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.
While the extent of this "switch" is far more limited than some suggest in my view, and took place outside of the 1960's (and continues today), I'll try to explain things as I understand them by going through some positions on major issues that have arguably changed (and not changed) over the last 6 decades or so. Note, the changes, to the extent they have occurred, are often more regional than universal, with political parties in certain regions having certain different ideologies than the same parties located in other regions of the country.
-Some things that haven't changed very much with the GOP:
1) The GOP was then and now (at least on paper) in favor of creating climates to help business thrive (i.e. deregulation, etc.), in favor of lower taxes and government spending (think of the fuss the GOP threw over FDR's New Deal policies), and socially conservative. Note, as far as social issues of abortion and gay rights are concerned, I don't know if I'd say the GOP changed more so than the country changed. The GOP was not necessarily open to these issues in the 1960's, etc., but, then again, a far greater percentage of the country wasn't either so they weren't always the hot button issues they are today.
-Some things that have changed with the GOP:
1) Used to be anti-interventionist, but more willing to take the fight to the "enemy." I say this changed was precipitated by the Cold War/fight against communism and, more recently, by the more recent threat posed by Islamist extremists.
2) Civil Rights: the GOP led the way in fighting for Civil Rights (note, long before Johnson signed the CRA and VRA, which was accomplished only with the strong support of GOP members of Congress, Democrats in Congress filibustered efforts by the GOP to pass similar legislation before). The GOP was once more open to having government mandate and require certain things of individuals/businesses (i.e. anti-discrimination clauses and affirmative action), but now seems more concerned with racial neutrality in policy. This change occurred, in part, in an effort to win the support of deeply prejudiced people who lamented the more progressive present, but are also the result of sincere ideological differences in the role of government and adoption of certain constitutional principles of interpretation.
-Some things that have remained the same for Democrats:
1) Democrats have long supported big government and higher taxes/spending as a way of growing the economy. There's been no fundamental change in this area as far as I can see.
Some things that have changed for Democrats:
1) The Democratic Establishment was once openly racist and anti-civil rights based on race/color/etc., but now openly embrace civil rights initiatives.
2) Gay rights/abortion: there was once a time where the Democratic Platform would never endorse same-sex marriage or abortion on demand. But, with women's "liberation" and in an attempt to appeal to a certain demographic (and, indeed, based on in part a shift in heartfelt beliefs on the matter), the party has reversed itself completely on these issues.
3) The Democratic base seems to be more open to war under certain circumstances they they were in the 1960s, etc. I can't say I understand completely the reason for this change. I can't really detail all of the reasons why this is.
I know I'm not getting everything, so please feel free to add to or object to anything I've written.
another reason is because the more conservative Southern Democrats/Dixiecrats/ Solid South, eventually decided to be more in line with their Northern Democratic Party counterparts to end the divisions in their party
yes, including racial issues
this left a serious vaccum
Nixon saw this, and as a typical Northern Republican catered to the concerns and political mindset of the white south at the time and placated to that in order to get their votes and get them to start voting Republican.
this is when the Republican party started using slogans like "states rights" etc.. which were usually southern democratic ideals not republican ones.
not sure if this is the right era though? I think this more happened in the 70's early 80's not the 60's.
but the 2 parties have always changed over time
originally it was the Jacksonian Democrats who favored populist democracy, smaller government, mistrust of big banks, favoring the poor or working class, open to immigration, but also manifest destiny
it was the Whigs and Republicans who favored bigger government, progress such as infrastructure, and also a more nationalized federalist form of government and banking system/taxes
at some point FDR created the New Deal which used government power to help the poor and the GOP, as you said were against it.
Im no expert on this crap o ow a lot of it got switched but I know originally it was the Federalist Party who favored big government, big banks, a stronger-centralized military, national taxes/banking system etc...
the Jeffersonian Republicans favored smaller government, states rights, but also they mistrusted organize religion (Deists), and public works/infrastructure.
the truth is, the government as a whole became ore nationalized and greatly centralized after the Civil War and with the Lincoln/Republican administration at the time which was similar to hw the Federalists saw things.
but the Northern Democratic Part also was effected by this and is, IMO why the Democratic Part today is known as the progressive, big government, etc... party or whatever
but also when the ex-Southern Democrats voters were absorbed into Nixon's southern strategy much of that big government, stronger military view of Northern Republicans also became mixed with the ideas of states rights etc.. which why today you have Republicans who want it both ways, they aim for states rights/smaller government but also a stronger-centralized military.
Im probably wrong about at least half of this crap but that's partly how I see it anyway.
and yes, in Lincoln's time the GOP was the anti-slavery party but they, and their Whig counterparts, were also the most staunchly anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic party greatly influenced by the Know-Nothings as well.
similar to how the Federalists even created the alien and seditions act which allowed the President, John Adams, to unlawfully imprison immigrants for no reason and nearly erased the 1st amendmant of free speech too, although he was also an abolitionist. it also have him the right to imprison any citizen at the time who openly criticized the President or his administration
of course tis happened at a time he was seriously wanting to go to war with France, so it wreaks if similarities of the Bush administration and the Patriot Act and Homeland Security.
Adams was greatly criticize by Thomas Jefferson for it for a very long time.
it was actually the Jacksonian/original Southern Democrats who were anti-establishment and more liberal at first except for slavery at the time.
they became even more conservative over time and IMO it had a lot to do with the fact how slavery gave so much political power to them in the antebellum era.
3) The Democratic base seems to be more open to war under certain circumstances they they were in the 1960s, etc. I can't say I understand completely the reason for this change. I can't really detail all of the reasons why this is.
