The Southern Strategy: then....and now

[depotoo]

Oh, please!
https://www.facebook.com/prageru/vi...tic-south-become-republican/2325720464137463/

 

[2aguy]

When the democrats realized that they couldn't keep blacks from voting by murdering them....so LBJ told them they had to lie about the history of the democrat party...

Notice antifa doesn't go after the Johnson Library even though LBJ often n-bombed his Cabinet meetings, picked up his beagles by their ears, and decided to piss away 50,000 GI's lives in Vietnam to enrich his contractor buddies who built the air fields and dredged the harbors there to prepare for the war he had no intention of winning.

And of the two Candidates, LBJ and GoldWater.....the only racist was LBJ, who fought against all but the last two Civil Rights acts and even voted against the anti-lynching laws...he was an out and out racist, rumored to have been in the kkk....

 

[2aguy]

Oh, please!
https://www.facebook.com/prageru/vi...tic-south-become-republican/2325720464137463/

They can't lie about this anymore....the internet makes that impossible...

 

[Indeependent]

I'm not naïve enough to ignore efforts by whites, in places like Ga, TX and Fla, to overtly keep polling places closed to black. However, it's not unique to the South. Kansas did a superb job. The current Ohio governor seems a nice guy, but the gop suppressed voting in Clev and esp Akron.

However, it's not irrational to oppose minority set aside districts. Nixon (and esp Reagan) tapped into that as well as simple bigotry

Bigotry?
Why don't you keep voting for the party that believes Brown people need welfare.

 

[bendog]

Why do you

I'm not naïve enough to ignore efforts by whites, in places like Ga, TX and Fla, to overtly keep polling places closed to black. However, it's not unique to the South. Kansas did a superb job. The current Ohio governor seems a nice guy, but the gop suppressed voting in Clev and esp Akron.

However, it's not irrational to oppose minority set aside districts. Nixon (and esp Reagan) tapped into that as well as simple bigotry

Bigotry?
Why don't you keep voting for the party that believes Brown people need welfare.

why do you vote for the grifter?

 

[depotoo]

I'm not naïve enough to ignore efforts by whites, in places like Ga, TX and Fla, to overtly keep polling places closed to black. However, it's not unique to the South. Kansas did a superb job. The current Ohio governor seems a nice guy, but the gop suppressed voting in Clev and esp Akron.

However, it's not irrational to oppose minority set aside districts. Nixon (and esp Reagan) tapped into that as well as simple bigotry

You do realize in Tx and Fl polling locations are handled by local officials, so if they are being closed in areas of Black population, those are run by Dems and closed by Dems. Get so tired of that story. They know people will assume it is the Reps doing such, they aren’t.

 

[Pete7469]

Political and historical revisionists have been busy lately, what with blatantly stupid or insensitive racial remarks from today's two presidential contenders, racial unrest over policing, the abuse of the "race card" by the left, or the empowerment of white supremacy by the right.

Right out of the gate you start with an asinine statement. In order for someone to be a "historical revisionist" they probably ought to be discussing something more "historical" than Biden's most recent gaffe, or something Trump said that has bed wetting liberal glue sniffers in a snit. At least you acknowledge the abuse of the tattered race card by moonbats, but implying "white supremacy" is being "empowered" by anyone is intellectually dishonest. No one that has any political power or following is promoting "white supremacy". That is a liberal lie and even you know it.

There has been a frantic, almost obsessive effort to portray each party as "the party of racism". There has even been a completely retarded bit of political theatre aimed at "banning" the Democrat Party (seriously - we pay these jokers for this?).

There is no fucking way democrooks can write off their history, THAT'S WHERE THE "REVISIONISM" IS. It was that party that protected slavery, passed laws that made it impossible for people to escape slavery, penalized free people for assisting escaped slaves, seceded from the union and started the War of Northern Aggression (by attacking Ft Sumpter). Like the Nazis blaming Poland for their invasion. The KKK was the "ANTIFA" of the 1900's. It's a militant anti-constitutional republican entity that is working to undermine national prosperity, sovereignty and social order.

Historically, neither party is the party of the past. Today's Republicans do not in any way resemble the Party of Lincoln, and today's Democrats do not in any way resemble the party of George Wallace. Parties are not ideologies. Parties change their ideologies - not completely, but sufficiently in order to achieve their main aim: winning votes.

There is 100 years of difference between the RNC of Lincoln and the DNC of Wallace. Yet for that entire 100 years, the racism of the DNC was a driving force of it's politics. There was a time when the DNC was vehemently anti-communist, "pro-second Amendment" (for whites), concerned with the standard of living for (white) working class people and devoted to religion (except black churches).

That is where the Southern Strategy comes in. The south represented and still represents a substantial largely conservative voting block and one that DIVIDED the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party long held it, reversing the gains made after emancipation and supporting southern landowners in maintaining their racial caste system through a host of new laws that robbed black people of their newly realized rights.

Oh here it comes, the argument that the nazi's weren't really socialists.....

That changed though, with the Civil Rights Movement. Between 1950 and 1968, the government passed 4 bills that were collectively known as the Civil Rights Acts. Both the Democrats and the Republicans voted to pass them. In those votes, the Republicans were more unified than the Democrats. It's a mistake to assume the Democrats were a "united party", they were far less united then than now. The Democrats were divided, with southern Democrats holding the south, the remainder spread throughout the US and the voting for these pieces of legislation reflected that division. This is important to remember because broad brushing either party as "the party of racism" is both dishonest and unhelpful.

OHHH... I get it, so by proving the Nazi Party was actually socialist, and the democrook party was actually the entity that resisted Emancipation, Civil Rights and waged terrorist attacks against the "progressive" republican operatives is viewed as "dishonest and unhelpful" by the people who lost in the public arena of ideas.

So what about the Southern Strategy? What is or was it? It was a political strategy, initially formed by Nixon, to turn the Democrat stronghold in the south to Republican. Was it racist? Yes...in that it played on racial divides. Does that mean Nixon was racist? No...this isn't necessarily about personal feelings about race. Early on, Nixon was a strong proponent for desegregation, then he pivoted, drawing back from it and altering his policies when he developed the Southern Strategy.

