Dixiecrats Became Republicans??? A Lie.

[PoliticalChic]

10 years ago PoliticalChic got all of her posts from cutting and pasting other people's thoughts, other people's words.

10 years later she's still doing it.

Yet you still can't dispute any of 'em.

 

[Synthaholic]

Ronald Reagan launched his potus campaign from Philadelphia Mississippi.

 

[Synthaholic]

That liar loves to cloud the issue.
There was no such term as 'conservative' when the racists pulled the lever. It simply said "Democrat."

Conservative (or Liberal) refers to a political ideology.

Republican (or Democrat) refers to the name of a political Party.

You're not smart.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Conservative (or Liberal) refers to a political ideology.

Republican (or Democrat) refers to the name of a political Party.

You're not smart.

Just somewhere between 'smart' and you.

 

[rightwinger]

They were democrats trying to maintain white power but they get a pass for being "conservative" democrats. How does that work?

Those Conservative Democrats became Conservative Republicans after the Civil Rights bill passed

 

[Mushroom]

Those who lynched blacks people were Conservatives trying to maintain white power

They were still Democrats. Do not confuse the Democrats making a huge shift in the 1960's with their still being the party that opposed most of those civil rights bills for decades.

 

[rightwinger]

They were still Democrats. Do not confuse the Democrats making a huge shift in the 1960's with their still being the party that opposed most of those civil rights bills for decades.

Different Party
Republicans are different than they were in 1860 also

Slavery existed in the South for 200 years before the Democratic Party was formed

 

[Mushroom]

Different Party
Republicans are different than they were in 1860 also

Slavery existed in the South for 200 years before the Democratic Party was formed

And what does that have to do with the 1960's and afterwards?

Nothing.

Although traditionally, the Republicans in that era were the far more liberal of the two parties. And the Democrats by far the more Conservative of the two parties. But the Republicans changed little, while the Democrats in the 1960's made a hard change from Conservative to ultra-liberal. the more "Popularist" of the members stayed with the party as they made the change, while others changed as the Republicans were now the more conservative of the two.

Hence, George Wallace putting on a front and pretending to be a "Liberal Anti-Segregationist" so he could stay in the party, meanwhile continuing to act as he always had before. Most people tend to forget that for well over a century, the Democrats were the far-right party in the country. Now they are far-left, but they are still an extremist party that tends to attract extremists.

 

[rightwinger]

But the Republicans changed little, while the Democrats in the 1960's made a hard change from Conservative to ultra-liberal. the more "Popularist" of the members stayed with the party as they made the change, while others changed as the Republicans were now the more conservative of the two.

Republicans of the 1960s had a liberal wing with Nelson Rockefeller, Jacob Javits, Arlen Spector. They also had an ultra conservative wing led by Barry Goldwater
In 1980, Reagan solidified the Conservative takeover of the party and drove out the liberals

 

[Mushroom]

Republicans of the 1960s had a liberal wing with Nelson Rockefeller, Jacob Javitts. They also had an ultra conservative wing led by Barry Goldwater
In 1980, Reagan solidified the Conservative takeover of the party and drove out the liberals

They were the Liberal Party. Hell, most recognize Richard Nixon as the most Liberal President in US history. The Democrats were by far much more Conservative.

And the era of Reagan was not so much of a "takeover", as shifting the party more towards an International Cooperative aspect. As the party had long been rather Isolationist, and he pushed them more towards working with other nations that had happened before. Plus finally recognizing that they were by default the "Conservative Party" as the Democrats were the ones that drove out most of their Conservatives.

And the funny thing is, you are not the first I have heard make that claim. But tell me, what Liberals did President Reagan "drive out" of the party? I have asked this before, and interestingly have yet to get a real answer.

 

[rightwinger]

And the funny thing is, you are not the first I have heard make that claim. But tell me, what Liberals did President Reagan "drive out" of the party? I have asked this before, and interestingly have yet to get a real answer.

Reagan and Goldwater had a long battle with Rockefeller for control of the party.
It was Newt Gingrich who drove out the Liberals and moderates

 

[Synthaholic]

Just somewhere between 'smart' and you.

No, you're ignorant about politics. You think what someone calls themselves is more important than what someone believes. That is superficial and shallow. But mostly ignorant.

 

[Mushroom]

Reagan and Goldwater had a long battle with Rockefeller for control of the party.
It was Newt Gingrich who drove out the Liberals and moderates

Wait, you already said it was Reagan. Now it is Newt a decade later? And Reagan was not involved in the "battle", that was Barry Goldwater.

To be more accurate, Nelson Rockefeller was the last of the "Northern Establishment", which was long the bulwark of the Republican Party since the start. But by the 1960s that started to move to the West, and the newly liberalized Democrat Party took over the North-East. He was also a proponent of lavish spending, something that the newer Republicans moved against by the 1970's.

You sure do have a mangled view of this, trying to mish-mash together several different decades and individuals together into some kind of strange soup.

 

[Synthaholic]

as the Democrats were the ones that drove out most of their Conservatives.

Funny how rightwingers see giving voting rights to Blacks as "driving out conservatives".

 

[Synthaholic]

He was also a proponent of lavish spending, something that the newer Republicans moved against by the 1970's.

Only in their rhetoric.

 

[Mushroom]

Funny how rightwingers see giving voting rights to Blacks as "driving out conservatives".

Did I say a thing about "blacks"?

And ironic, which was the party that was suppressing "black votes" prior to the Voting Rights Act? And was strongly behind each of the Civil Rights Acts? Funny, it was always the Republicans, and the strongest opposition was from Democrats.

