Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…

[Ame®icano]

Now tell me, if Klan being Democrat doesn't mean anything, why does it mean if they're Republican?

The Klan was made up primary of Democrats until the 60s. They have been predominantly Republican since then.

The only thing it means is that the Klan has always been predominantly white, southern, conservative Christians and have never been liberal.

Than you wont have problem to give names of five Republicans that were Klan members.

What makes you think that being conservative or Christian is relevant, but being Democrat is not.

You see, Democrats took people like that into their party and constantly trying to deny so while accusing Republicans of being the Klan party. If so, than you won't have problem to provide names or Republican Klan members. You may begin any time you like.

Today klan members endorse president trump and the republican party. Fact.

And?

What matters is who they endorse today, not yesterday. Fact is today the klan is republican.

Did they accepted the endorsement?

Unlike Republicans, Democrats didn't just accepted it, they were part of the Klan.

 

[Tax Man]

I remember when Demos were racists. It was the way I was raised as a child. Conservatives used to care about Americans. Seems that in the 1960's the party philosophies switched. Now the repukes are the racist ones and the dems care about the American people

 

[Ame®icano]

I remember when Demos were racists. It was the way I was raised as a child. Conservatives used to care about Americans. Seems that in the 1960's the party philosophies switched. Now the repukes are the racist ones and the dems care about the American people

Try using common sense and explain, why would party that since its inception fought for civil rights and had blacks on their side just give up on it?

Sides didn't switch, only the rhetoric.

 

[Tax Man]

I remember when Demos were racists. It was the way I was raised as a child. Conservatives used to care about Americans. Seems that in the 1960's the party philosophies switched. Now the repukes are the racist ones and the dems care about the American people

Try using common sense and explain, why would party that since its inception fought for civil rights and had blacks on their side just give up on it?

Sides didn't switch, only the rhetoric.

No my friend the sides have made a dramatic switch especially when Obama won the election.

 

[bodecea]

I remember when Demos were racists. It was the way I was raised as a child. Conservatives used to care about Americans. Seems that in the 1960's the party philosophies switched. Now the repukes are the racist ones and the dems care about the American people

Try using common sense and explain, why would party that since its inception fought for civil rights and had blacks on their side just give up on it?

Sides didn't switch, only the rhetoric.

Sides switch all the time. They really do.

 

[konradv]

Wow, look at all those white conservatives. Glad they became Republicans.

Name five who did so. I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.

Seems like quite a few more than five. It first reared its head in '64.

Names please.

You expect me to give you millions of names? Don't people count, if they're not famous, in your world? Take the hit. People in the South switched parties. It was part of Nixon's plan to get elected.

 

[Ame®icano]

I remember when Demos were racists. It was the way I was raised as a child. Conservatives used to care about Americans. Seems that in the 1960's the party philosophies switched. Now the repukes are the racist ones and the dems care about the American people

Try using common sense and explain, why would party that since its inception fought for civil rights and had blacks on their side just give up on it?

Sides didn't switch, only the rhetoric.

No my friend the sides have made a dramatic switch especially when Obama won the election.

What Obama has to do with 1964 elections?

 

[Ame®icano]

Wow, look at all those white conservatives. Glad they became Republicans.

Name five who did so. I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.

Seems like quite a few more than five. It first reared its head in '64.

Names please.

You expect me to give you millions of names? Don't people count, if they're not famous, in your world? Take the hit. People in the South switched parties. It was part of Nixon's plan to get elected.

No dupe, just read the post you replied to and you'll eventually figure out what am I asking. If not, read it again, as many times is necessary until it hits you.

So, start being dupe and name, not millions, but just five southern, white, racist, elected officials that switched from Democrat to Republican party.

 

[konradv]

Wow, look at all those white conservatives. Glad they became Republicans.

Name five who did so. I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.

Seems like quite a few more than five. It first reared its head in '64.

Names please.

You expect me to give you millions of names? Don't people count, if they're not famous, in your world? Take the hit. People in the South switched parties. It was part of Nixon's plan to get elected.

No dupe, just read the post you replied to and you'll eventually figure out what am I asking. If not, read it again, as many times is necessary until it hits you.

So, start being dupe and name, not millions, but just five southern, white, racist, elected officials that switched from Democrat to Republican party.

If I were to do that, I would be a dupe for playing your little game. We all know what the deal was. Nixon even had a name for it, The Southern Strategy. What difference does it make if I can name Billy Bob Wilson, Billy Bob Smith, Billy Bob Jones, Billy Bob Lee and Billy Bob James?

