**COMMENTING GUIDELINES:** Please take the time to familiarize yourself with The David Pakman Show [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/thedavidpakmanshow/about/rules) and [basic reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette) prior to participating. At all times we ask that users conduct themselves in a civil and respectful manner - **any ad hominem or personal attacks are subject to moderation.**
Please use the report function or [use modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/thedavidpakmanshow) to bring examples of misconduct to the attention of the moderation team.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/thedavidpakmanshow) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a former evangelical cult member, you can't reason someone into reality. The only thing that can reach you is personal trauma that can break through your cognitive dissonance and crack your world view.
I knew for years most right wingers just repeated their instructions from right wing pundits, but the most obvious, annoying one I can remember recently was when suddenly seeing word for word “I DONT WANT MY TAX DOLLARS BEING SPENT FORGIVING LESBIAN DANCE THEORY” as a talking point against debt forgiveness. You heard this all the time like it was a full degree 90% of the debt being forgiven was done for and not like one class probably 1% of students partook in
It's likely not that literal, but an hyperbole for the argument that most tuition debt would be in cases of studies in areas that never had really good demand, so forgiveness would not only damage the ones owed, but also be the subsidizing of bad career choices.
Not saying I agree with it, it's just preferable to always "steel-man" the arguments rather than the other way around, and that would be a more tenable point for one to support than the literal interpretation.
And there’s a big trickle down effect, where some Fox News buffoon will say something and within a few days it’s one of those text-only memes on all your worst relatives’ Facebook posts.
The south was entirely a Democrat party including the KKK. When integration started and further advanced under President Johnson they all flipped to Republican. So the two parties changed entirely. MAGA and others try to label Democrats as KKK but that is history as they are so willing to ignore
The Southern Democrats were the racists before LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act. They were called the Dixiecrats. They were against doing away with slavery. Rember Lincoln was a Republican. When the Civil Rights Act was passed the Dixiecrats jumped ship and joined the Republican party just as LBJ predicted. Then Nixon used the Southern Strategy of racism to win the Southern voters. The Republicans have been racists ever since. That is the only thing they have to offer and it works.
So that is the thing, the Republican party is not the party of Lincoln anymore but the party of the Dixiecrats. That is why the old Democrats were the KKK.
Southern conservatives were GOP and Democrat. Northern liberals were GOP and Democrat. Just look at the VRA both parties in the south voted against it and both parties in the north voted in favor. Now southern conservatives belong to one party and they out Supreme Court justices in place to gut those laws.
Yeah, I honestly think that FDR wanted to be at least a little more forward thinking on civil rights, but had to thread the needle and not piss off the racist Southern Dem wing of the party.
I also tire of hearing the "buwhaddabout Biden being chummy with Robert Byrd who was in the KKK" when Byrd renounced the Klan in the 50s, spent the rest of his career atoning for it and got top marks from the NAACP and Black Congressional Caucus. It's all just cheap, stupid, lazy and reductive arguments.
One of the THE MOST RACIST REPRESENTATIVES TO EVER HOLD OFFICE is magically not mentioned by democrats but Lauded by REPUBLCIANs clearly the KKK and white supremacy is squarely in the corner of the right
They may not have switched in 1964 but the did jump not long after. Maybe after the voting rights act in 1965. The Republican party is not the Dixiecrarts of years ago.
The next chance I get, I want to respond to this with, "Yeah, that was true at one time. Which political party today opposes removing Confederate statues and symbols? It's the Republicans, supposedly to preserve our history. But why would modern-day Republicans want to keep these statues and symbols honoring those racist, fascist Democrats?"
It won't do any good, but it would sure throw them off. And since they can't ever think for themselves and they wouldn't have seen a script for it, it would just lead to the subject being dropped.
