It began last week when I celebrated the British and their Brexit vote. To me, this was quite a victory for our famous ally and to my shock, a pair of liberal Americans (from a debate group), did not share my enthusiasm. One of them began to pout and turned into a gloomy-Gary (yes, I'm making that a name now like "negative Nancy"). His only concern was his money. Now mind you, the British government had already laid out plans for the possibility of an exit and had announced that the initial first days would be volatile but eventually they would level out. I didn't even bother pointing this out to him because I was on the other end of my computer laughing hysterically since this man, an American mind you, all of a sudden wanted us to believe he was an expert in the market.
To him and others like him, it would have been better for Britain to stay in the EU and I guess fall apart together? For someone who was so concerned about the market, you would think he would have been well aware of the debts that have plagued the EU. I digress. As in most all cases, speaking with a liberal for too long, as a conservative, something instinctively will happen. Much like Godwin's Law, there is another Law that states: if you're a conservative in a heated exchange with a liberal they will eventually accuse you of being a racist and being a part of a racist party - those evil racist Republicans.
As predictable as the sun rises, the liberal will pull out their bag of old tricks and begin to tell you that you belong to a party that supports racists and their racist ways. They talk about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, currently they like to accuse Trump of being a racist, they mumble something about a Southern Strategy, and of course the best one of all- the most absurd of all but nonetheless they still think they can get away with saying it - the parties switched! Yes, those Lincoln Republicans turned into democrats and the bad democrats that did all those bad things like Jim Crow laws, segregation, started the KKK and persecuted Republicans (black and white), blocked Civil Rights Acts every step of the way, etc. all those guys, they became Republican. They base this on two Dixiecrats who changed over to the Republican party, one of them not until 1974. Yes, their entire story is based on two people who "switched" and this to them translates into two different voting blocs getting up and voting for the other party completely.
Here we are in 2016 and my jaw is on the floor because I haven't seen anyone argue this in years, My mind simply couldn't fathom that this myth was still alive and well and that it actually sounded logical in the minds of these two people I was conversing with. I'm not kidding. They actually believed this. What in the hell was happening? I officially entered The Twilight Zone and there was no theme music to warn me.
I thought I would make things really simple by offering a few videos for them. There are tons of videos on YouTube that debunk this nonsensical myth. I picked out a few of them and instead of them addressing any of the points, they just continued to dig their heels in. Now initially they claimed this switch occurred after The Civil Rights Act '64 and the woman I was conversing with presented a very naive and distorted view of the vote. She said, "0% Southern Republicans in the House voted for the Act in 1964, while almost 100% of Northern democrats voted for the Act." Well, this is true but, it is a very misleading stat when talking about the Republican party overall.
FACT -
The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:
Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)
As you can see, the Republicans were who voted overwhelmingly for the Act. The democrats certainly voted to pass the Act but more percentage-wise voted against it when compared to Republicans.
This woman decided to focus on region-stats which is quite interesting isn't?
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
Here's the problem. What she and other liberals fail to understand is that there were only 10 Republican members in the House and only 1, yes ONE Republican Senator in the Senate. ONE.
Also looking at the democrats in the South, they sure as hell didn't vote for the Act, quite the contrary. Out of 94 House representatives, only 7 voted for the Civil Rights Act. So how would it be shocking seeing Republicans in the South also vote the same? Clearly, these Republicans were not the deciding vote and they were representing in an overwhelmingly democrat area. Simply put, this woman was comparing apples to oranges and cherry-picking the numbers that would make her party look good while essentially slandering the Republican party, insisting they were filled with racists.
I can't say I blame the few Republicans in the South for not voting for the Act since they were obviously lucky to be there to begin with. I'm quite sure they wanted to keep their jobs so they could continue to do work inside the party.