 

[Syriusly]

I love revisionist history

First off.... The klan is and always was a Conservative organization. Liberals are not welcome

Secondly.... the second generation klan that emerged in the early 1900 s was comprised of both Democrats in the south and Republicans in the Midwest.

Thirdly..... TODAYS klan is staunchly Republican and Conservative
.

First off, the klan was started by Democrats.

Second, they were revived in early 1900s again by Democrats (Wilson).

Third, you sure have a proof that Republicans support the klan, do ya?

The Klan was started by White Christian Southern men- who may have been Democrats- but they certainly were White Christian Southern men.

Funny how the rabid right wing loves to say that the Democratic Party is exactly the same as it was in 1860- but somehow White Christian Southern men have all changed.....

The KKK in the 20th century included both Republicans and Democrats- but starting in 1964, as Martin Luther King Jr. put very well-

From 1964 (not 1924)
The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.


....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.

The Klan was started exclusively by butthurt Democrats who lost the civil war t.

The Klan was started exclusively by butthurt Christian White men who lost the civil war.


Funny how the rabid right wing loves to say that the Democratic Party is exactly the same as it was in 1860- but somehow White Christian Southern men have all changed.....

The KKK in the 20th century included both Republicans and Democrats- but starting in 1964, as Martin Luther King Jr. put very well-

From 1964 (not 1924)
The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.


....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy

 

[Syriusly]

No, the klan was started by people who happened to be Democrats along with southerners, conservative, Baptist

It just happened they were Democrats, right?

Civil rights have always been conservative versus liberal not Democrats versus Republicans. In the US it's mostly been the North versus the South.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia

Both, Northern and Southern Democrats running against Lincoln's Republican party were pro slavery.

You keep saying Democrat like it means something. They were Southern, white Christian conservatives that started the KKK and they are still, predominantly, southern, white Christians conservatives.

Again, they were members of what party?

The party of White Christian Conservative Southern men.

 

[Syriusly]

I remember when Demos were racists. It was the way I was raised as a child. Conservatives used to care about Americans. Seems that in the 1960's the party philosophies switched. Now the repukes are the racist ones and the dems care about the American people

Try using common sense and explain, why would party that since its inception fought for civil rights and had blacks on their side just give up on it?

Sides didn't switch, only the rhetoric.

Try using common sense and explain. Why would Conservative white southern men who opposed equal rights for blacks- suddenly embrace equal rights for men?

Try using common sense and explain. Why would 'blacks' who originally voted overwhelmingly Republican- switch to voting overwhelmingly Democratic.

Yeah- the sides switched.

 

[Syriusly]

How the GOP became the “White Man’s Party”

The 1964 presidential election marked the beginning of the realignment we live with today. Where in 1962 both parties were perceived as equally, if tepidly, supportive of civil rights, two years later 60 percent of the public identified Democrats as more likely to pursue fair treatment, versus only 7 percent who so identified the Republican Party. What happened?

Groundwork for the shift was laid in the run-up to the 1964 election by rightwing elements in the Republican Party, which gained momentum from the loss of the then-moderate Nixon to John F. Kennedy in 1960. This faction of the party had never stopped warring against the New Deal. Its standard bearer was Barry Goldwater, a senator from Arizona and heir to a department store fortune. His pampered upbringing and wealth notwithstanding, Goldwater affected a cowboy’s rough-and-tumble persona in his dress and speech, casting himself as a walking embodiment of the Marlboro Man’s disdain for the nanny state. Goldwater and the reactionary stalwarts who rallied to him saw the Democratic Party as a mortal threat to the nation: domestically, because of the corrupting influence of a powerful central government deeply involved in regulating the marketplace and using taxes to reallocate wealth downward, and abroad in its willingness to compromise with communist countries instead of going to war against them. Goldwater himself, though, was no racial throwback. For instance, in 1957 and again in 1960 he voted in favor of federal civil rights legislation. By 1961, however, Goldwater and his partisans had become convinced that the key to electoral success lay in gaining ground in the South, and that in turn required appealing to racist sentiments in white voters, even at the cost of black support. As Goldwater drawled, “We’re not going to get the Negro vote as a bloc in 1964 and 1968, so we ought to go hunting where the ducks are.”

