The Southern Strategy: then....and now

[JimBowie1958]

Indeed, in his 1968 campaign and afterward, Nixon used coded language, political symbolism and court interventions as signals to southern white voters.

The Southern Strategy was not a reversal of racism, that would have lost the majority of the Repoublican party leadership who almost unanimously supported Civil Rights for blacks.

The Southern Strategy was one of Morality where Nixon campaigned on moral issues and changes in our Christian culture to a secular culture.

All the Democrats that supported segregation in the 1950s and signed the Southern Manifesto remained Democrats till the day they died except for Strom Thurmon.

The are no codes, or dog whistles either.

Liberals are simply conflating a cultural strategy with racism.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The only race baiting strategy in this election is yet again being conducted by the Democrat party

As is the case every election year.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The democrat party was created by former Confederate Army officers.......they were democrats....the Republicans fought against the Confederacy and the democrats who supported the Confederacy.....

No, it was created by Andrew Jackson in response to the Whigs winning again in 1820.

 

[Correll]

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.

1. that a small group of fringe ws was able to co-opt another issue and get a good sized rally together, does not mean anything about trump.

2. ws are not integrating their vision of american into the mainstream. that was empty rhetoric, and nothing but race baiting flaming.


3. there are a lot of "angry white males" who feel "racially and economically disenfranchised" because they are. very few of them are ws. that you conflate any white male who is pissed off at being pissed on by people like you, as ws, is you rubbing salt in the wounds of your enemies. it is a problem about you, not them/us.

4. all you are doing, is calling people names.

Correll, I don’t think it is me calling people names. Have ever taken an honest look at your own statements? I have tried to avoid name calling.

when your entire point boils down to, "racist" and your strongest evidence is "coded language", you are just calling people a name, and one of the most poisonous slurs in our current culture.

1. My first thought is this. Would you apply that same standard to the violent faction of protesters that your side claims represents the Democrats?

sure. you show me a small faction of lefties, that have constantly and consistently been denounced and marginalized by the dems.libs that manages to dishonestly co-opt an event to gin up some numbers, and i will dismiss that just like i am charlottesville. hint :antifa will not fly. elected mayors of major cities are ordering cops to stand down to let the mobs rule the streets.

My second is more along the line of mainstreaming the far right, as in the white nationalist movement. First...They ARE attempting to rebrand..gone is the skinhead tattooed with swastikas..enter the suit and tie.

Gone is white “supremacy” replaced with the word “nationalism”.

How fringe are they? Not so fringe that well known rightwing pundit Michelle Malkin doesn’t embrace them.

a. big difference between them rebranding, and them "trying" to rebrand.

b. distinct differences between ws and wn.

c. sorry, if you want to say a mainstream conservative supports them, don't show me some left wing site that says a she supports them, show me her saying she supports them.

2. Integrating their vision of America.....

White supremacists in both the U.S. and Europe believe that they are under siege, and that changing demographics and increased immigration are destroying white European culture. They assert that whites will soon be minorities in traditionally white nations and immediate action is needed to stop these ethnic and cultural changes. And these anxieties are expressed and amplified by mainstream politicians and pundits who also believe that Europe and the U.S. are being overrun by immigrants, particularly Latinos and Muslims, who refuse to assimilate into “Western” culture and are “destroying” the culture and cohesiveness of the countries.​

Sound familiar?

yes, i've heard that all before. often from gloating white liberals. you seem to be suggesting that any discussion of demographic shift by whites, (other than gloating liberals) means that they are ws, or at least...something. you are not clear on what.

that there is a real issue, that seems to align with ws concerns, is a real problem. but it does not undermine the right or validity of non ws whites to discuss or even try to advance their interests in that context.

3. People like me? Who is name calling? No, I am not saying all those people are white supremacists. But most of their grievances, I suspect, have little to do with the targets they focus their anger on. REAL grievances...like job loss, globalization, automation, being left out of the economic recovery...those don’t have a face attached. The language of white Supremacy speaks to that anger and sense of injustice.

no one, except the fringe is using the language of ws. if you want to have a nuanced discussion of whether job loss is about globalization or illegal aliens,

the first thing you need to do is drop the racism and ws crap. because the moment you go there, YOU, throw nuance out the window. suddenly the debate becomes nothing but "you are racist/no i'm not".

4. What names have I called you?

the entire southern strategy conspiracy theory is nothing but calling republicans racist.

 

[2aguy]

The democrat party was created by former Confederate Army officers.......they were democrats....the Republicans fought against the Confederacy and the democrats who supported the Confederacy.....

No, it was created by Andrew Jackson in response to the Whigs winning again in 1820.

I meant the ku klux klan was created by former Confederate officers...

 

[Correll]

The democrat party was created by former Confederate Army officers.......they were democrats....the Republicans fought against the Confederacy and the democrats who supported the Confederacy.....

No, it was created by Andrew Jackson in response to the Whigs winning again in 1820.

I meant the ku klux klan was created by former Confederate officers...

a complete understandable slip. i forgive you.

 

[kaz]

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

Your argument is that Democrats are pandering to blacks, but Republicans are evoking the Confederacy and racist undertones to get rural (read racist) whites. Those are not the same, not at all. I've lived in three true Southern States now (and I'm not even counting Virginia). No Republican campaign has played on those themes.

If Democrats all over the board and the country were not pounding you're a racist, you're a racist, you're a racist, then you could coyly say you're somehow just raising a discussion. But we're in the middle of an election and attacking Republicans as racists yet again? Don't play dumb, you know what you're doing. And the weak attempt to claim you're being balanced by calling pandering to blacks the same as appealing to white racist rednecks like those evil Republicans do? Lame. It's just a dog whistle to the race baiting left to keep it up.

Clearly if you read this board or any message board, the you're a racist crap raises the most anger, bitterness and divisive rhetoric. And obviously it would, it's the most divisive thing the left can do, and they do it in abundance. The you're a racist crap is destroying discourse in this country. As a mod on a message board, the last think you should be doing is stoking the but you're a racist flames. Since it comes from the left, there is no other solution than that it ends there

 

[kaz]

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

Seriously? Where is you aint black Joe's racism? You can't be serious.

Then there's how Obama cleans up nicely.

Then there's how blacks are uniform and monolithic, not like Hispanics.

You're just feigning dumb

 

[kaz]

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.

Biden's not racist in the sense that he hates blacks or is afraid of them. But he certainly has a bigoted view of them. He's way too consistent to say it's a slip at this point. Saying you ain't black and blacks are monolithic is a clear pattern. Then there's that Obama cleans up nicely for a black. But no, he doesn't hate them. But prejudice is more than just hating someone

 

[kaz]

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.

