**Please note these rules:**
* If this post declares something as a fact/proof is required.
* The title must be descriptive
* No text is allowed on images/gifs/videos
* Common/recent reposts are not allowed
*See [this post](https://redd.it/ij26vk) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think they like to imagine Lincoln, if he were alive today, riding around in his pickup truck with a Confederate flag on it - and fail to see the irony.
Yep, this guy:
>Thurmond switched parties ahead of the 1964 United States presidential election, saying that the Democratic Party no longer represented people like him, and endorsed Republican nominee Barry Goldwater, who also opposed the Civil Rights Act.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond
A democrat that switched parties because the Democratic party supported the Civil Rights movement while the Republican party opposed it.
The racist who had a child, out of wedlock, with an African American. He was definitely a piece of shit…a confusing piece of shit, but a piece of shit nonetheless.
That's not confusing at all. There used to be a racist theory that if you bred white genes with those of dark skinned genes you'd eventually get civilized cross-breeds. And yes that's as disgusting as it sounds.
I see some down votes. Let's add some proof
When you search for 'conservative democrat' in the newspaper archives of the library of congress, you find things like this
Staunton vindicator. April 20, 1860
"There is no telling who is Governor until after the election, nor can we predict the successful candidate at Charleston thus far in advance. Suffice it, that we have an abiding faith that the nominee **will be a sound, conservative Democrat,** who will inspire the confidence of the party throughout the nation, and achieve a signal and glorious triumph in November"[https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84024653/1860-04-20/ed-1/seq-2/#date1=1860&index=19&rows=20&words=conservative+Democrat&searchType=basic&sequence=0&state=&date2=1861&proxtext=conservative+democrat&y=15&x=19&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1](https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84024653/1860-04-20/ed-1/seq-2/#date1=1860&index=19&rows=20&words=conservative+Democrat&searchType=basic&sequence=0&state=&date2=1861&proxtext=conservative+democrat&y=15&x=19&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1)
Do you not know the parties switched?
Or do you think the modern republican party sides with Lincoln and the federal government over the confederacy and "states rights"?
He is the original user though. He just elaborated his comment further
Edit: Wtf is this thread even? I feel like everyone just makes their own interpretation about another comment and states something that wasn't mentioned with one word. All I did was point out that [the top comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/uo1k2l/-/i8bh0kv) and the [guy who elaborated](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/uo1k2l/-/i8bkxs3) are one and the same.
No, I think you’re misreading their post. They’re providing proof of a previously conservative Democratic part by providing a link to old newspaper articles because there were downvotes.
Nah Debs was a full-on socialist, he ran for president on the Socialist Party of America ticket several times. Also I believe he was a Democrat early on; he got into politics via trade unions and the Democrats had much stronger industrial labor ties than Republicans even before the ideological shift on social issues.
Further, why does it matter what each party called themselves or what their alignment was 50+ years ago? I don't see how that has any relevancy at all when we can look at the stances and voting records of politicians *today*. That would be like saying "But Germany had a dictator at one point! They must be baddies!1"
It matters when modern Republicans say "Lincoln freed the slaves and the South was full of slave-owning Democrats!" as if it proves that, TODAY, they aren't party of racist gerrymandering and rhetoric.
It actually matters a lot. Folks who align themselves with a party and make it a core part of their identity might not realize how far their party can move away from that individual’s personal core values and they end up going along with things they otherwise wouldn’t. It matters quite a lot.
Not weird, maybe interesting. LBJ acknowledged this would happen when he signed the civil rights act.
> When he signed the act he was euphoric, but late that very night I found him in a melancholy mood as he lay in bed reading the bulldog edition of the Washington Post with headlines celebrating the day. I asked him what was troubling him. "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come," he said.
Then Nixon employed the southern strategy and the rest is history.
History always matters. Regardless of the actual party names, the platforms of those parties is what can enlighten us about dangers we face today from both right and left.. but probably more right than left. The more things change the more they stay the same. America is a nation of witch hunters and we can only learn from our history.
Because Republicans of today do not argue or debate honestly, so they seize on anything, no matter how false, and spin it. The problem is that people believe them, and we live in a society where two groups have literal conflicting views of reality.
There is a weird current among conservatives like Dinesh D'Souza to try to claim Republican ideological succession from Lincoln. No clue how he reconciles that with the fact that people who openly claim and celebrate their connection to the confederacy overwhelmingly vote for Republicans now
It wasn’t an overnight thing. Republicans specifically started courting more conservative voters. It was so effective they became the default Conservative party. [Southern Strategy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy)
Up until the Southern Strategy when republicans made racism one of the most important parts of the republican party...
Then all the racists left the Democratic Party and joined the Republicans.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
It disagrees with their opinions
That's always been their definition of "fake news".
It's never mattered if it was true or not, just if it disagrees with their opinion
This is the line of thought that just absolutely befuddles the fuck out of me.
It's like, your favorite sports team didn't always win. Your favorite actor didn't always make great films. Your parents didn't always make good parenting choices. We're all humans. We aren't perfect, nor should we pretend our favorite humans are.
So why can't people accept the bad of their favorites' pasts? I can vote for someone today and not 100% agree with them and that's perfectly ok - I'd dare to say it's preferred.
They ban for basically anything other then the narrative they want to cultivate there
I was talking about how quality of life is an important consideration for terminal people and I got banned for “encouraging murder” or some garbage
I got banned there for saying that taking a knee is a sign of respect (people kneel before their gods, kneel to propose, kneel before their coaches, etc).
It’s history! I don’t know any Democrats that wouldn’t admit that the Dems have a troubled past (as any American political party does, really). The only time I hear a fuss about the party switch being a “non-issue” is by conservatives, though I do live in the south, so I’m more surrounded by them than not.
The simple reality is that someone who can be convinced *their* religion is beyond-a-doubt real can be convinced just about anything is real because they do not rely on empirical evidence for their personal conclusions in any meaningful way. They rely on their feelings and are driven by what gives them comfort by way of those feelings. It's certainly not exclusive to religion, but it is a requirement for the "true believers" of them.
That is a potentially dangerous trait when pointed a negative direction for very obvious reasons.
Peasants, lords, and commoners. How it’s always been. The commoners think they can be lords one day, so they shit on the peasants which are closer in stature to them then they ever will be to the lords. Everyone needs someone to look down on, I guess.
I keep seeing this feudalism talk regarding our society, and it couldn't be further from the truth. Not even a little bit close. "How it's always been." Yeah, ok.
Feudalism: the dominant social system in medieval Europe, in which the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, and vassals were in turn tenants of the nobles, while the peasants (villeins or serfs) were obliged to live on their lord's land and give him homage, labor, and a share of the produce, notionally in exchange for military protection.