Notice the name, Rober Byrd. This is a man who changed into a Dixiecrat. He was also a Klansman and a leader of the Klan. He fought very hard to filibuster this Civil Rights Act and he died a democrat.The democrats NEVER punished him or kicked him out of their party. They embraced him for many, many years to come. This is Hilary Clinton's mentor.
That clip was filmed in 2001. Yes, 2001, which is really not all that long ago. This sick racist continued to get elected into office until he finally croaked in 2010. Now I defy anyone to tell me nothing would have happened to a Republican if they had gone on national TV in the year 2001 and said the n-word. Anyone think for a moment they would have continued to have been elected? Anyone? Anyone? Yet democrats want us to believe they are not racist. Nope, it's us Republicans.
I asked again, "when the hell did this switch occur where all these supposed racist democrats turned into Republicans and Republicans changed into democrats?"
I again pointed out that all but two of the Dixiecrats remained democrats.
The one that democrats always mention is Strom Thurmond, and he is basically the only one they have to support their claim of this so-called switch because he switched in 1964. Gov, Mills Godwin Jr. VA, is another that also changed to a Republican but he didn't do so until 1974. He was out of office by 1978.
The other man who is often cited is Jesse Helms. His story is a bit different. He was a Republican already so there was no "switch" with him either. He wasn't a true segregationist. He simply believed much like Goldwater that race issues would and could be dealt with by the states. He wrote in 2005:
I did not advocate segregation, and I did not advocate aggravation. By that I mean that I thought it was wrong for people who did not know, and who did not care, about the relationships between neighbors and friends to force their ideas about how communities should work on the people who had built those communities in the first place. I believed right would prevail as people followed their consciences.You can read some more here about the man. I think you will find that even if you don't agree with Helms politically, it's hard to call him an outright racist. He did very much seem to be a principled man who gained a lot of supporters along the way.
Now you can say what you want about these three men. Yet, if they remained racists, it seems a bit odd they would then join the party that they fought against. If they joined the Republican party because it supported their racist ways, then this would imply that the "switch" had already occurred BEFORE 1964 because that's when Thurmond had gone R, yes? Well, that can't be true because the '64 Act could not have been passed without the Republicans. In fact, let me remind you again, the majority of the Republicans did vote for the '64 Civil Rights Act.
Again, I asked, "When did this switch occur?" Realizing that '64 was not the year, this woman backtracks and says the switch didn't occur overnight; it occurred over a period of years and that's where we get the 64-year switch from. Yes, over the course of 64 years, the winning Republicans, who had near 100 years of history fighting racism and fighting for blacks to be free, all decided to say, "screw this party, let's go democrat and they can come over to our party." Huh? The problem is she gave me dates of this occurring between 1872-1936. Yet, if this were the period of the "switch" how was it that Republicans overwhelmingly voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
There is no doubt that blacks definitely began leaving the Republican party and they remain democrats to this day. I'll get back to that in a minute. Also, there is no doubt that Republicans did indeed, later on, start collecting strong support in the Southern states. What liberals fail to tell you is that the South was becoming less racist and by the time the 70's and 80's came around, those racist democrats had died off. The South was integrated by this time, and the South responded to this integration in a positive way. Of course things changed but, they didn't change because both parties decided to change uniforms.
Blacks started leaving the Republican party earlier for a few reasons. One was The New Deal. This was appealing to the blacks and we have to remember that the Great Depression was called that for a reason. This was something that impacted many in very horrible, troubling ways. For blacks, their unemployment rate was above 50% and it was increasingly harder for them to get a job due to the open racism they experienced. In some cases, they were even attacked and lost their lives. The KKK was active in attacking Republicans and since all blacks were Republicans, this made their targets easy.
Initially FDR's programs were a bit limited and were still shutting out blacks from equal opportunities. It should be noted that FDR still supported segregation and stood opposed to anti-lynching legislation. By the mid-1930's blacks were gaining more access to the government programs found in The New Deal. There was a rise of labor movements and the communist party that helped catalyze blacks to migrate over to the democrat party. Still, there were many who stayed with Republicans. Blacks were not all dependent on these government programs. Many had taken it upon themselves to create their own deal; they would trade and maintain their own gardens. They became inventive and even threw rent parties where entertainment and food could be found in exchange for a small fee. Churches and their efforts for feeding the poor also expanded.
