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.
Part 1 - Thesis: The NAME of a political party and the IDEOLOGY of that party have not always been constant over time in all parts of the country. Democrat has not ALWAYS meant "liberal", and Republican has not ALWAYS meant "conservative." In the South, historical events shaped in such a way that you ended up with a group of politicians known as the Southern Democrats (some referred to them as "Dixiecrats"). Southern Democrats did not stand for the same policies that broadly typify today's Democrats. Southern Democrats were decidedly CONSERVATIVE, and that is the salient point, not the party name.
Part 2 - History lesson about the Southern Democrats:
In the 19th century, Southern Democrats comprised whites in the South who believed in Jacksonian democracy. In the 1850s they held that slavery was a good thing and promoted its expansion into the West. After Reconstruction ended in the late 1870s they controlled all the Southern states and disenfranchised the blacks (who were Republicans). The "Solid South" gave nearly all its electoral votes to Democrats in presidential elections. Republicans seldom were elected to office outside some mountain districts.
During the 1930s, as the New Deal began to move Democrats as a whole to the left in economic policy, Southern Democrats were mostly supportive, although by the late 1930s there was a growing conservative faction. Both factions supported Roosevelt's foreign policies. By 1948 the protection of segregation led Democrats in the Deep South to reject Truman and run a third party ticket of Dixiecrats in the 1948 election. After 1964, Southern Democrats lost major battles to the civil rights movement. Federal laws ended segregation and restrictions on black voters.
Some background on how it hasn't always been Conservative = Republican and Liberal = Democrat
Quote:
21st century conservative Democrats are similar to liberal Republican counterparts, in that both became political minorities after their respective political parties underwent a major political realignment which began to gain speed in 1964. Prior to 1964, both parties had their liberal, moderate, and conservative wings, each of them influential in both parties; President Franklin D. Roosevelt had proposed a realignment of the parties in the 1940s, though the trends which brought it about did not accelerate until two decades later. During this period, conservative Democrats formed the Democratic half of the conservative coalition. After 1964, the conservative wing assumed a greater presence in the Republican Party, although it did not become the mainstay of the party until the nomination of Ronald Reagan in 1980. The Democratic Party retained its conservative wing through the 1970s with the help of urban machine politics.[citation needed] This political realignment was mostly complete by 1980. After 1980, the Republicans became a mostly right-wing party, with conservative leaders such as Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott, and Tom DeLay, while the Democrats, while keeping their left wing intact with such Senators as Ted Kennedy, Christopher Dodd, and Paul Sarbanes, grew a substantial moderate wing in the 1990s in place of their old conservative wing, with leaders such as Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Evan Bayh. In 2008, the Democrats nominated Barack Obama for President; he was the first nominee since 1988 that was not a member of the moderate Democratic Leadership Council. Examples of recent Conservative Democrats are Senator Joe Lieberman from Connecticut and Assemblyman Dov Hikind from New York.
Southern Democrats stood for:
Segregation and support of slavery
Manifest Destiny
Strict Constructionism - i.e., narrow and literal interpretation of Constitution and law
States' rights against Federal government
Limited government - laissez-faire economics
Opposition to a Central Bank
...in other words, THEY STOOD FOR CONSERVATIVE IDEAS. You think liberals did a 180 in a few decades on what they stand for?
Part 3 - Discussion of logical fallacy of assuming that historical Southern Democrats represent today's liberal-dominated Democrat party:
If you try to use a conservative historical faction of the Democrat party as a way to slander modern liberal Democrats, you are in essence suggesting that those historical Democrats had ideological commonality with today's Democrats.
If that was the case, then how do you explain that the SAME ideology that supported segregation, strict constructionism, states' rights, limited government, market economics, and opposition to central bank now supports a black president into presidency, affirmative action, government programs to assist minorities, extension of rights to minorities including blacks, gays, etc.?
Logically, this assertion by conservatives leads to ridiculous conclusions and makes no sense.
The logical, sensible conclusion supported by historical evidence is that those who supported the Southern Democrat principles were ideological conservatives, same as the ones who support them today; and the ones who opposed them and championed civil rights, larger government involvement, etc. were ideological liberals, same as the ones who support them today.
So when you guys use Southern Democrats to try to suggest that modern-day liberals were essentially slavery-supporting KKK members a few decades ago...it makes it blindingly obvious what poor logical reasoning you possess and how little you know of American history. The name of the political party is not the constant over time; the ideology is.
As more and more is revealed about Democrats' long record of opposing Civil Rights and keeping black people on the plantation....
