4 ms·

I'm sorry to cut into your ongoing conversation here. There is no way around it. The Republicans were not a force in southern politics until they embraced raci

I'm sorry to cut into your ongoing conversation here. There is no way around it. The Republicans were not a force in southern politics until they embraced racist tactics that gave old Dixie-crats a reason to move. The Democratic party actually had the South locked as Southerners joined in protest to Republicans trying to push Reconstruction through. Your argument sounds a bit like Dinesh Disuza when you say... The Democrats created the KKK... Not really. Ex-confederates created the KKK. As the larger Democratic party embraced civil rights, women's rights, and gay rights the Republicans gave the remnants of the old southern Democrats a place to go in protest...again...against modernization. I'm sorry about the Disuza reference. I don't mean to be offensive, but he had used that line of argument in the past. EDIT: Also, just because the Republicans were the party of Lincoln doesn't mean that Reconstruction era Democrats were left on the political spectrum. That's also a tactic that today's right uses. The Republicans of Lincolns day were to the left.

masonic 7y ago
As the larger Democratic party embraced civil rights Actually, Republican Congressmembers voted for the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Acts in higher propensity than did Democrats, and all filibuster activity against these Acts was led by Democrats.
- youdontknowtho 7y ago
  Again, those were the Dixie-crats. They were segregationists. After that, the racists moved to the Republican party. Over time the Democratic party became the side that embraced multiculturalism. It's been a fight, no doubt about that, but it did happen. Saying that today's (after about 1975 or so) Republican party didn't explicitly make a play for the votes of racist Southerners that had been Democrats historically just fly's in the face of the words of the people who actually carried it out. The people involved have explicitly said that it was their strategy.
0815test 7y ago
The "Republicans were not a force in southern politics" until the South actually became contestable, yes. But they did not "embrace racist tactics" other than perhaps momentarily in the 1970s, at the tail end of the Civil Rights Era. In actual fact, Republicans were always trying all sorts of angles to appeal to southern voters: Barry Goldwater's campaigning was quite different from Nixon's, for example. The suggestion that Republicans were uniformly "against modernization", and even more so, that this was also true in the 1980s, is simply laughable when one looks at the actual history of that time. Edit: And the Republicans of Lincoln's day were defining their stances in opposition to the Democrats, who were largely agrarian and in favor of local control by the purportedly-virtuous "little guy", against broad economic modernization that would deprive the little guy of his livelihood and make him a sort of 'wage slave' of corrupt industry. You can phrase it as "the Republicans were on the left" if you like, but that's really pushing it.
- youdontknowtho 7y ago
  I actually wrote a much longer reply that I was going to post, but maybe it's easier if I just give you the point you are looking for. I don't want an open exchange of ideas. I think that the Republican party is a cancer on the body politic. I grew up in an almost 100% R state. You won't change my mind. I'm not a Democrat because I like them. I'm a Democrat because I hate the Republican party. We aren't going to agree to disagree. We are in opposition to one another. That's just life. Can we stop now? Go ahead and say something clever back. You can have the last word.
  - 0815test 7y ago
    No, I'm not going to blame you for hating the post-Trump Republican party. I won't even blame you for hating the social milieu that you grew up in - there are many parts of the U.S. that are still quite socially backward, particularly in the Deep South itself, and broad-based, grassroots social/economic development is a slow process. I do have a problem when some people (and, for the record, this isn't about you specifically, either - it's a huge problem!) outright refuse to look at the history and acknowledge the fact that "conservatives" have, in many ways, been on the side of progress, while "progressives" have occasionally been putting forth very misguided ideas and proposals.

masonic 7y ago

As the larger Democratic party embraced civil rights Actually, Republican Congressmembers voted for the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Acts in higher propensity than did Democrats, and all filibuster activity against these Acts was led by Democrats.

youdontknowtho 7y ago
Again, those were the Dixie-crats. They were segregationists. After that, the racists moved to the Republican party. Over time the Democratic party became the side that embraced multiculturalism. It's been a fight, no doubt about that, but it did happen. Saying that today's (after about 1975 or so) Republican party didn't explicitly make a play for the votes of racist Southerners that had been Democrats historically just fly's in the face of the words of the people who actually carried it out. The people involved have explicitly said that it was their strategy.

0815test 7y ago

The "Republicans were not a force in southern politics" until the South actually became contestable, yes. But they did not "embrace racist tactics" other than perhaps momentarily in the 1970s, at the tail end of the Civil Rights Era. In actual fact, Republicans were always trying all sorts of angles to appeal to southern voters: Barry Goldwater's campaigning was quite different from Nixon's, for example. The suggestion that Republicans were uniformly "against modernization", and even more so, that this was also true in the 1980s, is simply laughable when one looks at the actual history of that time. Edit: And the Republicans of Lincoln's day were defining their stances in opposition to the Democrats, who were largely agrarian and in favor of local control by the purportedly-virtuous "little guy", against broad economic modernization that would deprive the little guy of his livelihood and make him a sort of 'wage slave' of corrupt industry. You can phrase it as "the Republicans were on the left" if you like, but that's really pushing it.

youdontknowtho 7y ago
I actually wrote a much longer reply that I was going to post, but maybe it's easier if I just give you the point you are looking for. I don't want an open exchange of ideas. I think that the Republican party is a cancer on the body politic. I grew up in an almost 100% R state. You won't change my mind. I'm not a Democrat because I like them. I'm a Democrat because I hate the Republican party. We aren't going to agree to disagree. We are in opposition to one another. That's just life. Can we stop now? Go ahead and say something clever back. You can have the last word.
- 0815test 7y ago
  No, I'm not going to blame you for hating the post-Trump Republican party. I won't even blame you for hating the social milieu that you grew up in - there are many parts of the U.S. that are still quite socially backward, particularly in the Deep South itself, and broad-based, grassroots social/economic development is a slow process. I do have a problem when some people (and, for the record, this isn't about you specifically, either - it's a huge problem!) outright refuse to look at the history and acknowledge the fact that "conservatives" have, in many ways, been on the side of progress, while "progressives" have occasionally been putting forth very misguided ideas and proposals.