]

Reagan, Helms and Lott were all Democrats before they ran for office, and they switched parties because they were following the racist vote. You're splitting hairs here (and also conveniently forgetting that a lot of Republicans were elected from the South in 1964, usually the first ones from those districts since Reconstruction. They weren't there long, but still...) As for Tower, he was already a Republican when he was elected to the Senate in 1961, the only Southern Republican senator at the time, and guess what? He voted against the Civil Rights Act. His Democratic colleague, Ralph Yarborough, was the only Southern senator of either party to vote for it, and he easily won re-election that fall against an empty suit named George Bush.


That is exactly how the Southern strategy works. You say things that could be construed as racist but are not racist on the surface, so you can then claim "that's not what I said" - but the message gets through to the right people. And yes, the Southern strategy was and is real. The chairman of the RNC even apologized for it once, although that hasn't stopped the practice of dogwhistle politics on the right.


Because the 1964 GOP nominee openly courted their votes with his loud and proud opposition to civil rights reform. It ain't brain surgery!



When Ronald Reagan referred to "a strapping young buck" buying T-bone steaks with food stamps, or the "welfare queen" from Chicago, it played to a number of stereotypes about Blacks without actually identifying the people in question as Black. Again, you don't need a secret decoder ring to get the message.



Not if you read the book instead of just the summary: https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...hern-schools/DC7159BF3BF9C3082248D310C25911E4
You're not only cherrypicking here, you're also ignoring volumes of context. At best, he did a little because he was forced into doing so. Also, his record only looks "pro-civil rights" compared to other Republicans who followed.



WOW.
That is some remarkable revisionist history, right there. I don't even really know where to begin. But I suppose that's the point.
Just for one thing, if your argument here were true, the Southern Republicans we've seen since then would never have included the likes of Helms, Lott, Gingrich, Duke, Paula Hawkins, Saxby Shameless, George "Macaca" Allen, Jeremiah Denton, Phil Gramm, Jeff Sessions, and more recently Ted Cruz,
Cindy Hyde Smith, Steve Scalise, and Marjorie "Kick that bitch out of Congress" Greene. In other words, no, Rightguide, it is not a coincidence that the South flipped to the Republicans at exactly the time the Dems turned their backs on racism and the GOP picked up the mantle.

I'm guessing RotGut is rewriting history for free, because no self respecting publisher would touch that steaming pile of horseshit.

Gaslighting at its finest.

*nods*

 

[Rightguide]

Reagan, Helms and Lott were all Democrats before they ran for office, and they switched parties because they were following the racist vote. You're splitting hairs here (and also conveniently forgetting that a lot of Republicans were elected from the South in 1964, usually the first ones from those districts since Reconstruction. They weren't there long, but still...) As for Tower, he was already a Republican when he was elected to the Senate in 1961, the only Southern Republican senator at the time, and guess what? He voted against the Civil Rights Act. His Democratic colleague, Ralph Yarborough, was the only Southern senator of either party to vote for it, and he easily won re-election that fall against an empty suit named George Bush.

The subject of my post was Dixecrats. Not all Democrats were as strident as the Dixecrats in their opposition to change in the South. The Civil War, Reconstruction, and the following decades educated a lot of people in the South, not all but many, to leave Jim Crow and their outwardly racist promoters to history. Reagan was a Democrat but he started to change in the early 50s. He supported Eisenhower in 1952 and in 1956. He supported Nixon in 1960, while still a democrat.

Barry Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act and black support for the GOP dropped dramatically, despite a larger percentage of Republicans voting for it than Democrats. We can talk about his "Southern Strategy" as well. Goldwater took Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and Louisiana, all of which the Democrats swept in 1960. Those states, and Arizona are all he took.
*After the Civil War, for 70 or so years the GOP was the home of the black vote. It went to the Democrats in the 30s under FDR.

That is exactly how the Southern strategy works. You say things that could be construed as racist but are not racist on the surface, so you can then claim "that's not what I said" - but the message gets through to the right people. And yes, the Southern strategy was and is real. The chairman of the RNC even apologized for it once, although that hasn't stopped the practice of dogwhistle politics on the right.

"Dogwhistles" only the left and their press can hear. The "Southern Strategy" as explained and understood by you and the rest of the left is a friggin' myth. All you have to do is read Pat Buchanan, he wrote Nixon's Southern Strategy.

Because the 1964 GOP nominee openly courted their votes with his loud and proud opposition to civil rights reform. It ain't brain surgery!

Nixon lost four of the five southern states Goldwater won in 64. He swayed a lot of whites votes, right? Wallace carried the remainder of southern states won by Goldwater. Nixon ran third in three of those states behind Wallace and Humphrey. Great Southern Strategy, right. It's a myth. In regard to his alleged loud and "proud opposition to civil rights" I would note, when he entered office, 68% of black students were enrolled in racially segregated schools, by 1969 that was cut to 9%. How could this have happened under an alleged racist President? Maybe you need brain surgery. He also started the first affirmative action plan.