I know I'm not getting everything, so please feel free to add to or object to anything I've written.
I completely disagree with this, especially now.
if that were even remotely true, Obama would have been seriously trying to fight ISIS or ISIL a long time ago yet he sits and does little to jack.........still.
if that were even remotely true, Obama would have been seriously trying to fight ISIS or ISIL a long time ago yet he sits and does little to jack.........still.
I never claimed that Democrats are more open to the use of ground troops now, but simply war. And we've seen this administration (and Bill Clinton) engage in and receive support, whether formal or informal, from Congressional Democrats for various military campaigns, from military campaigns against Saddam Hussein under Clinton to assistance in anti-ethnic cleansing campaigns under Clinton to the Afghanistan surge under Obama to the Libya campaign under Obama, etc. Even under this current ISIS threat, Obama is seeking greater authority to arm and launch airstrikes. Note, not all of these campaigns involved ground troops, but that's not the point I'm trying to convey with my point about war.
One thing Ive noticed about the Republican party having grown up in it, there's a big difference between what your average republican on the street thinks and what the leaders in the party actually do. It usually seems like the leaders in the party make a decision, then convince the people to agree with them. Perhaps this happens with democrats too. For instance the majority of republicans I know are blue collar, hard working individuals who are struggling to support their families. E.G. it would stand to reason that they need some serious help. However we as a party have been convinced that any policies intended to help us are unconstitutional and not the governments business. Then we gripe about our boss sending out job overseas. I think if republican leaders sat down and said ok, we need to help the middle class out here because theyre really struggling then we could make some serious progress. But instead the repub leaders are suckling on the 'teet' of superpacs and could care less how I as a voter can barely scrape change to contribute to my 401k...
These things have always been a matter of changing times and conditions. The Democrat Party began as the champion of small government, the Republican Party began as the champion of a stronger Federal government.
In the '60's and '70's, the FBI was the "enemy" of the left wing extremists, by the '90's it had become the "enemy" of the right wing extremists.
And there has always been fluidity internally, both parties have been states righters and hard core Federalists when convenience suited. That is still taking place. Democrats are states righters on issues such as medical marijuana, assisted suicide and gay marriage. The Republicans have been staunch Federalists on those same issues, even calling for a national law defining marriage. In the 2000 disputed election controversy, it was the Democrats who insisted that Florida State law should prevail, while the Republicans took it to the US Supreme Court.
How did Republicans and Democrats switch political sides in the 60s?
I was just thinking about this the other day.
The main thing that began to happen in the 60's was the demise of the Democratic Party "cold warriors" who were as anti-communist as anyone and who wanted a strong national defense. Guys like Scoop Jackson and John Stennis had influence in the party, but as they died off and were replaced.
Many of those folks went over to the Republican Party, as the "peace freak" branch of the Democratic Party took firm control , first nominating McGovern in 1972.
Further, for generations, the Democratic Party held sway in the South because of their almost religious adherence to segregation. Once that issue was settled in the 60's, people put it aside and considered other issues like a strong defense.
The parties didn't really "switch sides". As prospectheightsresident says above, there are lots of continuities between the parties as they existed before the '60s and after. If anything, the really big switches took place much earlier (1912 or 1932). After all, there has never been a more "progressive" president in the U.S. than the Democrat FDR, elected in 1932.
There was a change during the '60s though, and race was the big wedge issue that created that change (although other issues later took center stage as a result).
By far the biggest change was the switch of the southern "Dixiecrat" segregationist wing of the Democratic party to the Republicans. This meant that the one-time "solid south" of the Democratic voters became by 1972 a "solid south" of voters for the Republicans, which has mostly remained the case since. At the time it happened, this change was almost entirely due to civil rights legislation and enforcement, and what many from the southern wing of the Democratic party saw as their "betrayal" by southern Democratic President Lyndon Johnson.
The pre-1960s Democratic party was an unwieldy coalition of anti-labor, segregationist, and largely rural white southerners and union-favoring, socially and economically progressive, and largely ethnic urban northerners. The New Deal and mass migration to the north was also bringing African-American voters into the Democratic coalition in increasing numbers too (before the '30s African -Americans - those who could vote - were primarily Republican, as they had been since the Civil War).
Soon after WWII it became clear that the fight over the rights and integration of African-Americans had the potential to split the party (as it did in 1948, and again in 1968), but that growing northern moral outrage, and continued southern intransigence, meant that the fight was going to have to be fought. The southern political landscape we see today is the direct result of that fight.
Last edited by WoodsideAl; 02-19-2015 at 04:11 PM..
1) The Democratic Establishment was once openly racist and anti-civil rights based on race/color/etc., but now openly embrace civil rights initiatives.
Actually, that's not quite accurate. There was a major difference -- one might even say schism -- between the members of the "traditional" Democratic Party and the so-called "Southern Democrats." After the Civil War, because the Republican Party led the way in Reconstruction Reforms, Southern politicians switched sides and joined the Democrats. It was their views/policies - the outspoken, headline-grabbing minority - that came to characterize the Democratic Party of the 1950s - 1970s. For example, George Wallace was a Southern Democrat, but do not even begin to think that he spoke for the Democratic Party as an organization.
The so-called "shift" we're talking about was stimulated when the "Southern Democrats" of which we're speaking changed their affiliations back to the Republican Party. So please, do not confuse the policies and practices of Southern Democrats with those of the mainstream Democrats. They are quite different.
To further confuse things, btw, a similar relationship existed between "traditional" Baptists and Southern Baptists.
-- Nighteyes (born, raised and came of age in the Deep South)
Last edited by Nighteyes; 02-19-2015 at 04:10 PM..
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.
