6 ms·

Current party lines blur to to the point of falling apart in the context of the 1964 Act, because it was a huge precipitating event for politicians switching pa

Current party lines blur to to the point of falling apart in the context of the 1964 Act, because it was a huge precipitating event for politicians switching parties (particularly Southern Democrats becoming Republicans). You can't directly map "Rs voted for the Act" onto party membership today: there was a very different mix of platforms at that time, only loosely comparable to what we have now.

kmonsen 6y ago
This is the real answer, due to the civil rights movement the DNC lost the south due to the less civil minded parts of the party switched to the republicans.
- rayiner 6y ago
  That makes literally no sense. Republicans supported the civil rights acts of 1957 through 1968 with supermajorities, by far larger margins than democrats did. How can it be that "due to the civil rights movement," "less civil minded" people switched from a party that voted for the Civil Rights Acts, to the party that voted for the Civil Rights Acts by even larger margins? The realignment of southern democrats is due more to the fact that, once segregation--which democrats tolerated and republicans didn't--was off the table, they were more aligned with republicans on other issues, such as religion, gun control, abortion, business regulation, taxes, etc.
  - kmonsen 6y ago
    You are either willfully cherry-picking facts here or being ignorant. This info is widely available and it was the racists south that was against the civil rights movement and the union states pushed it through. When the 64 law passed the DNC had 21 out of 22 confederate senators, 1 of whom voted for the act. GOP had 1 southern senator, who voted against it. Looking at the union numbers, DNC had 46 senators of whom 45 voted for the act while the GOP had 32 of which 27 voted for it. So in union numbers the DNC senators voted 98% for it, while GOP did so with 84%. Here is a longer article with this information: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republ... As a result of this both parties changed. The DNC took a stand for civil rights and the southern democrats left. At the same time the GOP got a lot new members that influenced the party and created the new power base for it. Later GOP close victories all relied on the previous southern democrats. Bigger picture, it is clear that the party depending on the south needs to cater to a voting base that is not very positive to civil rights movement, and the opposite for a party that wants to hold the north. It is important to understand that the DNC took a stand here that lost them the south long term because it was the right thing to do (in their minds).
    - rayiner 6y ago
      So your theory is that "racists" left the DNC because it "took a stand for civil rights" and decamped to the party that had taken a stronger stand for civil rights for the 100 years preceding that? How does that make sense? You are also not really correct in claiming that "later GOP close victories all relied on the previous southern democrats." The 1976 Carter-Ford election was pretty close, with Carter winning by 2% overall. In North Carolina, Carter won by 10 points, while he won New York by less than 5 points. Regan won North Carolina by 2 points and New York by 3 points 1980. It's no doubt that Republicans gained a decisive advantage in the south eventually, but that happened decades later.
      - kmonsen 6y ago
        Again you are cherry-picking data and ignoring the bigger picture. The fact that you are able to do so means that you are just a troll and I will not comment further after this post. Yes Carter had a larger margin in some souther states, he was also a souther politician. But this is not what I said. Close GOP victories relied on the south. These are the close elections after this period: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_presidentia... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidentia... Also if you look at the election during this time Johnson won every state except from the south: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_United_States_presidentia... Also, please no "racist" when it comes to Dixiecrats. Read up on for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Russell_Jr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Russell_Jr. and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond The might not agree with the racist label but openly believe the white race is superior and would clearly today be called a racist.
        rayiner 6y ago
        You’re pointing to elections that happened more than three decades after the Civil Rights Acts of 1957-1968. That doesn’t support your point that the parties’ positions in the Civil Rights Acts was critical to those results. Couldn’t it be that those results are the product of things that happened during the 1990s, such as Democratic support for affirmative action? As to the scare quotes, I’m using them because you’re using the term to refer to people who voted for Bush, it just Storm Thurmond.
rayiner 6y ago
That's an overstatement, which has been popularized by Democrats to distance themselves from their longstanding coalition with southern segregationists. The key Civil Rights Acts were passed from 1957 to 1968. The political alignments on various issues haven't changed much since FDR. Democrats were on the liberal alignment with respect to government regulation, business freedom, taxes, education, immigration, social welfare, religion, gun control, etc. Contrary to your statement, the Civil Rights Acts were not a "precipitating event for politicians switching parties." That doesn't even make sense--why would politicians who were against civil rights join the party that much more strongly supported every Civil Rights Act from 1957 to 1968? The realignment of southern democrats actually occurred much later. Nixon did not win a majority in any southern state--to the extent he won with a plurality, it was only because the Democratic vote was split between Humphrey and Wallace. In 1976, Carter won with the same east-coast south/north coalition that long voted Democrat; with Ford winning the west coast and mid-west. Reagan won almost every state, but his margins in New York were larger than his margins in Alabama or the Carolinas. Reagan did blow out Mondale in the south in 1984, but I'm not sure how much that tells us. Even by the time of Clinton, he won Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Georgia, not to mention Arkansas. I think the more accurate take is that the political realignment of the parties on "civil rights" issues happened more in the mid-late 1980s through 1990s. And it happened because the nature of the "civil rights" debate morphed over that time. The battle fronts during the 1980s and 1990s was not eliminating de jure and overt discrimination (the aim of the 1950s and 1960s legislation republicans supported), but measures like affirmative action, which sought to use the power of government to shape private conduct to eliminate existing inequities. That of course maps very cleanly onto longstanding republican versus democrat positions. (I'll give another example of situations where political alignments change because the issue has changed rather than the "mix of platforms" of the parties. On the abortion front, for example, a significant amount of the debate has moved from talking about whether it should be legal at all, to talking about whether religious organizations should be required to provide healthcare coverage for them, whether the government should support them with public funding, etc. If you're a consistent libertarian, you might have found yourself more aligned with Democrats back in the early 1990s, but more aligned with Republicans today.)
- wool_gather 6y ago

kmonsen 6y ago

This is the real answer, due to the civil rights movement the DNC lost the south due to the less civil minded parts of the party switched to the republicans.

