The Myth of the Republican-Democrat 'Switch'
5,344 Views |
36 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by eric76
We know, its the democrats who believe the myth
Governor Rick Perry & Senators Gramm (TX) , Shelby (AL) and Kennedy (LA) say hello
Democrats are the party of slavery on the cotton plantation, Jim Crowe and slavery on the government plantation. They're the party that actively pushes anti-white rhetoric while telling minorities to accept a life of dependence on government because they can't succeed on their own. That makes the Republicans racist.
I think it's an interesting question of how Texas flipped. Jim Crow was popular in the 50's and 60's in mostly white Texas. The state didn't move to the Republican column broadly until the 90's. After Bush beat Ann Richards in '94 Texas has been solidly Republican. How did that happen? Was it the children of segregationists that started voting Republican up and down ballot? Was it a bunch of Republicans moving in from other states, and then their kids voting Republican? Interesting question I think.
I was hoping someone would include this in the thread yesterday.
Sq 17 said:
Governor Rick Perry & Senators Gramm (TX) , Shelby (AL) and Kennedy (LA) say hello
Those flips were decades later and had nothing to do with the Civil Rights Act.
If I had to guess, Reagan's success and Clinton's disaster - national politics drove the switch. Clinton didn't pivot until he got shallacked in 1994.Gbr1971 said:
I think it's an interesting question of how Texas flipped. Jim Crow was popular in the 50's and 60's in mostly white Texas. The state didn't move to the Republican column broadly until the 90's. After Bush beat Ann Richards in '94 Texas has been solidly Republican. How did that happen? Was it the children of segregationists that started voting Republican up and down ballot? Was it a bunch of Republicans moving in from other states, and then their kids voting Republican? Interesting question I think.
The democrats abandoned the working class and chose to focus on social engineering and welfare state politics. They abandoned sound fiscal policy as well. Republicans in Texas pushed pro business candidates from Clement, Bush, Perry and they took advantage of rising oil Economy with business friendly environment. Dems have not touted out a single candidate in the last 30 years that speaks to the everyday man. They appeal to the victim class and the woke crowdGbr1971 said:
I think it's an interesting question of how Texas flipped. Jim Crow was popular in the 50's and 60's in mostly white Texas. The state didn't move to the Republican column broadly until the 90's. After Bush beat Ann Richards in '94 Texas has been solidly Republican. How did that happen? Was it the children of segregationists that started voting Republican up and down ballot? Was it a bunch of Republicans moving in from other states, and then their kids voting Republican? Interesting question I think.
Anyone who claims the parties "switched" in the 60s should be asked why modern Democrats keep worshipping FDR.
Sq 17 said:
Governor Rick Perry & Senators Gramm (TX) , Shelby (AL) and Kennedy (LA) say hello
Source: Wikipedia
Rick Perry entered politics in 1984 as a democrat in the Texas House and switched parties in 1989. Started 20 years after Civil Rights act and 12 years after the 72 election, switched parties 25 and 17 years later, respectively.
Phil Gramm entered politics in 1976 as a democrat challenger for a Texas Senate seat and switched parties in 1983. Started 12 years after Civil Rights act and 4 years after the 72 election, switched parties 19 and 11 years later, respectively.
Richard Shelby entered politics in 1970 as a democrat in the Alabama Senate, but was a prosecutor during the height of the Civil Rights movement in one of the most oppressive states in the South at that time. Switched parties in 1994 after surviving the Republican Revolution as a democrat. Started 6 years after Civil Rights Act and 2 years before the 72 election, switched parties 30 and 22 years later, respectively.
John Kennedy (LA) entered politics as a counsel to the Governor in 1988 and switched parties in 2007. Started 25 years after Civil Rights act and 19 years after the 72 election, switched parties 43 and 35 years later, respectively
Of these four, only Shelby really fits the narrative, with Gramm being a stretch. I'll give credit for Shelby because the guy was likely (though I don't know for sure) an active enforcer and perpetrator of racist policies who clearly switched parties due to a massive electoral shift. Even the time delays work against the typical narratives of party shifts. If party shift happens because racists disliked the Civil Rights Act, why wait 30 years. If this was a grand racist plan by Nixon, why wait until after Nixon died?
