U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-20-2019, 08:13 AM
 
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
9,013 posts, read 2,728,318 times
Reputation: 6945

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t View Post
The fly in the ointment for your theory is that the Great Society was enacted by LBJ in the early 1960s. The South did not become fully majority red until 1994. In other words, to believe your version, you have to believe that these southern segregationists opposed the Great Society, but then waited 30 years, to act on their opposition by leaving the Democratic party.

Again, I suggest you pick up a history book before posting any more troll threads.
Let's put it this way: The South has been the most conservative part of the county, going back to at least the Civil War. I don't know why this is in dispute. They were the most conservative part of the country 150 years ago, and they are the most conservative part of the country now. There is an abundance of reading on this topic you can peruse:

First Principles - Southern Conservatism
https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/t...-conservatism/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...n_conservatism

Due to this fact, which I thought was common knowledge but I guess it isn't in your case, all those Southern democrats back then, since they controlled the great majority of Southern politics back 50+ years ago, must also have been conservative. The people of the South back then (as now) were conservative, and so were their politicians. That they supported some of FDR's New Deal does not mean they were not conservative.

As for the 30 year lag, yes, old habits can take a long time to change. First of all, just few years after LBJ signed the Great Society bills in 1964-65, the South (except Texas) had already abandoned the democrats by going either for George Wallace (who himself had abandoned the democrats) or Richard Nixon. In 1972 they went full-bore for Richard Nixon. The only democratic presidential candidates since then who have had any success in the South have been Jimmy Carter and, to a lesser extent, Bill Clinton, but that's because they were both Southerners themselves. So no, the did not "wait 30 years," it started happening almost right away.

Farther down the political office chain (House, Senate, state offices) it took longer for the change to occur, but as I said, that's because old habits die hard. But they DID die. Your comment implying that they "waited" 30 years was a lie - they did not "wait 30 years," it was a gradual process that began right away.

Anybody who tries to claim with a straight face that Southerners are liberal is either ignorant or lying through their teeth. And since, for a very long time, the democrats held political power in the South, then they too, were conservative.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-20-2019, 08:25 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
8,090 posts, read 4,710,956 times
Reputation: 2877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
This thread ignores that whites are not a homogenous group. Highly educated white people in Boston, will live longer than uneducated white people in rural West Virginia.

If anyone can find numbers that correct for diet, education and race, then I think the gap will be reduced significantly.
Daily-reminder: The life-expectancy gap is not from education, but income. People who are educated tend to earn more money. If you're already rich, you aren't going to live any longer because you get a master's degree.


Education refers only to "formal education in an accredited university". Which has a very weak correlation to individual knowledge. The primary reason people in agricultural-states don't pursue a master's degree, is because there are no jobs in their state that would require one. People often move to Boston to go to their five major universities, and they will stay there after graduation, or go to the other major cities, because those are the only places their degree is useful. This causes a bunching-effect, where people with degrees tend to congregate together in places where related-industries are already established.

These highly-profitable industries, with the high-incomes, invariably lead to huge-increases in cost-of-living, which drive out the working-classes who can no longer afford to live there. Which is a subtle form of gentrification or "class-cleansing".


Those who can no longer afford to live in places like Boston, invariably move to "red-states".
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2019, 04:58 PM
Status: "think locally, act yokelly." (set 20 days ago)
 
Location: Clyde Hill, WA
3,245 posts, read 576,334 times
Reputation: 975
Quote:
Originally Posted by loves2read View Post
And while I don’t agree with most of what is in Hillbilly Elegy by JD Vance—I think it is a pity party for people who rejected education for the most part in favor of sugar, drugs, and not taking personal responsibility

He does mention the squeezing of working class people in his part of the South and the difficult pressure on whites to maintain their standard of living...because of government policies—he just doesn’t attribute those to the real culprits...
The times were changing but the people—and more importantly to me—their governments were not changing
They were hidebound to follow the old ways of segregation and separation/suppression. So often times that meant wanting elections to be won by people w/o vision for a different future who yielded to voters who wanted to cling to the past...

It takes time for a national party to grow an infrastructure
It doesn’t happen overnight
It didn’t happen that fast when the Congress passed Civil Rights legislation
But note that after Johnson completed Kennedy’s partial second term, he ran once on his own and served 4 yrs...he was mired in the Vietnam War—
Humphrey lost to Nixon—
Nixon didn’t care about Civil Rights
He didn’t work to enforce the laws in the South that were ignored....