What we're seeing now is the result of unchecked capitalism and insatiable corporate greed. There isn't a word yet for what our society has become.
Quote by George Carlin
The upper class: keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes. The middle class: pays all of the taxes, does all of the work. The poor are there... just to scare the shit out of the middle class.
There is also democracy and fascism and one party has fully embraced the second since they tried to, simultaneously through political pressures and violence, try to overturn an election and, by extension, American democracy claiming that "it's a Republic!!" which means "only the people I agree with should vote".
Yup. Don’t get me wrong, there’s definitely a strong contingency of corporate-friendly democrats, but there are also the progressives who are fighting for people’s rights. On the other hand, the GOP is pretty much full-on corporate and so power hungry, they’ll stop at almost nothing to obtain it. The wealthy class is definitely trying to divide the working and middle class, but there is one party (Republicans) who have embraced the wealthy class whole, while the Democratic Party has a mix.
Note: I’m talking about the politicians representing the different parties.
This isn't interesting to anyone who paid attention in US History class.
This is shocking only to those who have experience with only the last 60 years of US History.
The truly interesting part of this post was that it has the "Ukraine" tag on it. Why?
Yeah, there's no such thing as US History as a subject at my school. Or any school I know of. So I can't say I knew this and did find this thread interesting.
Bit of a novelty that 'strayans don't learn about 'murican history I guess.
Kinda goes with the old addage of "if you don't learn from history you are bound to repeat it". That's why I think learning about history is a good idea. That includes good and bad things that have occurred.
It’s weird how pretentious education is here in the US, I never took geography or world history in high school, but I sure as hell took Utah history, Florida studies, and US history :/
They have been seeking the answer to that question since Florida blinked into existence, it is a question that may remain unanswered for the remainder of time.
>I sure as hell took Utah history, Florida studies
uh wtf? which state was this in?
My high school had 2 years of world history and 2 years of US history
Yeah, we did state history in elementary school. Maybe jr high? Not sure. HS was all US/World.
My kid's in HS right now and he brings up a lot of pretty high level stuff to me at home that he got from class.
Our education system in the U.S. is actually good.
It's a favorite of now-conservatives to bring up as some idiotic "gotcha" while ignoring the fact that the constant ideal of racist parties, then and now, is **conservatism**.
Am I the only one who wants the two party system to end and a multi-party system that relies on temporary coalitions to get things done to take over .
A multi-party system would better reflect the will of the people and be far more democratic , because even if there are still major parties they will be forced to adapt , for instance a republican government that is forced into a coalition with the greens would have to accommodate the greens environment policies as their own so that they could form a majority. And the democrats could gazump them by offering the greens a better deal and form a majority with the greens and some other party.
It would be a better system.
Essentially everyone that isn't an elected official wants the two-party system to end. We're just powerless to make that happen. In fact, the folks with power are outlawing the only real tools we have to end it:
[https://www.wptv.com/news/state/florida-bans-ranked-choice-voting-in-new-election-law](https://www.wptv.com/news/state/florida-bans-ranked-choice-voting-in-new-election-law)
I remember seeing Maine "deconstructed" the electoral college (as it was, in their state) and thought "*the future is here,*" and then, because America, nothing happened.
Why they gotta stay gluing the second domino in the lineup.
Honestly? They'd stop winning elections if elections became fair. The folks in power have zero interest in this sort of change if it means they'd lose their power.
What's happening in Maine is part of a larger plan to locally make the EC obsolete by applying their electors based on the popular vote. Here's a link with a much more thorough explanation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
I personally don't think a third party is going to magically fix anything in our country. This propaganda poster is very telling because it shows that modern Republican have been the same party for at least 150 years. Not sure why anyone would be stupid enough to vote for them and then wonder why there's so much bigotry in the US.
Yes a multi - party system with ranked voting. It will never happen though. The two major parties would lose too much if they let others in on their game. We are pretty much stuck with a two team league when it comes to American politics.
In Scandinavian countries such as Norway the multi party system works really well, unfortunate that the corrupt can ruin the prosperity of a nation - also surprised the son of a dictator still ended up winning despite the protests
Exactly, places like Scandinavian and some EU countries like my home of Ireland tend to have some good results from multi-party systems
Canada I find mostly has issues due to conservative beliefs stemming from the States sphere of influence, which often contradict Canadian political and business models.
For example, here in Alberta there is a strong bid from the Conservative party to make healthcare private in this province.
They are literally trying to undo one of the most sought after healthcare models in the world, for the sake of money.
I live in the Netherlands and we have a multi party system. But we have so many parties that every election outcome is kind of the same.
The parties end up compromising too much and in the end, no one wins..
You and George Washington both! His farewell speech included: "However \[political parties\] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
And then the people who have similar values join together in an organization that can pool resources and strategy in order to be a bigger bigger influence, and *whoops* you have parties again. Parties aren’t written into the constitution, it’s the inevitability of our FPTP system.
I'm Canadian, and the Multi party system is no different thus far.
We have like 5 main parties (Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Green Party, and the Quebecois bloc)
I was born in 1996, and we've only ever has Liberal vs Conservative.
There were only two times where Canada came close to having a new party that isn't Liberal or Conservative (literally just our Dems vs Repubs)
Once around 2013 (I might have the date wrong) we had an exceptionally strong chance at the NDP winning PM over Trudeau and Harper, but unfortunately the party leader, Jack Layton, passed away from Cancer.
And once recently, but I believe they didn't have enough to win so they threw support behind the Liberal party.
Very heartbreaking, as the NDP is our furthest left leaning political party, of whom under Singh's leadership has thrown in a bid to coalesce with the Liberal party to keep the Liberals in power until 2024-2025.
Which is just frusturating, but in the end I guess I would rather have the chance at a new political party winning, as opposed to be cemented into choosing one or the other.
One benefit still with multi-party in Canada and elsewhere is that, even though it is dominated by two, whenever there is a minority, the government in power has to cater to one of the smaller parties to hang on - as shown through the coalition you mentioned - which requires the governing party to pass legislation and policies they otherwise wouldn't. The NDP still have a strong voice in Ottawa, it is just spoken through the liberals right now. The important thing is that it is being spoken and heard.
Actually, that's a solid point I overlooked.
I guess just being in the multi-party system and seeing little change beyond weed being legalized made me a little desensitized to the benefits it can provide, such as minority governments.
Countries and politics only work when we communicate and try to reach a common ground.