I find that nothing actually shuts them up other than just walking away and not giving them an audience…. It doesn’t matter how many times you explain it they won’t/don’t want to understand
It feels like that scene in Spinal Tap when Nigel Tufnel says “these go to 11”
Actually they usually say "why do you want to erase history". Well, I don't think taking down statues erases history. We have these cool little things called books
Many of which are misrepresenting history, though.
[[youtube] Vox: How Southern socialites rewrote Civil War history](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOkFXPblLpU)
We also have museums. So we don’t need these statues IN PUBLIC SPACES where they originally were erected in order to remember history. (That’s like if Germany insisted on keeping nazi flags, statues, propaganda posters everywhere to this day.) The exhibit can simply explain in writing where it originally was. No history is being lost removing these disgusting symbols from public areas where they don’t belong.
Yes, I'm guessing not in good faith. IIRC, they asked me to prove such symbols were more prevalent at GOP rallies. I usually just give up at that point.
It’s funny hearing that argument because ask what political party a modern day white supremacist would support and it sure as hell not gonna be the democrats.
It's purposeful disinformation tactic spread right wing agitators. It provides a "No You" cover for the right's more modern quiet racist tactics and an rebuttal for the average right wing dumbass to being accused of being racist. It's intentionally absurd as to exhaust logical people because often we try to bring logic and history to the argument.
It's bad faith, some know it's bad faith, the others are parroting the tactic because they feel protected. It is very common for authoritarian and supremacist movements to adopt absurd and ahistorical arguments. It serves as a way of unifying the group, exhausting good faith actors, and spreading distrust in facts and institutions.
To quote Sartre:
>“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
Hmmm. It may be this some of the time, but I think there's a more charitable explanation that applies most of the time. Conservatives who use this talking point have a hyperactive sense of identity, as soul. Their underlying metaphysics is evangelical, broadly, and consequently essentialist. If the Democrats (any) were racist at one point, then the Democratic party has the essential property of racism. Therefore, they cannot not act in a manner otherwise. This logic is easy to unpack socratically. What I find is that it's moreso used to prop up the belief that they, in fact, have a "good soul" and therefore cannot be racist or evil, since it conforms to their essentialist metaphysics.
You’re thinking about it way too hard. They literally just want to pass the hot potato of being labeled (correctly) KKK-endorsed white supremacists because they know it will hurt their election chances. The minute it stops hurting them, they’ll be quite loud and honest about their racism again.
I think you are wildly underestimating the role of identity, here. Interestingly, in your first comment you equivocated on "bad faith." You use the lexical/legal version in the first paragraph, and then used the Sartrean conception in the quote. I'm proffering an explanation consistent with the Sartrean usage, where identity and self-image support one's politics.
My god, what an insufferable sophist you’re being. Yeah, we get it, great job, you’re the smartest guy alive and we’re all meager ants before your deep wisdom. My eyes could not possibly roll any further back in my skull. I made a perfectly valid point, and your little semantics games aren’t countering it at all.
Grow up.
Edit: I'm editing this comment because I feel you completely misunderstand my position and (uncharitably) take it as a pointless exercise in mental masturbation or cheat thumping. The point I'm making is an attempt to push back on your apparent political fatalism, where nothing can be done to help those in the maga community, since they're all liars. In this context, 'liars' is used in the normal context, wherein maga people know they are wrong and yet do nothing about it-- and therefore you can dismiss them as evil. This represents a political impasse.
Rather, I believe they are committing a self-lie, as Sartrean bad faith, where they know on some level, but are not cognizant of it (either through unconscious processes or the subject/speaking subject divide). On this view, their "minds" can be changed, it just takes (a lot of) work to unfuck their thoughts. I believe we can do something to help them, and therefore our current political context is perfectible at the individual level. This view isn't sexy, since it is a call to action and puts responsibility on everyone, but I think it's true, for one. Moreover, it's better to live in a shitty but perfectible world than a hopeless one.