As the country came out of the depression, it became clear that a lot of the help blacks received from The New Deal was more symbolic than real. They still faced many problems with segregation and racism.
It would be during Kennedy's administration that blacks would overwhelmingly move to the democrat party. It was Kennedy that released Martin Luther King Jr. from jail. He was arrested for a probation violation because he participated in a sit-in. With some strategic phone calls, Kennedy was able to get King out on bail. In turn, King gave a speech saying he owed a great debt of gratitude to Kennedy, stopping short of an endorsement claiming it to be inappropriate. This well-timed action right before the 1960 presidential election is said to help Kennedy who won by a very small margin but democrats finally realized the importance of the black vote.
Yet, despite all this Kennedy was very slow to pick up the cause of blacks and civil rights. His administration waited over two years before even entertaining the issues that affected blacks. In 1963, a peaceful demonstration in Birmingham, AL turned violent when high-powered fire hoses were released on protestors. So, who's idea was it to turn these fire hoses on protestors?
A Democrat, Connor's actions to enforce racial segregation and deny civil rights to black citizens, especially during the Southern Christian Leadership Conference's Birmingham campaign of 1963, made him an international symbol of racism. Bull Connor directed the use of fire hoses and police attack dogs against civil rights activists; this included the children of many protestors. These tactics exposed the extent of racism when shown on national television. They served as one of the catalysts for major social and legal change in the Southern United States and contributed to passage by the United States Congress of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.Soon after this, Martin Luther King's brother, Alfred Daniel King's home was bombed. Another explosion occurred near the hotel where King and activists were staying. It wasn't Republicans who were involved in trying to stop protests or kill black leaders.
The action forced Kennedy's hand to intercede. After this, he would become more involved and try to push a civil rights bill but it was the democrats who were stalling. Kennedy would be assassinated and Lyndon B. Johnson would step up to be sworn in as president.
The GOP fought hard in the 60's for civil rights and ultimately it wouldn't be until Johnson took over that Congress finally signed off on The Civil Rights Act of 1964. So again, just to recap - it was the Republicans who passed the bill in much greater percentages in both the House and Senate when compared to the democrats percentages. It was the democrats who attempted to filibuster the Civil Rights Act. It was the democrats in the South who were attacking protesters and doing so with the help of a democrat.
Now just to be clear, not all democrats are racists but certainly we can see that Republicans are definitely not all racists. I think we can all agree that racists can find their way into the likes of any party and be of any color. What we can say for certain here is that the claim that some "switch" had occurred among the parties that supposedly took place well before this, has absolutely no proof of occurring.
Malcolm X
This audio of Malcolm X is very revealing of how he felt about the democrats. He rightly exposes their hypocrisy and lies. More imortantly, this shows that there was no "switch" that had occured by this time either.
He clearly says the democrats are the dixiecrats and they are the racists. When I pointed this out, I never got a specific response. I guess according to the two I was debating, Malcolm X was just lying. It's amazing how a liberal will insist they are experts, even when it's clear they are ignorant of facts.
Goldwater
Barry Goldwater is one prominent Republican who did indeed vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and he later became a presidential candidate that only won some states that happened to be in the South. This anomaly is also cited as "proof" of the party switch. All those racists decided to join the party they had long been fighting?
Goldwater was praised for being an unapologetic conservative who brought the party back to its roots of limited government. How could he have shifted the party back if the party was already "switched"? Meaning if they all turned into racists, then how could Goldwater turn them into racists? The roots of the Republican party were all about equal rights. He was not a racist at all. The truth is, he supported Civil Rights but felt that the 1964 Act went too far. He had principled reasons for standing against the Act. He did not believe the government should have the power to tell private businesses who they should hire or serve. Much later he came to believe he made the wrong decisions but, at the very least, he was trying to remain consistent and was concerned about eventually hurting the very people the Act was trying to help.