rayiner 6y ago
That makes literally no sense. Republicans supported the civil rights acts of 1957 through 1968 with supermajorities, by far larger margins than democrats did. How can it be that "due to the civil rights movement," "less civil minded" people switched from a party that voted for the Civil Rights Acts, to the party that voted for the Civil Rights Acts by even larger margins? The realignment of southern democrats is due more to the fact that, once segregation--which democrats tolerated and republicans didn't--was off the table, they were more aligned with republicans on other issues, such as religion, gun control, abortion, business regulation, taxes, etc.
- kmonsen 6y ago
  You are either willfully cherry-picking facts here or being ignorant. This info is widely available and it was the racists south that was against the civil rights movement and the union states pushed it through. When the 64 law passed the DNC had 21 out of 22 confederate senators, 1 of whom voted for the act. GOP had 1 southern senator, who voted against it. Looking at the union numbers, DNC had 46 senators of whom 45 voted for the act while the GOP had 32 of which 27 voted for it. So in union numbers the DNC senators voted 98% for it, while GOP did so with 84%. Here is a longer article with this information: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republ... As a result of this both parties changed. The DNC took a stand for civil rights and the southern democrats left. At the same time the GOP got a lot new members that influenced the party and created the new power base for it. Later GOP close victories all relied on the previous southern democrats. Bigger picture, it is clear that the party depending on the south needs to cater to a voting base that is not very positive to civil rights movement, and the opposite for a party that wants to hold the north. It is important to understand that the DNC took a stand here that lost them the south long term because it was the right thing to do (in their minds).
  - rayiner 6y ago
    So your theory is that "racists" left the DNC because it "took a stand for civil rights" and decamped to the party that had taken a stronger stand for civil rights for the 100 years preceding that? How does that make sense? You are also not really correct in claiming that "later GOP close victories all relied on the previous southern democrats." The 1976 Carter-Ford election was pretty close, with Carter winning by 2% overall. In North Carolina, Carter won by 10 points, while he won New York by less than 5 points. Regan won North Carolina by 2 points and New York by 3 points 1980. It's no doubt that Republicans gained a decisive advantage in the south eventually, but that happened decades later.
    - kmonsen 6y ago
      Again you are cherry-picking data and ignoring the bigger picture. The fact that you are able to do so means that you are just a troll and I will not comment further after this post. Yes Carter had a larger margin in some souther states, he was also a souther politician. But this is not what I said. Close GOP victories relied on the south. These are the close elections after this period: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_presidentia... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidentia... Also if you look at the election during this time Johnson won every state except from the south: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_United_States_presidentia... Also, please no "racist" when it comes to Dixiecrats. Read up on for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Russell_Jr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Russell_Jr. and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond The might not agree with the racist label but openly believe the white race is superior and would clearly today be called a racist.
      - rayiner 6y ago
        You’re pointing to elections that happened more than three decades after the Civil Rights Acts of 1957-1968. That doesn’t support your point that the parties’ positions in the Civil Rights Acts was critical to those results. Couldn’t it be that those results are the product of things that happened during the 1990s, such as Democratic support for affirmative action? As to the scare quotes, I’m using them because you’re using the term to refer to people who voted for Bush, it just Storm Thurmond.

rayiner 6y ago

That's an overstatement, which has been popularized by Democrats to distance themselves from their longstanding coalition with southern segregationists. The key Civil Rights Acts were passed from 1957 to 1968. The political alignments on various issues haven't changed much since FDR. Democrats were on the liberal alignment with respect to government regulation, business freedom, taxes, education, immigration, social welfare, religion, gun control, etc. Contrary to your statement, the Civil Rights Acts were not a "precipitating event for politicians switching parties." That doesn't even make sense--why would politicians who were against civil rights join the party that much more strongly supported every Civil Rights Act from 1957 to 1968? The realignment of southern democrats actually occurred much later. Nixon did not win a majority in any southern state--to the extent he won with a plurality, it was only because the Democratic vote was split between Humphrey and Wallace. In 1976, Carter won with the same east-coast south/north coalition that long voted Democrat; with Ford winning the west coast and mid-west. Reagan won almost every state, but his margins in New York were larger than his margins in Alabama or the Carolinas. Reagan did blow out Mondale in the south in 1984, but I'm not sure how much that tells us. Even by the time of Clinton, he won Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Georgia, not to mention Arkansas. I think the more accurate take is that the political realignment of the parties on "civil rights" issues happened more in the mid-late 1980s through 1990s. And it happened because the nature of the "civil rights" debate morphed over that time. The battle fronts during the 1980s and 1990s was not eliminating de jure and overt discrimination (the aim of the 1950s and 1960s legislation republicans supported), but measures like affirmative action, which sought to use the power of government to shape private conduct to eliminate existing inequities. That of course maps very cleanly onto longstanding republican versus democrat positions. (I'll give another example of situations where political alignments change because the issue has changed rather than the "mix of platforms" of the parties. On the abortion front, for example, a significant amount of the debate has moved from talking about whether it should be legal at all, to talking about whether religious organizations should be required to provide healthcare coverage for them, whether the government should support them with public funding, etc. If you're a consistent libertarian, you might have found yourself more aligned with Democrats back in the early 1990s, but more aligned with Republicans today.)

wool_gather 6y ago