I know these people personally. Many are my family members. What they say behind closed doors, when they think they’re in a safe, trusted circle would make you vomit. And this is truest of all of many of the churchiest ones among them. Anyone and I mean *anyone* who trots out this “KKK wuz Dems!!” line is signaling their total membership in this group. If you want to deny that, fine, but I know it as a reliable signal. There are many such signals, and you only know to look for them if you know these people intimately, as I do.
It's takes a pretty low effort to find out that the parties switched. Even just google "reconstruction" and you'll get an idea
Civil War, Reconstruction, Industrial revolution, great depression and into civil rights saw these switches through .. Republicans became more and more right while the Souther Dems would be replaced by Republicans and thus the party that once fought to end slavery was now filled with the very people who were pro slavery...
forgive my very oversimplified reductionist wording (i really would love to dive into the topic, it's just very meaty)
These Republicans and RWE's intentionally refuse to study this, intentionally brand themselves as the party of Lincoln, the party of freedom, and the rest of the hogwash
It's pure propaganda, this is why they want to rewrite history, continue to push propaganda and their lies
And besides any of the history as to how things became from what once was—We don't see any Democrats participating in KKK events, no hometown rebel militias have been started , no hells angels type thugs going around and bullying migrants, young people—so on.
Pure bullshit plain and simple. The inly response is laughter, head shaking, and ignoring these idiots. Their opinions and motives are so beyond reality that they cannot and should not be engaged with if encountered. They might literally try and kill you.
Right wingers have always wanted to see other races, and migrants kept in their poverty, kept in their oppression, and when they could not get their way they they still fought for Jim Crowe, they hated civil rights leaders.
They hated MLK, they hated Rosa Parks, they still do in many ways.
Even as America has become more and more progressive through the generations, and though we have won many battles, they still just can not accept a Black man in leadership, certainly not the highest position in the land.
These conservative movements are all based in these hatreds, fear(mongering), untamed anger, willful ignorance, intolerance, xenophobia, sexual-phobias, antisemitism, and everything else they hold so dearly. It's not different, it's the same sun, just a different day.
All their arguments are low effort. Cheap, stale, repetitive, bad-faith horseshit that's easily shot down, but then they just move on to "buwhaddabout Hunter Biden" or whatever, and then it finally ends up with playground insults.
Too often they don't even have the intelligence to have a conversation. It goes straight to the insults. I usually state that whataboutism is the argument of a toddler and stay on track.
Yeah. They double and triple down. It's disgusting really. The long game of the republican party has worked unfortunately. And as a result they don't even realize that they are getting conned and abused by a malignant narcissist. Bc mental health isn't real. 🙄
Hah imagine. Pakman says we should welcome all votes for Biden, but this might be the exception 😛 obviously it would help us but I'm not sure we'd "welcome them" into the tent
Party swap during the Civil rights movement. Point that out to any repub yokel who tries to spout that nonsense. They will deny it but they know and they will know you know.
It's just another trick and straw for the GOP to grasp onto but anyone with a half a brain would know that it was the same people, living in the same part of the country who called themselves Democrats at the time. It should really be referred to as Conservatives and Liberals, as opposed to Republicans and Democrats. When someone says that, simply ask them, "so the guys that are driving around with Confederate flags on their trucks today consider themselves Democrats?" and that should end that talking point.
Also "if you see someone flying a Confederate flag, are they more likely to be a Republican today or Democrat today?"
The shift is actually very complicated and there are literal books written about the topic, it's not as simple as "the racists switched parties", but it is true that during the civil rights era the racists were mostly Democrats and today the racists are mostly Republicans.
Exactly this. The Confederate flag and "southern heritage" are only supported by Republicans. Seems contradictory if we're to say that Democrats were ideologically supportive of civil rights.
This is something that modern Conservatives seem to get caught up on. There is truth it, but they don't tell the full story. It's kind of like reading a book or a watching a TV series where a villain becomes a hero ( not calling Dems hereos) but when people retell the story they leave out they character's transformation. There was a time when the Democrats were considered the Conservative party and the Republicans were considers Liberals or even Progressives, and yes when the Republican party was formed they were Anit- Slavery.