This racial plan riled more moderate members of the Republican establishment, such as New York senator Jacob Javits, who in the fall of 1963 may have been the first to refer to a “Southern Strategy” in the context of repudiating it. By then, however, the right wing of the party had won out. As the conservative journalist Robert Novak reported after attending a meeting of the Republican National Committee in Denver during the summer of 1963: “A good many, perhaps a majority of the party’s leadership, envision substantial political gold to be mined in the racial crisis by becoming in fact, though not in name, the White Man’s Party. ‘Remember,’ one astute party worker said quietly . . . ‘this isn’t South Africa. The white man outnumbers the Negro 9 to 1 in this country.’ ” The rise of a racially-identified GOP is not a tale of latent bigotry in that party. It is instead a story centered on the strategic decision to use racism to become “the White Man’s Party.”

Yet, heralding the incipient emergence of the new politics of party alignment along racial lines, Barry Goldwater also voted against the civil rights bill. He was one of only five senators from outside the South to do so. Goldwater claimed he saw a looming Orwellian state moving to coerce private citizens to spy on each other for telltale signs of racism. “To give genuine effect to the prohibitions of this bill,” Goldwater contended from the Senate floor, “bids fair to result in the development of an ‘informer’ psychology in great areas of our national life—neighbor spying on neighbor, workers spying on workers, businessmen spying on businessmen.” This all seemed a little hysterical. More calculatingly, it could not have escaped Goldwater’s attention that voting against a civil rights law associated with blacks, Kennedy, and Johnson would help him “go hunting where the ducks are.”
....
Running for president in 1964, the Arizonan strode across the South, hawking small-government bromides and racially coded appeals. In terms of the latter, he sold his vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act as a bold stand in favor of “states’ rights” and “freedom of association.” States’ rights, Goldwater insisted, preserved state autonomy against intrusive meddling from a distant power—though obviously the burning issue of the day was the federal government’s efforts to limit state involvement in racial degradation and group oppression. Freedom of association, Goldwater explained, meant the right of individuals to be free from government coercion in choosing whom to let onto their property—but in the South this meant first and foremost the right of business owners to exclude blacks from hotels, restaurants, movie theaters, and retail establishments. Like Wallace, Goldwater had learned how to talk about blacks without ever mentioning race.

Another factor also worked against Goldwater: he was a Republican, and the South reviled the Party of Lincoln. If across the nation neither party was seen as more or less friendly toward civil rights, the South had its own views on the question. There, it was the local Democratic machine that represented white interests, while the GOP was seen as the proximate cause of the Civil War and as the party of the carpetbaggers who had peremptorily ruled the South during Reconstruction. The hostility of generations of white Southerners toward Republicans only intensified with the Republican Eisenhower’s decision to send in federal troops to enforce the Republican Warren’s ruling forbidding school segregation in Brown. Most white Southerners had never voted Republican in their lives, and had vowed—like their parents and grandparents before them— that they never would.

Ultimately, however, these handicaps barely impeded Goldwater’s performance in the South. He convinced many Southern voters to vote Republican for the first time ever, and in the Deep South, comprised of those five states with the highest black populations, Goldwater won outright. The anti-New Deal Republican carried Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina, states in which whites had never voted for a Republican president in more than miniscule numbers. This was a shocking transformation, one that can only be explained by Goldwater’s ability to transmit a set of codes that white voters readily understood as a promise to protect racial segregation.

 

[Ame®icano]

Name five who did so. I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.

Seems like quite a few more than five. It first reared its head in '64.

Names please.

You expect me to give you millions of names? Don't people count, if they're not famous, in your world? Take the hit. People in the South switched parties. It was part of Nixon's plan to get elected.

No dupe, just read the post you replied to and you'll eventually figure out what am I asking. If not, read it again, as many times is necessary until it hits you.

So, start being dupe and name, not millions, but just five southern, white, racist, elected officials that switched from Democrat to Republican party.

If I were to do that, I would be a dupe for playing your little game. We all know what the deal was. Nixon even had a name for it, The Southern Strategy. What difference does it make if I can name Billy Bob Wilson, Billy Bob Smith, Billy Bob Jones, Billy Bob Lee and Billy Bob James?

The "southern strategy" as described by leftists is complete fiction. Richard Nixon is alleged to have made racist appeal to southern Democrats to become Republicans without ever providing single example of him doing that in public.

Again, I am asking again that you name five southern, white, racist, elected officials that switched from Democrat to Republican party. Just five...

 

[Ame®icano]

It just happened they were Democrats, right?