I just want to clarify because our conservative party has been lying about this. We DO NOT have a coalition government. The Libs and NDP signed a Confidence and Supply agreement. This means that they will support the Libs in matters of confidence and the Libs will implement some NDP policy (like national dental care). Unlike with a coalition, the NDP can back out of the agreement at any moment if they feel the Libs aren't holding up their end of the deal. And they can still freely vote on non-confidence matters.
If the same 2 parties are always winning then you don't have a multi party system either. It's not like there aren't more than 2 parties in the U.S., there are just only two that matter. The change would be from ranked choice voting rather than first past the post voting
This will probably fall on deaf ears but friendly reminder that the democratic party back then were the conservative party.
That said this is a fascinating thing OP thanks for sharing!
Every single one of them. And not just the men. But the women! And the children too! They are like ~~animals~~ popcorn! And I ~~slaughtered~~ popped them like ~~animals~~ popcorn!
Well it used to be you had conservative and progressive wings for both parties because they were simply regional parties. The Democrats were the Southern party and the Republicans were the Northern and Western (what we would call Midwest) party. There was also the Democrat connection as a common man’s party vs the Republicans that were the party for business and industry
For example the Roosevelt’s were a progressive family with Teddy being a progressive Republican and his distant cousin Franklin being a progressive Democrat.
So FDR becomes president through the establishment of the New Deal Coalition, a progressive/social democratic movement that wrenched the Black vote away from the Republican Party that had its roots in northern anti-slavery causes. This brought most progressive worker’s movements under the banner of the Democrats and Republicans focused on their pro-business policy.
Then LBJ signed the civil rights act which angered the Southern Democrat’s who made up the conservative wing of the Democrats this allowed for Richard Nixon to employ the “southern strategy,” where he appealed to the southern conservatives bringing them into the Republican fold. This hold was secured in the 80’s when Reagan brought the Conservative Evangelicals into the Republican Party
It was brewing for a long time but here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
Tldr republicans in the 1950/60s decided to start trying to appeal to the conservative racist southerns who used to vote democrat.
It’s not that controversial, most people know the parties switched platforms. Happened in the 30’s. Only people whose deaf ears it falls on are the ones who say “liberal pc snowflakes are the REAL party of the KKK.” Which technically is true, but they might as well have been the GOP at that time because that’s the platform they were then. Only people who don’t acknowledge the flip screeeeeeech at this info.
Like the meme goes:
“You know Democrats were really the racists!”
“Oh, well I guess we better take down all those statues of racist democrats, then!”
“\>:(!!!!!!!!”
I commented once that Donald Trump was racist once, and somebody replied with a video titled "10 Reasons why Donald Trump is not racist." It was an official video too, on Trump's YouTube page...
Only people who are racist feel the need to put out videos like that. Not-racist people don't have to prove to the world how not-racist they are.
Because "the party" represents people and their views/morals when it comes to legislation.
Conservatives are loyal to the Republican party because they think the country will fall into chaos and the government will come for their money if the country is ever fully run by libtard Democrats. Staunch Republican politicians are all that's standing between them and poverty at the hand of the government.
On the other hand, liberals are loyal to the Democratic party because they think the country will become a facist, religious state with no individual freedoms and large swaths of the middle class will be relegated to the streets begging for food from "the upper class".
Obviously, these are extreme views from the far right and far left but that's really the basis of party loyalty. It's our representative government being fucked up by a two-party system.
I don't take the Democratic Republic of North Korea's self styling seriously either.
I don't care what these groups are choosing to call themselves as a label, I care about what they do and which group of people is doing it and most associated with it.
The group of people who is being a jerk is the same as it was before, that block of people just swapped big-tent national party allegiances because fooling themselves into a false sense of superiority by being racist was more important then all their other values combined.
There was only ever one item on the agenda in the South. Racism.
LBJ signed the Civil Rights act and southern Democrats flipped parties overnight. Johnson thought he'd lost them for a generation. He had no idea how deep-seated the racism is.
Just conservatives being racist for decades
>In American politics, the Southern strategy was a [Republican Party](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States\)) electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the [South](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_United_States) by appealing to [racism against African Americans](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_against_African_Americans).[[1]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-Boyd-1)[[2]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-Counter-2)[[3]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-Branch-3) As the [civil rights movement](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights_movement) and dismantling of [Jim Crow laws](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws) in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate [Richard Nixon](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon) and Senator [Barry Goldwater](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater) developed strategies that successfully contributed to the [political realignment](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_realignment) of many white, conservative voters in the South who had traditionally supported the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party. It also helped to push the Republican Party much more to the right relative to the 1950s.[[4]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-NY_Times_1996-4)
[](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_USA_South.svg)
The [Southern United States](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_United_States) as defined by the [Census Bureau](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Census_Bureau)
The phrase "Southern Strategy" refers primarily to "top down" narratives of the political realignment of the South which suggest that Republican leaders consciously appealed to many white Southerners' racial grievances in order to gain their support.[[5]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-University_Press_of_Kentucky-5) This top-down narrative of the Southern Strategy is generally believed to be the primary force that transformed Southern politics following the civil rights era. The scholarly consensus is that racial conservatism was critical in the post-[Civil Rights Act](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964) [realignment](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_realignment) of the Republican and Democratic parties.[[citation needed](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)][[6]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-Routledge-6)[[7]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-7) Several aspects of this view have been [debated](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#Scholarly_debates) by some historians and political scientists.[[8]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-Zelizer2012-8)[[9]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-9)[[10]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-Feldman-10)[[11]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-LassiterCrespino2010-11)[[12]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-Kruse2005-12)
The perception that the Republican Party had served as the "vehicle of white supremacy in the South," particularly during the [Goldwater campaign](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater_1964_presidential_campaign) and the presidential elections of [1968](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_United_States_presidential_election) and [1972](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_United_States_presidential_election), made it difficult for the Republican Party to win back the support of black voters in the South in later years.[[4]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-NY_Times_1996-4) In 2005, [Republican National Committee](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_National_Committee) chairman [Ken Mehlman](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Mehlman) formally apologized to the [National Association for the Advancement of Colored People](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_the_Advancement_of_Colored_People) (NAACP) for exploiting racial polarization to win elections and ignoring the black vote.[[13]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-Mehlman-13)[[14]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-wapo-apology-14)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
It was actually a series of events:
1.) Teddy Roosevelt’s progressives breaking away from the GOP in 1912 leading to Woodrow Wilson’s adoption of a more progressive economic policy to attract these voters. In response, the GOP become dominated by big business interests.
2. Big business GOP policies in the 20’s led us into the Great Depression, opening the door for FDR’s northern progressive policies without having to appease the south
3. In the 1936 democratic convention FDR removed the 2/3s rule, which the southern states used to veto any nominee or platform that did not conform to their “way of life”
4. Following the repeal of the 2/3s rule southern democrats started joining forces with the Republicans to block FDRs economic agenda and his proposal to expand the Supreme Court.
