Incoming Flame - Republicans ...

[homer13j]

In short, the racist element moved to Republican in the 60s, which is as close as we come to pro-slavery today.

Heh... reminds me of a sign spotted at one of the recent Tea Party protests:



I would argue that the racist element didn't switch parties, it merely switched directions. So-called "affirmative action," racial quotas, and general racial bean counting are promoted almost exclusively by the Democrats. It is the Democrat party that has become obsessed with the color of skin, and when conservatives or Republicans (the two are no longer synonymous) try to argue in favor of judging people solely by the content of their character we are the ones automatically deemed as "racists."

It is yet another thing I find highly offensive and yet another reason I tend to avoid listening to the mainstream media.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I would argue that the racist element didn't switch parties, it merely switched directions. So-called "affirmative action," racial quotas, and general racial bean counting are promoted almost exclusively by the Democrats. It is the Democrat party that has become obsessed with the color of skin, and when conservatives or Republicans (the two are no longer synonymous) try to argue in favor of judging people solely by the content of their character we are the ones automatically deemed as "racists."

I have no problem with what you said, and I wasn't talking about you anyways. The groups I am talking about are the Aryan Nations (you will find ID associated with them quite often), militia groups, constitutionalist, white supremacists, and other types. They are fringe groups, but entirely in the R column. At one point, though, their positions were not fringe, and at that time, I think they were largely D (Dixiecrats, KKK, etc.).

To go a bit further on the party split, notice that the Democrats have taken a strong majority in the house. The Rs can't block squat, but they don't need to, as the Ds are blocking things right and left. The D plan was to support anybody who would run as a D and could win. They built a tent so big that there are people in it who aren't even related (politically). Meanwhile, enrollment in the R party has declined significantly (though that doesn't mean the Ds are gaining, because they aren't, really). The base from which the Rs have drawn support has declined, while the base from which the Ds have drawn support has grown, but that base is changing its views. The generation that fought the race battles of Civil Rights is aging. Their replacements have much different agendas. However, this doesn't mean that they want to go R. This, coupled with the broad tent approach, could marginalize the Rs and split the Ds. Since no party wants to be powerless, I would expect that the major fault line in the R party would cause both sides to seek to merge with like minded groups. Right now, the two halves of the R party are not like minded, but remain together because unity gives each side a strength that they would otherwise lack. If the R party fades, the two halves will lack the incentive to remain in an uncomfortable union. As the D party changes, the two halves of the R party will merge with, and splinter, the unweildly D party.

All the pieces of this are currently in place. Furthermore, it has happened before in this country (we didn't always have Rs, and the Ds were once quite different). On the other hand, something totally different could happen. For one thing, there is considerable affinity for a party. After all, the Ds moved left on civil rights, but the south didn't switch parties until the passage of the Civil Rights Act shocked them out of a distaste for the R party that was still lingering from the Civil War, despite the fact that none of the people involved had been alive during the Civil War. Therefore, a percieved identification with a single party can keep people voting for that party long after the party has ceased to represent their interests.

[homer13j]

The groups I am talking about are the Aryan Nations (you will find ID associated with them quite often), militia groups, constitutionalist, white supremacists, and other types. They are fringe groups, but entirely in the R column. At one point, though, their positions were not fringe, and at that time, I think they were largely D (Dixiecrats, KKK, etc.).

At the time they were pretty much all Ds and all are still quite on the fringe. And I'm thinking your definition of "constitutionalist" is quite different from mine...

After all, the Ds moved left on civil rights, but the south didn't switch parties until the passage of the Civil Rights Act shocked them out of a distaste for the R partythat was still lingering from the Civil War, despite the fact that none of the people involved had been alive during the Civil War.

Now I consider myself a student of history (currently building a website dedicated to Ohio trolley lines - all dead by 1938), but not political history. The way I understand it the Civil Rights Act was locked in a house committee by southern Democrats and the bill likely would have died there if not for president Kennedy's fateful ride through Dealey Plaza. Once Lyndon Johnson was sworn in he twisted enough Democrat arms to finally move the bill to the house floor for a vote.

Republicans voted 80%-20% for the Civil Rights Act in both the house and senate. A very inconvenient historic fact that gets glossed over all too often or completely ignored altogether.

But you are trying to tell me that southern racists switched to the Republican party because of Republican support for the Civil Rights Act?

[Shaggy Hiker]

At the time they were pretty much all Ds and all are still quite on the fringe. And I'm thinking your definition of "constitutionalist" is quite different from mine...

Yeah. I may well have the wrong name for the group. I'm refering to the group that believes that anything not explicitly included in the Constitution is explicitly illegal, regardless of laws.

Now I consider myself a student of history (currently building a website dedicated to Ohio trolley lines - all dead by 1938), but not political history. The way I understand it the Civil Rights Act was locked in a house committee by southern Democrats and the bill likely would have died there if not for president Kennedy's fateful ride through Dealey Plaza. Once Lyndon Johnson was sworn in he twisted enough Democrat arms to finally move the bill to the house floor for a vote.

Republicans voted 80%-20% for the Civil Rights Act in both the house and senate. A very inconvenient historic fact that gets glossed over all too often or completely ignored altogether.

But you are trying to tell me that southern racists switched to the Republican party because of Republican support for the Civil Rights Act?

[/QUOTE]

None of that surprises me, though I didn't know the details about R voting patterns. LBJ was very much an arm twister, and the Rs at the time were to the left of where the Ds are today. I'm not suggesting that the south went R because the Rs supported the Civil Rights Act, but LBJ stated that the south would go R because the Ds pushed the Civil Rights Act, and the south did go R immediately afterwards. There is almost never direct causality in anything political, and there are counter examples to any inferred causality. However, since LBJ stated that X would happen as a result of Y, and X followed soon after Y, that view has to gain a certain credence (though technically, being a non-replicated chaotic system, it can always be wrong).