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.
You can always tell when someone has just stepped out of an Alt-Right echo chamber.
That's part of it. Political axe-grinding disguised (albeit poorly) as history.
But I also think a lot of people are oblivious to the ideological float over time within parties. They think Republicans have always been conservative and Democrats have always been liberal. These people (most people, I would surmise) would probably be astonished to learn that in the latter 19th century, Republicans were the party of social spending and Democrats were the party of low taxes. There has been less change since 1960, of course - because less time has passed since then. But there has still been change. Hell, anyone paying any attention at all to the ideological alignment of the parties over the past couple of decades should be tipped off to the fact that the ideological composition of parties is not fixed over time.
I imagine the whole Party System concept is entirely lost on them...
25 years in the grave, and President Nixon is still paying off, while Johnson's policies are still costing us money, destroying neighborhoods, promoting immoral conduct among the poor. Each new generation becomes a little more weak and more dependent on the government for support. Ironic that the Nixon economic system still pays for all the Johnson welfare programs, and so much more.
Perhaps MarkG is correct on his point, that after the Johnson and Nixon administrations, the public trust in government was greatly eroded. But Watergate was more about internal government misconduct and procedure, which did not affect the average American other than provide entertainment for them as his administration was disassembled and the president was forced from office. Nixon paid for his misdeeds and his opponents got the revenge they sought, with his resignation. Johnson's misconduct was never punished, but at least he was also beaten out of a second term because of his mistakes in Vietnam.
I also think the legislation concerning forced integration of private clubs, may not have happened under Nixon. Even today, it still reeks of government overreach, and has a "lets cram it down their throats" type feel.
Welfare should have been crafted differently, caps on the number of years you can collect, payments which do not increase when you have more kids. No big housing projects, HUD's role should be to check up on applicants and evict them for bad behavior and pull their benefits, but also to identify and help those who are really looking for a job, to be relocated to another city with better job prospects. Perhaps temporary rent vouchers could have been given to people who want to relocate and get established.
HUD work camps (barracks with chow lines) for incorrigibles to be located outside the city limits so they won't bother anyone. Tent cities for the homeless who do not wish to improve themselves, those who panhandle and have drug and alcohol problems. It's very important that these people do not get nice apartments with the same comforts working people get, otherwise the behavior will multiply and you end up with millions of lazy people wanting nothing more than a free ride. If it kinda sucks because they don't have hot water and cable TV, they might try to improve themselves.
As for Selma, George Wallace may have let the situation get out of control, but many other states were having the same problems. I think it was unfair to put all the blame on Wallace for everything that happened in MS and AL during that time. By Alabama standards, he was a liberal judge before his run for governor. He said things that had to be said to get elected. It was better for Dixie that he was leading a path to change, which was palatable to the people and allowed him to stay in office, as those changes were slowly implemented and became universal in other states across the south. Wallace was fluid and changed his tone as the years passed.
I think Wallace offers a satisfactory rebuttal to the Selma events, and defends himself as best he could. I'm sure no civil rights TV program ever showed this footage of "his side" of the events in Selma. Link Below.
That's part of it. Political axe-grinding disguised (albeit poorly) as history.
But I also think a lot of people are oblivious to the ideological float over time within parties. They think Republicans have always been conservative and Democrats have always been liberal. These people (most people, I would surmise) would probably be astonished to learn that in the latter 19th century, Republicans were the party of social spending and Democrats were the party of low taxes. There has been less change since 1960, of course - because less time has passed since then. But there has still been change. Hell, anyone paying any attention at all to the ideological alignment of the parties over the past couple of decades should be tipped off to the fact that the ideological composition of parties is not fixed over time.
Or just observe that the actual name of the party Roosevelt ran under in 1912 - popularly known as the Bull Moose Party - was the Progressive Party.
Its platform included limits on campaign contributions, workers comp, inheritance tax, social insurance (this was before Social Security) and -- here's the really 'scary' part -- national health care.