OK... This is where I'm asserting either YOU are smoking crack, or whoever wrote the bullshit agitprop you've cut and pasted is a mouth breathing bed wetter that has brain damage from huffing aerosols. They probably also have a Doctorate from Red Diaper Baby indoctrination camp like Wesleyan University. If anyone "altered strategy" it was LBJ who was recorded as having said "I'll have those ******'s voting democrat for 200 years". LBJ was the guy behind changing any strategy and is responsible for the destruction of black families and independence. It was LBJ who exploded the size of government to such proportions FDR would have called him a commie. Reagan turned the south GOP by appealing to their sense of patriotism and opposition to marxist dogma. Nixon was a fuckin globalist.

Ironically - this is where the latest bit of historical revisionism comes in, with Talking Heads opining:

Candace Owen: "The Southern Strategy is a myth that never happened"...a claim rated as totally false by Politifact.

Everyone knows "Politifact" is a leftwing hack website. Candice Owen is exactly correct and you have no argument that is even plausible to debunk what she says.

It's really about the POLITICS of PARTY CONTROL. What would it take (and is it even possible) to gain control of this substantial region?

Southern Strategy - Southern Cultures

www.southerncultures.org

​

In his 1991 book, One of Us: Richard Nixon and the American Dream,New York Times columnist Tom Wicker captures the political two-step that Nixon danced as he sought to govern and to carry out a strategy to turn the South into a Republican-dominated region as it had been a “solid Democratic South’’ for much of the twentieth century. Wicker gave Nixon credit for “a spectacular advance in desegregation’’ in 1970. “Perhaps the most significant achievement of his administration’s domestic actions,” Wicker wrote, came as “the Nixon administration had appeared in retreat from desegregation, while actively courting the white vote.”​

​

Indeed, in his 1968 campaign and afterward, Nixon used coded language, political symbolism and court interventions as signals to southern white voters. In the aftermath of city riots in 1967 and 1968, as well as Vietnam War protests, Nixon said he was for “law and order.’’ His administration went to court to slow down school desegregation. Nixon tried to install two so-called strict-constructionist conservatives, Clement F. Haynesworth Jr. of South Carolina and G. Harrold Carswell of Florida, on the Supreme Court, but the Senate turned down both nominees...​

​

In their book, The Southern Strategy, published shortly after the 1970 mid-term elections, Atlanta journalists Reg Murphy and Hal Gulliver wrote a detailed—and critical—account of the strategy in practice. “It was a cynical strategy, this catering in subtle ways to the segregationist leanings of white Southern voters,’’ Murphy and Gulliver wrote, “yet pretending with high rhetoric that the real aim was simply to treat the South fairly, to let it become part of the nation again.”​

​

White voters got the message. Along the New Orleans motorcade route, a Nixon supporter held up a hand-lettered sign that read, “I am for Nixon . . . Less Federal Control. Equal Treatment for the South.”​

So, while the Democrats were pandering to the newly enfranchised black voters, the Republicans were pandering to the southern white voters unhappy with desegregation and other Civil Rights legislation that they felt "disempowered" them.

All this shit bores me, you're just promoting division by pretending democrooks gave a fruit fly's fuck about blacks, and the guilt of the sins democrooks will apparently never forgive should somehow be laid equally at the feet of both parties.

That's the history, in part. No one has clean hands in regards to race.

Bullshit. I do. I've never done anything to harm another person based on "race". I'm at a point where I'm convinced it's a bullshit concept deliberately designed to divide a single human race based on ethnicity.

But what about now?

Well...the Southern Strategy is still going on. The Democrats are playing to the regions black population and it's more liberal urban white population. The Republicans are pivoting harder towards a more substantial rural and suburban white population, conflating the Confederacy, its monuments and it's flag, with honor and patriotism and an attack on our culture, while making an appeal to authoritarian law and order in the wake of racial unrest and social upheaval. Today's Southern Strategy still capitalizes on the same fears of disenfranchisement but adds some new (and, newly revived old) enemies: immigrants, Mexicans, communists, Marxists.

So Republicans are pivoting harder towards a more substantial rural and suburban white population? You mean when people of all categories manage to make enough money they're moving to escape the high taxes, high crime, shitty schools, and shitty public services democrooks deliver, because last I looked it wasn't just whites fleeing those shit holes.

It has little to do with racism...and a lot to do with party control.

And yes...the Republican Party is still at it. As are the Democrats.

Republicrat political whores love their own power as much as any democrook, but please spare me bullshit idea that responsibility for our current political strife can be equally applied to ordinary voters that want government power reduced, that move away from cities because of what democrooks did to them, or that anyone but leftists are determined to maintain a division amongst the population.

 

[kaz]

yayaya - thread after thread after thread - Dem's are the party of racism, Biden is a racist - it's a mad scramble with a desperate air to redefine you and yours

This really is completely unfreaking believable. Democrats bring up over and over and over, but you're a racist. I think it's the lamest crap ever and should stop. Saying you're a racist says you have nothing and it ends discourse. And I only fight back on racism to all the race pimps in your party. But you're fine with it, I've NEVER seen you ask a Democrat ever why they don't give up the racism crap and move on.

But now you should say I should lay down and take it? Let us call you a racist, kaz. Just stop fighting back!

It's unreal.

Side note lest there is any misunderstanding. I took your comment as a comment from you as a poster, not as a mod. And I'm responding to you only as a poster

 

[WillPower]

I've been called a racist here so many times, I became a racist (here)...mission accomplished!

 

[Coyote]

I see this Southern Strategy BS from Democrats all the time. Saying it's true is exactly the race card that's destroying us I just referred to.

My ass is pale white, my wife is a "woman of color" and therefore so are my daughters. I've lived in the South much of my adult life, including the last decade and a half, and never heard this "Southern Strategy." If I did, I would be highly offended. What elitist blue State do you live in?

Not that it matters but I live in one of the reddest states in the union.

yayaya - thread after thread after thread - Dem's are the party of racism, Biden is a racist - it's a mad scramble with a desperate air to redefine you and yours

This really is completely unfreaking believable. Democrats bring up over and over and over, but you're a racist. I think it's the lamest crap ever and should stop. Saying you're a racist says you have nothing and it ends discourse. And I only fight back on racism to all the race pimps in your party. But you're fine with it, I've NEVER seen you ask a Democrat ever why they don't give up the racism crap and move on.

Like you...I'm sick of the "yer racist" crap. And really the constant argument of Dems/Republicans are the Party of Racism is historically ignorant. But none less, how many times do we hear it directed against BOTH? Be honest for a change and look at the threads here.

People read my OP and reacted in accordance to the party they support - Dem or Rep. That was interesting.

Yet if you look at history, it's shows both party's pandered to racist elements in a society to gain votes. That's a fact. Those political strategies are well documented.