Huh, the Democrat thinks that Democrats aren't racist but Republicans are.

As a brainless Democrat leftist, you must have had to dig deep to reach that level of honesty

 

[kaz]

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.

Two issues:

1) I'm talking today, you're talking history. You came out with this you're a racist justification in the middle of an election where Democrats are continually pounding you're a racist as a campaign slogan. Just stop playing dumb that you don't somehow get the implication of that dog whistle. You could make the case it's a discussion after the election, but with the Democrats flooding every airwave and message board with your'e a racist, you can't

2) Historically your argument is circular. Democrats are the party of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, the KKK. How would Republicans even make the case in the south that they are the party that racists should go to? It doesn't make sense. Democrats have a stranglehold on Southern racism.

I wasn't here in the past, so I can't speak to it. But I've been here for 20 years (and longer in Virginia). But Republicans are appealing to SPENDING. Out of control government growth. You're arguing the appeal is racism. And yet their advertisements and campaigns appeal to fiscal conservatives? Just a circular argument. And I've seen no connection to fiscal conservatism from the racists I've seen here

 

[j-mac]

An excellent review, and should be a must read especially by the OP before they try and further the lie that the Republican party is the party of racists....

The Myth of the Racist Republicans - Claremont Review of Books

claremontreviewofbooks.com

...is that like the lie you promote that Democrats founded the KKK?

You should really stop relying on your inadequate public school education...

" Its members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and Black Republican leaders. Though Congress passed legislation designed to curb Klan terrorism, the organization saw its primary goal–the reestablishment of white supremacy–fulfilled through Democratic victories in state legislatures across the South in the 1870s."

Ku Klux Klan: Origin, Members & Facts | HISTORY

The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is an American white supremacist terrorist hate group founded in 1865. It became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for Black Americans.

www.history.com

" In 1858, Forrest was elected a Memphis city alderman as a Democrat and served two consecutive terms."

Nathan Bedford Forrest - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

 

[kaz]

An excellent review, and should be a must read especially by the OP before they try and further the lie that the Republican party is the party of racists....

The Myth of the Racist Republicans - Claremont Review of Books

claremontreviewofbooks.com

...is that like the lie you promote that Democrats founded the KKK?

You should really stop relying on your inadequate public school education...

" Its members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and Black Republican leaders. Though Congress passed legislation designed to curb Klan terrorism, the organization saw its primary goal–the reestablishment of white supremacy–fulfilled through Democratic victories in state legislatures across the South in the 1870s."

Ku Klux Klan: Origin, Members & Facts | HISTORY

The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is an American white supremacist terrorist hate group founded in 1865. It became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for Black Americans.

www.history.com

" In 1858, Forrest was elected a Memphis city alderman as a Democrat and served two consecutive terms."

Nathan Bedford Forrest - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

Certainly Republicans went after the South. The South was more conservative and they were voting for 60s radical Marxists. To have a future, the Republicans had to go into the South.

It's the racism part that doesn't hold water. Republicans went after the South with religion, gun rights and fiscal conservatism.

Democrats held all the cards with racists. The KKK, Jim Crow, slavery and segregation were all Democrats.

It defies logic that racism was their strategy when the Democrats owned that, while Republicans owned the issues that mattered to Southerners.

It is coyote's government education by leftists indoctrinating her in Democrat politics that makes her see racism everywhere. Everywhere but where it actually exists, in the Democrat party.

One refreshing thing about Joe and his dementia is he's finally revealing Democrat racist attitudes about blacks. They are all the same. If they don't vote Democrat they aren't black. But they clean up nicely. He's lost the ability to lie about his attitudes, and it's turning out to be exactly what we always knew leftists were

 

[Coyote]

Indeed, in his 1968 campaign and afterward, Nixon used coded language, political symbolism and court interventions as signals to southern white voters.

The Southern Strategy was not a reversal of racism, that would have lost the majority of the Repoublican party leadership who almost unanimously supported Civil Rights for blacks.

The Republican Party was a lot smaller, and greatly outnumbered by the Democrats in both houses. They could not pass Civil Rights without substantial support by Democrats. At the same time, the Democrats were split, generally, on a north/south axis by Civil Rights. And the southern Democrats were a substantial block. I think it is pretty obvious that when it comes to political parties, political power outweighs principles, and that applies to both parties.

The Southern Strategy was one of Morality where Nixon campaigned on moral issues and changes in our Christian culture to a secular culture.

A “morality” that included the message that women and African Americans had a place, and that was below white males.

In her 1949 book, Killers of the Dream, Southern writer and activist Lillian Smith described a “grand bargain” that, as Maxwell and Shields explain, sustained “white supremacy, buttressed by paternalism and evangelicalism, whereby the Southern white masses relinquished political power to the few in exchange for maintaining their social status as better than the black man.” ​

​

It was this grand bargain that Republicans would exploit to gain power in a South that had been the exclusive purview of the Democrats since Reconstruction. “When that power was threatened by the civil rights revolutions,” Maxwell and Shields say, Southern politicians “struck another grand bargain—this time with the Grand Old Party—the terms of which have yet to expire.”​

“I think we just gave the Republicans the South”
- President Lyndon Johnson after signing the 1964 Civli Rights Act.

In 1964, upon the nomination of Goldwater as the Republican candidate, Martin Luther King expressed his unease:

“The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism...On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represents a philosophy that is morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulates a philosophy which gives 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 have 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 does not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.”​

From a journalist following the Goldwater campaign in a 1964 article.

These were not really political rallies—they were revels, they were pageants, they were celebrations. The aim of the revellers was not so much to advance a candidacy or a cause as to dramatize a mood, and the mood was a kind of joyful defiance, or defiant joy. By coming South, Barry Goldwater had made it possible for great numbers of unapologetic white supremacists to hold great carnivals of white supremacy. They were not troubled in the least over whether this would hurt the Republican Party in the rest of the country. They wanted to make—for their own satisfaction, if for no one else’s—a display of the fact that they had found and were enjoying membership in one organization that was secure against integration, because it had made itself secure against Negro aspirations; as long as they could put on shows of this kind, no Negro would ever want in. By far the most memorable of the shows was staged in Cramton Bowl, in Montgomery, Alabama, on the second night of Goldwater’s tour. Some unsung Alabama Republican impresario had hit upon an idea of breathtaking simplicity: to show the country the “lily-white” character of Republicanism in Dixie by planting the bowl with a great field of white lilies—living lilies, in perfect bloom and gorgeously arrayed. The night was soft; the stars and the moon were bright; the grass in the bowl was impossibly green, as if it were growing out of something far richer than dirt; the stadium lights did not destroy the colors and shadows of evening yet illuminated the turf so well that individual blades of grass could be seen. And springing from the turf were seven hundred Alabama girls in long white gowns, all of a whiteness as impossible as the greenness of the green.