You are way off on your history. I am not a fan of Nixon, but he had a very good record on civil rights and racial equality. Sammy Davis Jr. wanted to join the JFK campaign in 1960, but was rebuffed because he had married a white woman. He turned to the Nixon campaign, where he was welcomed with open arms.

The SCOTUS ruled that school segregation was unconstitutional in 1954, but Ike, JFK, and LBJ did not enforce it. When Nixon took office in 1968, 70% of black Southern students still were in 100% segregated schools. When Nixon left in 1974, the number had declined from 70% to 8%, due to his efforts, according to liberal NYT columnist Tom Wicker.
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/08/o...s-schools.html

Nixon was raised a Quaker. The idea that he was a bigot is a product of fake news.
Time to re-tool your US history library.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2019, 05:10 PM
Status: "think locally, act yokelly." (set 20 days ago)
 
Location: Clyde Hill, WA
3,245 posts, read 576,334 times
Reputation: 975
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
Let's put it this way: The South has been the most conservative part of the county, going back to at least the Civil War. I don't know why this is in dispute. They were the most conservative part of the country 150 years ago, and they are the most conservative part of the country now. There is an abundance of reading on this topic you can peruse:

First Principles - Southern Conservatism
https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/t...-conservatism/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...n_conservatism

Due to this fact, which I thought was common knowledge but I guess it isn't in your case, all those Southern democrats back then, since they controlled the great majority of Southern politics back 50+ years ago, must also have been conservative. The people of the South back then (as now) were conservative, and so were their politicians. That they supported some of FDR's New Deal does not mean they were not conservative.

As for the 30 year lag, yes, old habits can take a long time to change. First of all, just few years after LBJ signed the Great Society bills in 1964-65, the South (except Texas) had already abandoned the democrats by going either for George Wallace (who himself had abandoned the democrats) or Richard Nixon. In 1972 they went full-bore for Richard Nixon. The only democratic presidential candidates since then who have had any success in the South have been Jimmy Carter and, to a lesser extent, Bill Clinton, but that's because they were both Southerners themselves. So no, the did not "wait 30 years," it started happening almost right away.

Farther down the political office chain (House, Senate, state offices) it took longer for the change to occur, but as I said, that's because old habits die hard. But they DID die. Your comment implying that they "waited" 30 years was a lie - they did not "wait 30 years," it was a gradual process that began right away.

Anybody who tries to claim with a straight face that Southerners are liberal is either ignorant or lying through their teeth. And since, for a very long time, the democrats held political power in the South, then they too, were conservative.
Why did the Southern segregationist democrats largely support the New Deal and the Great Society, both of which were government expansions, i.e. liberalism? Could it be because they were liberals, not conservatives? Name me just two conservative Southern segregationist politicians, and an example of a conservative policy they supported. It should be easy for you, since it is 'common knowledge.'

The shift in the South from D to R actually started in the 1950's, as Ike got a bigger share of southern votes. Were the 1950s voters clairvoyant, looking ahead to CRA 64, and deciding to vote Republican?

Nope, the shift had much more to do with a changing 'New South' economy. Again see the book The End of Southern Exceptionalism which shows this through extensive survey data, and then get back to me.
The End of Southern Exceptionalism — Byron E. Shafer, Richard Johnston | Harvard University Press
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2019, 07:37 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
9,013 posts, read 2,728,318 times
Reputation: 6945
How many times do I have to repeat that they did NOT support the Great Society? The Great Society (particularly the Civil Rights Act), was one of the things that started spurring them to leave the democratic party in large numbers.

Let me repeat, so that I don't have to say it again: Southerners did NOT support the Great Society. The Great Society (particularly the Civil Rights Act), was one of the things that started spurring them to leave the democratic party in large numbers.

Got it?

Quote:
The shift in the South from D to R actually started in the 1950's, as Ike got a bigger share of southern votes. Were the 1950s voters clairvoyant, looking ahead to CRA 64, and deciding to vote Republican?
Geeze, unbelievable. You know, I have actually already posted a link explaining that, but it appears you didn't read it. So here we go again: Harry Truman had already started the path towards desegregation in the late 40's by desegregating the military and others. So at this time there were a few early rumblings of Southerners bolting the democrats for the republicans. Of course, actions like that were liberal policies, and - surprise! - Southerners didn't like it.