Civil Rights Act passage in 1964. 39% of Democrats in the House opposed it (Majority party), as opposed to 20% of Republicans. In the Senate, 37% of Democrats opposed it (again the Majority Party), but 20% of Republicans opposed it. And in the "Southern Bloc Filibuster" of it in the Senate, 18 Democrats and a single Republican took part.

Strange, how the facts and history seem to say the exact opposite.

 

[DudleySmith]

Goldwater and William Buckley were responsible for driving the far rightwingers out of the GOP, i.e. the John Birchers and conspiracy nuts. They paved the way for both Reagan and Nixon's victories, even though it cost the Party its campaign against Kennedy. It was Nixon who not only expanded the Civil Rights legislation to include the all 50 states but made many of the statutes permanent. He also brought back racial quotas; for every great thing he did he also did something stupid, which is why he is both hated and admired at the same time by all sides. Nixon simply didn't give a crap about domestic issues outside of winning elections, having no ideology, and wanted to focus on foreign policy.

 

[Mushroom]

Nixon simply didn't give a crap about domestic issues outside of winning elections, having no ideology, and wanted to focus on foreign policy.

I would not say that. You can not forget he also created the EPA, passed some of the most sweeping health care initiatives of the era, and started the "Treatment over incarceration" movements of the late 1960's and early 1970's. As well as increasing trade and cooperation with Mexico.

Even my Aunt, who is a hard-core Democrats admits she liked a lot of the things that President Nixon did when he was in office. Most of which is largely forgotten, other than he opened relations with China.

 

[DudleySmith]

I would not say that. You can not forget he also created the EPA, passed some of the most sweeping health care initiatives of the era, and started the "Treatment over incarceration" movements of the late 1960's and early 1970's. As well as increasing trade and cooperation with Mexico.

Even my Aunt, who is a hard-core Democrats admits she liked a lot of the things that President Nixon did when he was in office. Most of which is largely forgotten, other than he opened relations with China.

And a lot of that was about getting re-elected re the domestic stuff; he wasn't personally involved in creating a lot ofit, he left it to flunkies and other Republicans and bi-partisan committees to deal with; he worked welled with liberal Democrats and even had some on staff, like Patrick Moynihan, as advisors. He spent more time with Kissinger than anyone else.

When Nixon & Moynihan Almost Revolutionized Welfare

Everything does feel broken. Worse than that, everything feels broken but it feels that those in power like it that way and do not wish to fix it. The schemes for gain are in their favor, and solut…

theamericansun.com

"Moynihan and Nixon were political opposites with Moynihan a liberal policy wonk who slipped between government and academia while Nixon was a center-right politician. As noted in Ehrlichman’s book Witness to Power, it was a bit of a shock that Nixon tapped Moynihan to be a domestic policy advisor. As Ehrlichman notes, “Bob Finch persuaded Nixon that the problems of the time required Moynihan” (Witness to Power). Moynihan’s team proved to be an energetic group of young liberals that pushed Nixon and his conservative advisors. In the fall of 1969, they promoted Moynihan to a cabinet level to remove him from “operations, and into free-wheeling idea-generating” (The Haldeman Diaries). Moynihan’s big push was to “get rid of things that don’t work and try to build up the few that do”(The Haldeman Diaries). The cities were falling apart and there was no money. Almost all proposals submitted by Moynihan’s team had to be scrapped because money was so tight. This was also a different time where with the gold standard and international moves going on, the US was under pressure from foreign creditors and oil producers about expenditures that had run wild all through the 1960s. The perplexing problem the Nixon had to tackle was how to reform the welfare system as he had campaigned on, but how to do it in a manner that was soft in delivery, did not increase the deficit and was acceptable to the Democrat majority in Congress. Moynihan and Nixon put together a Family Assistance Plan (F.A.P.) that acted as a universal basic income.


The Moynihan-Nixon F.A.P. was a plan to stop the programs of LBJ’s Great Society but keep the money flowing. As Ehrlichman notes, the programs often are ways to employ Yale grads with guilty consciences. Reduce all of the administration, the paperwork and the make work projects and just cut the checks. Conservative advisor Arthur Burns wanted to stop the programs entirely to stop taxing a blue collar worker to send money to a black mom to have more kids, while per Ehrlichman Moynihan argued that the administration should “cut out the social workers (who were mostly Yale graduates with pangs of conscience) who pandered to black malingerers. Just send the entitled poor a check each month… and that blue collar worker would begin to feel better”. There were two important changes to the welfare program as it forced work incentives (workfare) and did not require the “absence of a man” in the household. The goal was through forcing work or work training that it would eventually get more people off of the dole. The other change was drawing on the report that Moynihan famously put together years earlier for LBJ about the nature of black families. The key problem there was the matriarchal structure of many black homes, and the idea of welfare being paid only to single mothers exacerbated the issue. This was a policy intending to correct prior mistakes. It was designed to be efficient. "

... among other points. I think he was correct to focus on foreign strategies in those days, it was his trust in Ehrlichman and others that was faulty. It wasn't just China that was important, it was also the Soviets on the brink of Bankruptcy and on the verge of collapse, there was a global food shortage starting up that most people don't remember due to the 'oil crisis' dominating the front pages for the next decade. The death of the Brezhnev Doctrine left power vacuums in many counties around the world that needed to be taken advantage of as well.

I don't think Humphrey could have done as good a job as Nixon did on the international front, though if times were different and there were only domestic issues to worry about then yes, he would have been a better choice than Nixon; different times require different types of leaders. McGovern was in the same vein as Humphrey, and probably a disaster at foreign policy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, you're ignorant about politics. You think what someone calls themselves is more important than what someone believes. That is superficial and shallow. But mostly ignorant.

How about we leave the decision up to our individual readers....m'kay???