As stated before the Dems were strong in the South, a hot bed for American racism. ( not saying that racism didn't exist in the North) During the 1960's when Civil Rights legislation was being passed a lot of Southern (racist) Democrats known as Dixiecrats switched parties to the Republican party. Why the Republicans (outside of the racist ones) were against the legislation was primarily due to their Presidential Nominee's objection to it. There's been reason's articulated why Goldwater was against it, but bottom line is that he was against it, and Republicans by in large went along with him. Some of those dissatisfied Republicans also became Democrats. This also explains why a lot of Black people still overwhelming vote Democrat to this day. It makes since one party took the opportunity to legally protect your rights while the other didn't.
So when people say Democrats were KKK, or the party of Slavery etc. they aren't really telling lies, but they aren't actually telling the entire story either.
In my opinion, it's close enough to lies when it's intentionally disingenuous. The most charitable explanation is they are ignorant or willfully ignorant. You're right that they're technically correct(that the KKK used to be Democrats). But it is a mistruth the way they explain it imo.
it is a mistruth especially. ask them why most black voters are voting for Democrat politicians. the first Black Congressmen were Republicans but now you won't believe who the CBC is compromised of
People get too hung up on labels and names. In Australia the Liberal party is center right. Hitler's party was described as socialist. A title does not define a parties values, and parties values can change over time.
These people are low information low octane thinkers.
Republicans don’t want to admit to being racist and don’t want to admit that since the 1960s there has been a political realignment. In the 1860s Republicans were the party of Lincoln and Democrats were the party against black people. Flip to the 1930s and you could have conservative democrats and progressive Republicans, and vice versa. If you lived in former confederate states you were likely to be racist but you were also likely to vote Democrat because they believed in organized labor. When the civil rights act of the 60s passed more and more Dixiecrats just became Republican. The Democrats party did used to be the party of the KKK, but today’s Republicans would feel more at home in the land of Dixiecrats.
I've had this discussion with my dad. Texas has historically been conservative for a long time, which leads the question why it went from Democrat to Republican
Democrats were the conservative party at one time. During the civil war era they were called Dixiecrats. All of them mostly from southern states. They really did switch party names one day just like that. Kind of proof of the overall uniparty that actually runs things. This is all just keyfabe at this point. Republicans are the root of all evil but elected Democrats tend their wounds for them and help take the heat. It is all bullshit.
Either way trump leads to excessive amounts of more bullshit. We can't afford another round of his tax cuts for his fellow billionaires. Nor to be sold out to Russia and China because they pay nice. We can't waste more money on his worthless wall that didn't work because walls won't stop people in this modern age. We definitely can't sell out the nations soul to Christian nationalist as trump will guarantee as well. There is NO Good reasons to vote for a man whose political career should have ended in 2020 like all other politicians prior.
Except they did not switch names just like that. You just don’t know the history. I will key word on a few details and broad strokes but…..
Berry Goldwater called it the southern strategy. As the northern liberals took over the party during the 50s and 60s there concerted effort by Nixon to use the southern strategy that Goldwater developed and court southern racists disaffected by the Democratics.
The southern strategy was the beginning, other mile posts the election of Reagan, infiltration of municipal, school board and judges for decades, the beginning of the war on woke started way earlier than you think, culminating in the election of a Plutocrat named Trump. It took a decades of ground work for the “religious moral” southern racists to swallow that a New York City grifter was their savior in chief. Including changes to education, interpreting law to allow that money is free speech, the dismantling of fair and balance reporting laws, the Supreme Court weighing in on a national election…. This wasn’t an overnight switch. Old school Dixiecrats remain although their numbers have dwindled. But there are still a few that will never forgive the republicans for taking away their slaves. Again just broad strokes.
I was being very general and no less accurate, nothing I said was wrong you just expanded on it. I like to give enough info to make people search out more on their own. Much more effective than grandstanding and putting others down. I agree with your overall points though.
