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.
If you were not in the South during the 60s and 70s, you might not have been aware of that "party within a party" aspect. The War Gen (and earlier) Dixiecrats were simply not going to join the Party of Lincoln...period. They were never going to call themselves Republicans like Damnyankees and scalawags--they owed that to their fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers.
But they would certainly vote for whoever espoused the strongest segregationist platform.
It was the younger Boomer children (born in the late 50s to mid 60s) of these Dixiecrats who would join the Republican party as they began their political lives.
You see the shift of southern states from blue to red as the old Dixiecrats died out and these young Republican Boomers began to populate the rolls.
The transition from blue to red was not as fast as some people make it out to be. However, the seeds of it come from the Dixiecrats. The Dixiecrats split from the Democrats. This stuff has evolved.
Saying things like "the only reason Blacks vote Democrat is for free stuff" is a cop out and dishonest. It's used when some people get upset that Black voters won't choose a Republican candidate.
The transition from blue to red was not as fast as some people make it out to be. However, the seeds of it come from the Dixiecrats. The Dixiecrats split from the Democrats. This stuff has evolved.
Saying things like "the only reason Blacks vote Democrat is for free stuff" is a cop out and dishonest. It's used when some people get upset that Black voters won't choose a Republican candidate.
The Dixiecrats were a fairly short-lived phenomenon (in 1948), and all Dixiecrats went back to the Democratic party after the Dixiecrats folded. Strom Thurmond was the only Dixiecrat who eventually switched to the GOP. He did not switch until 1964. So he remained a Democrat for about 16 years after running as Dixiecrat nominee.
The title is a little strange, but 'exceptionalism' refers to 'differentness' rather than 'superiority.'
The authors conclude that the transition from blue to red was more due to a changing Southern economy ('the 'New South') than anything else. The book stemmed from a debate at Oxford U. between historians over the nature of the transition. Prof. Richard Johnston, while listening to the debate, realized that he could nail down the answer through data, and the book was the result.
The Dixiecrats were a fairly short-lived phenomenon (in 1948), and all Dixiecrats went back to the Democratic party after the Dixiecrats folded. Strom Thurmond was the only Dixiecrat who eventually switched to the GOP. He did not switch until 1964. So he remained a Democrat for about 16 years after running as Dixiecrat nominee.
The title is a little strange, but 'exceptionalism' refers to 'differentness' rather than 'superiority.'
The authors conclude that the transition from blue to red was more due to a changing Southern economy ('the 'New South') than anything else. The book stemmed from a debate at Oxford U. between historians over the nature of the transition. Prof. Richard Johnston, while listening to the debate, realized that he could nail down the answer through data, and the book was the result.
Most liberal Democrats cannot name any of the segregationist senators other than Strom Thumond. That indicates that they don't research things on their own.
They say Democrat racist voters switched to GOP because Strom Thummond did, but when it is pointed out he was only segregationist senator that switched to GOP, they say the big switch happened anyway.
Democrats don't have a problem with the Va gov having a racist photo depicting a lynching by a KKK member in his college yearbook. Shouldn't he be a Republican if there was a big post 1964 switch based on race.
"In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. "
"To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."
Last edited by ClemVegas; 04-26-2019 at 10:57 PM..
I've been reading Death of a Nation by Dinesh D'Souza, and he says no. He has a lot of compelling info to back it. I leave a lot out here, for brevity's sake.
First of all, integral to the 'Big Switch' is Nixon's 'Southern Strategy' of 1968. This is a much-beloved left wing notion, to the point that it still gets dredged up 50 years later. There are various problems with the 'Southern Strategy' theory, but I'll just cite one. Nixon's actions as president were entirely inconsistent with it. Prior to 1968, 70% of Southern black students attended segregated schools. When Nixon left, the number was down to 8%, specifically thanks to his efforts.
But suppose the 'Southern Strategy' is phantasmagoric. Couldn't there still have been a 'Big Switch.' D'Souza says 'no.' He looks all Dixiecrats and all Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Exactly ONE of this group switched to the GOP--Strom Thurmond. And with him, there is evidence of a genuine conversion on issues of race.
D'Souza cites an academic study, The End of Southern Exceptionalism. Exceptionalism here refers to 'differentness, not 'greatness.' They found that the shift to the GOP really began under Ike (1952-1960). Eisenhower won 5 'peripheral south' states, which had begun to transform into the 'New South,' which was more urban, more industrial, and less racist. The study split the South into 2 camps--the 'Old South' which was rural, agricultural, and had a long tradition of racism. Then there was the 'New South.' What they found was that the shift followed the growth of the New South. Slowly and gradually, the Old South made the same transformation. It was an economic transformation, not a 'Big Switch' based on race politics.