The OP is just another part of the puzzle that conservatives are trying to put together to claim that the "Southern Strategy" and the south's political switcharoo are a myth.
The flat out reality is that if Nixon were "better on civil rights" than JFK and LBJ then there is a great likelihood that southern whites would not have switched over to republicans. Granted, it might have been tempered depending on each parties' action on social programs during that period. Obviously, the Great Society programs were a great part of what drove white southerners to the republican party.
But just looking at the results of the 1964 election in the south makes it clear that southern democrats were receptive to switching over even though LBJ hadn't really set his social agenda in place.
The OP is just another part of the puzzle that conservatives are trying to put together to claim that the "Southern Strategy" and the south's political switcharoo are a myth.
The flat out reality is that if Nixon were "better on civil rights" than JFK and LBJ then there is a great likelihood that southern whites would not have switched over to republicans. Granted, it might have been tempered depending on each parties' action on social programs during that period. Obviously, the Great Society programs were a great part of what drove white southerners to the republican party.
But just looking at the results of the 1964 election in the south makes it clear that southern democrats were receptive to switching over even though LBJ hadn't really set his social agenda in place.
Southern Democrats of voting age in the 60s were opposed to the progressive platform of northern Democrats, but they'd be damned if they'd actually join the Party of Lincoln. They simply continued to remain registered Democrats while voting not just conservatively but also regressively. But they weren't actually going to become registered Republicans. They'd rather die first.
Which they did.
That generation died over the course of the 80s into the 90s, and their children joined the Republican party.
Black people in the south knew who they were; black votes were for individuals, not for parties during that period.
Southern Democrats of voting age in the 60s were opposed to the progressive platform of northern Democrats, but they'd be damned if they'd actually join the Party of Lincoln. They simply continued to remain registered Democrats while voting not just conservatively but also regressively. But they weren't actually going to become registered Republicans. They'd rather die first.
Which they did.
That generation died over the course of the 80s into the 90s, and their children joined the Republican party.
Black people in the south knew who they were; black votes were for individuals, not for parties during that period.
It is the children and the grandchildren of those old yellow dogs that are the most interesting.
They tend to deny their own family history. They say that the white democrat of today are the legacy of those what southern racists of that period rather than admit it was their own grandaddy.
It is the children and the grandchildren of those old yellow dogs that are the most interesting.
They tend to deny their own family history. They say that the white democrat of today are the legacy of those what southern racists of that period rather than admit it was their own grandaddy.
It is the children and the grandchildren of those old yellow dogs that are the most interesting.
They tend to deny their own family history. They say that the white democrat of today are the legacy of those what southern racists of that period rather than admit it was their own grandaddy.
I can usually tell a true historical illiterate by posts on this topic. Those who believe the Republican party "brought about civil rights" are those who know nothing about history and simply have an agenda.
Many. Lived 17 years by Nashville. Well aware of its critical role in the movement. As for books, I am waiting for my order of The Children to arrive via Amazon.
James Lawson, Diane Nash, Ben West..well versed in their intertwined histories.
This is great. Then you know some of the story....that JFK and LBJ were eventually the ones that brought their dreams to law.
The Children is an amazing book. I suspect you will find yourself, as I did, wishing that you were as brave as those young people.
To put all this in perspective from way back you have to somewhat start with the Abolition movement which came out of New England (and still does, to an extent). William Garrison and friends.....
Quakers and other "liberals from the Northeast cities" were a big part of the movement. Where I live now has a big part in it (Sojourner Truth lived here, etc.).
Then the Civil War. Confederates were against integration and voting rights and civil rights. It's GEOGRAPHY, not political parties.
But, any way you slice it, JFK/LBJ have their names and actions and signatures on the laws. Northern and Urban senators have their names, states and votes on the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution.
Nothing has changed in that sense.
BTW, I also lived in TN for a couple years. We often stopped at a gas station where they purposely used a very watered down while paint over the restroom door which was lettered "Colored People Only" or something like that.
Luckily for all of us the South is finally coming around...with the exception of certain small circles and many of their politicians.
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.