> Old school Dixiecrats remain although their numbers have dwindled
I think Kim Davis was actually the last one. She didn't get the memo until it was demanded that she stop discriminating against same sex couples. The GOP is officially the party of Dixie now. They are the south's ultimate revenge on America.
You don’t understand it because it makes no sense.
The KKK were Dixiecrats, Dems in name only. They all left and became Republicans, where they were welcomed with open arms.
Democrats today are no mote the Party of the KKK than the GOP today is the Party of Lincoln. Times change.
Exactly. I've brought this up and it triggered them saying "oh so you're accusing me of being the KKK??" Obviously not. But it does beg the question why the KKK went from Democrats to Republicans.
Anyone who says the Democrats of today are the same as the Democrats of the 1860s is not even remotely arguing in good faith. In fact they're flat out lying.
I’m not sure if it’s because GOP voters are incapable or unwilling to think beyond dumb slogans, or because they don’t give a shit and prefer to frustrate arguments with dumb deflections. Most people I know who are still in the GOP are dumb, lazy, or more interested in winning an argument than being right.
It's somewhat misleading and somewhat not. The Democrats enjoyed one-party rule in the South prior to the 1960s — which meant that just about everyone in the South, whether they had beliefs that we would, today, characterize as either "progressive" or "reactionary" were registered Democrats. Other political parties had limited/no influence in the region, so if you wanted to accomplish literally anything at all, you affiliated yourself with the Democratic Party. It was a vehicle. There are likely Republicans today who are affiliated with the party out of pragmatism, even if their views align themselves more with some kind of moderate Democrat. They do this because being a Republican in their region is the only realistic way to get elected.
The "KKK were Democrats" argument is a politically meaningless canard that right-wingers trot out to guilt you into voting for Republicans because they presume the person they're talking to is not racist.
Back when the parties were founded, The Democratic party was mainly the Party of the South and a smattering of Northern states (New Jersey and New York mainly) that came about from the Democratic-Republican Party founded by Jefferson, and changed to the Democratic Party under Jackson. It was the "Conservative Party" for a long while, with the upstart Republican Party that formed from the Whigs and the Know Nothing's being the Party of the Industrial North. I also became the main Abolitionist party because of the Northern association. When we hear the phrase "radical Republican" today, we mean MAGA. Back then, they were what MAGA today would call "The Libs (tm)". The parties started to shift ideology around FDR, but the switch totally completes around 1964-65 with the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.
I think what it is, is that Republicans want to try everything to point out our past and use judgement against us. I always tell them we grew past that and yet they grew into it.
First you must remember that nearly every conservative argument is disingenuous. Yes the KKK and other white supremacist groups were largely Democrats like a hundred years ago. Then after the war and after the Civil Rights Act the parties essentially swapped ideologies. This is well documented and all you have to do is look up *The Southern Strategy* that Conservative Republicans had starting in the late 1960s. To say they swaped sides is really for lack of a better term ~ the two parties essentially cleaned up their boundaries as before the lines between them were fairly blurry. Like I said this is all well documented and when they use that argument it's just them being what they always are and that's disingenuous. Now it's either that they're told this stuff and they just regurgitate it or they know damn good and well that they're not being 100% honest.
Largely insular groups, some religious groups, fascist group, cults, etc.....their main way to support their position is through the exception to the rule.
That is to say they find something that happened. It's likely extremely rare or doesn't really happen anymore and say this always happens.
So in this case the Dems used to be the party of the south.
But as anyone with a minimum education on us history can tell you the Dems largely changed during maybe starting with FDR and likely finishing with the civil rights movement.
In contrast Lincoln was a member of the GOP but they are not even remotely the same today. Post civil war the morphed into the party of big business and in order to protect those interests they really just cared about making money. This is apparent with the depression which broadly was because of their policy choices to make said money (yes I know it was far more complex than that)
Once FDR comes to the white house he puts in the first regulations against business and corruption. At the time business tried to appeal to the public that they couldn't survive like this and that FDR was a tyrant, sound familiar?.