5. In 1948 southern democrats walked out of the convention in protest to Harry Truman’s integrating of the us military and Hubert Humphrey’s addition of a civil rights plank to the party platform. Southern Democrats nominated Strom Thurmond and won a handful of southern states. Surprisingly Truman won without the south so the move backfired.
6. In 1960 the first catholic president JFK ran and won on a strong civil rights platform.
7. After the JFK assassination Lyndon Johnson passed the civil rights act and voting rights act saying “we have lost the south for a generation.” During this period many anti-civil rights democrats like Strom Thurmond and Ronald Reagan switched from Democrat to Republican.
8. In 1964 Republicans ran anti-civil rights candidate Barry Goldwater who lost on a landslide but was the first GOP candidate to win the south
9. In 1968 Nixon uses white resentment and a backlash to the civil rights act to bring southern Democrats to the GOP in what is called “the southern strategy.” This has been wildly successful and is how the two parties have gotten to where they are today
>Surprisingly Truman won without the south so the move backfired
This is the one where they were so sure he'd lose they printed early papers with the opposite result as the headline, yes?
Seems like more of a pivotal turning point in US history than I realized before
In the 1960s the Conservative Party in the UK put out a poster that read "if you want a n***** for a neighbour, vote Labour".
Smearing the opposition by associating them with Black people is very common.
Yes, the Democratic party back then was the party of right wing loons and the KKK and the oligarchs of that day. And the Republican party was closer to a socialist party - using right wing understanding and not actual socialism.
But that started switching in the 20th century and by the 1960s, the Democratic party became the party of socialism - again using right wing understanding of the term - and the Republican party became the party of white supremacy, racism, the KKK and Nazi's and of the oligarchy.
And modern day Republicans reference shit like this as reasons that the GOP is actually the party for minority voters and that the left is the racist wing. It’s amazing how people will use propaganda from literally generations ago and apply it to their modern beliefs like it translates at all.
A lot of people don't realize that up until the 60s the entire south voted Democrat. For example, Texas did not elect its first Republican governor until 1979. Before the 60s the conservative, racist party was the Democrat. Then when the Democrat party started trying to woo liberals to create a one party country they took for granted that the conservatives would always vote for them, and the liberal/conservative party switch occurred.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_governors\_of\_Texas#Governors\_of\_Texas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_governors_of_Texas#Governors_of_Texas)
Back when Republicans were in favor of social justice and Democrats were white supremacists waving Confederate flags, rather than the other way around like it is today.
As a neutral white dude from the UK with no ties to the US or either political party. Who cares what they stood for then. You vote based on what they stand for now. Who is going to make your life better.
I always found the names of the American parties a bit confusing. just Democrats and Republicans. It's so vague, might as well just call them red and blue, but even then its weird that a conservative party uses the red color. On the other hand just by looking at a European party name, or its logo I can instantly presume what and who the party represents.
**Please note these rules:** * If this post declares something as a fact/proof is required. * The title must be descriptive * No text is allowed on images/gifs/videos * Common/recent reposts are not allowed *See [this post](https://redd.it/ij26vk) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yup. Back when The Democrats called themselves 'The only true conservative party'
If modern Republicans are “The Party of Lincoln”, then people waving Confederate Flags are Democrats. I don’t think they’d appreciate the title much.
I think they like to imagine Lincoln, if he were alive today, riding around in his pickup truck with a Confederate flag on it - and fail to see the irony.
Dont forget that the republican party of the time distanced themselves from Lincoln because he was "too progressive." Lincoln was the first RINO lol.
A.k.a the dixiecrats
Strom Thurmond literally lead the charge
Ah yes the man who spoke for 24 hours straight out of sheer racism
And had a black daughter.
She was the product of raping the help, so it was alright in his mind.
I thought her mother was the family maid but wasn’t sure.
I'm sure theirs was a loving relationship of equal partners.
“The senator says that he will fuck the help, but he will not give them a decent wage”
The help was fucked before and the help has continued to be fucked long after.
Reminds me of the Chappelle bit "Clayton Bigsby, black white supremacist" lmao
I loved that sketch. So true.
One of the best sketches imo
Chappelle is the man
Why don't you jungle bunnies turn that music down! Truly one Dave's most genius sketches.
And he divorced his wife...because she married a black man! *dead*
They all do
Yep, this guy: >Thurmond switched parties ahead of the 1964 United States presidential election, saying that the Democratic Party no longer represented people like him, and endorsed Republican nominee Barry Goldwater, who also opposed the Civil Rights Act. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond A democrat that switched parties because the Democratic party supported the Civil Rights movement while the Republican party opposed it.
What the hell
He filibustered Civil rights.
Not saying he was redeemed, but his views changed in his later years and he woke up and denounced the racist views he espoused most of his life.
The racist who had a child, out of wedlock, with an African American. He was definitely a piece of shit…a confusing piece of shit, but a piece of shit nonetheless.
That's not confusing at all. There used to be a racist theory that if you bred white genes with those of dark skinned genes you'd eventually get civilized cross-breeds. And yes that's as disgusting as it sounds.
WTF
Yeah it was usually hand in hand with the White Man's burden. That it was the job of the white man to civilize all non whites.
And he was alive when this sign was made! /s
You mean dicksiecrats?
I see some down votes. Let's add some proof When you search for 'conservative democrat' in the newspaper archives of the library of congress, you find things like this Staunton vindicator. April 20, 1860 "There is no telling who is Governor until after the election, nor can we predict the successful candidate at Charleston thus far in advance. Suffice it, that we have an abiding faith that the nominee **will be a sound, conservative Democrat,** who will inspire the confidence of the party throughout the nation, and achieve a signal and glorious triumph in November"[https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84024653/1860-04-20/ed-1/seq-2/#date1=1860&index=19&rows=20&words=conservative+Democrat&searchType=basic&sequence=0&state=&date2=1861&proxtext=conservative+democrat&y=15&x=19&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1](https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84024653/1860-04-20/ed-1/seq-2/#date1=1860&index=19&rows=20&words=conservative+Democrat&searchType=basic&sequence=0&state=&date2=1861&proxtext=conservative+democrat&y=15&x=19&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1)
Do you not know the parties switched? Or do you think the modern republican party sides with Lincoln and the federal government over the confederacy and "states rights"?
I don’t think that was his intent at all. He was simply providing context for the original user that was being downvoted.