But what about today? Can you point out any racist planks in either party's platform? (and no, I do not consider affirmative action to be racist).

But now you should say I should lay down and take it? Let us call you a racist, kaz. Just stop fighting back!

It's unreal.

What's unreal Kaz, is I haven't called you a racist but that is how you read it and that is how inflamed and polarized we are now.

Side note lest there is any misunderstanding. I took your comment as a comment from you as a poster, not as a mod. And I'm responding to you only as a poster

Thanks

 

[Lakhota]

Politifact: No, the Democratic Party didn’t create the Ku Klux Klan

President Donald Trump has faced criticism for normalizing white nationalists but some conservative bloggers are trying to flip the script, shooing the Ku Klux Klan out of the "Big Tent" and into liberal territory.

"I hate when people aren’t smart enough to realize that the KKK was formed by the Democratic Party," reads a Facebook post from Oct. 11, 2017. This post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Though the post is a year old, it continues to circulate online, generating nearly 27,000 shares and 840 comments, many as recently as a day ago.

"Just so you know," the post goes on, "the Ku Klux Klan’s original purpose was to oppose the Republican Party’s policies intended to establish economic and political equality for blacks (sic) folks after the Civil War."

Facebook isn’t the only place this idea has spread.

It was a more of a grassroots creation, Martinez said. Plus, the Democratic Party of the past is not the Democratic Party of today. From the 1930s onward, "you think of the Democratic Party being considered the party of the disenfranchised," he said.

Carole Emberton, an associated professor at the University of Buffalo, agreed.

"Although the names stayed the same, the platforms of the two parties reversed each other in the mid-20th century, due in large part to the white ‘Dixiecrats’ flight out of the Democratic Party and into the Republican Party after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964," she said.

No, the Democratic Party didn’t create the Ku Klux Klan

President Donald Trump has faced criticism for normalizing white nationalists but some conservative bloggers are trying

www.politifact.com

Old conspiracy theories die hard - especially among the lesser educated and open-minded among us. A reasonable person can clearly see that today's Democratic Party is not the same party of yesteryear. As stated above - "The Democratic Party of the past is not the Democratic Party of today." "The platforms of the two parties reversed each other in the mid-20th century."

Southern Strategy

 

[Pete7469]

I dont' see a coherent strategy with trump. Coyote's post DID NOT suggest racism was regional. Nixon's southern strategy was actually part of his silent maj strategy (that worked btw) in saying most people oppose chaos. Trump's strategy is failing because many of us noticed that the cops were there first in the anarchy line. And Trump was gassing people outside a church for a photo op.

So Trump was wrong for gassing chaotic vandals and rioters because most people oppose leftist assholes that attempted to burn down one of the most historic churches in the country?

Reagan's southern strategy was more about removing federal oversite from states making voting districts. He may or may not have been right. That's not a fight I choose to have. But what's not debateable is that Courts no longer are open to citizens who can clearly show states suppressing votes in places just not in the South. Trump's strategy is again failing because he's embracing suppressing votes. He's all in with Ga and Fla.

I have yet to see a moonbat explain how showing ID and making sure fraud doesn't take place is "suppression" of anything but democrook voters who have been dead for 50 years or are pets.

 

[Coyote]

Political and historical revisionists have been busy lately, what with blatantly stupid or insensitive racial remarks from today's two presidential contenders, racial unrest over policing, the abuse of the "race card" by the left, or the empowerment of white supremacy by the right.

Right out of the gate you start with an asinine statement. In order for someone to be a "historical revisionist" they probably ought to be discussing something more "historical" than Biden's most recent gaffe, or something Trump said that has bed wetting liberal glue sniffers in a snit. At least you acknowledge the abuse of the tattered race card by moonbats, but implying "white supremacy" is being "empowered" by anyone is intellectually dishonest. No one that has any political power or following is promoting "white supremacy". That is a liberal lie and even you know it.

I'll address this part - rather than go off on too many tangents, because it addresses a part of today's "southern strategy".

No. It's not dishonest at all. Look at what's been happening since Trump was elected. White supremacists previously marginalized are suddenly coming out of the woodwork. They are holding rallies...like "Unite the Right". They speak up in support of Trump. They have become visible and are integrating their vision of America into the mainstream.

So. Why? Clearly there is something in the Republican Party now that speaks to angry white males, who feel racially and economically disenfranchised, and while the economic part is often true...the race part is usually a way of blaming the other for all the bad crap going on. They have a platform and the Republican Party is giving them that without pushback.

 

[dudmuck]

Political and historical revisionists have been busy lately, what with blatantly stupid or insensitive racial remarks from today's two presidential contenders, racial unrest over policing, the abuse of the "race card" by the left, or the empowerment of white supremacy by the right.

There has been a frantic, almost obsessive effort to portray each party as "the party of racism". There has even been a completely retarded bit of political theatre aimed at "banning" the Democrat Party (seriously - we pay these jokers for this?).

Historically, neither party is the party of the past. Today's Republicans do not in any way resemble the Party of Lincoln, and today's Democrats do not in any way resemble the party of George Wallace. Parties are not ideologies. Parties change their ideologies - not completely, but sufficiently in order to achieve their main aim: winning votes.

That is where the Southern Strategy comes in. The south represented and still represents a substantial largely conservative voting block and one that DIVIDED the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party long held it, reversing the gains made after emancipation and supporting southern landowners in maintaining their racial caste system through a host of new laws that robbed black people of their newly realized rights.

That changed though, with the Civil Rights Movement. Between 1950 and 1968, the government passed 4 bills that were collectively known as the Civil Rights Acts. Both the Democrats and the Republicans voted to pass them. In those votes, the Republicans were more unified than the Democrats. It's a mistake to assume the Democrats were a "united party", they were far less united then than now. The Democrats were divided, with southern Democrats holding the south, the remainder spread throughout the US and the voting for these pieces of legislation reflected that division. This is important to remember because broad brushing either party as "the party of racism" is both dishonest and unhelpful.

So what about the Southern Strategy? What is or was it? It was a political strategy, initially formed by Nixon, to turn the Democrat stronghold in the south to Republican. Was it racist? Yes...in that it played on racial divides. Does that mean Nixon was racist? No...this isn't necessarily about personal feelings about race. Early on, Nixon was a strong proponent for desegregation, then he pivoted, drawing back from it and altering his policies when he developed the Southern Strategy.

Ironically - this is where the latest bit of historical revisionism comes in, with Talking Heads opining:

Candace Owen: "The Southern Strategy is a myth that never happened"...a claim rated as totally false by Politifact.