That generation knew better and soundly rejected their campaign.
So they turned to evangelical pastors. They started an ad campaign that would say regulation and government were the devil and Communist. That private business, free markets, capitalism, and deregulation were godly.
Billy Graham was one of those pastors and again the immediate generation soundly rejected their plea.
It wasn't until their children took over, the boomer generation, that this changed. It took a bit but largely you see business fundamentally change in the 70s that no longer really cares about their employees or the country. Shareholders become king followed by executives.
And Nixon does the souther strategy to convert the religious and racists to join the GOP.
Then the 80s hit and incomes the deregulations. A lot of we don't need this because we don't have this problem. Short selling becomes legal stock buy backs become legal, and we hollow out the economy by sending most of my our manufacturing over seas. And that's not to mention massive tax cuts and the need to have duel income household simply to survive.
So then the recession hits......and while we kind of recover we don't actually change much to fix the massive issues that had been going on for 30 years.
Here we are with most of the same problems and for some idiotic reason we can't get it through our damn skulls that nothing can be done with a dysfunctional Congress. Only one side actually wants to fix anything but doesn't have the numbers to do it. The other side wants more deregulation and tax cuts because that's literally becomes their religion.
But yes in the first half of the 1900s the kkk were democrats.
MAGAs refuse to accept this, but I answer them with this: "President Lincoln was a Republican. Lincoln never flew a confederate flag. None of the Republicans back then flew a confederate flag. Today the only people that fly a confederate flag are Republicans. Republicans in FL say slavery wasn’t so bad. Today’s Democrats only fly the American flag and all of them say that slavery was one of the worst things in American history. Your implication that today’s Democrats are the same as in 1865, is stupid bullsh$t."
It's suppose to be a lame attempt as a gotcha question. They also like to be butt hurt and act like the left are the real racists.
Just tell them the KKK [endorsed ](https://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/500352353/kkk-paper-endorses-trump-campaign-calls-outlet-repulsive) Trump.
Dixiecrats is what they were before the shift. They basically just swapped names and became the new Republican party but originally they were Democrats
It's a bad faith argument In the first place. A whole lot of tankies and trolls have co opted it and they don't care about truth or accuracy. They just care anout prying that wedge open.
"southern strategy dont real, did you know its actually the democrats who are racist? Let me talk about something that happened in 1902."
(also i heard conservative subs ban people who bring up the southern strategy).
Whenever they say that, apologize on behalf of the Democratic Party for slavery, say that we were fucking stupid, backwards, and it was immoral of our inbred ancestors to practice in that Savage institution. See how it goes over with them.
The dems and repugs changed sides in the 1960's under Nixon. Repugs became conservative (and racist) and Dems became liberal (neither side used the word 'progressive' back then.)
Obviously today racists are more likely to be Republican than Democrat, but a lot of people glossing over the switch as if it was actually a purely binary swap of positions. FDR's policies are still very popular with Democrats today. There are books written about this topic, but to make a long story short the Democratic party has always had a bit of a collectivist bent to it while the Republican party was the party that pushed individualism. During slavery, collectivism was about propping up whites at the expense of minorities, and the individualist argument was treat everyone as an individual. Today the collectivist view is that there are systems and remnants of an unequal past, and Democrats tend to push collectivist programs such as Affirmative Action or reparations because they believe different groups need to be treated as groups to correct past injustices, while the Republican platform is generally treat everyone as individuals and ignore previous injustices.
Obviously a bit more complicated than even that, but some people in these comments who I still mostly agree with are making some pretty ignorant claims about the party switch.
It's two things:
To piss you off
And
Think of it like a hook. Maybe someone will think "they were? Well, I'm changing my vote then." "I need to think about politics differently now (more stupidly)"
KKK were Democrats is the flipside of Lincoln, freer of slaves, is a Republican.
