[edit] DNC conservative?
The Democrats were always the party of labor and the GOP the party of big business even dating back to the 19th century, so that hasn't changed. The American Federation of Labor was instituted by Democrats.[1] The Democrats always opposed civil rights for blacks and women even as they instituted reforms on child labor and labor unions. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Were you homeskolled? Everyone here is aware that the Democrats were the party of racism and segregation prior to the Southern Strategy. The majority of us are also aware of the 1896 election, where Democrats became basically populist. Declaring the parties to be "business" and "labor" is not even wrong. Hipocrite 01:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- "GOP the party of big business even dating back to the 18th century" I don't think 1854 was the 18th century.
- "The Democrats always opposed civil rights for blacks and women even as they instituted reforms on child labor and labor unions" You're right on part a) up to the 1940s, but not on part b). Read up on the Democratic Party pre-Wilson and the Radical Republicans; I don't think Grover Cleveland was a populist. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- If the parties switched like you want to claim, then why did only 2 Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act, out of 112, actually become Republicans, Strom Thurmond and John Jarman? If the parties switched, why was a Ku Klux Klan leader still serving as the ranking Democrat of the U.S. Senate for the Democratic Party, Robert Byrd? Byrd actually filibustered the Civil Rights Act. Al Gore is another famous Democrat helping lead today's Democratic Party, his father also voted against the Civil Rights Act at the time.
- As pointed out here, integration occurred and the south abandoned slavery, while the old racist Democrats did remain with the party.
- "The idea that 'the Dixiecrats joined the Republicans' is not quite true, as you note. But because of Strom Thurmond it is accepted as a fact. What happened is that the **next** generation (post 1965) of white southern politicians — Newt, Trent Lott, Ashcroft, Cochran, Alexander, etc — joined the GOP. So it was really a passing of the torch as the old segregationists retired and were replaced by new young GOP guys. One particularly galling aspect to generalizations about 'segregationists became GOP' is that the new GOP South was INTEGRATED for crying out loud, they accepted the Civil Rights revolution. Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter led a group of what would become 'New' Democrats like Clinton and Al Gore."[2]
- I see no evidence the actual racists ever switched parties, and they certainly did not switch soon enough to avoid influencing the 1970s liberal movements like abortion. The same Democrats who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act so fervently were the same ones who would be involved in the 1970s pro-choice movement. They went straight from supporting lynching to supporting abortion.
- Democrats were the party of racism, and still are the party of racism. They just want to claim erroneously that the parties switched after all the civil rights legislation got passed because of Republicans and in spite of Democrat opposition. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Also, Democrats were supporting labor before the 1896 election as I pointed out, throughout the 19th century, dating back to the 1870s at least. That the parties have remained consistent in their stances on labor and business since their beginnings is a strong evidence they did not switch as the article claims. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- "One particularly galling aspect to generalizations about 'segregationists became GOP' is that the new GOP South was INTEGRATED for crying out loud, they accepted the Civil Rights revolution." Shut up, get out. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- You fail to mention that those 50 years have been overwhelmingly governed by Democrats in Congress. Democrats had virtually complete control of Congress until 1995, the only time Republicans have really had control at all was from 1995-2006 when employment and median incomes shot up, including for African-Americans. In other words, your argument results in blame primarily of Democrats since they've been the ones overwhelmingly controlling Congress the past 5 decades.
- Think your arguments through better next time.--Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- "Think your arguments through better next time." There we are. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- So you're admitting you used Cohen's Law when you said "Shut up, get out" and can't refute or address my points now? Well, it's good to see you have humility anyway. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 02:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- These are your claims:
- That the current Democratic Party, which overwhelmingly elected the first black POTUS in American history, retains the same electorate and political ideology preferred by the American South of the 1960s, not the same Northern states representing the Union in the American Civil War.
- That the Northern Rockefeller Republicans, which overwhelmingly voted for the Civil Rights Act, still exist as a political force.
- That black wages, despite all evidence to the contrary, have not stagnated compared to whites since the advent of neoconservatism the New Right, and that the GOP is the party that is currently protecting civil rights (also, nice try at defending Trent Lott).
- That the Southern Strategy, despite all historical evidence to the contrary, never existed.
- That the US labour movement was (and still is) historically tied to racism.
- That "abortion is black genocide" and the pro-sexual liberation, pro-Civil Rights counterculture that finally split the New Deal coalition was secretly racist. (Also, damn did that black eugenics work, eh?)