It's really about the POLITICS of PARTY CONTROL. What would it take (and is it even possible) to gain control of this substantial region?

Southern Strategy - Southern Cultures

www.southerncultures.org

​

In his 1991 book, One of Us: Richard Nixon and the American Dream,New York Times columnist Tom Wicker captures the political two-step that Nixon danced as he sought to govern and to carry out a strategy to turn the South into a Republican-dominated region as it had been a “solid Democratic South’’ for much of the twentieth century. Wicker gave Nixon credit for “a spectacular advance in desegregation’’ in 1970. “Perhaps the most significant achievement of his administration’s domestic actions,” Wicker wrote, came as “the Nixon administration had appeared in retreat from desegregation, while actively courting the white vote.”​

​

Indeed, in his 1968 campaign and afterward, Nixon used coded language, political symbolism and court interventions as signals to southern white voters. In the aftermath of city riots in 1967 and 1968, as well as Vietnam War protests, Nixon said he was for “law and order.’’ His administration went to court to slow down school desegregation. Nixon tried to install two so-called strict-constructionist conservatives, Clement F. Haynesworth Jr. of South Carolina and G. Harrold Carswell of Florida, on the Supreme Court, but the Senate turned down both nominees...​

​

In their book, The Southern Strategy, published shortly after the 1970 mid-term elections, Atlanta journalists Reg Murphy and Hal Gulliver wrote a detailed—and critical—account of the strategy in practice. “It was a cynical strategy, this catering in subtle ways to the segregationist leanings of white Southern voters,’’ Murphy and Gulliver wrote, “yet pretending with high rhetoric that the real aim was simply to treat the South fairly, to let it become part of the nation again.”​

​

White voters got the message. Along the New Orleans motorcade route, a Nixon supporter held up a hand-lettered sign that read, “I am for Nixon . . . Less Federal Control. Equal Treatment for the South.”​

So, while the Democrats were pandering to the newly enfranchised black voters, the Republicans were pandering to the southern white voters unhappy with desegregation and other Civil Rights legislation that they felt "disempowered" them.

That's the history, in part. No one has clean hands in regards to race.

But what about now? Well...the Southern Strategy is still going on. The Democrats are playing to the regions black population and it's more liberal urban white population. The Republicans are pivoting harder towards a more substantial rural and suburban white population, conflating the Confederacy, its monuments and it's flag, with honor and patriotism and an attack on our culture, while making an appeal to authoritarian law and order in the wake of racial unrest and social upheaval. Today's Southern Strategy still capitalizes on the same fears of disenfranchisement but adds some new (and, newly revived old) enemies: immigrants, Mexicans, communists, Marxists.

It has little to do with racism...and a lot to do with party control.

And yes...the Republican Party is still at it. As are the Democrats.

Democrats are the party of slavery, segregation, the KKK, Jim Crow, cross burnings, overlords capturing runaway blacks and you always have been.

Your leader Joe you ain't black Biden is flagrantly racist and even says that blacks are the same.

Try deflecting all you want, but the shit sticks to your side where it belongs

yayaya - thread after thread after thread - Dem's are the party of racism, Biden is a racist - it's a mad scramble with a desperate air to redefine you and yours.

I don't think either party is "the party of racism" - you are assuming the party is unchanged from 150 years ago. That's not just stupid, it's moronic. Neither party is the same as it was them OR as it was during segregation.

If ALL you have to base this on is old party history, then that is pretty pathetic don't you think?

I think it's easy to see that parties are about strategizing GET MORE VOTES first and foremost.

Where is the evidence of Biden's racism?

Joe Biden was quoting racist comments when he used the N-word in 1985

CLAIM: A video from a 1985 hearing exposes Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden for using the N-word, stating: “We already have a n----- mayor, we don’t need any more n-----big shots!” AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. Biden was not making the statement himself, he was reading a racist statement...

apnews.com

But today's racist, honoring the KKK are all in the GOP:

Alabama GOP lawmaker in KKK controversy charged with theft

A GOP lawmaker in Alabama who faced backlash for attending a KKK grand wizard's birthday celebration last month and was forced to resign as pastor of his church has now been charged with felony theft.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Pete7469]

Coyote why are you on this message board when you could be taking down more of our countries historical statues?

Amazingly you libs see nothing wrong with erasing our history.

As far as I'm concerned that is the long term objective of the historical monument destruction being waged by the bed wetters. ERASE THE HISTORY of slavery entirely, and then you can wash the hands of the DNC while continuing to blame the plight of "the poor" on the "1%" or the "rich" or the "jews" or the "bankers" or the "whites" or the "bourgeoisie" or whatever group they demonize in the future.


.

 

[Coyote]

Political and historical revisionists have been busy lately, what with blatantly stupid or insensitive racial remarks from today's two presidential contenders, racial unrest over policing, the abuse of the "race card" by the left, or the empowerment of white supremacy by the right.

There has been a frantic, almost obsessive effort to portray each party as "the party of racism". There has even been a completely retarded bit of political theatre aimed at "banning" the Democrat Party (seriously - we pay these jokers for this?).

Historically, neither party is the party of the past. Today's Republicans do not in any way resemble the Party of Lincoln, and today's Democrats do not in any way resemble the party of George Wallace. Parties are not ideologies. Parties change their ideologies - not completely, but sufficiently in order to achieve their main aim: winning votes.

That is where the Southern Strategy comes in. The south represented and still represents a substantial largely conservative voting block and one that DIVIDED the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party long held it, reversing the gains made after emancipation and supporting southern landowners in maintaining their racial caste system through a host of new laws that robbed black people of their newly realized rights.

That changed though, with the Civil Rights Movement. Between 1950 and 1968, the government passed 4 bills that were collectively known as the Civil Rights Acts. Both the Democrats and the Republicans voted to pass them. In those votes, the Republicans were more unified than the Democrats. It's a mistake to assume the Democrats were a "united party", they were far less united then than now. The Democrats were divided, with southern Democrats holding the south, the remainder spread throughout the US and the voting for these pieces of legislation reflected that division. This is important to remember because broad brushing either party as "the party of racism" is both dishonest and unhelpful.

So what about the Southern Strategy? What is or was it? It was a political strategy, initially formed by Nixon, to turn the Democrat stronghold in the south to Republican. Was it racist? Yes...in that it played on racial divides. Does that mean Nixon was racist? No...this isn't necessarily about personal feelings about race. Early on, Nixon was a strong proponent for desegregation, then he pivoted, drawing back from it and altering his policies when he developed the Southern Strategy.