Civil rights have always been conservative versus liberal not Democrats versus Republicans. In the US it's mostly been the North versus the South.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia

Both, Northern and Southern Democrats running against Lincoln's Republican party were pro slavery.

You keep saying Democrat like it means something. They were Southern, white Christian conservatives that started the KKK and they are still, predominantly, southern, white Christians conservatives.

Again, they were members of what party?

The party of White Christian Conservative Southern men.

Yep, who just happen to be Democrats.

 

[Ame®icano]

I remember when Demos were racists. It was the way I was raised as a child. Conservatives used to care about Americans. Seems that in the 1960's the party philosophies switched. Now the repukes are the racist ones and the dems care about the American people

Try using common sense and explain, why would party that since its inception fought for civil rights and had blacks on their side just give up on it?

Sides didn't switch, only the rhetoric.

Try using common sense and explain. Why would Conservative white southern men who opposed equal rights for blacks- suddenly embrace equal rights for men?

Try using common sense and explain. Why would 'blacks' who originally voted overwhelmingly Republican- switch to voting overwhelmingly Democratic.

Yeah- the sides switched.

I'll answer your questions right after you answer mine. Your turn.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How the GOP became the “White Man’s Party”

The 1964 presidential election marked the beginning of the realignment we live with today. Where in 1962 both parties were perceived as equally, if tepidly, supportive of civil rights, two years later 60 percent of the public identified Democrats as more likely to pursue fair treatment, versus only 7 percent who so identified the Republican Party. What happened?

Groundwork for the shift was laid in the run-up to the 1964 election by rightwing elements in the Republican Party, which gained momentum from the loss of the then-moderate Nixon to John F. Kennedy in 1960. This faction of the party had never stopped warring against the New Deal. Its standard bearer was Barry Goldwater, a senator from Arizona and heir to a department store fortune. His pampered upbringing and wealth notwithstanding, Goldwater affected a cowboy’s rough-and-tumble persona in his dress and speech, casting himself as a walking embodiment of the Marlboro Man’s disdain for the nanny state. Goldwater and the reactionary stalwarts who rallied to him saw the Democratic Party as a mortal threat to the nation: domestically, because of the corrupting influence of a powerful central government deeply involved in regulating the marketplace and using taxes to reallocate wealth downward, and abroad in its willingness to compromise with communist countries instead of going to war against them. Goldwater himself, though, was no racial throwback. For instance, in 1957 and again in 1960 he voted in favor of federal civil rights legislation. By 1961, however, Goldwater and his partisans had become convinced that the key to electoral success lay in gaining ground in the South, and that in turn required appealing to racist sentiments in white voters, even at the cost of black support. As Goldwater drawled, “We’re not going to get the Negro vote as a bloc in 1964 and 1968, so we ought to go hunting where the ducks are.”

This racial plan riled more moderate members of the Republican establishment, such as New York senator Jacob Javits, who in the fall of 1963 may have been the first to refer to a “Southern Strategy” in the context of repudiating it. By then, however, the right wing of the party had won out. As the conservative journalist Robert Novak reported after attending a meeting of the Republican National Committee in Denver during the summer of 1963: “A good many, perhaps a majority of the party’s leadership, envision substantial political gold to be mined in the racial crisis by becoming in fact, though not in name, the White Man’s Party. ‘Remember,’ one astute party worker said quietly . . . ‘this isn’t South Africa. The white man outnumbers the Negro 9 to 1 in this country.’ ” The rise of a racially-identified GOP is not a tale of latent bigotry in that party. It is instead a story centered on the strategic decision to use racism to become “the White Man’s Party.”

Yet, heralding the incipient emergence of the new politics of party alignment along racial lines, Barry Goldwater also voted against the civil rights bill. He was one of only five senators from outside the South to do so. Goldwater claimed he saw a looming Orwellian state moving to coerce private citizens to spy on each other for telltale signs of racism. “To give genuine effect to the prohibitions of this bill,” Goldwater contended from the Senate floor, “bids fair to result in the development of an ‘informer’ psychology in great areas of our national life—neighbor spying on neighbor, workers spying on workers, businessmen spying on businessmen.” This all seemed a little hysterical. More calculatingly, it could not have escaped Goldwater’s attention that voting against a civil rights law associated with blacks, Kennedy, and Johnson would help him “go hunting where the ducks are.”
....
Running for president in 1964, the Arizonan strode across the South, hawking small-government bromides and racially coded appeals. In terms of the latter, he sold his vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act as a bold stand in favor of “states’ rights” and “freedom of association.” States’ rights, Goldwater insisted, preserved state autonomy against intrusive meddling from a distant power—though obviously the burning issue of the day was the federal government’s efforts to limit state involvement in racial degradation and group oppression. Freedom of association, Goldwater explained, meant the right of individuals to be free from government coercion in choosing whom to let onto their property—but in the South this meant first and foremost the right of business owners to exclude blacks from hotels, restaurants, movie theaters, and retail establishments. Like Wallace, Goldwater had learned how to talk about blacks without ever mentioning race.