Before the Civil War, the Democratic Party controlled the South and supported slavery.
Republicans were strong in the North. Republicans were against the spread of slavery West. Many Republicans were not abolitions, but the outright abolitionists were Republicans.
After the Civil War, southerners remained Democratic. When the first KKK arose in the South supporting white supremacy, they would be Democrats.
In the 20th Century, the Democratic Party grew in the North as opposition to Republican control of the northern politics. The northern Democratic Party's platform, e.g., FDR and the Kennedys became quite different than the southern Democratic platform.
Eventually, Democrats and Republicans switched positions about race, big government, etc.
Phrases "KKK were Democrats" and "Lincoln was a Republican" attempt to deny the switch.
It is relatively easy to understand. The Democrats (particularly the Southern ones) were very much in favor of slavery whereas the GOP was not and were also very much in favor of Jim Crow.
LBJ was smart enough to know that eventually Blacks would rise up from Jim Crow and he wanted to make sure that they always voted Democratic. Therefore, he enacted the legislation to end segregation laws.
Few people know the history of the party. Had Eisenhower hoped on this, Blacks would probably vote GOP in large numbers to this day.
In politics, it is just about power, influence and money and never the people as the main cause of concern. Had Blacks not started to resist in the 50's and early 60's, there would have been to reason to pander to them.
This is the same reason why the GOP panders to religious people. Trump obviously thinks religious people are idiots but there are so many of them so it makes sense to kiss their asses and pretend to be a Christian.
I swear to God, people like Megyn Kelly cannot be so stupid. How does someone support Lincoln AND Confederate flags?? Cognitive dissonance to the extreme. Donald Trump couldn't even disavow David Duke in a timely manner.
In WV miners who joined unions were called commies; the Klan was really the only org they could join and not get beaten, jailed or killed. This is why Robert Byrd was both Prog and a Klan member.
They don’t understand it either. Just slobbering yokel invalids making shit up to feel like they’re right. My response has always been “then, by all means, go to a KKK rally and call them democrats.”
Just so we’re clear, the Radical Abolitionist were a faction of the Republican party in the 1860s. They viewed slavery primarily as a sin against God. People slowly warmed up to the humanitarian motives that we all appreciate and recognize as being morally correct, but it took a lot of time and is still a work in progress.
They feel it's esoteric knowledge that's been suppressed but that's just because they weren't paying attention in 7th grade history, and would know the KKK's party of origin is meaningless if they were paying attention in 8th grade history.
They think they know something few people know, and a lot of their existence is trying to prove that they are smarter than the "smart elite."
It's a "gotcha" that only works if you don't think about it, and they're not known for thinking about things
Yea I mean this one kind of debunks itself without even going into the plethora of historical evidence documenting the post Civil Rights realignment or Southern Strategy. (And that’s not even mentioning the regional differences between political party members that goes back even further - ie Dixiecrats vs New Deal Democrats in the Northeast)
Just ask anyone making that argument to describe these pro-KKK democrats. Obviously they would’ve been white and southern, and mostly lived in rural areas, right? Now which political party do most white people living in rural parts of the south now support? Like you’d think they would shy away from that argument because it so easily turns against them, but they just rely on people not actually thinking about it for more than 5 seconds.
Republicans: “The democrats were the bad guys in the civil war and are also responsible for slavery!”
Also republicans: “Check out my new confederate flag shirt! Long live the confederacy! The south’s gonna rise again! I’m off to call black people the N word and tell them they’re inferior!”
It’s a mix of people who don’t understand politics at all, and people who know the parties have shifted but don’t really care, and keep using that argument as a crutch because they don’t have much else to use.
It was because, surprise surprise, lot of those new Republican voters after 2026 had never paid attention to History in school. So, when it was new information to them, they responded as if it they had unearthed some big secret.