All this is much more easily explained by population shifts than racist dog whistles from 20-30 years prior. The electorate in the early 90s is not the same as it was 30 years earlier. Political science isn't really my forte, but this has always seemed more propaganda than reality.
Please stop posting this kind of stuff. It convinces nobody to join the Republican Party and it's just insulting. To act like anyone who has ever voted democrat is racist and evil - if you're from the south (including Texas) there is a very very high chance your parents and/or grandparents voted democrat on many occasions. Have some respect for your lineage.
The Democratic Party was at one time absolutely the more socially conservative party. Obviously there was never a single point in time where the parties just swapped platforms. But rather there was nuance, ticket splitting, and voting for the more conservative person which for a long time could have come from either party - lots of people in the south voted Democratic for congress and senate and Republican for president for many years.
The Democratic Party was at one time absolutely the more socially conservative party. Obviously there was never a single point in time where the parties just swapped platforms. But rather there was nuance, ticket splitting, and voting for the more conservative person which for a long time could have come from either party - lots of people in the south voted Democratic for congress and senate and Republican for president for many years.
Deplorable Neanderthal Clinger
It's just taking a page out of the modern day Democrat playbook.TXaggiesTX said:
Please stop posting this kind of stuff. It convinces nobody to join the Republican Party and it's just insulting. To act like anyone who has ever voted democrat is racist and evil - if you're from the south (including Texas) there is a very very high chance your parents and/or grandparents voted democrat on many occasions.
Anyone who is White is a racist. Anyone who is a gun owner is going to be the next mass murderer. Or if you prefer, the playbook where we have to hold you accountable for things your ancestors did. So if you vote Democratic now, that must mean you support the policies of the party previously.
It's not current Republicans that actually care about this stuff. It's Democrats applying labels to people which should be applied to them. So this is just using their logic against them...and showing how ridiculous it is.
cisgenderedAggie said:Sq 17 said:
Governor Rick Perry & Senators Gramm (TX) , Shelby (AL) and Kennedy (LA) say hello
Source: Wikipedia
Rick Perry entered politics in 1984 as a democrat in the Texas House and switched parties in 1989. Started 20 years after Civil Rights act and 12 years after the 72 election, switched parties 25 and 17 years later, respectively.
Phil Gramm entered politics in 1976 as a democrat challenger for a Texas Senate seat and switched parties in 1983. Started 12 years after Civil Rights act and 4 years after the 72 election, switched parties 19 and 11 years later, respectively.
Richard Shelby entered politics in 1970 as a democrat in the Alabama Senate, but was a prosecutor during the height of the Civil Rights movement in one of the most oppressive states in the South at that time. Switched parties in 1994 after surviving the Republican Revolution as a democrat. Started 6 years after Civil Rights Act and 2 years before the 72 election, switched parties 30 and 22 years later, respectively.
John Kennedy (LA) entered politics as a counsel to the Governor in 1988 and switched parties in 2007. Started 25 years after Civil Rights act and 19 years after the 72 election, switched parties 43 and 35 years later, respectively
Of these four, only Shelby really fits the narrative, with Gramm being a stretch. I'll give credit for Shelby because the guy was likely (though I don't know for sure) an active enforcer and perpetrator of racist policies who clearly switched parties due to a massive electoral shift. Even the time delays work against the typical narratives of party shifts. If party shift happens because racists disliked the Civil Rights Act, why wait 30 years. If this was a grand racist plan by Nixon, why wait until after Nixon died?
All this is much more easily explained by population shifts than racist dog whistles from 20-30 years prior. The electorate in the early 90s is not the same as it was 30 years earlier. Political science isn't really my forte, but this has always seemed more propaganda than reality.