Another factor also worked against Goldwater: he was a Republican, and the South reviled the Party of Lincoln. If across the nation neither party was seen as more or less friendly toward civil rights, the South had its own views on the question. There, it was the local Democratic machine that represented white interests, while the GOP was seen as the proximate cause of the Civil War and as the party of the carpetbaggers who had peremptorily ruled the South during Reconstruction. The hostility of generations of white Southerners toward Republicans only intensified with the Republican Eisenhower’s decision to send in federal troops to enforce the Republican Warren’s ruling forbidding school segregation in Brown. Most white Southerners had never voted Republican in their lives, and had vowed—like their parents and grandparents before them— that they never would.

Ultimately, however, these handicaps barely impeded Goldwater’s performance in the South. He convinced many Southern voters to vote Republican for the first time ever, and in the Deep South, comprised of those five states with the highest black populations, Goldwater won outright. The anti-New Deal Republican carried Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina, states in which whites had never voted for a Republican president in more than miniscule numbers. This was a shocking transformation, one that can only be explained by Goldwater’s ability to transmit a set of codes that white voters readily understood as a promise to protect racial segregation.

You're a dunce.

1.George Wallace votes went to Democrats.

Wallace was a Democrat, and the same people who voted for Wallace voted Democrat...
Slavers, segregationists, and other racists.


2. "Four years after Goldwater, the segregationist vote went right back to Democrats:Humphrey got half of Wallace’s supporters on election day. Nixon got none of ‘em. “When the '68 campaign began, Nixon was at 42 percent, Humphrey at 29 percent, Wallace at 22 percent. When it ended, Nixon and Humphrey were tied at 43 percent, with Wallace at 13 percent. The 9 percent of the national vote that had been peeled off from Wallace had gone to Humphrey.” Pat Buchanan - The neocons & Nixon's southern strategy


3. Watch how Buchanan characterizes the Democrat Party:
"Richard Nixon kicked off his historic comeback in 1966 with a column on the South (by Buchanan) that declared we would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states rights, human rights, small government and a strong national defense, and leave it to the "party of Maddox, Mahoney and Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice."



4. "When the '68 campaign began, Nixon was at 42 percent, Humphrey at 29 percent, Wallace at 22 percent. When it ended, Nixon and Humphrey were tied at 43 percent, with Wallace at 13 percent. The 9 percent of the national vote that had been peeled off from Wallace had gone to Humphrey." Pat Buchanan - The neocons & Nixon's southern strategy



5. The Democrat Party has always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second -class citizenship.
That fact is proven by Bill Clinton, life-long racist, as the personification of everything the Democrats stand for.



Did I mention that you're a dunce?

 

[Ame®icano]

Of course he a dunce. Processing facts may take awhile.

Just as answering questions... like every other leftard, he never does it, but demand answers to theirs.

 

[Syriusly]

How the GOP became the “White Man’s Party”

The 1964 presidential election marked the beginning of the realignment we live with today. Where in 1962 both parties were perceived as equally, if tepidly, supportive of civil rights, two years later 60 percent of the public identified Democrats as more likely to pursue fair treatment, versus only 7 percent who so identified the Republican Party. What happened?

Groundwork for the shift was laid in the run-up to the 1964 election by rightwing elements in the Republican Party, which gained momentum from the loss of the then-moderate Nixon to John F. Kennedy in 1960. This faction of the party had never stopped warring against the New Deal. Its standard bearer was Barry Goldwater, a senator from Arizona and heir to a department store fortune. His pampered upbringing and wealth notwithstanding, Goldwater affected a cowboy’s rough-and-tumble persona in his dress and speech, casting himself as a walking embodiment of the Marlboro Man’s disdain for the nanny state. Goldwater and the reactionary stalwarts who rallied to him saw the Democratic Party as a mortal threat to the nation: domestically, because of the corrupting influence of a powerful central government deeply involved in regulating the marketplace and using taxes to reallocate wealth downward, and abroad in its willingness to compromise with communist countries instead of going to war against them. Goldwater himself, though, was no racial throwback. For instance, in 1957 and again in 1960 he voted in favor of federal civil rights legislation. By 1961, however, Goldwater and his partisans had become convinced that the key to electoral success lay in gaining ground in the South, and that in turn required appealing to racist sentiments in white voters, even at the cost of black support. As Goldwater drawled, “We’re not going to get the Negro vote as a bloc in 1964 and 1968, so we ought to go hunting where the ducks are.”