Goldwater, who’s vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, appealed to southern voters. He and subsequent Republicans, campaigned on themes of strict state rights, that states should be allowed to control their own laws without federal intervention (such as those that allowed Jim Crowe to flourish). Poll taxes and literacy tests for voting were still legal in many states as were discriminatory practices like red lining. Anti-miscegenation laws were not struck down until 1967. You can see how a Republican Goldwater presidency would be a boon for the race conscious South angered at Civil Rights. He also campaigned on social conservatism and religious values which appealed to the white Protestant values of southerners at the time. The southern voters at the time were quite reactionary in their opposition to liberal social issues such as Civil Rights and Equal Rights, so much so that the liberal northern wing of the Democrat party were never able to act effectively against lynchings and other atrocities. The South was a substantial and coveted voting block. Goldwater’s positions also alienated the more moderate wing of the Republican Party, but it marks the beginning of the end of Democrat control over the South.

Goldwater only won 6 states, but 5 were five deep southern states, a Republican victory not seen in over a century.

This marks the beginning of the Republican’s Southern strategy, before Nixon.

All the Democrats that supported segregation in the 1950s and signed the Southern Manifesto remained Democrats till the day they died except for Strom Thurmon.

The are no codes, or dog whistles either.

Liberals are simply conflating a cultural strategy with racism.

Racism was embedded in that cultural strategy. It took a long time for shift, First with the South increasingly voting Republican for president, then representatives, Congress, governors and state houses.

 

[2aguy]

Indeed, in his 1968 campaign and afterward, Nixon used coded language, political symbolism and court interventions as signals to southern white voters.

The Southern Strategy was not a reversal of racism, that would have lost the majority of the Repoublican party leadership who almost unanimously supported Civil Rights for blacks.

The Republican Party was a lot smaller, and greatly outnumbered by the Democrats in both houses. They could not pass Civil Rights without substantial support by Democrats. At the same time, the Democrats were split, generally, on a north/south axis by Civil Rights. And the southern Democrats were a substantial block. I think it is pretty obvious that when it comes to political parties, political power outweighs principles, and that applies to both parties.

The Southern Strategy was one of Morality where Nixon campaigned on moral issues and changes in our Christian culture to a secular culture.

A “morality” that included the message that women and African Americans had a place, and that was below white males.

In her 1949 book, Killers of the Dream, Southern writer and activist Lillian Smith described a “grand bargain” that, as Maxwell and Shields explain, sustained “white supremacy, buttressed by paternalism and evangelicalism, whereby the Southern white masses relinquished political power to the few in exchange for maintaining their social status as better than the black man.” ​

​

It was this grand bargain that Republicans would exploit to gain power in a South that had been the exclusive purview of the Democrats since Reconstruction. “When that power was threatened by the civil rights revolutions,” Maxwell and Shields say, Southern politicians “struck another grand bargain—this time with the Grand Old Party—the terms of which have yet to expire.”​

“I think we just gave the Republicans the South”
- President Lyndon Johnson after signing the 1964 Civli Rights Act.

In 1964, upon the nomination of Goldwater as the Republican candidate, Martin Luther King expressed his unease:

“The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism...On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represents a philosophy that is morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulates a philosophy which gives 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 have 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 does not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.”​

From a journalist following the Goldwater campaign in a 1964 article.

These were not really political rallies—they were revels, they were pageants, they were celebrations. The aim of the revellers was not so much to advance a candidacy or a cause as to dramatize a mood, and the mood was a kind of joyful defiance, or defiant joy. By coming South, Barry Goldwater had made it possible for great numbers of unapologetic white supremacists to hold great carnivals of white supremacy. They were not troubled in the least over whether this would hurt the Republican Party in the rest of the country. They wanted to make—for their own satisfaction, if for no one else’s—a display of the fact that they had found and were enjoying membership in one organization that was secure against integration, because it had made itself secure against Negro aspirations; as long as they could put on shows of this kind, no Negro would ever want in. By far the most memorable of the shows was staged in Cramton Bowl, in Montgomery, Alabama, on the second night of Goldwater’s tour. Some unsung Alabama Republican impresario had hit upon an idea of breathtaking simplicity: to show the country the “lily-white” character of Republicanism in Dixie by planting the bowl with a great field of white lilies—living lilies, in perfect bloom and gorgeously arrayed. The night was soft; the stars and the moon were bright; the grass in the bowl was impossibly green, as if it were growing out of something far richer than dirt; the stadium lights did not destroy the colors and shadows of evening yet illuminated the turf so well that individual blades of grass could be seen. And springing from the turf were seven hundred Alabama girls in long white gowns, all of a whiteness as impossible as the greenness of the green.

Goldwater, who’s vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, appealed to southern voters. He and subsequent Republicans, campaigned on themes of strict state rights, that states should be allowed to control their own laws without federal intervention (such as those that allowed Jim Crowe to flourish). Poll taxes and literacy tests for voting were still legal in many states as were discriminatory practices like red lining. Anti-miscegenation laws were not struck down until 1967. You can see how a Republican Goldwater presidency would be a boon for the race conscious South angered at Civil Rights. He also campaigned on social conservatism and religious values which appealed to the white Protestant values of southerners at the time. The southern voters at the time were quite reactionary in their opposition to liberal social issues such as Civil Rights and Equal Rights, so much so that the liberal northern wing of the Democrat party were never able to act effectively against lynchings and other atrocities. The South was a substantial and coveted voting block. Goldwater’s positions also alienated the more moderate wing of the Republican Party, but it marks the beginning of the end of Democrat control over the South.

Goldwater only won 6 states, but 5 were five deep southern states, a Republican victory not seen in over a century.

This marks the beginning of the Republican’s Southern strategy, before Nixon.

All the Democrats that supported segregation in the 1950s and signed the Southern Manifesto remained Democrats till the day they died except for Strom Thurmon.

The are no codes, or dog whistles either.

Liberals are simply conflating a cultural strategy with racism.

Racism was embedded in that cultural strategy. It took a long time for shift, First with the South increasingly voting Republican for president, then representatives, Congress, governors and state houses.

You can't lie anymore......the posts that expose the lie are here in the thread...