Ironically - this is where the latest bit of historical revisionism comes in, with Talking Heads opining:

Candace Owen: "The Southern Strategy is a myth that never happened"...a claim rated as totally false by Politifact.

It's really about the POLITICS of PARTY CONTROL. What would it take (and is it even possible) to gain control of this substantial region?

Southern Strategy - Southern Cultures

www.southerncultures.org

​

In his 1991 book, One of Us: Richard Nixon and the American Dream,New York Times columnist Tom Wicker captures the political two-step that Nixon danced as he sought to govern and to carry out a strategy to turn the South into a Republican-dominated region as it had been a “solid Democratic South’’ for much of the twentieth century. Wicker gave Nixon credit for “a spectacular advance in desegregation’’ in 1970. “Perhaps the most significant achievement of his administration’s domestic actions,” Wicker wrote, came as “the Nixon administration had appeared in retreat from desegregation, while actively courting the white vote.”​

​

Indeed, in his 1968 campaign and afterward, Nixon used coded language, political symbolism and court interventions as signals to southern white voters. In the aftermath of city riots in 1967 and 1968, as well as Vietnam War protests, Nixon said he was for “law and order.’’ His administration went to court to slow down school desegregation. Nixon tried to install two so-called strict-constructionist conservatives, Clement F. Haynesworth Jr. of South Carolina and G. Harrold Carswell of Florida, on the Supreme Court, but the Senate turned down both nominees...​

​

In their book, The Southern Strategy, published shortly after the 1970 mid-term elections, Atlanta journalists Reg Murphy and Hal Gulliver wrote a detailed—and critical—account of the strategy in practice. “It was a cynical strategy, this catering in subtle ways to the segregationist leanings of white Southern voters,’’ Murphy and Gulliver wrote, “yet pretending with high rhetoric that the real aim was simply to treat the South fairly, to let it become part of the nation again.”​

​

White voters got the message. Along the New Orleans motorcade route, a Nixon supporter held up a hand-lettered sign that read, “I am for Nixon . . . Less Federal Control. Equal Treatment for the South.”​

So, while the Democrats were pandering to the newly enfranchised black voters, the Republicans were pandering to the southern white voters unhappy with desegregation and other Civil Rights legislation that they felt "disempowered" them.

That's the history, in part. No one has clean hands in regards to race.

But what about now? Well...the Southern Strategy is still going on. The Democrats are playing to the regions black population and it's more liberal urban white population. The Republicans are pivoting harder towards a more substantial rural and suburban white population, conflating the Confederacy, its monuments and it's flag, with honor and patriotism and an attack on our culture, while making an appeal to authoritarian law and order in the wake of racial unrest and social upheaval. Today's Southern Strategy still capitalizes on the same fears of disenfranchisement but adds some new (and, newly revived old) enemies: immigrants, Mexicans, communists, Marxists.

It has little to do with racism...and a lot to do with party control.

And yes...the Republican Party is still at it. As are the Democrats.

You are leaving out one of the most important keys to the rebirth of the Southern Strategy under Trump...

Roger Stone. Roger Stone as a campaign helped Trump adopt a strategy in courting voters similar to the same way he did with Nixon. It is real, and people need to quit lying to themselves and accept it.

I dont' see a coherent strategy with trump. Coyote's post DID NOT suggest racism was regional. Nixon's southern strategy was actually part of his silent maj strategy (that worked btw) in saying most people oppose chaos. Trump's strategy is failing because many of us noticed that the cops were there first in the anarchy line. And Trump was gassing people outside a church for a photo op.

Reagan's southern strategy was more about removing federal oversite from states making voting districts. He may or may not have been right. That's not a fight I choose to have. But what's not debateable is that Courts no longer are open to citizens who can clearly show states suppressing votes in places just not in the South. Trump's strategy is again failing because he's embracing suppressing votes. He's all in with Ga and Fla.

Not at all. It is really more about politics and gaining votes by pandering to particular groups.

 

[Coyote]

Political and historical revisionists have been busy lately, what with blatantly stupid or insensitive racial remarks from today's two presidential contenders, racial unrest over policing, the abuse of the "race card" by the left, or the empowerment of white supremacy by the right.

There has been a frantic, almost obsessive effort to portray each party as "the party of racism". There has even been a completely retarded bit of political theatre aimed at "banning" the Democrat Party (seriously - we pay these jokers for this?).

Historically, neither party is the party of the past. Today's Republicans do not in any way resemble the Party of Lincoln, and today's Democrats do not in any way resemble the party of George Wallace. Parties are not ideologies. Parties change their ideologies - not completely, but sufficiently in order to achieve their main aim: winning votes.

That is where the Southern Strategy comes in. The south represented and still represents a substantial largely conservative voting block and one that DIVIDED the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party long held it, reversing the gains made after emancipation and supporting southern landowners in maintaining their racial caste system through a host of new laws that robbed black people of their newly realized rights.

That changed though, with the Civil Rights Movement. Between 1950 and 1968, the government passed 4 bills that were collectively known as the Civil Rights Acts. Both the Democrats and the Republicans voted to pass them. In those votes, the Republicans were more unified than the Democrats. It's a mistake to assume the Democrats were a "united party", they were far less united then than now. The Democrats were divided, with southern Democrats holding the south, the remainder spread throughout the US and the voting for these pieces of legislation reflected that division. This is important to remember because broad brushing either party as "the party of racism" is both dishonest and unhelpful.

So what about the Southern Strategy? What is or was it? It was a political strategy, initially formed by Nixon, to turn the Democrat stronghold in the south to Republican. Was it racist? Yes...in that it played on racial divides. Does that mean Nixon was racist? No...this isn't necessarily about personal feelings about race. Early on, Nixon was a strong proponent for desegregation, then he pivoted, drawing back from it and altering his policies when he developed the Southern Strategy.

Ironically - this is where the latest bit of historical revisionism comes in, with Talking Heads opining:

Candace Owen: "The Southern Strategy is a myth that never happened"...a claim rated as totally false by Politifact.

It's really about the POLITICS of PARTY CONTROL. What would it take (and is it even possible) to gain control of this substantial region?

