Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I get the feeling you are trying to pretend those Republicans are the same as todays Republicans. Everyone knows those Republicans were liberals so lets make sure that is noted in your thread.
To more clearly point out the falsehood of your party switching argument is rather easy. Just because the states went red does NOT mean the racists became Republican. On the contrary it shows Republicans ARE beating racists democrats state by state and THAT is why they are turning color.I get the feeling you are trying to pretend those Republicans are the same as todays Republicans. Everyone knows those Republicans were liberals so lets make sure that is noted in your thread.
IF your argument were even CLOSE to true we would still be seeing cross burning's or dogs and fire hose's on black people. Those things have ended BECAUSE those states are turning red NOT despite those states turning red. Here is some ZO to cover the fine points.
The states turning red is a natural thing as those states move toward MORE freedom for the person no matter the color and to argue otherwise SUGGEST that those states AND people are unable to see the racist past of the party that brought the very destruction/enslavement AND killing of it's citizens.
Your first paragraph is a perfect example of faulty logic. The southern strategy has already been admitted to by the GOP so that pretty much kills your argument.
Your logic continues in the second paragraph with a wild assumption that we would be seeing more cross burnings, dogs , and hoses. We dont see that for two reasons. Its against the law and white racists are afraid of Blacks that are not going to turn the other check while this occurs. If they thought there were no consequences to their actions they would be doing it as we speak.
The states turning red was an orchestrated thing. which you can see if you have any education in regards to the history of politics in the south. There is nothing natural about this being orchestrated.
Nor can we simply write this off to Eisenhower’s celebrity. The GOP was slowly improving its showings at the congressional level as well. It won a special election to a House seat in west Texas in 1950, and began winning urban congressional districts in Texas, North Carolina, Florida and Virginia with regularity beginning in 1952.
Perhaps the biggest piece of evidence that something significant was afoot is Richard Nixon’s showing in 1960. He won 46.1 percent of the vote to John F. Kennedy’s 50.5 percent. One can write this off to JFK’s Catholicism, but writing off three elections in a row becomes problematic, especially given the other developments bubbling up at the local level. It’s even more problematic when you consider that JFK had the nation’s most prominent Southerner on the ticket with him.
But the biggest problem with the thesis comes when you consider what had been going on in the interim: Two civil rights bills pushed by the Eisenhower administration had cleared Congress, and the administration was pushing forward with the Brown decision, most famously by sending the 101st Airborne Division to Arkansas to assist with the integration of Little Rock Central High School.
The "southern strategy" is a myth created by the democrats.....the Repubilcans won the younger, less racist south...while the democrats continued to win the older, racist south....
That's a new assertion without any evidence.
The "southern strategy" is a myth created by the democrats.....the Repubilcans won the younger, less racist south...while the democrats continued to win the older, racist south....
The "southern strategy" is a myth created by the democrats.....the Repubilcans won the younger, less racist south...while the democrats continued to win the older, racist south....
OK, but didn’t all the old segregationist senators leave the Democratic Party and become Republicans after 1964? No, just one did: Strom Thurmond. The rest remained in the Democratic Party — including former Klansman Robert Byrd, who became president pro tempore of the Senate.
Former racists of both parties renounced their old views (as Kevin Williamson points out, Johnson himself voted against anti-lynching laws and poll-tax repeals), and neither party has a perfect record on racial matters by any stretch. But it is a libel to suggest that the Republican Party, the anti-slavery party, the party of Lincoln, and the party that traditionally supported civil rights, anti-lynching laws and integration, became the racist party after 1964.
The “solid south” Democratic voting pattern began to break down not in the 1960s in response to civil rights, but in the 1950s in response to economic development and the Cold War. (Black voters in the north, who had been reliable Republicans, began to abandon the GOP in response to the New Deal, encouraged by activists like Robert Vann to “turn Lincoln’s picture to the wall. That debt has been paid in full.”) In the 1940s, the GOP garnered only about 25 percent of southern votes.
The big break came with Dwight Eisenhower’s victories. Significant percentages of white southerners voted for Ike, though the Democratic Party remained firmly segregationist and though Eisenhower backed two civil rights bills and enforced the Brown decision by federalizing the National Guard. They also began to send GOP representatives to the House.
OK, you have an article, which is not evidenced seriously. It's the dude's opinion and the evidence does not support it.
What is interesting is that agrees modern GOP folks don't understand race at all.
I by-and-large agree with the thrust of Jamelle Bouie’s recent American Prospect article, which argues that Republicans badly misapprehend the reason(s) African-Americans generally vote for Democratic candidates. Too many conservatives assert that African-Americans have developed a “false consciousness” and simply need to be shown the error of their ways before they’ll start supporting Republicans. Asking “What’s the matter with black people?” simply isn’t going to get the GOP very far in its minority outreach efforts.
I would also suggest that many GOP folks assign a "false conciousness" to women, Hispanics, and other minorities that can be "fixed" if they are taught to properly understand.
Read more: Southern Whites Shift to the GOP Predates the 60s RealClearPolitics
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter
You just agreed with Too many conservatives assert that African-Americans have developed a “false consciousness” and simply need to be shown the error of their ways before they’ll start supporting Republicans.
Jroc is projecting his lack of worth again.
Until we honestly reaching out tow omen and minorities where they are instead of spreading "if they only understood" bull shit, we will not sweep government ever again. They are the future, not our dying 20th century far right nonsense.
I get the feeling you are trying to pretend those Republicans are the same as todays Republicans. Everyone knows those Republicans were liberals so lets make sure that is noted in your thread.
I disagree. There is nothing any Dem can say to me about Repubs that can do the damage the Repubs do to themselves with their racist comments..I get the feeling you are trying to pretend those Republicans are the same as todays Republicans. Everyone knows those Republicans were liberals so lets make sure that is noted in your thread.
They are the same as back then.
The Dem's have gotten good a lying and demonizing the Republican Party and the people that vote for them believes their lying asses.
The problem with the Republicans is they have never become good at stopping the Dem's lies.
Repub's don't have a backbone, they are too afraid to stick to their principals.