When Ronald Reagan referred to "a strapping young buck" buying T-bone steaks with food stamps, or the "welfare queen" from Chicago, it played to a number of stereotypes about Blacks without actually identifying the people in question as Black. Again, you don't need a secret decoder ring to get the message.

Oh, I have complete confidence in your ability to conflate racism out of anything said by somebody you're opposed to. The first statement was made in New Hampshire, where the term did not carry the same connation in would had he said it in the South. He also made a statement that "the Civil Rights Act humiliated the South," there's no doubt the act did humiliate every Southern Dixecrat, though I will agree it was dumb, I don't agree it defines him as a racist. He also made a statement about welfare queens driving Cadillacs, or something to that effect. I don't think that statement defines him as a racist either. Here I would note, that liberals like to lecture us about how more white people are on welfare than blacks. That aside I would like you to take a look at this article by Mark Shields written in 2010:

Mark Shields: Personal Anecdote in Defense of Ronald Reagan
The former president's campaign faux pas of racial disrespect was an anomaly

By Mark Shields

https://www.noozhawk.com/article/112710_mark_shields_personal_anecdote_in_defense_of_ronald_reagan

Not if you read the book instead of just the summary: https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...hern-schools/DC7159BF3BF9C3082248D310C25911E4
You're not only cherrypicking here, you're also ignoring volumes of context. At best, he did a little because he was forced into doing so. Also, his record only looks "pro-civil rights" compared to other Republicans who followed.

The thing you have to remember is that period in our history was an era of evolving change, all of which couldn't have happened in Nixon's term.

Nixon was really quite liberal, at least center left. He was schooled by Dwight Eisenhower. He created OSHA, he proposed health care measures more expansive than Obamacare, a Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan, he proposed an employer heath insurance mandate, he federalized Medicaid for the poor. He was responsible for the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Clean Air Act of 1970, Environmental Protection Agency.

WOW.
That is some remarkable revisionist history, right there. I don't even really know where to begin. But I suppose that's the point.
Just for one thing, if your argument here were true, the Southern Republicans we've seen since then would never have included the likes of Helms, Lott, Gingrich, Duke, Paula Hawkins, Saxby Shameless, George "Macaca" Allen, Jeremiah Denton, Phil Gramm, Jeff Sessions, and more recently Ted Cruz,
Cindy Hyde Smith, Steve Scalise, and Marjorie "Kick that bitch out of Congress" Greene. In other words, no, Rightguide, it is not a coincidence that the South flipped to the Republicans at exactly the time the Dems turned their backs on racism and the GOP picked up the mantle.

The Democrats have never "turned their back on racism" it's the cornerstone of their political existence today. They are racist to the core and use race at every opportunity to divide the country by race. They still own the keys to the Plantation.

 

[WillJ8787]

Actually, it's the only true characterization one can make in view of the fact there's very little of anything that can be described as "democratic" in the present Marxist/Socialist/orientation of the authoritarian leadership and policies of the contemporary Democrat Party. As in the "Democratic" People's Republic of Korea, which of course is neither democratic or a republic.

Blaaahaaahaaa, according to you and the same old far right mouth pieces.

Meanwhile, in reality, today's Dems are doing what I'm doing. Going to work everyday, loving making a buck as much as anyone else, not really wanting handouts for ourselves unless we need it...like we have a real issues called unemployment or something else significant that matters.

Otherwise, we are glad to out our taxes towards helping others get back on their feet.

To be fair, some Repubs do this as well....but none from the batshit crazy camp your in.

 

[Rightguide]

Blaaahaaahaaa, according to you and the same old far right mouth pieces.

Meanwhile, in reality, today's Dems are doing what I'm doing. Going to work everyday, loving making a buck as much as anyone else, not really wanting handouts for ourselves unless we need it...like we have a real issues called unemployment or something else significant that matters.

Otherwise, we are glad to out our taxes towards helping others get back on their feet.

To be fair, some Repubs do this as well....but none from the batshit crazy camp your in.

Most of them are sitting on their asses waiting for more stimulus.

 

[WillJ8787]

Most of them are sitting on their asses waiting for more stimulus.

This is your problem.

Anyone who believes any group is all one way or all another way has been brainwashed with propaganda.

Whether it's blacks, gays, transgender, Mexicans, Dems, Repubs....it doesn't matter...your thinking is off!

 

[Rightguide]

This is your problem.

Anyone who believes any group is all one way or all another way has been brainwashed with propaganda.

Whether it's blacks, gays, transgender, Mexicans, Dems, Repubs....it doesn't matter...your thinking is off!

The only thing I do differently than you is, I tell the truth.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

Actually, it's the only true characterization one can make in view of the fact there's very little of anything that can be described as "democratic" in the present Marxist/Socialist/orientation of the authoritarian leadership and policies of the contemporary Democrat Party. As in the "Democratic" People's Republic of Korea, which of course is neither democratic or a republic.

The only thing I do differently than you is, I tell the truth.

Have you ever or have ever been in the US military?