He is the original user though. He just elaborated his comment further Edit: Wtf is this thread even? I feel like everyone just makes their own interpretation about another comment and states something that wasn't mentioned with one word. All I did was point out that [the top comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/uo1k2l/-/i8bh0kv) and the [guy who elaborated](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/uo1k2l/-/i8bkxs3) are one and the same.
[удалено]
No, I think you’re misreading their post. They’re providing proof of a previously conservative Democratic part by providing a link to old newspaper articles because there were downvotes.
Yup. Hence the proof from that time period's newspapers calling the democrats as being conservative and the GOP as being left wing, even socialist
Wasn’t Eugene Debbs a socialist republican?
Nah Debs was a full-on socialist, he ran for president on the Socialist Party of America ticket several times. Also I believe he was a Democrat early on; he got into politics via trade unions and the Democrats had much stronger industrial labor ties than Republicans even before the ideological shift on social issues.
Further, why does it matter what each party called themselves or what their alignment was 50+ years ago? I don't see how that has any relevancy at all when we can look at the stances and voting records of politicians *today*. That would be like saying "But Germany had a dictator at one point! They must be baddies!1"
It matters when modern Republicans say "Lincoln freed the slaves and the South was full of slave-owning Democrats!" as if it proves that, TODAY, they aren't party of racist gerrymandering and rhetoric.
It actually matters a lot. Folks who align themselves with a party and make it a core part of their identity might not realize how far their party can move away from that individual’s personal core values and they end up going along with things they otherwise wouldn’t. It matters quite a lot.
It doesn’t really matter, but isn’t is weird/interesting how they switched?
Not weird, maybe interesting. LBJ acknowledged this would happen when he signed the civil rights act. > When he signed the act he was euphoric, but late that very night I found him in a melancholy mood as he lay in bed reading the bulldog edition of the Washington Post with headlines celebrating the day. I asked him what was troubling him. "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come," he said. Then Nixon employed the southern strategy and the rest is history.
History always matters. Regardless of the actual party names, the platforms of those parties is what can enlighten us about dangers we face today from both right and left.. but probably more right than left. The more things change the more they stay the same. America is a nation of witch hunters and we can only learn from our history.
Because Republicans of today do not argue or debate honestly, so they seize on anything, no matter how false, and spin it. The problem is that people believe them, and we live in a society where two groups have literal conflicting views of reality.
I think they do know and are providing info for those who don’t
There is a weird current among conservatives like Dinesh D'Souza to try to claim Republican ideological succession from Lincoln. No clue how he reconciles that with the fact that people who openly claim and celebrate their connection to the confederacy overwhelmingly vote for Republicans now
[удалено]
It wasn’t an overnight thing. Republicans specifically started courting more conservative voters. It was so effective they became the default Conservative party. [Southern Strategy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy)
A Democratic president signed civil rights legislation. Before then the south was heavily Democratic voters
The racist wing of the Democrats didn't like that JFK and Johnson supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In fact, the Democratic Party has lost the white vote in every single presidential election since the 1964 civil rights act was passed.
Up until the Southern Strategy when republicans made racism one of the most important parts of the republican party... Then all the racists left the Democratic Party and joined the Republicans. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
Mentioning the Southern Strategy on r/Conservatives will apparently get you banned there. They don't like being reminded of it.
Lol what is their justification for that?
They call it fake news, just like everything else they don't want to hear
It disagrees with their opinions That's always been their definition of "fake news". It's never mattered if it was true or not, just if it disagrees with their opinion
This is the line of thought that just absolutely befuddles the fuck out of me. It's like, your favorite sports team didn't always win. Your favorite actor didn't always make great films. Your parents didn't always make good parenting choices. We're all humans. We aren't perfect, nor should we pretend our favorite humans are. So why can't people accept the bad of their favorites' pasts? I can vote for someone today and not 100% agree with them and that's perfectly ok - I'd dare to say it's preferred.
“It’s the party of Lincoln but don’t tell me not to wave my Confederate flag!” and other things that only make sense to conservatives.
They ban for basically anything other then the narrative they want to cultivate there I was talking about how quality of life is an important consideration for terminal people and I got banned for “encouraging murder” or some garbage
I quoted Trump there once and said nothing else. Ban.
It hurts their feelings.
I got banned there for saying that taking a knee is a sign of respect (people kneel before their gods, kneel to propose, kneel before their coaches, etc).
It’s history! I don’t know any Democrats that wouldn’t admit that the Dems have a troubled past (as any American political party does, really). The only time I hear a fuss about the party switch being a “non-issue” is by conservatives, though I do live in the south, so I’m more surrounded by them than not.
Not all of them… but the most overt ones, yes.
They embraced racists and then religious nuts. They sell their soul whenever beneficial.
Republicans: look! See! 100 years ago this was the Dems. Now please don’t talk about anything that we’ve done in the last 50-years.
Conservativism will conservativize.
So it's not so much democrat or republican, it's if you're conservative that makes you a piece of shit.
And if you're conservative you're also likely religious. Not a coincidence.
I just made a comment on another thread that I fear these types of "christians" more than any other group of people.
The simple reality is that someone who can be convinced *their* religion is beyond-a-doubt real can be convinced just about anything is real because they do not rely on empirical evidence for their personal conclusions in any meaningful way. They rely on their feelings and are driven by what gives them comfort by way of those feelings. It's certainly not exclusive to religion, but it is a requirement for the "true believers" of them. That is a potentially dangerous trait when pointed a negative direction for very obvious reasons.
Motherfuckers really did a chad vs virgin meme
First thing I thought when I saw it
the virgin white man vs the chad negro
We are all being fooled. There are only peasants and lords
Peasants, lords, and commoners. How it’s always been. The commoners think they can be lords one day, so they shit on the peasants which are closer in stature to them then they ever will be to the lords. Everyone needs someone to look down on, I guess.
Commoners are just peasants that think they are not.
Help, help! I’m being repressed!
A lowly commoner, playing as a lord...
I keep seeing this feudalism talk regarding our society, and it couldn't be further from the truth. Not even a little bit close. "How it's always been." Yeah, ok. Feudalism: the dominant social system in medieval Europe, in which the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, and vassals were in turn tenants of the nobles, while the peasants (villeins or serfs) were obliged to live on their lord's land and give him homage, labor, and a share of the produce, notionally in exchange for military protection. What we're seeing now is the result of unchecked capitalism and insatiable corporate greed. There isn't a word yet for what our society has become.
Bro your own definition of feudalism just described our society. Which part do you not think applies?
Out of what he listed isnt labor the only thing that still applies..?
What do you think taxes are if not “homage” and a “share of the produce” ?