As to Martin Luther King Jr.?.....he sold out his people to the racist, Lyndon Baines Johnson, and betrayed the actual Civil Rights hero Barry Goldwater.......and for that, blacks have been paying with the lives of their children, trapped in democrat party controlled cities...

Here.......this is the man Martin Luther King supported....

LBJ'S Democratic Plantation - American Greatness
Here is a man who, according to a memo filed by FBI agent William Branigan, seems to have been in the Ku Klux Klan. This memo was only revealed in recent months, with the release of the JFK Files.
Lyndon Johnson opposed every civil rights proposal considered in his first 20 years as lawmaker

"He had been a congressman, beginning in 1937, for eleven years, and for eleven years he had voted against every civil rights bill –

against not only legislation aimed at ending the poll tax and segregation in the armed services but even against legislation aimed at ending lynching: a one hundred percent record," Caro wrote.


"Running for the Senate in 1948, he had assailed President" Harry "Truman’s entire civil rights program (‘an effort to set up a police state’)…Until 1957, in the Senate, as in the House, his record – by that time a twenty-year record – against civil rights had been consistent," Caro wrote.

=========

The Party of Civil Rights | National Review

The Party of Civil Rights

The depth of Johnson’s prior opposition to civil-rights reform must be digested in some detail to be properly appreciated.

In the House, he did not represent a particularly segregationist constituency (it “made up for being less intensely segregationist than the rest of the South by being more intensely anti-Communist,” as the New York Times put it), but Johnson was practically antebellum in his views.

Never mind civil rights or voting rights: In Congress, Johnson had consistently and repeatedly voted against legislation to protect black Americans from lynching.


As a leader in the Senate, Johnson did his best to cripple the Civil Rights Act of 1957; not having votes sufficient to stop it, he managed to reduce it to an act of mere symbolism by excising the enforcement provisions before sending it to the desk of President Eisenhower.


Johnson’s Democratic colleague Strom Thurmond nonetheless went to the trouble of staging the longest filibuster in history up to that point, speaking for 24 hours in a futile attempt to block the bill. The reformers came back in 1960 with an act to remedy the deficiencies of the 1957 act, and Johnson’s Senate Democrats again staged a record-setting filibuster.

In both cases, the “master of the Senate” petitioned the northeastern Kennedy liberals to credit him for having seen to the law’s passage while at the same time boasting to southern Democrats that he had taken the teeth out of the legislation.



Johnson would later explain his thinking thus: “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days, and that’s a problem for us, since they’ve got something now they never had before: the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this — we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

Read more at: The Party of Civil Rights
=============

This is the man Martin Luther King betrayed....you can't lie about this anymore........


Goldwater.....

Barry M. Goldwater: The Most Consequential Loser in American Politics


Goldwater treated all people the same. As a private citizen, he flew mercy missions to Navaho reservations, never asking for recognition or accepting payment. He felt that “the red man seemed as much—if not more—a part of Arizona and America as any white or black person.”[20] Moreover, a few weeks after Goldwater was discharged from the Army in November 1945, Democratic Arizona Governor Sidney Preston Osborn asked him to organize the Arizona Air National Guard. One of Goldwater’s first recommendations, soon approved, was to desegregate the unit. Goldwater’s integration of the state’s Air National Guard took place more than two years before President Harry Truman integrated the U.S. armed forces.

Goldwater was an early member of the Arizona chapters of both the NAACP and the National Urban League, even making up the latter’s operating deficit when it was getting started. Later as a Senator, he desegregated the Senate cafeteria in 1953, demanding that his black legislative assistant, Kathrine Maxwell, be served along with every other Senate employee after learning she had been denied service.

In the mid-1970s, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, investigating improper operations of the intelligence community in the United States, proposed that transcripts of the FBI tapes about Martin Luther King Jr.’s alleged indiscretions be published. An outraged Goldwater declared he would not be a party to destroying King’s reputation and strode out of the committee room. A fellow Senator recalled that Goldwater’s protest “injected some common sense into the proceedings,” and the electronic surveillance transcripts were not released.[21]

That his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on constitutional grounds and not political considerations was underscored in the final week of the fall campaign.

Speaking in Columbia, South Carolina, Goldwater condemned segregation and declared that government must treat “all men as equal in the arena of law and civil order.”[22] He pledged if elected President to implement all provisions of the act. His forthright pro-civil rights speech was televised on 87 stations throughout the South.

---

NPR Wrong on Goldwater '64, Civil Rights, Say 4 Who Were There

As for the Republican nominee's position on the Civil Rights Act, Goldwater had said he would vote for passage if Section II on public accommodations and Section VII on equal employment opportunity were removed. With his view reinforced by a detailed memorandum from Phoenix lawyer and future Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Goldwater felt these sections were unconstitutional, were unenforceable without a federal police force, and would lead to the creation of racial quotas and affirmative action.

"He was absolutely right about [the two sections of the Civil Rights Act] and they did lead to precisely what Goldwater and most conservatives were afraid of," said Tom Winter, then executive editor of Human Events, who would join Ryskind as its co-owner a year later. As for the "extremism in the defense of liberty" speech, Winter recalled watching it from a San Francisco restaurant "and cheering it because it was clearly about freedom and fighting communism. I certainly didn't think it had anything to do with race."

Urban Legend: Goldwater Against Civil Rights

More specifically, Goldwater had problems with title II and title VII of the 1964 bill. He felt that constitutionally the federal government had no legal right to interfere in who people hired, fired; or to whom they sold their products, goods and services. He felt that “power” laid in the various states, and with the people. He was a strong advocate of the tenth amendment. Goldwater’s constitutional stance did not mean he agreed with the segregation and racial discrimination practiced in the South. To the contrary, he fought against these kinds of racial divides in his own state of Arizona. He supported the integration of the Arizona National guard and Phoenix public schools.[4] Goldwater was, also, a member of the NAACP and the Urban League.[5]
His personal feelings about discrimination are enshrined in the congressional record where he states, “I am unalterably opposed to discrimination or segregation on the basis of race, color, or creed or on any other basis; not only my words, but more importantly my actions through years have repeatedly demonstrated the sincerity of my feeling in this regard…”[6]. And, he would continued to holdfast to his strongly felt convictions that constitutionally the federal government was limited in what it could do, believing that the amoral actions of those perpetuating discrimination and segregation would have to be judged by those in that community. Eventually, the states government and local communities would come to pressure people to change their minds. Goldwater’s view was that the civil disobedience by private citizens against those business establishments was more preferable than intervention by the feds. He, optimistically, believed that racial intolerance would soon buckle under the economic and societal pressure.