The leftist fanatics are using up huge quantities of ink trying to "prove" that "Those Democrats weren't REALLY Democrats! Really, they weren't, they weren't, they weren't!!!"
As more and more is revealed about Democrats' long record of opposing Civil Rights and keeping black people on the plantation....
The leftist fanatics are using up huge quantities of ink trying to "prove" that "Those Democrats weren't REALLY Democrats! Really, they weren't, they weren't, they weren't!!!"
You obviously do not know your American history. I'm sorry that the concept that not all Democrats were always liberal is blowing your mind. But if you read a history book or two, you would learn that it is true and well documented by many, many sources.
[MOD CUT/personal attack]
As more and more is revealed about Democrats' long record of opposing Civil Rights and keeping black people on the plantation....
The leftist fanatics are using up huge quantities of ink trying to "prove" that "Those Democrats weren't REALLY Democrats! Really, they weren't, they weren't, they weren't!!!"
And the war on poverty keeping people on the poverty plantation so they will have to vote for Dems just to get by.
You obviously do not know your American history. I'm sorry that the concept that not all Democrats were always liberal is blowing your mind. But if you read a history book or two, you would learn that it is true and well documented by many, many sources.
[MOD CUT/personal attack]
You are right they were not always liberal, they have from day one been authoritarians since day one..
Last edited by Ibginnie; 04-17-2014 at 07:35 AM..
Reason: edited quoted psot
As more and more is revealed about Democrats' long record of opposing Civil Rights and keeping black people on the plantation....
The leftist fanatics are using up huge quantities of ink trying to "prove" that "Those Democrats weren't REALLY Democrats! Really, they weren't, they weren't, they weren't!!!"
Not to mention the fact that modern day Democrats support programs which keep minorities in poverty. Doesn't seem that they've changed all that much, really.
[MOD CUT/flaming] Maybe they need a lesson of some sort.
The segregationist Southern democrats of the mid-twentieth century were indeed largely liberal. J. William Fulbright was mentor to Bill Clinton and was best known for championing federal subsidies to higher ed. Al Gore Sr. was mentor to Al Gore Jr. Sam Ervin was a liberal hero championed for his role in bringing down Nixon. Sam Ervin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Two of the three were signatories to the Southern Manifesto which called for a continuation of school segregation. History lesson my a**.
As more and more is revealed about Democrats' long record of opposing Civil Rights and keeping black people on the plantation....
The leftist fanatics are using up huge quantities of ink trying to "prove" that "Those Democrats weren't REALLY Democrats! Really, they weren't, they weren't, they weren't!!!"
You just proved the OP's point. I imagine you did not bother to read the provided articles or simply did not comprehend them. This is not a debatable point. It is United States History.
[MOD CUT/flaming] Maybe they need a lesson of some sort.
The segregationist Southern democrats of the mid-twentieth century were indeed largely liberal. J. William Fulbright was mentor to Bill Clinton and was best known for championing federal subsidies to higher ed. Al Gore Sr. was mentor to Al Gore Jr. Sam Ervin was a liberal hero championed for his role in bringing down Nixon. Sam Ervin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Two of the three were signatories to the Southern Manifesto which called for a continuation of school segregation. History lesson my a**.
Again, they largely stood for:
segregation
states rights
limited federal government
no central bank
laissez-faire economics
Does that SOUND like liberal policy to you done by the same kind of people who support liberal policies today and voted Obama into office twice? That is nonsense, and your assertion makes no sense.
And it should be noted that not ALL Democrats were obviously Southern Democrats. There were also more liberal members of the Democrat party back then as well as more conservative ones. Ervin is a great example of a person who saw himself as a conservative but wasn't afraid to think independently on certain issues that led other people to label him as liberal in some ways. And you can bet your ass he wouldn't be in favor of all kinds of things the Democrats have done today.
No self-confessed conservative has ever endeared himself to liberals quite like senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina. Ervin dedicated the better part of his political career to forestalling the civil rights revolution in the South. He also opposed the Democratic Party’s social welfare agenda, decried the Warren and Burger Court’s activism, battled organized labor, and served as the congressional point man in the fight against the equal rights amendment (ERA). Yet when Ervin quit the political stage in 1975, just a decade after having logged more hours filibustering civil rights legislation than any other senator from Dixie, the media feted him as a civil libertarian whose constitutional acumen had helped vanquish a corrupt and overreaching executive branch.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 04-17-2014 at 07:48 AM..
Reason: edited quoted psot
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.
That is nonsense, and your assertion makes no sense.