I've always considered Strom Thurmond to be the only one that switched at the point of Civil Rights actually happening.
All the rest switched as the Democratic patty started embracing urban policy instead of rural for the most part.
Those guys voted to keep segregation policies in place? They're older than I thought.Sq 17 said:
Governor Rick Perry & Senators Gramm (TX) , Shelby (AL) and Kennedy (LA) say hello
Democrats and their minions prove themselves to be the party of segregation and racial discord on a daily basis. That it needs to be pointed out is a testament to how ill-informed millions of people are and how pervasive propaganda is in this country.
Sully Dog said:
Beat me to it!
Carol Swain for the win
TXaggiesTX said:
Please stop posting this kind of stuff. It convinces nobody to join the Republican Party and it's just insulting. To act like anyone who has ever voted democrat is racist and evil - if you're from the south (including Texas) there is a very very high chance your parents and/or grandparents voted democrat on many occasions. Have some respect for your lineage.
The Democratic Party was at one time absolutely the more socially conservative party. Obviously there was never a single point in time where the parties just swapped platforms. But rather there was nuance, ticket splitting, and voting for the more conservative person which for a long time could have come from either party - lots of people in the south voted Democratic for congress and senate and Republican for president for many years.
Man I wish I had the laugh/cry for this horrifically awful, embarrassing, and pathetic take.
Puff out your little bird chest and stand strong because of the meanies calling people racist and evil - there definitely isn't any of that rhetoric being tossed in the other direction!
The Senators may have been as corrupt as they are now; who cares. Tell me about the voters.
The 64 election why did the deep south like Goldwater? He opposed the civil rights act; was that irrelevant?
The 68 election is a mystery because of Wallace. Who would they have voted for if he wasn't on the ballot?
The 72 election doesn't tell you anything because Nixon swept the whole country.
The 76 election is a bizarre map of east vs west divide. What was Carter's appeal to the south?
The 64 election why did the deep south like Goldwater? He opposed the civil rights act; was that irrelevant?
The 68 election is a mystery because of Wallace. Who would they have voted for if he wasn't on the ballot?
The 72 election doesn't tell you anything because Nixon swept the whole country.
The 76 election is a bizarre map of east vs west divide. What was Carter's appeal to the south?
PascalsWager said:
The Senators may have been as corrupt as they are now; who cares. Tell me about the voters.
The 64 election why did the deep south like Goldwater? He opposed the civil rights act; was that irrelevant?
The 68 election is a mystery because of Wallace. Who would they have voted for if he wasn't on the ballot?
The 72 election doesn't tell you anything because Nixon swept the whole country.
The 76 election is a bizarre map of east vs west divide. What was Carter's appeal to the south?
I think that's kind of the point of the whole issue. The presidential elections alone don't demonstrate enough information to speak to this narrative one way or the other. The racist southern democrats from the south kept voting democrat at local and state levels for decades,. By that time, attitudes had mostly changed and the electorate consisted of many voters that weren't around in the 60s, as well as no longer containing many that were.
Using the Southern Strategy narrative to paint 21st century, and even late 20th century republicans as racists isn't much different than the right painting the democrats as Stalinist communists. Both are inflammatory overgeneralizations that are intended to dismiss the other guy but rarely founded in real evidence.
The state was conservative/moderate Democrat until the early 70s when Cissy Farenthold came to prominence. The resurgence of evangelical Christianity plus the abject failure of the Carter administration to address foreign and domestic policy issues drove then-Democrats like me to GOP ideals of limited government, lower taxes and less government spending. Unfortunately, outside of the Paul family and independent Ross Perot, elected Republicans only gave lip service to lowered government spending.
“If you’re going to have crime it should at least be organized crime”
-Havelock Vetinari
-Havelock Vetinari
This is going to be long, so sorry in advance.