 

[Coyote]

4. What names have I called you?

the entire southern strategy conspiracy theory is nothing but calling republicans racist.

You talk about nuance as if you practice it. Your posts have been anything but. Broadbrushing the entire left.

For example, this statement. The Dems are certainly guilty of racist policies in the past, but you, and your cohort of Republicans are busy trying to erase your own party’s problematic history by calling the Southern Strategy (a long recognized and documented bit of history) a myth. In fact, while you are up in arms about the left toppling confederate statues you are busy rewriting your own history: what was right is now left, what history is now a hoax. It is a bit unreal.

And again, your lack of nuance. When the Republican Party adopted the strategy, they took on the racist mantle that tbe Democrats abandoned when Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights. You insist tbe Democrats need to acknowledge their past...but give a free pass here for Republicans?

Where the nuance problem comes in is here. ”You are calling Republicans racist”. No. First, Republicans are INDIVIDUALS. Second, like the Democrats, the Republican Party was split on this issue. And third, it was increasing political power as much if not more than the personal beliefs of politicians.

 

[2aguy]

4. What names have I called you?

the entire southern strategy conspiracy theory is nothing but calling republicans racist.

You talk about nuance as if you practice it. Your posts have been anything but. Broadbrushing the entire left.

For example, this statement. The Dems are certainly guilty of racist policies in the past, but you, and your cohort of Republicans are busy trying to erase your own party’s problematic history by calling the Southern Strategy (a long recognized and documented bit of history) a myth. In fact, while you are up in arms about the left toppling confederate statues you are busy rewriting your own history: what was right is now left, what history is now a hoax. It is a bit unreal.

And again, your lack of nuance. When the Republican Party adopted the strategy, they took on the racist mantle that tbe Democrats abandoned when Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights. You insist tbe Democrats need to acknowledge their past...but give a free pass here for Republicans?

Where the nuance problem comes in is here. ”You are calling Republicans racist”. No. First, Republicans are INDIVIDUALS. Second, like the Democrats, the Republican Party was split on this issue. And third, it was increasing political power as much if not more than the personal beliefs of politicians.

You are pushing the lie....and you have been exposed pushing the lie..........you can't lie without being called out on the lie....the parties did not switch, the democrat party simply accepted racists of all skin colors into their party......

 

[whitehall]

Why is racism confined to the South after the Civil War has been over for almost a hundred and fifty years? Why does the cliche persist when racial unrest seems to have been a problem for the North for the last half century?

 

[Coyote]

Indeed, in his 1968 campaign and afterward, Nixon used coded language, political symbolism and court interventions as signals to southern white voters.

The Southern Strategy was not a reversal of racism, that would have lost the majority of the Repoublican party leadership who almost unanimously supported Civil Rights for blacks.

The Republican Party was a lot smaller, and greatly outnumbered by the Democrats in both houses. They could not pass Civil Rights without substantial support by Democrats. At the same time, the Democrats were split, generally, on a north/south axis by Civil Rights. And the southern Democrats were a substantial block. I think it is pretty obvious that when it comes to political parties, political power outweighs principles, and that applies to both parties.

The Southern Strategy was one of Morality where Nixon campaigned on moral issues and changes in our Christian culture to a secular culture.

A “morality” that included the message that women and African Americans had a place, and that was below white males.

In her 1949 book, Killers of the Dream, Southern writer and activist Lillian Smith described a “grand bargain” that, as Maxwell and Shields explain, sustained “white supremacy, buttressed by paternalism and evangelicalism, whereby the Southern white masses relinquished political power to the few in exchange for maintaining their social status as better than the black man.” ​

​

It was this grand bargain that Republicans would exploit to gain power in a South that had been the exclusive purview of the Democrats since Reconstruction. “When that power was threatened by the civil rights revolutions,” Maxwell and Shields say, Southern politicians “struck another grand bargain—this time with the Grand Old Party—the terms of which have yet to expire.”​

“I think we just gave the Republicans the South”
- President Lyndon Johnson after signing the 1964 Civli Rights Act.

In 1964, upon the nomination of Goldwater as the Republican candidate, Martin Luther King expressed his unease:

“The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism...On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represents a philosophy that is morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulates a philosophy which gives 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 have 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 does not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.”​

From a journalist following the Goldwater campaign in a 1964 article.

These were not really political rallies—they were revels, they were pageants, they were celebrations. The aim of the revellers was not so much to advance a candidacy or a cause as to dramatize a mood, and the mood was a kind of joyful defiance, or defiant joy. By coming South, Barry Goldwater had made it possible for great numbers of unapologetic white supremacists to hold great carnivals of white supremacy. They were not troubled in the least over whether this would hurt the Republican Party in the rest of the country. They wanted to make—for their own satisfaction, if for no one else’s—a display of the fact that they had found and were enjoying membership in one organization that was secure against integration, because it had made itself secure against Negro aspirations; as long as they could put on shows of this kind, no Negro would ever want in. By far the most memorable of the shows was staged in Cramton Bowl, in Montgomery, Alabama, on the second night of Goldwater’s tour. Some unsung Alabama Republican impresario had hit upon an idea of breathtaking simplicity: to show the country the “lily-white” character of Republicanism in Dixie by planting the bowl with a great field of white lilies—living lilies, in perfect bloom and gorgeously arrayed. The night was soft; the stars and the moon were bright; the grass in the bowl was impossibly green, as if it were growing out of something far richer than dirt; the stadium lights did not destroy the colors and shadows of evening yet illuminated the turf so well that individual blades of grass could be seen. And springing from the turf were seven hundred Alabama girls in long white gowns, all of a whiteness as impossible as the greenness of the green.

Goldwater, who’s vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, appealed to southern voters. He and subsequent Republicans, campaigned on themes of strict state rights, that states should be allowed to control their own laws without federal intervention (such as those that allowed Jim Crowe to flourish). Poll taxes and literacy tests for voting were still legal in many states as were discriminatory practices like red lining. Anti-miscegenation laws were not struck down until 1967. You can see how a Republican Goldwater presidency would be a boon for the race conscious South angered at Civil Rights. He also campaigned on social conservatism and religious values which appealed to the white Protestant values of southerners at the time. The southern voters at the time were quite reactionary in their opposition to liberal social issues such as Civil Rights and Equal Rights, so much so that the liberal northern wing of the Democrat party were never able to act effectively against lynchings and other atrocities. The South was a substantial and coveted voting block. Goldwater’s positions also alienated the more moderate wing of the Republican Party, but it marks the beginning of the end of Democrat control over the South.

