Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
See above. I'm sorry that you don't like the fact that authors who purport to write history get critiqued here. You may want to stick with the politics forum where propagandists who tell you what you want to hear are accepted at face value.
You're not critiquing anything. You're just pushing more ad hominem. And telling a poster to get out of the forum? Seriously, that is your idea of an argument?
We're debating party re-alignment, and specifically the 'Southern Strategy.' Can we get back on topic? Do you have anything to say about Nixon, Connally, or the 12 segregationist Democratic Senators who failed to switch parties during the era of the purported 'Southern Strategy.'
Call it ad hominem or whatever you want. Coulter's books are all garbage. I have plenty of conservative friends who can't stand Coulter. If you want to make to make a factual argument better start with a real source instead of Ann Coulter.
I call it ad hominem because that's what it is. By the same token, if you want to argue via logical fallacy, that is your privilege, but you're not going to win many debates.
Let's apply your own thought process to your post. Suppose someone argues:
Quote:
markg91359's posts are all garbage. I have plenty of liberal friends who can't stand markg. If you want to make a factual argument better, start with a real source instead of markg
Have I made the case against you? If not, why not. It's the precise same case that you are making against my arguments.
Having read through the thread, I tend to agree with "wutitz" on the general topic of the "Southern Strategy". It was less a "strategy" and more a culmination of long running grassroots Republican efforts to gain votes in the south coupled with changed in demogrpahics do to post-WW2 migrations and ultimately the splits within the Democratic party itself, e.g. "Dixiecrats" and their legacy.
By the time the "Southern Strategy" was purported to have come to fruition it was more about southern states giving up on the issues of civil rights and re-aligning themselves with the party that was closest to their issues. The second plank of the Dixiecrats was "states rights/limited government" which just happened to be something championed by Goldwater Republicans and one of the primary reasons for Thurmonds switch.
So, at the end of the day, it was not any particular Republican "strategy" but the changing dynamics of the south itself and ultimately the "settling" of the issues related to civil rights. You can see the change happening first in the upper south and then spreading to the lower south. Once the wedge issue of civil rights was moved aside, southerners aligned with whichever party shared their other primary stances. For the most part this was the Republicans, in particular the "limited government" schtick.
Having read through the thread, I tend to agree with "wutitz" on the general topic of the "Southern Strategy". It was less a "strategy" and more a culmination of long running grassroots Republican efforts to gain votes in the south coupled with changed in demogrpahics do to post-WW2 migrations and ultimately the splits within the Democratic party itself, e.g. "Dixiecrats" and their legacy.
By the time the "Southern Strategy" was purported to have come to fruition it was more about southern states giving up on the issues of civil rights and re-aligning themselves with the party that was closest to their issues. The second plank of the Dixiecrats was "states rights/limited government" which just happened to be something championed by Goldwater Republicans and one of the primary reasons for Thurmonds switch.
So, at the end of the day, it was not any particular Republican "strategy" but the changing dynamics of the south itself and ultimately the "settling" of the issues related to civil rights. You can see the change happening first in the upper south and then spreading to the lower south. Once the wedge issue of civil rights was moved aside, southerners aligned with whichever party shared their other primary stances. For the most part this was the Republicans, in particular the "limited government" schtick.
Yeah, that covers it pretty well. The chief figure linked to the "Southern Strategy" was Nixon. The chief evidence (perhaps the only evidence) even of its existence were the famous interviews of Nixon campaign guys Atwater and Phillips.
Yet Nixon was arguably pretty good on civil rights. In the 50's, as VP, Nixon met and corresponded with MLK Jr. IIRC it was his 1973 inauguration address where he said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nixon
No man can be fully free while his neighbor is not. To go forward at all is to go forward together.
Another Nixon quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nixon
'If you want to make beautiful music, you must play the black and the white notes together.'
Nixon was raised as a Quaker, and was instinctively pro-civil-rights. According to a friend of mine he actually tried to desegregate his fraternity at Whittier College, which would have been in the early 1930's, well before it was cool to be pro-diversity. I have googled around and have not been able to find anything about the desegregation of Nixon's frat, however.
Also they were mostly not 'conservative Democrats.' People like Sam Ervin and J William Fulbright were to the left of center. Fulbright was mentor to none other than Bill Clinton.
Thanks for the myth buster. Many segregationist southern Democrats were indeed not conservative in the modern Tea Party small government sense. Gov. George Wallace was a left leaning populist on many issues as were many of the old powerful southern democrat senators. Lower taxes and less spending were not on their agenda.
Thanks for the myth buster. Many segregationist southern Democrats were indeed not conservative in the modern Tea Party small government sense. Gov. George Wallace was a left leaning populist on many issues as were many of the old powerful southern democrat senators. Lower taxes and less spending were not on their agenda.
Indeed most of the segregationists were in today's terms liberals.
Actually, although I'd say the South is changing, but slowly, I think Carter and Clinton's success in the South had something to do with the fact that they were both Southerners. At one point, you may recall speculation that the Democrats couldn't win without a Southerner heading the ticket.
Yes - and that led to the national Democratic Party trying to become Republican-lite to try to appeal to white Southern voters, rather unsuccessfully, for a few election cycles, because of that belief.
They were finally able to get away from that, when at the same time, the Republicans were becoming a party that was largely based on appeals to the South - which is where it is now.
Indeed most of the segregationists were in today's terms liberals.
That's absurd. Wallace might have been "relatively liberal" at one time way back early in his career, but in order to win votes, he had to "out-seg" the opposition in elections. I wouldn't call someone, at any era, who defies Federal orders to desegregate the University of Alabama, particularly "liberal", then or even now. Neither would I consider Pete Wilson, who up to his 1994 reelection campaign, had a moderate record on civil rights matters, but out of desperation, beat the drum on wedge issues on immigration to get himself reelected as governor.
Perhaps a better way to frame it would be to say that someone like Nixon, or Reagan, who were nobody's ideas of liberals, were in today's Republican party, they'd be called RINOs or deemed not sufficiently conservative enough. And yet these men were not above using race baiting for partisan political aims. That's a function of the Republican Party becoming more reactionary, rather than Nixon, Reagan, or Rockefeller, for that matter, being liberal.
Coulter is a political propagandist. That she has a BA in history doesn't make her an historian. In fact, numerous political propagandists, especially speech writers and pundits, have BAs in history. It enables them to use historical allusions in their propaganda and impresses the hell out of their fans.
I greatly appreciate your reasoned attempts to clarify these historical facts.
You should know, however, that the poster to whom you're responding is very active on the politics forum, where threads accusing Democrats of being the party of racists, historically and currently, pop up pretty much once a week.
It's a very rightwing board, and that's one of their favorite ways to deflect from the abysmal record of today's GOP on race and civil rights. Which, by the way, is the answer to the original question in the OP.
In any case, this is a mild version of the venom and historical revisionism that is typical on the politics board. It astounded me at first, but I guess I'm just getting used to it. Nothing you can say, nor any facts you can post, will change their minds. It's not so much a belief as it is a religion with them.
Thanks again for the reasoned post.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thanks for the myth buster. Many segregationist southern Democrats were indeed not conservative in the modern Tea Party small government sense. Gov. George Wallace was a left leaning populist on many issues as were many of the old powerful southern democrat senators. Lower taxes and less spending were not on their agenda.