I grew up in Louisiana 1950-1965 in a politically-aware family. I loved history and I followed the political conventions and the elections and the Freedom Riders and the murders of the civil rights workers in Mississippi and the efforts of the governors of Mississippi and Alabama to stop integration and so on.
I normally enjoy Prager videos, but the one cited above is filled with factual inaccuracies and false conclusions.
Arguing against Myth #1, the video says that the South "was trending Republican as early as 1928" when Hoover got some significant votes.
The video leaves out the important fact that the Democrat, Al Smith, was a Catholic. Catholicism was anathema in the deep South in those days. He might as well have been a Black Muslim.
The case of Eisenhower is also inaccurately presented. He was the winning general in WWII, a national hero, and it is not surprising that he won a few Southern states in 1952.
As for saying that Eisenhower won even more Southern states in 1956 even after sending in federal troops to desegregate Little Rock HS, the video is simply incorrect. The election was in 1956; the troops went into Little Rock in 1957.
Arguing against Myth #2, the video says that only one Southern politician actually switched parties after the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
This is a strawman. The politicians did not switch, but the voters did.
After JFK "forced" integration in 1962 and 1963 at Ole Miss and the U of Alabama, Barry Goldwater (R) won five deep South states in 1964. My parents voted for him, along with all their friends. The white public schools in Shreveport cancelled school so the students could cheer Goldwater at the airport (I was there).
Goldwater was not a racist, but was opposed to the Civil Rights Act on the grounds of federal overreach, etc. Clearly many white Southerners were drawn to his opposition for whatever reason he had.
Arguing against Myth #3, the video claims that the Southern strategy must not have really existed because its architect, Nixon, lost the South in 1968.
Yes, he lost the South. He lost to third-party candidate George Wallace, who as governor of Alabama the year before had "stood in the schoolhouse door" to prevent black students from enrolling at the University of Alabama.
The video is deceptive because it suggests that the South went for the liberal Democrat, Humphrey, which was certainly not true.
I agree that liberals are vilifying Republicans as racists with no evidence, and I for one am sick of it and will not tolerate it anymore.
However, that video is not well done.
I grew up in Louisiana 1950-1965 in a politically-aware family. I loved history and I followed the political conventions and the elections and the Freedom Riders and the murders of the civil rights workers in Mississippi and the efforts of the governors of Mississippi and Alabama to stop integration and so on.
I normally enjoy Prager videos, but the one cited above is filled with factual inaccuracies and false conclusions.
Arguing against Myth #1, the video says that the South "was trending Republican as early as 1928" when Hoover got some significant votes.
The video leaves out the important fact that the Democrat, Al Smith, was a Catholic. Catholicism was anathema in the deep South in those days. He might as well have been a Black Muslim.
The case of Eisenhower is also inaccurately presented. He was the winning general in WWII, a national hero, and it is not surprising that he won a few Southern states in 1952.
As for saying that Eisenhower won even more Southern states in 1956 even after sending in federal troops to desegregate Little Rock HS, the video is simply incorrect. The election was in 1956; the troops went into Little Rock in 1957.
Arguing against Myth #2, the video says that only one Southern politician actually switched parties after the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
This is a strawman. The politicians did not switch, but the voters did.
After JFK "forced" integration in 1962 and 1963 at Ole Miss and the U of Alabama, Barry Goldwater (R) won five deep South states in 1964. My parents voted for him, along with all their friends. The white public schools in Shreveport cancelled school so the students could cheer Goldwater at the airport (I was there).
Goldwater was not a racist, but was opposed to the Civil Rights Act on the grounds of federal overreach, etc. Clearly many white Southerners were drawn to his opposition for whatever reason he had.
Arguing against Myth #3, the video claims that the Southern strategy must not have really existed because its architect, Nixon, lost the South in 1968.
Yes, he lost the South. He lost to third-party candidate George Wallace, who as governor of Alabama the year before had "stood in the schoolhouse door" to prevent black students from enrolling at the University of Alabama.