Goldwater only won 6 states, but 5 were five deep southern states, a Republican victory not seen in over a century.

This marks the beginning of the Republican’s Southern strategy, before Nixon.

All the Democrats that supported segregation in the 1950s and signed the Southern Manifesto remained Democrats till the day they died except for Strom Thurmon.

The are no codes, or dog whistles either.

Liberals are simply conflating a cultural strategy with racism.

Racism was embedded in that cultural strategy. It took a long time for shift, First with the South increasingly voting Republican for president, then representatives, Congress, governors and state houses.

You can't lie anymore......the posts that expose the lie are here in the thread...

As to Martin Luther King Jr.?.....he sold out his people to the racist, Lyndon Baines Johnson, and betrayed the actual Civil Rights hero Barry Goldwater.......and for that, blacks have been paying with the lives of their children, trapped in democrat party controlled cities...

Here.......this is the man Martin Luther King supported....

LBJ'S Democratic Plantation - American Greatness
Here is a man who, according to a memo filed by FBI agent William Branigan, seems to have been in the Ku Klux Klan. This memo was only revealed in recent months, with the release of the JFK Files.
Lyndon Johnson opposed every civil rights proposal considered in his first 20 years as lawmaker

"He had been a congressman, beginning in 1937, for eleven years, and for eleven years he had voted against every civil rights bill –

against not only legislation aimed at ending the poll tax and segregation in the armed services but even against legislation aimed at ending lynching: a one hundred percent record," Caro wrote.


"Running for the Senate in 1948, he had assailed President" Harry "Truman’s entire civil rights program (‘an effort to set up a police state’)…Until 1957, in the Senate, as in the House, his record – by that time a twenty-year record – against civil rights had been consistent," Caro wrote.

=========

The Party of Civil Rights | National Review

The Party of Civil Rights

The depth of Johnson’s prior opposition to civil-rights reform must be digested in some detail to be properly appreciated.

In the House, he did not represent a particularly segregationist constituency (it “made up for being less intensely segregationist than the rest of the South by being more intensely anti-Communist,” as the New York Times put it), but Johnson was practically antebellum in his views.

Never mind civil rights or voting rights: In Congress, Johnson had consistently and repeatedly voted against legislation to protect black Americans from lynching.


As a leader in the Senate, Johnson did his best to cripple the Civil Rights Act of 1957; not having votes sufficient to stop it, he managed to reduce it to an act of mere symbolism by excising the enforcement provisions before sending it to the desk of President Eisenhower.


Johnson’s Democratic colleague Strom Thurmond nonetheless went to the trouble of staging the longest filibuster in history up to that point, speaking for 24 hours in a futile attempt to block the bill. The reformers came back in 1960 with an act to remedy the deficiencies of the 1957 act, and Johnson’s Senate Democrats again staged a record-setting filibuster.

In both cases, the “master of the Senate” petitioned the northeastern Kennedy liberals to credit him for having seen to the law’s passage while at the same time boasting to southern Democrats that he had taken the teeth out of the legislation.



Johnson would later explain his thinking thus: “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days, and that’s a problem for us, since they’ve got something now they never had before: the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this — we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

Read more at: The Party of Civil Rights
=============

This is the man Martin Luther King betrayed....you can't lie about this anymore........


Goldwater.....

Barry M. Goldwater: The Most Consequential Loser in American Politics


Goldwater treated all people the same. As a private citizen, he flew mercy missions to Navaho reservations, never asking for recognition or accepting payment. He felt that “the red man seemed as much—if not more—a part of Arizona and America as any white or black person.”[20] Moreover, a few weeks after Goldwater was discharged from the Army in November 1945, Democratic Arizona Governor Sidney Preston Osborn asked him to organize the Arizona Air National Guard. One of Goldwater’s first recommendations, soon approved, was to desegregate the unit. Goldwater’s integration of the state’s Air National Guard took place more than two years before President Harry Truman integrated the U.S. armed forces.

Goldwater was an early member of the Arizona chapters of both the NAACP and the National Urban League, even making up the latter’s operating deficit when it was getting started. Later as a Senator, he desegregated the Senate cafeteria in 1953, demanding that his black legislative assistant, Kathrine Maxwell, be served along with every other Senate employee after learning she had been denied service.

In the mid-1970s, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, investigating improper operations of the intelligence community in the United States, proposed that transcripts of the FBI tapes about Martin Luther King Jr.’s alleged indiscretions be published. An outraged Goldwater declared he would not be a party to destroying King’s reputation and strode out of the committee room. A fellow Senator recalled that Goldwater’s protest “injected some common sense into the proceedings,” and the electronic surveillance transcripts were not released.[21]

That his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on constitutional grounds and not political considerations was underscored in the final week of the fall campaign.

Speaking in Columbia, South Carolina, Goldwater condemned segregation and declared that government must treat “all men as equal in the arena of law and civil order.”[22] He pledged if elected President to implement all provisions of the act. His forthright pro-civil rights speech was televised on 87 stations throughout the South.

---

NPR Wrong on Goldwater '64, Civil Rights, Say 4 Who Were There

As for the Republican nominee's position on the Civil Rights Act, Goldwater had said he would vote for passage if Section II on public accommodations and Section VII on equal employment opportunity were removed. With his view reinforced by a detailed memorandum from Phoenix lawyer and future Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Goldwater felt these sections were unconstitutional, were unenforceable without a federal police force, and would lead to the creation of racial quotas and affirmative action.

"He was absolutely right about [the two sections of the Civil Rights Act] and they did lead to precisely what Goldwater and most conservatives were afraid of," said Tom Winter, then executive editor of Human Events, who would join Ryskind as its co-owner a year later. As for the "extremism in the defense of liberty" speech, Winter recalled watching it from a San Francisco restaurant "and cheering it because it was clearly about freedom and fighting communism. I certainly didn't think it had anything to do with race."

