WaPo: The GOP is no party for blacks, Latinos, and gays

[ajb]

Evidence abounds aplenty that the racists have now all joined the GOP

No, it doesn't.  The only segregationist to join the GOP was Strom Thurmond.  Robert Byrd was serving in the Senate as a Democrat as recently as 2010.  Fritz Hollings was serving in the Senate as a Democrat as recently as 2004.  John Stennis, George Wallace, Bull Connor, Lester Maddox, Orval Faubus, Sam Ervin, Al Gore Sr., Ross Barnett, Herman Talmadge, and all the rest remained Democrats for life.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please provide evidence that the Republican party has ever supported:

1, slavery.
2, the KKK.

Evidence abounds aplenty for Democrats supporting both of these things.

Southern whites moved over to the Republican Party, ever read about the Nixon Southern strategy in school? I guess you weren't paying attention.

The Southern Strategy had nothing to do with racism, liebiral.

Read Oldiesfreak's landmark revisionist history posts on the matter if you don't believe me.

You're the ones accepting revisionist history.

The only segregationist to switch parties was Thurmond? How about Jesse Helms?
And do you really, honestly, believe that southern whites kept voting for Thurmond, and began voting for Helms, because they represented a party that had a greater commitment to civil rights? When both men explicitly said that they were becoming Republicans in opposition to Johnson's introduction of civil rights legislation? And that southern blacks suddenly started voting for the Democrats because they perceived the Republicans as having a stronger commitment to civil rights?
Say what you will about what you think the Southern Strategy was all about. But the evidence is clear that after 1968 black voters moved more heavily into the Democratic column, and conservative, anti-civil rights Southern white voters into the Republican column. In which case the Southern strategy was a bust, no?

[ajb]

The only segregationist to switch parties was Thurmond? How about Jesse Helms?

Don't forget Trent Lott and Mills Godwin.

Who's Mills Goodwin?  And I don't think Trent Lott ever supported segregation.  The only evidence for that was his comment at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party, and even that was taken out of context.

Evidence abounds aplenty that the racists have now all joined the GOP

No, it doesn't.  The only segregationist to join the GOP was Strom Thurmond.  Robert Byrd was serving in the Senate as a Democrat as recently as 2010.  Fritz Hollings was serving in the Senate as a Democrat as recently as 2004.  John Stennis, George Wallace, Bull Connor, Lester Maddox, Orval Faubus, Sam Ervin, Al Gore Sr., Ross Barnett, Herman Talmadge, and all the rest remained Democrats for life.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please provide evidence that the Republican party has ever supported:

1, slavery.
2, the KKK.

Evidence abounds aplenty for Democrats supporting both of these things.

Southern whites moved over to the Republican Party, ever read about the Nixon Southern strategy in school? I guess you weren't paying attention.

The Southern Strategy had nothing to do with racism, liebiral.

Read Oldiesfreak's landmark revisionist history posts on the matter if you don't believe me.

You're the ones accepting revisionist history.

The only segregationist to switch parties was Thurmond? How about Jesse Helms?
And do you really, honestly, believe that southern whites kept voting for Thurmond, and began voting for Helms, because they represented a party that had a greater commitment to civil rights? When both men explicitly said that they were becoming Republicans in opposition to Johnson's introduction of civil rights legislation? And that southern blacks suddenly started voting for the Democrats because they perceived the Republicans as having a stronger commitment to civil rights?
Say what you will about what you think the Southern Strategy was all about. But the evidence is clear that after 1968 black voters moved more heavily into the Democratic column, and conservative, anti-civil rights Southern white voters into the Republican column. In which case the Southern strategy was a bust, no?

When was Jesse Helms a Democrat?  He was a Republican for his entire Senate career.  And even if all the people you cited switched to the GOP over civil rights, that still doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of them stayed with the Democratic Party for life.  You guys have given me four who swtiched, I know of at least eleven who didn't switch.
It wasn't until 1980 that the South started voting solidly GOP.  And blacks had been voting Democrat since the 1930s.  The theory that the Southern strategy was about pandering to racists ignores one VERY important detail: George Wallace's candidacy in 1968.  It would have made no sense for the GOP to campaign like that, since the same "conservative (for that time), anti-civil rights white Southern voters" that you talk about were solidly in Wallace's column.  Theodore White, who watched the 1968 campaign play out, even said so in his 1968 edition of The Making of the President.  Didn't you notice anything from the 1968 map on this site?  The Deep South went overwhelmingly for Wallace, and in three of the five Wallace states, Humphrey actually beat Nixon for second.  And in nearly every Southern state that Nixon did carry, Humphrey and Wallace's combined vote beat Nixon handily. Just go to the 1968 page on this site and check out the individual state totals.  The only Southern Nixon state where The combined Humphrey/Wallace vote was even close was Oklahoma, and even then it still beat Nixon's total. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please provide evidence that the Republican party has ever supported:

1, slavery.
2, the KKK.

Evidence abounds aplenty for Democrats supporting both of these things.

Southern whites moved over to the Republican Party, ever read about the Nixon Southern strategy in school? I guess you weren't paying attention.

The Southern Strategy had nothing to do with racism, liebiral.

Read Oldiesfreak's landmark revisionist history posts on the matter if you don't believe me.

Revisionist history is hogwash anyway. If you ever look up anything about the Southern strategy, it had a lot to do with appealing to white southerners upset over desegregation, so it had a lot to do with racism.

Even the consensus can be wrong sometimes, my friend.  Don't forget that the overwhelming majority of people who write and teach history are liberal Democrats, so they will twist the history any way they can to make Republicans look bad.  