The video is deceptive because it suggests that the South went for the liberal Democrat, Humphrey, which was certainly not true.
I agree that liberals are vilifying Republicans as racists with no evidence, and I for one am sick of it and will not tolerate it anymore.
However, that video is not well done.
The first time I voted was in the 1976 Republican primary. There were two rooms on the second floor of the MSC that were used on campus -- one for Democrats and one for Republicans.Gbr1971 said:
I think it's an interesting question of how Texas flipped. Jim Crow was popular in the 50's and 60's in mostly white Texas. The state didn't move to the Republican column broadly until the 90's. After Bush beat Ann Richards in '94 Texas has been solidly Republican. How did that happen? Was it the children of segregationists that started voting Republican up and down ballot? Was it a bunch of Republicans moving in from other states, and then their kids voting Republican? Interesting question I think.
The line for the Democrat primary went out into the main hallway, around the corner and up the next hall, down the next hall along the front of the MSC, and partially up the next hall.
The line for the Republican primary was about five deep.
In my county back then, we rarely, if ever, had Republican primaries because of a lack of interest. Everyone voted Democrat. In the 1980s, this changed and it was, I think, the first county in Texas to not hold Democrat primaries.
Even when Texas overwhelmingly voted Democratic, much, possibly all, of the Texas Panhandle often voted for the Republican candidate in Presidential elections. Amarillo used to have an important SAC (Strategic Air Command) base. I've often heard that the SAC base in Amarillo was shut down by President Johnson as punishment for voting Republican against him when he ran for President.
CC09LawAg said:TXaggiesTX said:
Please stop posting this kind of stuff. It convinces nobody to join the Republican Party and it's just insulting. To act like anyone who has ever voted democrat is racist and evil - if you're from the south (including Texas) there is a very very high chance your parents and/or grandparents voted democrat on many occasions. Have some respect for your lineage.
The Democratic Party was at one time absolutely the more socially conservative party. Obviously there was never a single point in time where the parties just swapped platforms. But rather there was nuance, ticket splitting, and voting for the more conservative person which for a long time could have come from either party - lots of people in the south voted Democratic for congress and senate and Republican for president for many years.
Man I wish I had the laugh/cry for this horrifically awful, embarrassing, and pathetic take.
Puff out your little bird chest and stand strong because of the meanies calling people racist and evil - there definitely isn't any of that rhetoric being tossed in the other direction!
What are you talking about? I am a Republican. On social issues I am one of the most far right people I know. Democrats don't care about hypocrisy and in case you hadn't noticed, republicans don't do very well with black people, so I really don't see the point of talking bad about my ancestors in order to score some political points with nobody.
As a conservative, In many cases voting democrat was the more conservative option before about the early/mid 2000s.
Biden : Come on Man... that was the good old days....
Democrats never changed who they started out to be. All they did was move power from the plantation to the government institution. Their philosophy that the purpose of people's labor is to enrich the plantation remains the same.
LBJ was right about having blacks voting Dem for a long time, unfortunately.
Southern whites used to see banks and northern capitalists as the biggest threats. They saw the new deal and government as the great equalizer. The great society and Roe v Wade changed that. Banks may have been greedy turds, but at least they stuck with a set of rules. The govt was now a sucking ahole that took their money and incentivized laziness and immorality.
They especially disliked the New Democrats who were weak against communism and crime. Clinton won bc he told a female black rapper to go shove her anti-cop rhetoric and promised to lock up dangerous criminals.
Most southern whites today have no problem with everything MLK demanded in his I have a dream speech. They have a problem with affirmative action and runaway government spending that does not serve them.
They especially disliked the New Democrats who were weak against communism and crime. Clinton won bc he told a female black rapper to go shove her anti-cop rhetoric and promised to lock up dangerous criminals.
Most southern whites today have no problem with everything MLK demanded in his I have a dream speech. They have a problem with affirmative action and runaway government spending that does not serve them.