Urban Legend: Goldwater Against Civil Rights

More specifically, Goldwater had problems with title II and title VII of the 1964 bill. He felt that constitutionally the federal government had no legal right to interfere in who people hired, fired; or to whom they sold their products, goods and services. He felt that “power” laid in the various states, and with the people. He was a strong advocate of the tenth amendment. Goldwater’s constitutional stance did not mean he agreed with the segregation and racial discrimination practiced in the South. To the contrary, he fought against these kinds of racial divides in his own state of Arizona. He supported the integration of the Arizona National guard and Phoenix public schools.[4] Goldwater was, also, a member of the NAACP and the Urban League.[5]
His personal feelings about discrimination are enshrined in the congressional record where he states, “I am unalterably opposed to discrimination or segregation on the basis of race, color, or creed or on any other basis; not only my words, but more importantly my actions through years have repeatedly demonstrated the sincerity of my feeling in this regard…”[6]. And, he would continued to holdfast to his strongly felt convictions that constitutionally the federal government was limited in what it could do, believing that the amoral actions of those perpetuating discrimination and segregation would have to be judged by those in that community. Eventually, the states government and local communities would come to pressure people to change their minds. Goldwater’s view was that the civil disobedience by private citizens against those business establishments was more preferable than intervention by the feds. He, optimistically, believed that racial intolerance would soon buckle under the economic and societal pressure.

As usual, you miss the points...or maybe you just like to lie.

1. Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That is an indisputable fact. The reasons don’t really matter.

2. No where am I saying Goldwater himself held racist views. This is about the politics of Increasing party power.

3. Believing things like Jim Crowe, segregation, and associated violence would “soon buckle” under social pressure is little consolation to those who’s lives were brutally affected by it.

4. Look how long it actually took to change, and how durable cultural opposition to it was.

 

[2aguy]

Indeed, in his 1968 campaign and afterward, Nixon used coded language, political symbolism and court interventions as signals to southern white voters.

The Southern Strategy was not a reversal of racism, that would have lost the majority of the Repoublican party leadership who almost unanimously supported Civil Rights for blacks.

The Republican Party was a lot smaller, and greatly outnumbered by the Democrats in both houses. They could not pass Civil Rights without substantial support by Democrats. At the same time, the Democrats were split, generally, on a north/south axis by Civil Rights. And the southern Democrats were a substantial block. I think it is pretty obvious that when it comes to political parties, political power outweighs principles, and that applies to both parties.

The Southern Strategy was one of Morality where Nixon campaigned on moral issues and changes in our Christian culture to a secular culture.

A “morality” that included the message that women and African Americans had a place, and that was below white males.

In her 1949 book, Killers of the Dream, Southern writer and activist Lillian Smith described a “grand bargain” that, as Maxwell and Shields explain, sustained “white supremacy, buttressed by paternalism and evangelicalism, whereby the Southern white masses relinquished political power to the few in exchange for maintaining their social status as better than the black man.” ​

​

It was this grand bargain that Republicans would exploit to gain power in a South that had been the exclusive purview of the Democrats since Reconstruction. “When that power was threatened by the civil rights revolutions,” Maxwell and Shields say, Southern politicians “struck another grand bargain—this time with the Grand Old Party—the terms of which have yet to expire.”​

“I think we just gave the Republicans the South”
- President Lyndon Johnson after signing the 1964 Civli Rights Act.

In 1964, upon the nomination of Goldwater as the Republican candidate, Martin Luther King expressed his unease:

“The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism...On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represents a philosophy that is morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulates a philosophy which gives 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 have 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 does not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.”​

From a journalist following the Goldwater campaign in a 1964 article.

These were not really political rallies—they were revels, they were pageants, they were celebrations. The aim of the revellers was not so much to advance a candidacy or a cause as to dramatize a mood, and the mood was a kind of joyful defiance, or defiant joy. By coming South, Barry Goldwater had made it possible for great numbers of unapologetic white supremacists to hold great carnivals of white supremacy. They were not troubled in the least over whether this would hurt the Republican Party in the rest of the country. They wanted to make—for their own satisfaction, if for no one else’s—a display of the fact that they had found and were enjoying membership in one organization that was secure against integration, because it had made itself secure against Negro aspirations; as long as they could put on shows of this kind, no Negro would ever want in. By far the most memorable of the shows was staged in Cramton Bowl, in Montgomery, Alabama, on the second night of Goldwater’s tour. Some unsung Alabama Republican impresario had hit upon an idea of breathtaking simplicity: to show the country the “lily-white” character of Republicanism in Dixie by planting the bowl with a great field of white lilies—living lilies, in perfect bloom and gorgeously arrayed. The night was soft; the stars and the moon were bright; the grass in the bowl was impossibly green, as if it were growing out of something far richer than dirt; the stadium lights did not destroy the colors and shadows of evening yet illuminated the turf so well that individual blades of grass could be seen. And springing from the turf were seven hundred Alabama girls in long white gowns, all of a whiteness as impossible as the greenness of the green.

Goldwater, who’s vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, appealed to southern voters. He and subsequent Republicans, campaigned on themes of strict state rights, that states should be allowed to control their own laws without federal intervention (such as those that allowed Jim Crowe to flourish). Poll taxes and literacy tests for voting were still legal in many states as were discriminatory practices like red lining. Anti-miscegenation laws were not struck down until 1967. You can see how a Republican Goldwater presidency would be a boon for the race conscious South angered at Civil Rights. He also campaigned on social conservatism and religious values which appealed to the white Protestant values of southerners at the time. The southern voters at the time were quite reactionary in their opposition to liberal social issues such as Civil Rights and Equal Rights, so much so that the liberal northern wing of the Democrat party were never able to act effectively against lynchings and other atrocities. The South was a substantial and coveted voting block. Goldwater’s positions also alienated the more moderate wing of the Republican Party, but it marks the beginning of the end of Democrat control over the South.

Goldwater only won 6 states, but 5 were five deep southern states, a Republican victory not seen in over a century.

This marks the beginning of the Republican’s Southern strategy, before Nixon.

All the Democrats that supported segregation in the 1950s and signed the Southern Manifesto remained Democrats till the day they died except for Strom Thurmon.

The are no codes, or dog whistles either.

Liberals are simply conflating a cultural strategy with racism.

Racism was embedded in that cultural strategy. It took a long time for shift, First with the South increasingly voting Republican for president, then representatives, Congress, governors and state houses.

You can't lie anymore......the posts that expose the lie are here in the thread...

As to Martin Luther King Jr.?.....he sold out his people to the racist, Lyndon Baines Johnson, and betrayed the actual Civil Rights hero Barry Goldwater.......and for that, blacks have been paying with the lives of their children, trapped in democrat party controlled cities...

Here.......this is the man Martin Luther King supported....

LBJ'S Democratic Plantation - American Greatness
Here is a man who, according to a memo filed by FBI agent William Branigan, seems to have been in the Ku Klux Klan. This memo was only revealed in recent months, with the release of the JFK Files.
Lyndon Johnson opposed every civil rights proposal considered in his first 20 years as lawmaker

"He had been a congressman, beginning in 1937, for eleven years, and for eleven years he had voted against every civil rights bill –

against not only legislation aimed at ending the poll tax and segregation in the armed services but even against legislation aimed at ending lynching: a one hundred percent record," Caro wrote.