 

[nowisthetime]

LBJ was right, once he signed off on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (how dare black folks be treated like human beings), those Dixiecrats left in droves to the Repug party.

 

[nowisthetime]

The only thing I do differently than you is, I tell the truth.

Ego there, boy. You don't tell the truth, you are a delusional liar. You're not even that bright and everyone sees you as a joke.

 

[WillJ8787]

The only thing I do differently than you is, I tell the truth.

What ever dude....what ever.

 

[YDB95]

The subject of my post was Dixecrats. Not all Democrats were as strident as the Dixecrats in their opposition to change in the South.

True but irrelevant. The point is, Reagan, Lott, Helms et al switched parties for the same reason Thurmond did. Where they were from is beside the point.

Barry Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act and black support for the GOP dropped dramatically, despite a larger percentage of Republicans voting for it than Democrats.

A larger percentage of Northern Republicans, you mean. Overwhelming majorities of both parties from outside the South voted for the Civil Rights Act. Most but not quite all Southern Democrats voted against it. ALL Southern Republicans - 100% of them - voted against it.

Of course, there were only about half a dozen of them in the House and only one in the Senate, but you're the one who wanted to talk about percentages.

"Dogwhistles" only the left and their press can hear. The "Southern Strategy" as explained and understood by you and the rest of the left is a friggin' myth. All you have to do is read Pat Buchanan, he wrote Nixon's Southern Strategy.

Are you even reading your own posts here? You just said the Southern strategy was a myth, then you said Pat Buchanan wrote it for Nixon, meaning it's not a myth.

Now, if your point is that the left sees examples of it where it's not really there, again, that is exactly how the Southern strategy works. For that matter, it is also how Pat Buchanan works. He spent decades not-quite-saying outrageously racist and anti-Semitic things and then claiming that wasn't what he said.

Nixon lost four of the five southern states Goldwater won in 64. He swayed a lot of whites votes, right?

Why yes, yes he did. He just didn't pick up those particular white votes because they had the option of voting for an openly racist candidate instead. In no way does that mean the strategy failed.

In regard to his alleged loud and "proud opposition to civil rights" I would note, when he entered office, 68% of black students were enrolled in racially segregated schools, by 1969 that was cut to 9%.

No idea where you're getting those statistics, but "when he entered office" and "1969" are one and the same. In any event, no, 87% of segregated schools were NOT desegregated in 1969 or any other single year. What MIGHT have happened is that Tricky Dicky simply changed the official definition of what was and wasn't segregated. In any event, much of the South wasn't fully integrated until the '80s, and de facto segregation is still an issue today nearly everywhere.

How could this have happened under an alleged racist President? Maybe you need brain surgery. He also started the first affirmative action plan.

The issue isn't whether Nixon himself was racist (although we now know he was), it's whether he appealed to racism to get elected. And that's not even really in dispute except among racism-apologists like yourself. Oh, and it was JFK who started the first affirmative action plan in 1961.

Oh, I have complete confidence in your ability to conflate racism out of anything said by somebody you're opposed to. The first statement was made in New Hampshire, where the term did not carry the same connation in would had he said it in the South.

I'm from NH, and believe me, there was PLENTY of racism there in the '70s and '80s. Besides, even if he'd said it in some wonderland where no one was racist, everyone can recognize that as a stereotype about black men.

He also made a statement that "the Civil Rights Act humiliated the South," there's no doubt the act did humiliate every Southern Dixecrat, though I will agree it was dumb, I don't agree it defines him as a racist.

Then what could he possibly have meant by it? For one thing, the Civil Rights Act did not humiliate the South, it humiliated the racists there who had been collectively stepping on Black people's necks since Reconstruction. That is not a bad thing.

He also made a statement about welfare queens driving Cadillacs, or something to that effect. I don't think that statement defines him as a racist either.

My point exactly. You conveniently forgot that he always took the opportunity to remind people that she was from Chicago, a city that was virtually synonymous with racial tensions in those days. A message got through loud and clear.

Here I would note, that liberals like to lecture us about how more white people are on welfare than blacks. That aside I would like you to take a look at this article by Mark Shields written in 2010:

Interesting, but it's only one anecdote from one person. I'm sure you've heard about the taped conversation between Nixon and Reagan that was unearthed a couple of years ago, for another data point.

The Democrats have never "turned their back on racism" it's the cornerstone of their political existence today. They are racist to the core and use race at every opportunity to divide the country by race. They still own the keys to the Plantation.

This is what people like you say about any effort whatsoever to address the racism that is still very much a problem these days. Nothing more. (Well, yes, there is one thing more: it's a cynical effort to convince black voters that the Dems are using them. We both know there's no realistic way they're going to shift en masse to the party of Trump. You just want them to not vote at all.

 

[WillJ8787]

In 1969 the dramatic rise in private school attendance and also the formation of new private schools occurred.

Many of the folks who were adamantly against de-segragation moved, or moved their children to, all white private school.

This legacy has continued since, while not using official policies that call for schools to be all white....they do it through class and economics. High tuition. Keeps the "riff raff" out...meaning poor minorities.