Many people, including the fellow Republicans, disagreed with him.The argument liberals will try and use against this runs something along the lines of, "well maybe the democrats had their principled reasons for voting against the '64 Act too." This doesn't make much sense because again, by this time their fairytale shift had already occurred. All the so-called progressive Republicans turned into dems, right? So they would not have had a reason to be concerned about these types of laws. Can you start to see how foolish this "switch" is? A person who was more libertarian like Goldwater would certainly be more concerned about the implications of laws that interfere with private businesses.
So while Goldwater is an interesting cat who spoke clearly, he still came across too extreme for the country but it wasn't just that. Think about it. Would ANY Republican have really had a chance during this specific time? Kennedy, a beloved president, was assassinated. We have LBJ sworn in and immediately the country was saturated in discussing conspiracy and crying foul. Do any of us really believe anyone should have expected the American people to even want another president? I don't think so.
Yes, changes have certainly occurred over the years - Republicans have always tried to expand and then retract. Dems on the other hand, have only expanded. Their initial party platform declares a commitment to small government but, as years fly by that pledge turns into the promise of going bigger and bigger.
Southern Strategy
So this myth involves Nixon. It basically claims that all the bad democrat racists were catered to by Nixon and he won the South forever for all Republicans.
Well, immediately we know this isn't true because Carter carried all of the South and later on Clinton also carried a lot of the South. Did Nixon win all of the South? No, he didn't. George Wallace did. However, by 1972, Nixon indeed swept the entire country. He was also running against George McGovern.
Nixon was a supporter of Civil Rights for his entire career. The idea that he catered to the racist South is pure fantasy because liberals do not want to accept that things had started to change with a new generation but also Nixon became popular for pulling us out of Viet Nam. He opened up communication with China and was presiding over a booming economy.
Weakened in the Senate?
Nixon undertook another major foreign trip, this time to Africa. On his return, he helped shepherd the Civil Rights Act of 1957 through Congress. The bill was weakened in the Senate, and civil rights leaders were divided over whether Eisenhower should sign it. Nixon advised the President to sign the bill, which he did.
It would be JFK who would cast a procedural vote, appeasing the Southern democrats who opposed the bill. Kennedy did vote for Attorney General powers to enjoin and the Jury Trial Amendment under Title III and IV respectively, of the 1957 Act. LBJ was the majority leader at this time and he compromised by allowing the provision to die. These actions were criticized by Civil Rights advocates as weakening the bill.
Even though the decision of Brown v. The Board of Education had been long ruled in the Supreme Court, Kennedy and LBJ did nothing to enforce the decision. Nixon however, got to working on this matter immediately. He assigned VP Agnew to the task of helping local officials desegregate schools. By 1970, 90% of black kids had been integrated.
Nixon also greatly increased spending for civil rights programs. The budget for such programs under Nixon's watch went from 75 million to over 600 million. Is this the part where liberals will claim Nixon was catering to racists to get their votes?
Be sure to read this article written by Robert J. Brown, Chairman and CEO of B&C Associates and former Special Assistant to President Nixon. There should be NO question that Nixon did just about everything he could to enforce equal opportunities for blacks and enforced programs and legislation that helped blacks gain access to opportunities that were not being afforded to them.
Is this how Nixon supposedly attracted racist KKK liberals from the democrat party? No, because no such "switch" existed.
The very next election with Carter shows HIM sweeping the South. So to the dems still hanging onto the myth of party switch... how do you explain this? Did the parties switch again? At what point are you going to accept that there is no truth in saying the Republicans are the party of racists?