Southern Strategy - Southern Cultures

www.southerncultures.org

​

In his 1991 book, One of Us: Richard Nixon and the American Dream,New York Times columnist Tom Wicker captures the political two-step that Nixon danced as he sought to govern and to carry out a strategy to turn the South into a Republican-dominated region as it had been a “solid Democratic South’’ for much of the twentieth century. Wicker gave Nixon credit for “a spectacular advance in desegregation’’ in 1970. “Perhaps the most significant achievement of his administration’s domestic actions,” Wicker wrote, came as “the Nixon administration had appeared in retreat from desegregation, while actively courting the white vote.”​

​

Indeed, in his 1968 campaign and afterward, Nixon used coded language, political symbolism and court interventions as signals to southern white voters. In the aftermath of city riots in 1967 and 1968, as well as Vietnam War protests, Nixon said he was for “law and order.’’ His administration went to court to slow down school desegregation. Nixon tried to install two so-called strict-constructionist conservatives, Clement F. Haynesworth Jr. of South Carolina and G. Harrold Carswell of Florida, on the Supreme Court, but the Senate turned down both nominees...​

​

In their book, The Southern Strategy, published shortly after the 1970 mid-term elections, Atlanta journalists Reg Murphy and Hal Gulliver wrote a detailed—and critical—account of the strategy in practice. “It was a cynical strategy, this catering in subtle ways to the segregationist leanings of white Southern voters,’’ Murphy and Gulliver wrote, “yet pretending with high rhetoric that the real aim was simply to treat the South fairly, to let it become part of the nation again.”​

​

White voters got the message. Along the New Orleans motorcade route, a Nixon supporter held up a hand-lettered sign that read, “I am for Nixon . . . Less Federal Control. Equal Treatment for the South.”​

So, while the Democrats were pandering to the newly enfranchised black voters, the Republicans were pandering to the southern white voters unhappy with desegregation and other Civil Rights legislation that they felt "disempowered" them.

That's the history, in part. No one has clean hands in regards to race.

But what about now? Well...the Southern Strategy is still going on. The Democrats are playing to the regions black population and it's more liberal urban white population. The Republicans are pivoting harder towards a more substantial rural and suburban white population, conflating the Confederacy, its monuments and it's flag, with honor and patriotism and an attack on our culture, while making an appeal to authoritarian law and order in the wake of racial unrest and social upheaval. Today's Southern Strategy still capitalizes on the same fears of disenfranchisement but adds some new (and, newly revived old) enemies: immigrants, Mexicans, communists, Marxists.

It has little to do with racism...and a lot to do with party control.

And yes...the Republican Party is still at it. As are the Democrats.

Democrats are the party of slavery, segregation, the KKK, Jim Crow, cross burnings, overlords capturing runaway blacks and you always have been.

Your leader Joe you ain't black Biden is flagrantly racist and even says that blacks are the same.

Try deflecting all you want, but the shit sticks to your side where it belongs

yayaya - thread after thread after thread - Dem's are the party of racism, Biden is a racist - it's a mad scramble with a desperate air to redefine you and yours.

I don't think either party is "the party of racism" - you are assuming the party is unchanged from 150 years ago. That's not just stupid, it's moronic. Neither party is the same as it was them OR as it was during segregation.

If ALL you have to base this on is old party history, then that is pretty pathetic don't you think?

I think it's easy to see that parties are about strategizing GET MORE VOTES first and foremost.

Where is the evidence of Biden's racism?

Joe Biden was quoting racist comments when he used the N-word in 1985

CLAIM: A video from a 1985 hearing exposes Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden for using the N-word, stating: “We already have a n----- mayor, we don’t need any more n-----big shots!” AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. Biden was not making the statement himself, he was reading a racist statement...

apnews.com

But today's racist, honoring the KKK are all in the GOP:

Alabama GOP lawmaker in KKK controversy charged with theft

A GOP lawmaker in Alabama who faced backlash for attending a KKK grand wizard's birthday celebration last month and was forced to resign as pastor of his church has now been charged with felony theft.

www.foxnews.com

I don't think Biden's racist - I think he's prone to making stupid cringeworthy comments. I really don't think Trump is either, but he is willing to traffic in it in order to appease his base.

 

[Lakhota]

Political and historical revisionists have been busy lately, what with blatantly stupid or insensitive racial remarks from today's two presidential contenders, racial unrest over policing, the abuse of the "race card" by the left, or the empowerment of white supremacy by the right.

There has been a frantic, almost obsessive effort to portray each party as "the party of racism". There has even been a completely retarded bit of political theatre aimed at "banning" the Democrat Party (seriously - we pay these jokers for this?).

Historically, neither party is the party of the past. Today's Republicans do not in any way resemble the Party of Lincoln, and today's Democrats do not in any way resemble the party of George Wallace. Parties are not ideologies. Parties change their ideologies - not completely, but sufficiently in order to achieve their main aim: winning votes.

That is where the Southern Strategy comes in. The south represented and still represents a substantial largely conservative voting block and one that DIVIDED the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party long held it, reversing the gains made after emancipation and supporting southern landowners in maintaining their racial caste system through a host of new laws that robbed black people of their newly realized rights.

That changed though, with the Civil Rights Movement. Between 1950 and 1968, the government passed 4 bills that were collectively known as the Civil Rights Acts. Both the Democrats and the Republicans voted to pass them. In those votes, the Republicans were more unified than the Democrats. It's a mistake to assume the Democrats were a "united party", they were far less united then than now. The Democrats were divided, with southern Democrats holding the south, the remainder spread throughout the US and the voting for these pieces of legislation reflected that division. This is important to remember because broad brushing either party as "the party of racism" is both dishonest and unhelpful.

So what about the Southern Strategy? What is or was it? It was a political strategy, initially formed by Nixon, to turn the Democrat stronghold in the south to Republican. Was it racist? Yes...in that it played on racial divides. Does that mean Nixon was racist? No...this isn't necessarily about personal feelings about race. Early on, Nixon was a strong proponent for desegregation, then he pivoted, drawing back from it and altering his policies when he developed the Southern Strategy.

Ironically - this is where the latest bit of historical revisionism comes in, with Talking Heads opining:

Candace Owen: "The Southern Strategy is a myth that never happened"...a claim rated as totally false by Politifact.

It's really about the POLITICS of PARTY CONTROL. What would it take (and is it even possible) to gain control of this substantial region?

