In order to escape their truly wretched past (click on the link for my short book on the subject), modern Democrats have adopted as an article of faith the bedtime story that, thanks to Tricky Dick Nixon’s “southern strategy,” the racists who had been the backbone of their party for the better part of a century suddenly switched to the GOP en masse some time around 1968, with the happy result that now all the racists are on the right. Presto — instant virtuousness and a clean slate...I see no evidence of this flip. You make your own call.
And yet this myth persists — in fact, it’s just about the only response today’s Democrats have to their own sordid history: pinning it on the other guy. It makes them profoundly uncomfortable that among the 21 who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 can be found Albert Arnold Gore, Sr., the founder of the Hillbilly Dynasty; Robert “KKK” Byrd, the Conscience of the Senate; and Sleepin’ Sam Ervin of Watergate fame.
Just for laughs, let’s take a look at the electoral maps for 1968 (Nixon-Humphrey), 1972 (Nixon-McGovern), 1976 (Carter-Ford), and 1992 (Clinton-Bush) to see how the South voted....
Friday, March 29, 2013
Flipping Of(f) The Parties
In his book Lies My Teacher Told Me, ardent socialist James Loewen goes into striking detail about the Democrats' racist past. This article hints at it, and links to more, and then explains why the theory that "the parties changed sides, and all the racists went to the Republican Party" is just a crock:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
With all due respect to Mr. Loewen, what the Republican and Democratic parties did or didn't do is evidence, not a conclusion and that's what's wanting.
My conclusion is that the political parties really are representative and what they're representative of is human characteristics. The short-sighted, self-aggrandizing, immature, narcissistic folks have the Democratic party to represent their views and the results of the appeal to that portion of the electorate is observable in the policies the party's pursued.
Without exception those policies have been failures.
Some were failures immediately and some took years, even decades to reveal their falseness but all eventually fall and all for the same reason - their appeal is always through the advantaging of one element of the electorate to the detriment of other elements. Robbing Peter to pay Paul has been the basis of the Democratic party's appeal and as long as Pauls outnumber Peters there'll be continued hope for electoral success.
I agree with the author, and loved his book. But why is this relevant? I don't care about what Republicans were doing in 1861, or Democrats were doing in 1964. I care about what my candidate is going to do right now.
Post a Comment