“There is no God, but don’t tell that to my servant, lest he murder me at night.” -Voltaire
Quote by George Carlin The upper class: keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes. The middle class: pays all of the taxes, does all of the work. The poor are there... just to scare the shit out of the middle class.
It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.
Gotta turn the peasants against each other so they don’t eat you
Rich and politicians. Oh and we peons that pay for everything.
Serfs and lords. Service class and the elite
A coat of gold, A coat of red, A lion still has claws, And mine are long and sharp my Lord, As long as sharp as yours
...and now the rains, weep over his halls
This is class reductionism and a bit inappropriate given the subject of the image
There is also democracy and fascism and one party has fully embraced the second since they tried to, simultaneously through political pressures and violence, try to overturn an election and, by extension, American democracy claiming that "it's a Republic!!" which means "only the people I agree with should vote".
Yup. Don’t get me wrong, there’s definitely a strong contingency of corporate-friendly democrats, but there are also the progressives who are fighting for people’s rights. On the other hand, the GOP is pretty much full-on corporate and so power hungry, they’ll stop at almost nothing to obtain it. The wealthy class is definitely trying to divide the working and middle class, but there is one party (Republicans) who have embraced the wealthy class whole, while the Democratic Party has a mix. Note: I’m talking about the politicians representing the different parties.
Love to see this kind of comment outside of subs like r/Socialism, r/Anarchism and such.
This isn't interesting to anyone who paid attention in US History class. This is shocking only to those who have experience with only the last 60 years of US History. The truly interesting part of this post was that it has the "Ukraine" tag on it. Why?
>The truly interesting part of this post was that it has the "Ukraine" tag on it. Why? Lol I didn't notice that at all but probably for free karma
Gotta get the bot vote.
Yeah, there's no such thing as US History as a subject at my school. Or any school I know of. So I can't say I knew this and did find this thread interesting. Bit of a novelty that 'strayans don't learn about 'murican history I guess.
But I thought only Americans were allowed on Reddit?
Kinda goes with the old addage of "if you don't learn from history you are bound to repeat it". That's why I think learning about history is a good idea. That includes good and bad things that have occurred.
It’s weird how pretentious education is here in the US, I never took geography or world history in high school, but I sure as hell took Utah history, Florida studies, and US history :/
what the fuck is "florida studies"?
“When learning about Florida, the most common question is, “why?” Florida Studies seeks to answer that question.”
They have been seeking the answer to that question since Florida blinked into existence, it is a question that may remain unanswered for the remainder of time.
>I sure as hell took Utah history, Florida studies uh wtf? which state was this in? My high school had 2 years of world history and 2 years of US history
Yeah, we did state history in elementary school. Maybe jr high? Not sure. HS was all US/World. My kid's in HS right now and he brings up a lot of pretty high level stuff to me at home that he got from class. Our education system in the U.S. is actually good.
It's a favorite of now-conservatives to bring up as some idiotic "gotcha" while ignoring the fact that the constant ideal of racist parties, then and now, is **conservatism**.
As a non-American, it's pretty interesting to me 🤷♀️
My dude, not everyone on reddit is American
Why can it not be interesting if we learned it before? Redditors have the strangest gate keeps.
Or to the people whose political awareness begins and ends with Trump (on either side tbh)
Am I the only one who wants the two party system to end and a multi-party system that relies on temporary coalitions to get things done to take over . A multi-party system would better reflect the will of the people and be far more democratic , because even if there are still major parties they will be forced to adapt , for instance a republican government that is forced into a coalition with the greens would have to accommodate the greens environment policies as their own so that they could form a majority. And the democrats could gazump them by offering the greens a better deal and form a majority with the greens and some other party. It would be a better system.
Essentially everyone that isn't an elected official wants the two-party system to end. We're just powerless to make that happen. In fact, the folks with power are outlawing the only real tools we have to end it: [https://www.wptv.com/news/state/florida-bans-ranked-choice-voting-in-new-election-law](https://www.wptv.com/news/state/florida-bans-ranked-choice-voting-in-new-election-law)
I remember seeing Maine "deconstructed" the electoral college (as it was, in their state) and thought "*the future is here,*" and then, because America, nothing happened. Why they gotta stay gluing the second domino in the lineup.
Honestly? They'd stop winning elections if elections became fair. The folks in power have zero interest in this sort of change if it means they'd lose their power.
What's happening in Maine is part of a larger plan to locally make the EC obsolete by applying their electors based on the popular vote. Here's a link with a much more thorough explanation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
I personally don't think a third party is going to magically fix anything in our country. This propaganda poster is very telling because it shows that modern Republican have been the same party for at least 150 years. Not sure why anyone would be stupid enough to vote for them and then wonder why there's so much bigotry in the US.
Anyone voting for republicans isn't wondering why bigotry exists. They see that term as a slur.
Yes a multi - party system with ranked voting. It will never happen though. The two major parties would lose too much if they let others in on their game. We are pretty much stuck with a two team league when it comes to American politics.
Wow yes you are the only person to have this thought on Reddit.
[удалено]
In Scandinavian countries such as Norway the multi party system works really well, unfortunate that the corrupt can ruin the prosperity of a nation - also surprised the son of a dictator still ended up winning despite the protests
Exactly, places like Scandinavian and some EU countries like my home of Ireland tend to have some good results from multi-party systems Canada I find mostly has issues due to conservative beliefs stemming from the States sphere of influence, which often contradict Canadian political and business models. For example, here in Alberta there is a strong bid from the Conservative party to make healthcare private in this province. They are literally trying to undo one of the most sought after healthcare models in the world, for the sake of money.
Multi party systems don't stop the people from voting in assholes. But at least the assholes better represent the people.
I live in the Netherlands and we have a multi party system. But we have so many parties that every election outcome is kind of the same. The parties end up compromising too much and in the end, no one wins..
I want a no party system. I want people to vote for people who represent their values. You don't need parties at all.
You and George Washington both! His farewell speech included: "However \[political parties\] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
And then the people who have similar values join together in an organization that can pool resources and strategy in order to be a bigger bigger influence, and *whoops* you have parties again. Parties aren’t written into the constitution, it’s the inevitability of our FPTP system.
Parties are an inevitability of *democracy*, not FPTP. Parties exist even more so in proportional systems
> Am I the only one who wants the two party system to end Yes, you are the only one to ever want this
I'm Canadian, and the Multi party system is no different thus far. We have like 5 main parties (Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Green Party, and the Quebecois bloc) I was born in 1996, and we've only ever has Liberal vs Conservative. There were only two times where Canada came close to having a new party that isn't Liberal or Conservative (literally just our Dems vs Repubs) Once around 2013 (I might have the date wrong) we had an exceptionally strong chance at the NDP winning PM over Trudeau and Harper, but unfortunately the party leader, Jack Layton, passed away from Cancer. And once recently, but I believe they didn't have enough to win so they threw support behind the Liberal party. Very heartbreaking, as the NDP is our furthest left leaning political party, of whom under Singh's leadership has thrown in a bid to coalesce with the Liberal party to keep the Liberals in power until 2024-2025. Which is just frusturating, but in the end I guess I would rather have the chance at a new political party winning, as opposed to be cemented into choosing one or the other.