"Running for the Senate in 1948, he had assailed President" Harry "Truman’s entire civil rights program (‘an effort to set up a police state’)…Until 1957, in the Senate, as in the House, his record – by that time a twenty-year record – against civil rights had been consistent," Caro wrote.

=========

The Party of Civil Rights | National Review

The Party of Civil Rights

The depth of Johnson’s prior opposition to civil-rights reform must be digested in some detail to be properly appreciated.

In the House, he did not represent a particularly segregationist constituency (it “made up for being less intensely segregationist than the rest of the South by being more intensely anti-Communist,” as the New York Times put it), but Johnson was practically antebellum in his views.

Never mind civil rights or voting rights: In Congress, Johnson had consistently and repeatedly voted against legislation to protect black Americans from lynching.


As a leader in the Senate, Johnson did his best to cripple the Civil Rights Act of 1957; not having votes sufficient to stop it, he managed to reduce it to an act of mere symbolism by excising the enforcement provisions before sending it to the desk of President Eisenhower.


Johnson’s Democratic colleague Strom Thurmond nonetheless went to the trouble of staging the longest filibuster in history up to that point, speaking for 24 hours in a futile attempt to block the bill. The reformers came back in 1960 with an act to remedy the deficiencies of the 1957 act, and Johnson’s Senate Democrats again staged a record-setting filibuster.

In both cases, the “master of the Senate” petitioned the northeastern Kennedy liberals to credit him for having seen to the law’s passage while at the same time boasting to southern Democrats that he had taken the teeth out of the legislation.



Johnson would later explain his thinking thus: “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days, and that’s a problem for us, since they’ve got something now they never had before: the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this — we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

Read more at: The Party of Civil Rights
=============

This is the man Martin Luther King betrayed....you can't lie about this anymore........


Goldwater.....

Barry M. Goldwater: The Most Consequential Loser in American Politics


Goldwater treated all people the same. As a private citizen, he flew mercy missions to Navaho reservations, never asking for recognition or accepting payment. He felt that “the red man seemed as much—if not more—a part of Arizona and America as any white or black person.”[20] Moreover, a few weeks after Goldwater was discharged from the Army in November 1945, Democratic Arizona Governor Sidney Preston Osborn asked him to organize the Arizona Air National Guard. One of Goldwater’s first recommendations, soon approved, was to desegregate the unit. Goldwater’s integration of the state’s Air National Guard took place more than two years before President Harry Truman integrated the U.S. armed forces.

Goldwater was an early member of the Arizona chapters of both the NAACP and the National Urban League, even making up the latter’s operating deficit when it was getting started. Later as a Senator, he desegregated the Senate cafeteria in 1953, demanding that his black legislative assistant, Kathrine Maxwell, be served along with every other Senate employee after learning she had been denied service.

In the mid-1970s, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, investigating improper operations of the intelligence community in the United States, proposed that transcripts of the FBI tapes about Martin Luther King Jr.’s alleged indiscretions be published. An outraged Goldwater declared he would not be a party to destroying King’s reputation and strode out of the committee room. A fellow Senator recalled that Goldwater’s protest “injected some common sense into the proceedings,” and the electronic surveillance transcripts were not released.[21]

That his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on constitutional grounds and not political considerations was underscored in the final week of the fall campaign.

Speaking in Columbia, South Carolina, Goldwater condemned segregation and declared that government must treat “all men as equal in the arena of law and civil order.”[22] He pledged if elected President to implement all provisions of the act. His forthright pro-civil rights speech was televised on 87 stations throughout the South.

---

NPR Wrong on Goldwater '64, Civil Rights, Say 4 Who Were There

As for the Republican nominee's position on the Civil Rights Act, Goldwater had said he would vote for passage if Section II on public accommodations and Section VII on equal employment opportunity were removed. With his view reinforced by a detailed memorandum from Phoenix lawyer and future Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Goldwater felt these sections were unconstitutional, were unenforceable without a federal police force, and would lead to the creation of racial quotas and affirmative action.

"He was absolutely right about [the two sections of the Civil Rights Act] and they did lead to precisely what Goldwater and most conservatives were afraid of," said Tom Winter, then executive editor of Human Events, who would join Ryskind as its co-owner a year later. As for the "extremism in the defense of liberty" speech, Winter recalled watching it from a San Francisco restaurant "and cheering it because it was clearly about freedom and fighting communism. I certainly didn't think it had anything to do with race."

Urban Legend: Goldwater Against Civil Rights

More specifically, Goldwater had problems with title II and title VII of the 1964 bill. He felt that constitutionally the federal government had no legal right to interfere in who people hired, fired; or to whom they sold their products, goods and services. He felt that “power” laid in the various states, and with the people. He was a strong advocate of the tenth amendment. Goldwater’s constitutional stance did not mean he agreed with the segregation and racial discrimination practiced in the South. To the contrary, he fought against these kinds of racial divides in his own state of Arizona. He supported the integration of the Arizona National guard and Phoenix public schools.[4] Goldwater was, also, a member of the NAACP and the Urban League.[5]
His personal feelings about discrimination are enshrined in the congressional record where he states, “I am unalterably opposed to discrimination or segregation on the basis of race, color, or creed or on any other basis; not only my words, but more importantly my actions through years have repeatedly demonstrated the sincerity of my feeling in this regard…”[6]. And, he would continued to holdfast to his strongly felt convictions that constitutionally the federal government was limited in what it could do, believing that the amoral actions of those perpetuating discrimination and segregation would have to be judged by those in that community. Eventually, the states government and local communities would come to pressure people to change their minds. Goldwater’s view was that the civil disobedience by private citizens against those business establishments was more preferable than intervention by the feds. He, optimistically, believed that racial intolerance would soon buckle under the economic and societal pressure.

As usual, you miss the points...or maybe you just like to lie.

1. Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That is an indisputable fact. The reasons don’t really matter.

2. No where am I saying Goldwater himself held racist views. This is about the politics of Increasing party power.

3. Believing things like Jim Crowe, segregation, and associated violence would “soon buckle” under social pressure is little consolation to those who’s lives were brutally affected by it.

4. Look how long it actually took to change, and how durable cultural opposition to it was.

The reasons do matter......and Martin Luther King Jr. voted for the racist who ended up implementing racist policies that have cost the lives of millions of black children....

He picked the racist over the Civil Rights hero........and he condemned millions of black children to death in democrat party controlled cities...

That is the truth.