Southern Strategy - Southern Cultures

www.southerncultures.org

​

In his 1991 book, One of Us: Richard Nixon and the American Dream,New York Times columnist Tom Wicker captures the political two-step that Nixon danced as he sought to govern and to carry out a strategy to turn the South into a Republican-dominated region as it had been a “solid Democratic South’’ for much of the twentieth century. Wicker gave Nixon credit for “a spectacular advance in desegregation’’ in 1970. “Perhaps the most significant achievement of his administration’s domestic actions,” Wicker wrote, came as “the Nixon administration had appeared in retreat from desegregation, while actively courting the white vote.”​

​

Indeed, in his 1968 campaign and afterward, Nixon used coded language, political symbolism and court interventions as signals to southern white voters. In the aftermath of city riots in 1967 and 1968, as well as Vietnam War protests, Nixon said he was for “law and order.’’ His administration went to court to slow down school desegregation. Nixon tried to install two so-called strict-constructionist conservatives, Clement F. Haynesworth Jr. of South Carolina and G. Harrold Carswell of Florida, on the Supreme Court, but the Senate turned down both nominees...​

​

In their book, The Southern Strategy, published shortly after the 1970 mid-term elections, Atlanta journalists Reg Murphy and Hal Gulliver wrote a detailed—and critical—account of the strategy in practice. “It was a cynical strategy, this catering in subtle ways to the segregationist leanings of white Southern voters,’’ Murphy and Gulliver wrote, “yet pretending with high rhetoric that the real aim was simply to treat the South fairly, to let it become part of the nation again.”​

​

White voters got the message. Along the New Orleans motorcade route, a Nixon supporter held up a hand-lettered sign that read, “I am for Nixon . . . Less Federal Control. Equal Treatment for the South.”​

So, while the Democrats were pandering to the newly enfranchised black voters, the Republicans were pandering to the southern white voters unhappy with desegregation and other Civil Rights legislation that they felt "disempowered" them.

That's the history, in part. No one has clean hands in regards to race.

But what about now? Well...the Southern Strategy is still going on. The Democrats are playing to the regions black population and it's more liberal urban white population. The Republicans are pivoting harder towards a more substantial rural and suburban white population, conflating the Confederacy, its monuments and it's flag, with honor and patriotism and an attack on our culture, while making an appeal to authoritarian law and order in the wake of racial unrest and social upheaval. Today's Southern Strategy still capitalizes on the same fears of disenfranchisement but adds some new (and, newly revived old) enemies: immigrants, Mexicans, communists, Marxists.

It has little to do with racism...and a lot to do with party control.

And yes...the Republican Party is still at it. As are the Democrats.

Democrats are the party of slavery, segregation, the KKK, Jim Crow, cross burnings, overlords capturing runaway blacks and you always have been.

Your leader Joe you ain't black Biden is flagrantly racist and even says that blacks are the same.

Try deflecting all you want, but the shit sticks to your side where it belongs

yayaya - thread after thread after thread - Dem's are the party of racism, Biden is a racist - it's a mad scramble with a desperate air to redefine you and yours.

I don't think either party is "the party of racism" - you are assuming the party is unchanged from 150 years ago. That's not just stupid, it's moronic. Neither party is the same as it was them OR as it was during segregation.

If ALL you have to base this on is old party history, then that is pretty pathetic don't you think?

I think it's easy to see that parties are about strategizing GET MORE VOTES first and foremost.

Where is the evidence of Biden's racism?

Joe Biden was quoting racist comments when he used the N-word in 1985

CLAIM: A video from a 1985 hearing exposes Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden for using the N-word, stating: “We already have a n----- mayor, we don’t need any more n-----big shots!” AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. Biden was not making the statement himself, he was reading a racist statement...

apnews.com

But today's racist, honoring the KKK are all in the GOP:

Alabama GOP lawmaker in KKK controversy charged with theft

A GOP lawmaker in Alabama who faced backlash for attending a KKK grand wizard's birthday celebration last month and was forced to resign as pastor of his church has now been charged with felony theft.

www.foxnews.com

I don't think Biden's racist - I think he's prone to making stupid cringeworthy comments. I really don't think Trump is either, but he is willing to traffic in it in order to appease his base.

I agree about Biden - but Trump has a racist history.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote why are you on this message board when you could be taking down more of our countries historical statues?

Amazingly you libs see nothing wrong with erasing our history.

What history is it do you think you are talking about? The one that mass produced confederate monuments, and spread them through out the country during Jim Crowe?

The Costs of the Confederacy

In the last decade alone, American taxpayers have spent at least $40 million on Confederate monuments and groups that perpetuate racist ideology

www.smithsonianmag.com

First, far from simply being markers of historic events and people, as proponents argue, these memorials were created and funded by Jim Crow governments to pay homage to a slave-owning society and to serve as blunt assertions of dominance over African-Americans.​

​

Second, contrary to the claim that today’s objections to the monuments are merely the product of contemporary political correctness, they were actively opposed at the time, often by African-Americans, as instruments of white power.​

So they were opposed AT THE TIME of erection, they were often mass produced, and now, finally, the political will is there to remove them. But what about the opposition AND the newfound Republican love of the confederacy...and Trump, championing the cause of the disenfranchised white southerner heroically defending history. But WHO'S history?

This is the southern strategy at work today.

 

[Coyote]

Political and historical revisionists have been busy lately, what with blatantly stupid or insensitive racial remarks from today's two presidential contenders, racial unrest over policing, the abuse of the "race card" by the left, or the empowerment of white supremacy by the right.

There has been a frantic, almost obsessive effort to portray each party as "the party of racism". There has even been a completely retarded bit of political theatre aimed at "banning" the Democrat Party (seriously - we pay these jokers for this?).

Historically, neither party is the party of the past. Today's Republicans do not in any way resemble the Party of Lincoln, and today's Democrats do not in any way resemble the party of George Wallace. Parties are not ideologies. Parties change their ideologies - not completely, but sufficiently in order to achieve their main aim: winning votes.

That is where the Southern Strategy comes in. The south represented and still represents a substantial largely conservative voting block and one that DIVIDED the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party long held it, reversing the gains made after emancipation and supporting southern landowners in maintaining their racial caste system through a host of new laws that robbed black people of their newly realized rights.

That changed though, with the Civil Rights Movement. Between 1950 and 1968, the government passed 4 bills that were collectively known as the Civil Rights Acts. Both the Democrats and the Republicans voted to pass them. In those votes, the Republicans were more unified than the Democrats. It's a mistake to assume the Democrats were a "united party", they were far less united then than now. The Democrats were divided, with southern Democrats holding the south, the remainder spread throughout the US and the voting for these pieces of legislation reflected that division. This is important to remember because broad brushing either party as "the party of racism" is both dishonest and unhelpful.