UTExan said:
The state was conservative/moderate Democrat until the early 70s when Cissy Farenthold came to prominence. The resurgence of evangelical Christianity plus the abject failure of the Carter administration to address foreign and domestic policy issues drove then-Democrats like me to GOP ideals of limited government, lower taxes and less government spending. Unfortunately, outside of the Paul family and independent Ross Perot, elected Republicans only gave lip service to lowered government spending.
I was going to post that Jimmy Carter was the driving force of switching Texas from moderate/conservative democrat to democrat/Republican and strong Republican in the next 2 decades (long before the '90s, although down ballot races took longer than Gov.).
You have to understand that most voting age adults in the '70s (i.e. 35 and older) grew up in an era where if you were a Republican in Texas, admitting as much was almost like admitting you were a homosexual. OK, maybe not that extreme, but it was indeed talked about among others. And there was a place (perceived or otherwise) in the democratic party for you. Even when LBJ was doing his thing, you have the Ralph Yarborough wing of the d party (very liberal), the LBJ wing (supposedly moderate) and the Coke Stevenson wing (more conservative). Stevenson was arguably more conservative than Barry Goldwater, LBJ's 1964 Republican opponent.
Anyway, that's what was going on in Texas during the '50s and '60s. As '60s/70s college grads grew up and younger Reaganites such as myself started voting in the mid-80s, the red wave was on. Race was only an issue in the minds of those that made it one.
TXaggiesTX said:
The Democratic Party was at one time absolutely the more socially conservative party. Obviously there was never a single point in time where the parties just swapped platforms. But rather there was nuance, ticket splitting, and voting for the more conservative person which for a long time could have come from either party - lots of people in the south voted Democratic for congress and senate and Republican for president for many years.
People in the south who voted for senators like Sam Nunn and Lloyd Benson did so because they could stomach their liberal/conservative divide and they believed they would benefit their state more than whoever challenged them would. It was as simple as that. Making it out to be a "Benson was more socially conservative than his opponent" argument is going to be, in most cases, blatantly dishonest. You MAY be able to find a race where that is true, but for the most part, it isn't. However, Texans still voted for him and Georgians voted Nunn in despite voting for Nixon, Reagan and Bush. Nunn's only competitive race was his first one in '72. I don't think Nunn was more conservative overall than his opponents but he won overwhelmingly.
Hell Benson was reelected as Senator in an election he got destroyed in as a candidate for VP -- against an opponent (for President) that he had already defeated in a Senate campaign. There was no candidate that Benson beat -- not one -- in his senatorial races that was less conservative than he was. Texas was just satisfied with him and his voting record. He won his first race after defeated Ralph Yarborough (see above) in the democrat primary.
There may have been a WING of the democrat party that was more conservative than a PORTION of the Republican party, but as a whole, no, unless you go back to the 19th century (when things were so different you couldn't compare it to today), your first statement that I referenced here isn't true.
My grandparents went from voting democrat in the 70s to republican by the late 80s because "those SOBs sold us out for the city votes!" Every time a democrat president gets elected they do something to the detriment rural agriculture communities. Republicans do a piss poor job of helping them, but they don't as actively destroy them.
Of all the biases people complain about, there isn't one as routinely ignored as the poor dumb country bumpkin trope which continues to be actively perpetuated by all forms of media. It is the foundation almost every baseless racism claim is founded on.
Of all the biases people complain about, there isn't one as routinely ignored as the poor dumb country bumpkin trope which continues to be actively perpetuated by all forms of media. It is the foundation almost every baseless racism claim is founded on.
Featured Stories
See All
Win on Saturday would enable A&M to silence ever-present detractors
by Olin Buchanan
A&M's game week focus has been on the requirements for success
by Olin Buchanan
8:14
13h ago
2.5k
Win a dream trip through the Texas Aggies United Playoff Challenge!
by Texas Aggies United
Ag06Law
"God bless those guys"...Bain's response to A&M Olineman's smack talk about him
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
8