- You're not just wrong, but fractally wrong. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- And don't you know that when the Democrats control congress, they are governing, but when the republicans control congress, the president is governing. It's just so convenient, if you just want to be right! I weep for the youth. Hipocrite 02:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Osaka, so you are arguing the Rockefeller Republicans like George W. Romney are an extinct breed, that black wage stagnation has nothing to do with the fact that Democrats have primarily run Congress the past 50 years, that Democrats changed their position on race but not labor, that the Southern Strategy meant all the racist Democrats who'd opposed civil rights suddenly decided to join the party who'd fought for civil rights and the parties just held hands and chose to switch sides, and that Lyndon B. Johnson being a racist passing the civil rights act to get the black vote is irrelevant.[3] Obama ironically won using race-based appeals, for example his political godfather Emil Jones called African Americans (see Delmarie Cobb) who criticized Obama 'Uncle Toms' and said they had to vote for their brother. That so many people chose to vote for a corrupt, dishonest person because of skin color instead of character, with 96% of blacks voting for him, far more than any other demographic, was itself racist, ironically, and shows the Democrats are still racist. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- "Lyndon B. Johnson being a racist passing the civil rights act to get the black vote is irrelevant" So Harry Truman's desegregation of the military and JFK's efforts at civil rights means that the Democratic Party was a monolithic bloc of Southerners? Osaka Sun (talk) 04:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- So wait... the Democrats are racist because they're too pro-black, because you were just arguing the opposite. And do you know what the hell a Rockefeller Republican is? ClothCoat (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- This is far from the first time I've seen American conservatives like yourself interpret ideological/Congressional control wrong. US debt massively skyrocketed in the 80s due to military spending and tax cuts, yet it was either a split- or Dem-controlled Congress the entire time. This suggests either two things: a) that the newly-instilled Democrats in the North were hilariously incapable of doing their jobs, or b) the majority of Democrats were from still from the South, relatively pro-Reagan, and eventually turned GOP.
- Well, would you look at that. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Racism just means the opposite of what the great Martin Luther King Jr. preached, looking at a person's character apart from their skin color. There are black racists just like there are white racists. Many people voted for Obama without knowing where he stood on issues, as ridiculed by Michael Stern, and were just voting for him out of racism.[4][5]
- And Democrats had virtually complete control of Congress from 1933-1994. The only exceptions were 1947-49, 1953-55 (both GOP controlled house and senate), and 1981-87 (Republicans controlled the Senate by a slight margin).[6] So in other words, if you want to blame someone for the problems of African-American wages and employment over the last 50 years, look at the party who controlled Congress primarily during that time, which was clearly the Democrats. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 04:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- So let me understand, the white supremacist democrats are also anti-white racists? Or they became anti-black? Or their anti-black and too pro-black? Also, congress can't change what people do at the state level. According to the laws of Crank magnetism I'm going to take a wild guess here and say that you are also a global warming denialist, a Christian fundamentalist, a young earth creationist, and convinced the Nazi's were left-wing. How many did I guess correctly?ClothCoat (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Party Switchers
If the parties switched like you want to claim, then why did only 2 Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act, out of 112, actually become Republicans, Strom Thurmond and John Jarman?
How interesting. How many more party switchers would you need to have before you believed there was a true ideological switch? Hipocrite 02:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Lol yep I've seen hard right nuts pull these arguments before. The early dixiecrat politicians didn't change parties, but the dixiecrat voters themselves did change parties, which switched the ideologies in each party around. The dixiecrats were far-right paleoconservatives, if you honestly think modern Democrats are paleoconservatives you're crazy.ClothCoat (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- I've examined this in-depth here. 112 Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, a higher percentage of Democrats than Republicans voted against the CRA, and only 2 of them switched. Clearly the racist Democrats stayed Democrats and were the same liberal Democrats who started the pro-abortion and gay rights movements in the 1970s just a few years later.
- You've attempted to examine it in depth. I'm asking you how wrong you could be before you change your opinion. How many more party switchers does it take to change your mind? Be exact. Hipocrite 04:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Again, the South did not begin supporting the pro-civil rights GOP until it began supporting civil rights following integration in the 1960s. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Please enlighten us as to why white supremicts would be pro gay right and pro abortion. Also, did you read what I said about the voters and ideologies swiching, not the politicians themselves. The dixiecrat politicians died off and were replaced with moderates/lilberals and, again, the dixiecrats HATED liberals, that's why they tried to break off from them twice. See the State's Rights Democratic Party and the American Independent Party. While you're at it look up wingnut.ClothCoat (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- White supremacists would be pro-abortion because they discriminate against the rights of children so they can live as they want without the responsibilities which should accompany sexual lifestyle choices, passing the consequences on to their unborn children by murdering them just like they once murdered African Americans through lynching. Alan Keyes pointed this out in his speeches, he was the first Republican I ever voted for. They refuse to respect the right to life of the unborn and sometimes even born (see Born Alive Infant Protection Act - which they opposed) just like white supremacists once opposed those same rights for African Americans.
- As for gay rights, they want to declare themselves a privileged class just like white supremacists once did, which is why they try to force the teaching of gay role models in classrooms[7] and create laws that allow them to sue anyone who disagrees with their lifestyle.[8] Anyway, the same pattern is used by those movements as white supremacists. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- You are Poe's Law in action. But Why are the white supremacists themselves pro-gay, oh wise one?ClothCoat (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe that's the logical extension of the same selfish attitude that made them want to control the rights of other people based on race, I don't know. Regardless, liberals in both movements oppose the freedoms of religion, speech, and right to life of others like their forebears, the white supremacists, did. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 04:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- As I think about this further, I think perhaps it is because homosexuality is a form of slavery, enslaving others to one's own lusts, a point that has been made by ex-homosexuals like Michael Glatze.[9] --Jzyehoshua (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thank God you added that, for a second I thought you were a far-right homophobe. Tell me, what do you think about Nazis and homosexuality?ClothCoat (talk) 04:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
|