The New Deal was different because it was almost entirely economic measures.

Quote:
Name me just two conservative Southern segregationist politicians, and an example of a conservative policy they supported. It should be easy for you, since it is 'common knowledge.'
1. George Wallace. A conservative policy he supported was, well, segregation.
2. Strom Thurmond. A conservative policy he supported was, well, segregation. Not to mention a dozen others (anti-abortion, etc).
3. Jesse Helms. I hope I don't have to mention how many conservative policies he supported.

The latter two started out as democrats and later switched to the republican party. Wallace started out as a democrat, and while he never officially left the democrats, unofficially he began disassociating himself with the party, as exemplified by his independent run for president in 1968.

There, that's not just two, but three well-known examples. It wasn't even hard coming up with them.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2019, 10:13 AM
 
30,065 posts, read 47,304,581 times
Reputation: 16009
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t View Post
You are way off on your history. I am not a fan of Nixon, but he had a very good record on civil rights and racial equality. Sammy Davis Jr. wanted to join the JFK campaign in 1960, but was rebuffed because he had married a white woman. He turned to the Nixon campaign, where he was welcomed with open arms.

The SCOTUS ruled that school segregation was unconstitutional in 1954, but Ike, JFK, and LBJ did not enforce it. When Nixon took office in 1968, 70% of black Southern students still were in 100% segregated schools. When Nixon left in 1974, the number had declined from 70% to 8%, due to his efforts, according to liberal NYT columnist Tom Wicker.
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/08/o...s-schools.html

Nixon was raised a Quaker. The idea that he was a bigot is a product of fake news.
Time to re-tool your US history library.
https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/e...ichard-milhous

Not so positive in some aspects
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2019, 10:21 AM
 
15,105 posts, read 3,993,514 times
Reputation: 10944
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t View Post
Why did the Southern segregationist democrats largely support the New Deal and the Great Society, both of which were government expansions, i.e. liberalism? Could it be because they were liberals, not conservatives? Name me just two conservative Southern segregationist politicians, and an example of a conservative policy they supported. It should be easy for you, since it is 'common knowledge.'
It is common knowledge. It is also fact.

It is also fact that the South never had a Golden Age. In terms of Economics and equality, which inform modern society, it was always backwards.

Heck, today we are finding out that the "low wage built Boeings" in SC are defective. One major Boeing customer has announced they will NOT buy planes made in SC, only in Washington State.

Maybe that $11.53 per hour (starting at the composite plant) isn't bringing in the "best workers"?

I'll rest easy at 40,000 feet knowing that someone who had to live in a shack and drink to wash away their blues put together the carbon fiber that is holding me up there.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2019, 07:23 PM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
14,934 posts, read 13,320,636 times
Reputation: 4553
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
It is common knowledge. It is also fact.

It is also fact that the South never had a Golden Age. In terms of Economics and equality, which inform modern society, it was always backwards.

Heck, today we are finding out that the "low wage built Boeings" in SC are defective. One major Boeing customer has announced they will NOT buy planes made in SC, only in Washington State.

Maybe that $11.53 per hour (starting at the composite plant) isn't bringing in the "best workers"?

I'll rest easy at 40,000 feet knowing that someone who had to live in a shack and drink to wash away their blues put together the carbon fiber that is holding me up there.
That is an example of what can happen to a state like South Carolina, which has Right to Work plus a minimum wage of $7.25.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2019, 08:10 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,985 posts, read 102,540,351 times
Reputation: 33045
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
Yes, true.

I was reading a thread in the Colorado section of this forum recently, and it occurred to me that the high altitude of Colorado probably filters out a lot of unhealthy people. There were people in that thread noting that if you smoke you have a hard time breathing in the thin air, and sometimes smokers have to leave the state because of that (or quit smoking). I suspect it also filters out some obese people, who similarly have a hard time getting enough oxygen. There is also some evidence that altitude itself causes weight loss.
I wish!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2019, 08:12 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
9,013 posts, read 2,728,318 times
Reputation: 6945
Well, obviously it doesn't work on everybody.
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top