The term Southern Strategy can be found from Pat Buchanan. This is all over the internet and can be easily found from several sources. This comes from Buchanan himself and Nixon's actions during his term PROVE this to be the case.
Now, as a co-architect of the Nixon strategy that gave the GOP a lock on the White House for a quarter century, let me say that Kristol’s opportunism is matched only by his ignorance. Richard Nixon kicked off his historic comeback in 1966 with a column on the South (by this writer) that declared we would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states rights, human rights, small government and a strong national defense, and leave it to the “party of Maddox, Mahoney and Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.”Buchanan also writes something else that's quite interesting:
Nixon led America out of a dismal decade and was rewarded with a 49-state landslide. By one estimate, he carried 18 percent of the black vote in 1972 and 25 percent in the South. No Republican has since matched that.Here is the letter Martin Luthur King Jr. wrote to Richard Nixon.
Now the final reference I can find concerning the "Southern Strategy" comes from Lee Atwater. Atwater was a political consultant and a strategist of the Republican party. Years before he died, he did an interview and a quote was lifted from this interview and published everywhere as proof of Republicans using a strategy to cater to racists in the South.
The interview is located in various places on the internet. The link I embedded goes to Part 2 and you can see the other links for Part 1 and III in the suggestion boxes on the sidebar.
The quote that was lifted and published everywhere from 1981 is this:
You start out in 1954, by saying n*****, n*****, n*****. By 1968, you can’t say n*****, that hurts you, back-fires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states rights, and all that stuff and you’re getting so abstract. Now you’re talking about cutting taxes. We want to cut this is much more abstract than even the busing thing and a hell of a lot more abstract than n*****, n*****.
It wasn't until after he died and the interviewer died that this interview was released in full. Many people were obviously curious about the full context of this quote. Seeing a Republican strategist saying the n-word is quite appalling, no matter what side of the aisle your politics are found.
It's very hard to hear this audio but Atwater is clearly talking about how the party has dealt with issues concerning the South. He clearly explains that for modern elections, race is no longer considered to be an issue. He talks about Carter and how Carter ran as a moderate and played up Christianity but that he also took the South for granted.
From 1954 through 1966, race was THE issue [in the South]. …
In 1980, I think the crucial thing in 1980 is, the two dominant issues in southern politics, which had been race and party–you had to be a Democrat to win–are pretty well resolved. And the main issues became the economy and national defense.
Atwater goes on to talk about how during the Regan campaign, he focused on strong defense and economics. He says that in order to win the South, they had to appeal to the blue collar worker.
Q: I’m just wondering how much residual there is called racism in the anti-government, anti-Washington, states rights, return to states rights, de-federalize, cut social programs–how much is a residual of the old days in the antipathy towards welfare programs, poverty programs, and other political, social, economic programs which give power to black folks, or poor folks…and it’s not purely southern, but the Legal Services Corporation giving problems to municipalities in Mississippi that want to gerrymander, and those types if things.
A: Well, sure, OK, but I think this, and don’t get me wrong. You go to these white country clubs and they’ll say, shit, I’m tired of them getting everything and all that. But the bottom line is, it’s a mainstream thing now. It’s not grounded in racism, as much as it is on account of the Network movie syndrome, I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore. Now, statistically, the poor people, the people receiving all these things, are black. Now, some of the Southern stuff may still be racism, but it’s such a widespread thing now, I think it’s almost developing into a class struggle type issue rather than a racism issue.Now the person conducting the interview seems to be convinced that Republicans are racists and appealing to Southern voters this way. He asks:
Q: But might there–I’m not saying that he does this consciously–but the fact is that he does get to the Wallace voter, and to the racist side of the Wallace voter, by doing away with legal services, by doing away with, cutting down on food stamps–
A: Here’s how I would approach that issue as a statistician, a political scientist–or no, as a psychologist, which I am not, is how abstract you handle the race thing.Too bad. He does anyway.