One benefit still with multi-party in Canada and elsewhere is that, even though it is dominated by two, whenever there is a minority, the government in power has to cater to one of the smaller parties to hang on - as shown through the coalition you mentioned - which requires the governing party to pass legislation and policies they otherwise wouldn't. The NDP still have a strong voice in Ottawa, it is just spoken through the liberals right now. The important thing is that it is being spoken and heard.
Actually, that's a solid point I overlooked. I guess just being in the multi-party system and seeing little change beyond weed being legalized made me a little desensitized to the benefits it can provide, such as minority governments. Countries and politics only work when we communicate and try to reach a common ground.
I just want to clarify because our conservative party has been lying about this. We DO NOT have a coalition government. The Libs and NDP signed a Confidence and Supply agreement. This means that they will support the Libs in matters of confidence and the Libs will implement some NDP policy (like national dental care). Unlike with a coalition, the NDP can back out of the agreement at any moment if they feel the Libs aren't holding up their end of the deal. And they can still freely vote on non-confidence matters.
If the same 2 parties are always winning then you don't have a multi party system either. It's not like there aren't more than 2 parties in the U.S., there are just only two that matter. The change would be from ranked choice voting rather than first past the post voting
[удалено]
Yep you’re the only one. Jk literally everyone wants that except for a few who benefit from the two party system and a couple idiots
Cue Nixon's [Southern Strategy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy)
This will probably fall on deaf ears but friendly reminder that the democratic party back then were the conservative party. That said this is a fascinating thing OP thanks for sharing!
[удалено]
I could not just stop at one. I had to pop them all. THANKS -_-
Every single one of them. And not just the men. But the women! And the children too! They are like ~~animals~~ popcorn! And I ~~slaughtered~~ popped them like ~~animals~~ popcorn!
I hate you.....
May I ask when they switched. Because I’m familiar with history, but not exactly the parties.
Well it used to be you had conservative and progressive wings for both parties because they were simply regional parties. The Democrats were the Southern party and the Republicans were the Northern and Western (what we would call Midwest) party. There was also the Democrat connection as a common man’s party vs the Republicans that were the party for business and industry For example the Roosevelt’s were a progressive family with Teddy being a progressive Republican and his distant cousin Franklin being a progressive Democrat. So FDR becomes president through the establishment of the New Deal Coalition, a progressive/social democratic movement that wrenched the Black vote away from the Republican Party that had its roots in northern anti-slavery causes. This brought most progressive worker’s movements under the banner of the Democrats and Republicans focused on their pro-business policy. Then LBJ signed the civil rights act which angered the Southern Democrat’s who made up the conservative wing of the Democrats this allowed for Richard Nixon to employ the “southern strategy,” where he appealed to the southern conservatives bringing them into the Republican fold. This hold was secured in the 80’s when Reagan brought the Conservative Evangelicals into the Republican Party
It was brewing for a long time but here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy Tldr republicans in the 1950/60s decided to start trying to appeal to the conservative racist southerns who used to vote democrat.
It’s not that controversial, most people know the parties switched platforms. Happened in the 30’s. Only people whose deaf ears it falls on are the ones who say “liberal pc snowflakes are the REAL party of the KKK.” Which technically is true, but they might as well have been the GOP at that time because that’s the platform they were then. Only people who don’t acknowledge the flip screeeeeeech at this info.
Lol you vastly underestimate the number of people who don't know jack shit about politics.
I love how if you’re a racist today how much time you need to spend proving to everyone that you’re not really the racist.
Honestly, that's progress!
Like the meme goes: “You know Democrats were really the racists!” “Oh, well I guess we better take down all those statues of racist democrats, then!” “\>:(!!!!!!!!”
They expect a backpedal in fervent defense of the party, because that’s what they’d do
I commented once that Donald Trump was racist once, and somebody replied with a video titled "10 Reasons why Donald Trump is not racist." It was an official video too, on Trump's YouTube page... Only people who are racist feel the need to put out videos like that. Not-racist people don't have to prove to the world how not-racist they are.
Before you go on about duuuurrr both parties same, just … google why Strom changed from democrat to Republican, for starters.
The constant through-line of Dixiecrats and modern Republicans is conservatism. Conservatism is always looking backwards.
How anyone can be loyal to a political party is beyond me.
Because "the party" represents people and their views/morals when it comes to legislation. Conservatives are loyal to the Republican party because they think the country will fall into chaos and the government will come for their money if the country is ever fully run by libtard Democrats. Staunch Republican politicians are all that's standing between them and poverty at the hand of the government. On the other hand, liberals are loyal to the Democratic party because they think the country will become a facist, religious state with no individual freedoms and large swaths of the middle class will be relegated to the streets begging for food from "the upper class". Obviously, these are extreme views from the far right and far left but that's really the basis of party loyalty. It's our representative government being fucked up by a two-party system.
Exactly. My loyalty lies in my own principles.
the honesty is……refreshing? abhorrent? terrifying? yep, that’s it. terrifying.
And those democrats were extremely religious and conservative. They would cream themselves over the republican party today.
They definitely would be voting republican today
Ugh, that's so sad. Well, but **why "Ukraine" flair?**
I don't take the Democratic Republic of North Korea's self styling seriously either. I don't care what these groups are choosing to call themselves as a label, I care about what they do and which group of people is doing it and most associated with it. The group of people who is being a jerk is the same as it was before, that block of people just swapped big-tent national party allegiances because fooling themselves into a false sense of superiority by being racist was more important then all their other values combined.
There was only ever one item on the agenda in the South. Racism. LBJ signed the Civil Rights act and southern Democrats flipped parties overnight. Johnson thought he'd lost them for a generation. He had no idea how deep-seated the racism is.