So what about the Southern Strategy? What is or was it? It was a political strategy, initially formed by Nixon, to turn the Democrat stronghold in the south to Republican. Was it racist? Yes...in that it played on racial divides. Does that mean Nixon was racist? No...this isn't necessarily about personal feelings about race. Early on, Nixon was a strong proponent for desegregation, then he pivoted, drawing back from it and altering his policies when he developed the Southern Strategy.

Ironically - this is where the latest bit of historical revisionism comes in, with Talking Heads opining:

Candace Owen: "The Southern Strategy is a myth that never happened"...a claim rated as totally false by Politifact.

It's really about the POLITICS of PARTY CONTROL. What would it take (and is it even possible) to gain control of this substantial region?

Southern Strategy - Southern Cultures

www.southerncultures.org

​

In his 1991 book, One of Us: Richard Nixon and the American Dream,New York Times columnist Tom Wicker captures the political two-step that Nixon danced as he sought to govern and to carry out a strategy to turn the South into a Republican-dominated region as it had been a “solid Democratic South’’ for much of the twentieth century. Wicker gave Nixon credit for “a spectacular advance in desegregation’’ in 1970. “Perhaps the most significant achievement of his administration’s domestic actions,” Wicker wrote, came as “the Nixon administration had appeared in retreat from desegregation, while actively courting the white vote.”​

​

Indeed, in his 1968 campaign and afterward, Nixon used coded language, political symbolism and court interventions as signals to southern white voters. In the aftermath of city riots in 1967 and 1968, as well as Vietnam War protests, Nixon said he was for “law and order.’’ His administration went to court to slow down school desegregation. Nixon tried to install two so-called strict-constructionist conservatives, Clement F. Haynesworth Jr. of South Carolina and G. Harrold Carswell of Florida, on the Supreme Court, but the Senate turned down both nominees...​

​

In their book, The Southern Strategy, published shortly after the 1970 mid-term elections, Atlanta journalists Reg Murphy and Hal Gulliver wrote a detailed—and critical—account of the strategy in practice. “It was a cynical strategy, this catering in subtle ways to the segregationist leanings of white Southern voters,’’ Murphy and Gulliver wrote, “yet pretending with high rhetoric that the real aim was simply to treat the South fairly, to let it become part of the nation again.”​

​

White voters got the message. Along the New Orleans motorcade route, a Nixon supporter held up a hand-lettered sign that read, “I am for Nixon . . . Less Federal Control. Equal Treatment for the South.”​

So, while the Democrats were pandering to the newly enfranchised black voters, the Republicans were pandering to the southern white voters unhappy with desegregation and other Civil Rights legislation that they felt "disempowered" them.

That's the history, in part. No one has clean hands in regards to race.

But what about now? Well...the Southern Strategy is still going on. The Democrats are playing to the regions black population and it's more liberal urban white population. The Republicans are pivoting harder towards a more substantial rural and suburban white population, conflating the Confederacy, its monuments and it's flag, with honor and patriotism and an attack on our culture, while making an appeal to authoritarian law and order in the wake of racial unrest and social upheaval. Today's Southern Strategy still capitalizes on the same fears of disenfranchisement but adds some new (and, newly revived old) enemies: immigrants, Mexicans, communists, Marxists.

It has little to do with racism...and a lot to do with party control.

And yes...the Republican Party is still at it. As are the Democrats.

Democrats are the party of slavery, segregation, the KKK, Jim Crow, cross burnings, overlords capturing runaway blacks and you always have been.

Your leader Joe you ain't black Biden is flagrantly racist and even says that blacks are the same.

Try deflecting all you want, but the shit sticks to your side where it belongs

yayaya - thread after thread after thread - Dem's are the party of racism, Biden is a racist - it's a mad scramble with a desperate air to redefine you and yours.

I don't think either party is "the party of racism" - you are assuming the party is unchanged from 150 years ago. That's not just stupid, it's moronic. Neither party is the same as it was them OR as it was during segregation.

If ALL you have to base this on is old party history, then that is pretty pathetic don't you think?

I think it's easy to see that parties are about strategizing GET MORE VOTES first and foremost.

Coyote: How DARE you keep responding to Democrats bringing up racism over and over and over, kaz!!!!!!

Yeah. Rejected as the bull crap that it is.

There is nothing more destructive to this country than Democrats and your well worn race card, which is all your OP is. Race relations were BETTER in the naughts. Since then, Democrats have done nothing but exploit it. It's tearing the country apart. It's so destructive to the black community. But on and on you go. You're a racist, you're a racist, you're a racist.

All's fair in love, war and the Democrat's quest for free government cheese.

And yet you write yet another tired "you're a racist" OP and whine you get a RESPONSE? Pa-lease

Clearly you didn't bother to read it did you? Just a knee jerk response. Care to show how the history of the Southern Strategy is wrong?

I have news for you Coyote, 90% of the responses to your OP have been knee jerk responses.

She couched it in a lot of BS and pretended that it's not just Republicans, but in the end, the Southern Strategy is targeting whites by saying the black boogie man is out to get you. It was a weak attempt to play the race card while pretending to not play it.

Since when is history BS? The point is - both parties have dabbled in racist policy to gain votes, but you guys insist it's ONLY the Dems, ignoring your own party's part.

I live here, and see no evidence the racists went to the Republicans. Southern racists want the old ways back and the old ways were Democrats. The racists I see were born a Democrat, their daddy was born a Democrat, their grand pappy. And they'll die a Democrat. They aren't flipping sides over fiscal policy, they just aren't.

Southern (and let's be real, not just southern, but people across the country) want their old ways back. They want the white caste to once again be recognized as dominant and superior and integral to the definition of what it means to be American. They identify as "white nationalists" and they make excuses that it's not the same as "white supremacists because there is nothing wrong with "nationalism" (it's just rebranding though). These people are not going to the Democrats. They are not going to dis a Democrat. In fact, they find the Democrats revolting.

They are people who look to the Republican Party for cultural conservatism and an affirmation of white identity.

Bringing up the southern strategy in the middle of yet another election where the Democrats are flinging the race card everywhere and pretending it's just a non-partisan analysis of it is completely shallow

No more shallow than the Mississippi plan, and the southern strategy well known political strategy. I'm not pretending I am "non-partisan" - but I'm realistic enough to recognize that your hands are as dirty as the Democrats historically, and that neither party as a whole is racist in the way they once were. When you have to go back a century to make your claims it's pretty damn shallow.