Yes, of course, Wallace in 1968. But your theory of the "Southern Strategy" seems to suggest either:
a) all those racist southern whites who'd been voting for racist Democrats for decades, and then for Wallace, suddenly saw the light on civil rights in 1972, and started voting for the party that they saw as the best protector of civil rights for blacks (even though blacks themselves clearly thought otherwise), or
b) the "Southern Strategy," qua appeal to pro-civil rights southern whites, somehow had the strange effect of winning over southern whites who opposed civil rights, too, but utterly failed at winning over southern blacks.
So, which is it?

[ajb]

Would people please stop misusing the word "revisionist" as if it were a pejorative?  Most of what history as a discipline is is revision of previous work about topics based on new archival research, discoveries, theories, etc.  It's one of my pet peeves, and watching both Republicans and Democrats here fervently denouncing "revisionism" is like nails on a chalkboard in how wrong an understanding of what history as a discipline is.

Sentiments shared absolutely (and absolutely predictably), but if there was ever a battle lost before it started...

I think that exclusively negative sense of "revisionist" really comes from Marxism, doesn't it?

[ajb]

Yes, of course, Wallace in 1968. But your theory of the "Southern Strategy" seems to suggest either:
a) all those racist southern whites who'd been voting for racist Democrats for decades, and then for Wallace, suddenly saw the light on civil rights in 1972, and started voting for the party that they saw as the best protector of civil rights for blacks (even though blacks themselves clearly thought otherwise), or
b) the "Southern Strategy," qua appeal to pro-civil rights southern whites, somehow had the strange effect of winning over southern whites who opposed civil rights, too, but utterly failed at winning over southern blacks.
So, which is it?

Oldies, what were the policies of the Southern Strategy that were meant to appeal to the racially progressive South? Was it opposition to busing? Relenting on implementing Brown v. board of Education?

The answer to both your questions is neither.  It wasn't like white racists suddenly had an about-face on civil rights.  It was meant to convince Southerners who already supported civil rights (many of whom had relocated from more "racially progressive" parts of the country) that Republicans were more in their best interest on those issues than the segregationists in the Democratic Party.  Nixon raised the civil rights enforcement budget by 800%, raised the percentage of desegregated Southern schools from 10% to 70%, and appointed more blacks to his administration than any of his predecessors, including Johnson.  In his first inaugural address, Nixon said the following:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Source: http://www.britannica.com/presidents/article-9116945

First, does this sound like someone who wanted to pander to white racists?  And second, if the South was shifting toward Republicans because of race, it would seem that it would stop once Nixon began implementing the above civil rights policies, and certainly after racial issues had been taken off the table.  But not only did it not stop, it got stronger.  The South hasn't really been voting solidly Republican since 1972; remember that Carter carried almost the entire South in 1976.  And Nixon's strength in the South in 1972 was largely because McGovern was too liberal for America as a whole, but especially the South, on so many other issues (like Vietnam); after all, Nixon carried everything except Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.  It wasn't until 1980 that the South, at least the Deep South, started to become solidly GOP in presidential elections.  And that's not just me saying that; one of my PoliSci professors said the same thing.  And if you take a look at some of the maps on this site, you'll see that it's true.  Even in the 90s, Bill Clinton was making inroads in the South.  And the shift had started before the 60s, primarily in wealthy suburban areas as a response to the fiscal conservatism of most Republicans. 

Who's Mills Goodwin?  And I don't think Trent Lott ever supported segregation.  The only evidence for that was his comment at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party, and even that was taken out of context.

Mills Godwin was a Virginia segregationist and member of the Byrd Machine who served as a Democratic Governor in the 1960s before switching parties under Nixon and being elected again.  And as for Lott,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Source: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399310,00.html

From what I know about Trent Lott and read about Mills Godwin after you posted this, it doesn't seem like either one switched parties because of race, but rather for political expediency.  And considering that Time is one of the most liberal magazines in America, I really can't help but doubt the accuracy of that.
 

"Even the consensus can be wrong sometimes, my friend. Don't forget that the overwhelming majority of people who write and teach history in the West are bourgeois Westerners, so they will twist the history any way they can to make Easterners look bad. Obviously Democratic Kampuchea had nothing to do with killing people. Did you even read the Pol Pot quote I posted? Or the articles from RevLeft?"

This is the kind of logic that makes you and your party lose any credibility. People who actually know their stuff (as opposed to some random lunatic of the internet) disagree with you? They must be biased lib'rulz!!!!

You guys complained about my sources having a right-wing bias, so why do you now complain when I point out the left-wing bias of public education?  And I am not just some random lunatic on the Internet.  I've researched this stuff, and although I will continue to do so, I don't see how your evidence proves your point in real life.  And of course the consensus can be wrong.  For example, if everyone, even those who "know their stuff" insist that 2+2=7, would you believe it simply because they said so?  Since 2+2=4, the consensus would clearly be wrong here.

Finally, before I finish this post, let me ask you this: what makes you think that Repulicans would go from voting over 80% in favor of civil rights in 1964 to pandering to bigots just four years later?

I don't necessarily want to change your mind (and I know I won't), but I want you to at least consider this.

Well, you might want to consider why the party that was eagerly courting liberal Southern whites was also eagerly courting Strom Thurmond, who switched parties to support Goldwater in 1964, and whom (according to Robert Novak, anyhow) Nixon was so eager to keep onside that he let Thurmond choose his veep for him:
http://patterico.com/2007/08/23/another-novak-anecdote-the-man-who-gave-us-nixon/

Surely if the "Southern Strategy" was about appealing to pro-civil rights Southerners, the first thing they would have done would have been to throw Thurmond under the bus.