In other words you start out in — now y’all don’t quote me on this–
…you start out in 1954 by saying n*gger, n*gger, n*gger. By 1968 you can’t say n*gger, that hurts, there’s a backlash, so you say stuff like forced busing, states rights and all that stuff. And you’re getting so abstract now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all of these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it, I’m not saying it.When you consider the entire interview, it's pretty clear Atwood is mostly focused on many other issues, not race. He simply doesn't feel it's the biggest factor of the day. This interview is hardly proof of a Southern Strategy based on race. If anything, Atwood proved this to be completely false.
Yes, but it's clear that the South does seem to be voting more Republican compared to early historical times. Doesn't this prove they switched?
Sure, anyone can see the South does seem easier for conservatives to win these days, but the reasons have nothing to with Republicans appealing to racists. It's more to do with how the left has treated Southern voters. The South is generally Christian and dems and liberals typically mock Christianity and attack it at every turn. It wasn't always this way but the last 25 years, this behavior has increased exponentially.
The South is where our military is. For the most part, our bases are located in the South and as such, people in the South take great pride in our military. They believe in a strong national defense and are typically patriotic and enjoy a bit of nationalism. The North likes to mock patriotism; they would rather burn the flag than fly it. Dems or far lefties are known for attacking people in the military, insulting them. I myself have witnessed a person reveal to another they are home from the war and another calling that man a baby killer.
The South views the dems as being a party of socialists, forever wanting to expand government reach with new laws and new controls. This point sort of bleeds into all other issues. The South very much enjoys the idea of a smaller government and having state's rights.
The South is typically pro-life so again, the democrats have moved far to the left on this issue. Hilary has even said 3rd-trimester abortions should be legal.
When it comes to the media and big Hollywood entertainment, The South is often bullied, even chided by the left. They call the South slow and uncultured. They assume all of them are "red-necks" and live in fly over states. Of course, the reason this very myth exists is due to the left insisting everyone in the South is a bunch of racists.
People from the South view the left being race-baiting. They see the left and their manipulation of stories concerning race.
Another big issue for the South is their right to own guns. They are very big 2nd Amendment supporters. They, like many gun owners, believe it is immoral for the government to force someone to give up their right to protect themselves. Also, when gun control laws were first introduced in this country they were mainly focused on limiting the rights of blacks to own guns. These were highly racist laws that 2nd Amendment supporters rightly fought against. One of the worst ideas for lefties in this country is when they go after guns- it's not just Republicans they anger - it's minorities as well. Even people in their own party are very passionate about their right to carry and have protection. This isn't Europe; this is America and that right is very much cherished by most all Americans - crossing political and racial lines.
Yes, things have changed but mostly as a direct result of the actions and shifts that have occurred among the left in this country. As usual, the democrats seem to always follow the old adage of projecting what THEY are onto others. They want to explain anyway they can why they lost the South and deny anyway they can their horrid, nightmare-like history concerning race relations in this country and instead of facing it head-on and dealing with it, they do what they always do - blame someone else.
Creating false narratives, inventing boogiemen, and inventing myths or conspiracies are quite common among those on the left. It is what they must do in order to excuse their own behavior or just feel good about themselves.
When it comes to race relations, both parties are to blame - either for not doing enough or for not doing it quick enough. There are plenty of ways to criticize the Republican party when it comes to the race issue but one thing is for sure, lying about it and ignoring your own history is not helping. Trying to blame your parties' woes on the other party is just cruel. It only stops the dialogue since we have to stop everything and first go through this long false-chronical in order to debunk it. Even then, there's no guarantee any of you will actually accept the truth. In many cases, you all seem to double down and just flat out ignore the truth and even shut the debate down. The effort ends up being futile and everyone walks away annoyed.
This article's purpose is to just lay everything out there and bury this myth. Those that still cling to their "belief" will never be reached so, go about your lives. In any case, I won't be debating you. There's nothing to debate.
0 comments:
Post a Comment