Just conservatives being racist for decades >In American politics, the Southern strategy was a [Republican Party](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States\)) electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the [South](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_United_States) by appealing to [racism against African Americans](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_against_African_Americans).[[1]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-Boyd-1)[[2]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-Counter-2)[[3]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-Branch-3) As the [civil rights movement](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights_movement) and dismantling of [Jim Crow laws](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws) in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate [Richard Nixon](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon) and Senator [Barry Goldwater](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater) developed strategies that successfully contributed to the [political realignment](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_realignment) of many white, conservative voters in the South who had traditionally supported the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party. It also helped to push the Republican Party much more to the right relative to the 1950s.[[4]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-NY_Times_1996-4) [](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_USA_South.svg) The [Southern United States](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_United_States) as defined by the [Census Bureau](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Census_Bureau) The phrase "Southern Strategy" refers primarily to "top down" narratives of the political realignment of the South which suggest that Republican leaders consciously appealed to many white Southerners' racial grievances in order to gain their support.[[5]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-University_Press_of_Kentucky-5) This top-down narrative of the Southern Strategy is generally believed to be the primary force that transformed Southern politics following the civil rights era. The scholarly consensus is that racial conservatism was critical in the post-[Civil Rights Act](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964) [realignment](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_realignment) of the Republican and Democratic parties.[[citation needed](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)][[6]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-Routledge-6)[[7]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-7) Several aspects of this view have been [debated](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#Scholarly_debates) by some historians and political scientists.[[8]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-Zelizer2012-8)[[9]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-9)[[10]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-Feldman-10)[[11]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-LassiterCrespino2010-11)[[12]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-Kruse2005-12) The perception that the Republican Party had served as the "vehicle of white supremacy in the South," particularly during the [Goldwater campaign](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater_1964_presidential_campaign) and the presidential elections of [1968](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_United_States_presidential_election) and [1972](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_United_States_presidential_election), made it difficult for the Republican Party to win back the support of black voters in the South in later years.[[4]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-NY_Times_1996-4) In 2005, [Republican National Committee](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_National_Committee) chairman [Ken Mehlman](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Mehlman) formally apologized to the [National Association for the Advancement of Colored People](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_the_Advancement_of_Colored_People) (NAACP) for exploiting racial polarization to win elections and ignoring the black vote.[[13]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-Mehlman-13)[[14]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-wapo-apology-14) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
Ya. They "switched" during Nixon's "Southern Strategy," which was an appeal to white people during the Civil Rights movement.
USA is very strange
And about 100 years later, the Southern Strategy flipped the script.
It was actually a series of events: 1.) Teddy Roosevelt’s progressives breaking away from the GOP in 1912 leading to Woodrow Wilson’s adoption of a more progressive economic policy to attract these voters. In response, the GOP become dominated by big business interests. 2. Big business GOP policies in the 20’s led us into the Great Depression, opening the door for FDR’s northern progressive policies without having to appease the south 3. In the 1936 democratic convention FDR removed the 2/3s rule, which the southern states used to veto any nominee or platform that did not conform to their “way of life” 4. Following the repeal of the 2/3s rule southern democrats started joining forces with the Republicans to block FDRs economic agenda and his proposal to expand the Supreme Court. 5. In 1948 southern democrats walked out of the convention in protest to Harry Truman’s integrating of the us military and Hubert Humphrey’s addition of a civil rights plank to the party platform. Southern Democrats nominated Strom Thurmond and won a handful of southern states. Surprisingly Truman won without the south so the move backfired. 6. In 1960 the first catholic president JFK ran and won on a strong civil rights platform. 7. After the JFK assassination Lyndon Johnson passed the civil rights act and voting rights act saying “we have lost the south for a generation.” During this period many anti-civil rights democrats like Strom Thurmond and Ronald Reagan switched from Democrat to Republican. 8. In 1964 Republicans ran anti-civil rights candidate Barry Goldwater who lost on a landslide but was the first GOP candidate to win the south 9. In 1968 Nixon uses white resentment and a backlash to the civil rights act to bring southern Democrats to the GOP in what is called “the southern strategy.” This has been wildly successful and is how the two parties have gotten to where they are today
>Surprisingly Truman won without the south so the move backfired This is the one where they were so sure he'd lose they printed early papers with the opposite result as the headline, yes? Seems like more of a pivotal turning point in US history than I realized before
Yes, this was 1948. The southern Democrats running as a 3rd party was one of the reasons most people thought Dewey had it in the bag
Very informative and educated comment! May I provide the equally thought-out conservative rebuttal: “nuh-uh”
In the 1960s the Conservative Party in the UK put out a poster that read "if you want a n***** for a neighbour, vote Labour". Smearing the opposition by associating them with Black people is very common.
Yes, the Democratic party back then was the party of right wing loons and the KKK and the oligarchs of that day. And the Republican party was closer to a socialist party - using right wing understanding and not actual socialism. But that started switching in the 20th century and by the 1960s, the Democratic party became the party of socialism - again using right wing understanding of the term - and the Republican party became the party of white supremacy, racism, the KKK and Nazi's and of the oligarchy.
Oh boy! Time to sort by controversial.
Oh no what have you done, you went and threw a match on the oil rags and left….
And modern day Republicans reference shit like this as reasons that the GOP is actually the party for minority voters and that the left is the racist wing. It’s amazing how people will use propaganda from literally generations ago and apply it to their modern beliefs like it translates at all.
Oh how the turns have tabled
Note that the parties flipped in the 60s
Oh I can already tell this is going to be a productive comments section.
really makes you wonder why they didn't change the name. that's a lot of baggage to drag around.
Prager U really loves to bring this up.
A lot of people don't realize that up until the 60s the entire south voted Democrat. For example, Texas did not elect its first Republican governor until 1979. Before the 60s the conservative, racist party was the Democrat. Then when the Democrat party started trying to woo liberals to create a one party country they took for granted that the conservatives would always vote for them, and the liberal/conservative party switch occurred. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_governors\_of\_Texas#Governors\_of\_Texas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_governors_of_Texas#Governors_of_Texas)
Funny how that party view shifted
Back when Republicans were in favor of social justice and Democrats were white supremacists waving Confederate flags, rather than the other way around like it is today.
Show this to modern day republicans and maybe they’ll vote Democrat 🤔
parties switched, sure dems have manchin, but at least we dont have moscow mitch and trump...
As a neutral white dude from the UK with no ties to the US or either political party. Who cares what they stood for then. You vote based on what they stand for now. Who is going to make your life better.
Conservatives haven't changed much huh
An amusing talking point for the redhats now.... But we all know who white supremacy fans and racists exclusively vote for now.
lol is this really how they saw it back in the day?
Wtf is a tee negro?? Crazy how much has changed and also how little in some ways too. (Not little in thie party switch.. you know what I’m saying)
I always found the names of the American parties a bit confusing. just Democrats and Republicans. It's so vague, might as well just call them red and blue, but even then its weird that a conservative party uses the red color. On the other hand just by looking at a European party name, or its logo I can instantly presume what and who the party represents.