This racial plan riled more moderate members of the Republican establishment, such as New York senator Jacob Javits, who in the fall of 1963 may have been the first to refer to a “Southern Strategy” in the context of repudiating it. By then, however, the right wing of the party had won out. As the conservative journalist Robert Novak reported after attending a meeting of the Republican National Committee in Denver during the summer of 1963: “A good many, perhaps a majority of the party’s leadership, envision substantial political gold to be mined in the racial crisis by becoming in fact, though not in name, the White Man’s Party. ‘Remember,’ one astute party worker said quietly . . . ‘this isn’t South Africa. The white man outnumbers the Negro 9 to 1 in this country.’ ” The rise of a racially-identified GOP is not a tale of latent bigotry in that party. It is instead a story centered on the strategic decision to use racism to become “the White Man’s Party.”

Yet, heralding the incipient emergence of the new politics of party alignment along racial lines, Barry Goldwater also voted against the civil rights bill. He was one of only five senators from outside the South to do so. Goldwater claimed he saw a looming Orwellian state moving to coerce private citizens to spy on each other for telltale signs of racism. “To give genuine effect to the prohibitions of this bill,” Goldwater contended from the Senate floor, “bids fair to result in the development of an ‘informer’ psychology in great areas of our national life—neighbor spying on neighbor, workers spying on workers, businessmen spying on businessmen.” This all seemed a little hysterical. More calculatingly, it could not have escaped Goldwater’s attention that voting against a civil rights law associated with blacks, Kennedy, and Johnson would help him “go hunting where the ducks are.”
....
Running for president in 1964, the Arizonan strode across the South, hawking small-government bromides and racially coded appeals. In terms of the latter, he sold his vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act as a bold stand in favor of “states’ rights” and “freedom of association.” States’ rights, Goldwater insisted, preserved state autonomy against intrusive meddling from a distant power—though obviously the burning issue of the day was the federal government’s efforts to limit state involvement in racial degradation and group oppression. Freedom of association, Goldwater explained, meant the right of individuals to be free from government coercion in choosing whom to let onto their property—but in the South this meant first and foremost the right of business owners to exclude blacks from hotels, restaurants, movie theaters, and retail establishments. Like Wallace, Goldwater had learned how to talk about blacks without ever mentioning race.

Another factor also worked against Goldwater: he was a Republican, and the South reviled the Party of Lincoln. If across the nation neither party was seen as more or less friendly toward civil rights, the South had its own views on the question. There, it was the local Democratic machine that represented white interests, while the GOP was seen as the proximate cause of the Civil War and as the party of the carpetbaggers who had peremptorily ruled the South during Reconstruction. The hostility of generations of white Southerners toward Republicans only intensified with the Republican Eisenhower’s decision to send in federal troops to enforce the Republican Warren’s ruling forbidding school segregation in Brown. Most white Southerners had never voted Republican in their lives, and had vowed—like their parents and grandparents before them— that they never would.

Ultimately, however, these handicaps barely impeded Goldwater’s performance in the South. He convinced many Southern voters to vote Republican for the first time ever, and in the Deep South, comprised of those five states with the highest black populations, Goldwater won outright. The anti-New Deal Republican carried Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina, states in which whites had never voted for a Republican president in more than miniscule numbers. This was a shocking transformation, one that can only be explained by Goldwater’s ability to transmit a set of codes that white voters readily understood as a promise to protect racial segregation.

You're a dunce.

Frankly- being called a dunce by you is a compliment- since by far you are vastly ignorant, hysterically partisan, and believe every kooky konspiracy theory there is.

Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.


....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy

 

[Syriusly]

Of course he a dunce. Processing facts may take awhile.

Just as answering questions... like every other leftard, he never does it, but demand answers to theirs.

LOL coming from one of USMB's chief dunces.....that is wonderfully ironic