At the same time, the Democratic party was losing appeal in the South by moving further left, to wit George McGovern in 1972. Still, Jimmy Carter swept the South in 1976, and Bill Clinton won a majority there in 1992. The transformation was not really close to complete until 1994. In 2000 George W. Bush swept the South. D'Souza concludes, "The South has now become like the rest of the country. Southerners are Republican for the same reason that other Americans are Republican...race has relatively little to do with it." The "Big Switch," like the "Southern Strategy" is a myth and a canard.
If the truth came out, the people would be less divided. Government drives the division, to use as a tool, for control of their property.... The People.
If the people united, it would be game over for government control. That boot firmly placed on the peoples throats in 1913, was the end of Freedom & Liberty in the USA. The people became property of the Government and the States no longer had any say.
"In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. "
"To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."
Good link, thank you. I hadn't seen that before, but it's a good brief summation of the book. The book is only about 200 pages, but written (as with the title) in a cryptic style. I suspect these academic authors did not want to get caught up in a political knife-fight.
I don't recall even one post in the thread that effectively answers to the methods and conclusions of the book.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 23 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,556 posts, read 16,542,682 times
Reputation: 6041
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t
Good link, thank you. I hadn't seen that before, but it's a good brief summation of the book. The book is only about 200 pages, but written (as with the title) in a cryptic style. I suspect these academic authors did not want to get caught up in a political knife-fight.
I don't recall even one post in the thread that effectively answers to the methods and conclusions of the book.
There is a wikipedia page thats lists all the people who have switched from Dem to Republican, its not that hard to see the switch.
The fact that States like Alabama went from Democrats winning with 80% of the vote to Republians winning with North of 60 in less than 2 decades clearly shows that.
People like yourself falsely look at current office, instead of political lifetime.
Rick Perry(governor of Texas) Martinez(governor of New Mexico)
Nathan Deal ( governor of Georgia)
Frank White(governor of Arkansas)
Fob James(governor of Alabama)
Mike Foster( governor of Louisiana)
Sonny Perdue (governor of Georgia)
Eric Greitchens(governor of Missouri)
John Connally( governor of Texas)
David Beasley(governor, South Carolina)
Thad Cochran( Senator, Mississippi)
Jesse Helms( Senator, South Carolina)
Trent Lott( Senator, Mississippi)
Elizabeth Dole( Senator, North Carolina)
Phil Gramm( Senator, Texas)
Lauch Faircloth(Senator, North Carolina)
Richard Shelby( Senator, Alabama)
John Kennedy( Senator, Louisiana )
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 23 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,556 posts, read 16,542,682 times
Reputation: 6041
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemVegas
Most liberal Democrats cannot name any of the segregationist senators other than Strom Thumond. That indicates that they don't research things on their own.
They say Democrat racist voters switched to GOP because Strom Thummond did, but when it is pointed out he was only segregationist senator that switched to GOP, they say the big switch happened anyway.\
WHy would you think Strom being the only sitting senator to switch proves your point, the fact that he was continuously reelected afterwards actually disproves your point, as does my link.
Not everyone who switched, did so while in office, some of them did it before they ran, or when they were state senators or mayors and you ignore that.
WHy would you think Strom being the only sitting senator to switch proves your point, the fact that he was continuously reelected afterwards actually disproves your point, as does my link.
Not everyone who switched, did so while in office, some of them did it before they ran, or when they were state senators or mayors and you ignore that.
Strom was re-elected based on his views on taxes, Soviet Union, not his past racism when he was a Democrat.
His campaigns as a Republican were not similar to his Democrat/Dixiecrat campaigns.
None of the people you listed above switched because of racism. You are asserting that without evidence. Nobody has ever said there are no Democrats that switched for any reason. You are debating a strawman.
David Beasley actually pushed for the Confederate flag to be taken off the SC state house, not consistent with a white racist approach.
If all of those people are racists, you should be able to provide racist quotes by them or point to racist policies. You can't.
People like yourself falsely look at current office, instead of political lifetime.
I don't quite understand what the above means--explain please.
No one denies that there was a shift in the South from blue to red in the latter half of the 20th cent. It would be stupid to say that. The question is what prompted the shift.
The common myth is that Southern white racists left the Democratic party for the GOP. According to Shafer and Johnston, it was more due to an economic shift (the 'New South'), which is shown by data.
People do sometimes switch parties for various reasons. We had a state senator here named Rodney Tom who was fiscal conservative/social liberal, and I think he switched back and forth several times between parties. He ran last year as a Democrat, but lost to a more liberal Democrat. Did it have anything to do with race? No.
We have another Democratic state Senator named Tim Sheldon who is well to the right of most Republicans, and caucuses with Republicans, but remains a Democrat. I think he grew up as a D, and wants to remain a D. Again, nothing to do with race politics.
Dinesh D'Souza tallied 200 former Dixiecrats and Dems who opposed the civil rights act of 1964. Of the 200, just 1 switched to the GOP--Strom Thurmond.
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.