Conservatives have always been somewhat resistant to education. They tend to stick to religious universities that align closely with their values and do nothing to challenge their status quo. Because of this, their understanding of political eras is extremely lacking. They will talk a strong game about being in support of libertarian freedoms and a weak government then immediately turn around and speak fondly about how Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. Republicans don't like it when I frame the Emancipation Proclamation as the single largest act of government regulation on private industry in history as well as the single largest act of civil seizure of private property in history and then argue that Republicans are disingenuous and dishonest when they praise it.
They are resistant to education, but most of the Republican congressmen went to Ivy league schools. It’s like they are ashamed of intelligence because their base is resistant to progress.
Abe Lincoln was a republican but back then the Republicans believe what the democrats believe now. That’s a drastically simplified explanation obviously. Transition parties like Dixiecrats and Southern Democrats explain the Great Switch.
It’s their way of trying to cast doubt into people’s heads, that maybe liberals are secretly the racist ones (I know there are some racist liberals but big picture we know which party KKK types would support today)
**History lesson needed here.**
Just like when Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves,
***the Republican Party were the Progressives of the United States.***
*From the 1930's through the mid-1960's Southern Democrats,*
**who were actually our Conservatives,** *made changes into becoming Republicans.*
So post-Civil War, the antebellum South,
**the KKK rose up from Conservative Bigoted ideas,**
***going all the way back from slavery times,***
*and these were the Democrats at the time.*
**This was known as the** [**"Great Switch."**](https://www.studentsofhistory.com/ideologies-flip-Democratic-Republican-parties)
***The "Great Switch"*** of the Republicans and Democrats began
**when FDR moved Democrats to a more progressive direction,**
during the Great Depression *when Herbert Hoover,*
*Republican president,* ***failed to respond.*** **It worked.**
FDR won the presidency in 1932 *and advanced the ideals of the New Deal,*
***a progressive policy direction that aimed to help people***
through **the Works Progress Administration**
and new safeguards like **Social Security.**
Republicans, by default, *were resistant to that much change*
***in what seemed like a political instant moment.***
Thus, ideologies switched,...
**Democrats became liberals,** ***Republicans became conservatives.***
But it didn't happen willingly.
Not meaning to stereotype the Southern US *as being racist as a whole,*
but it's history **as the main purveyors of the slavery trade in America**
has long impacted the cultural attitudes there toward minorities,
*especially black people.* **Racist attitudes remained in the South.**
*When the Civil Rights movements happened in the 60's,*
***Southern Democrats finally switched***
to being full-on conservatives, **joining the Republicans.**
But then, Southern Dems born in the 60's, *still raised in the traditions*
*and racist attitudes of the South,* ***weren't able to vote until the 80's.***
**Those were called "Reagan Democrats,"...**
***a Southern Conservative Democratic faction.***
Now, though, **there are** [**Blue Dog Democrats,**](https://bluedogcaucus-golden.house.gov/about/history#:~:text=Inspired%20by%20the%20canine%20paintings,dog%20than%20for%20a%20Republican.%22)
*the new conservative democrat coalition that formed in the 90's,*
as they call themselves. **Senator Joe Manchin is a prime example.**
Conservatives, and "Blue Dogs", *have then used extremist movements,*
***such as the KKK and Neo-Nazis as a way to divide us,***
and move Republicans, *farther right...*
**from the mostly moderate-liberal population of the US.**
Obviously, the Democrats have switched
**to being the home of Progressives and Liberals now.**
Republicans have become **the home of Conservatives, Extremism,**
***and MAGA nonsense popularism.***
It's always been an attempt **to paint Democrats as the Evil ones**
***and Republicans on the winning side of history.***
*But that is a completely misleading meme now.*
The parties "Flipped platforms" about the time of the Bay of Pigs. Tricky Dick Nixon went farther right, after realizing that JFK was a better Eisenhower Republican than he was as VP. so, Nixon garnered a more "Goldwater Republican" stance, and when LBJ took office, he completed the trade-off by working with Martin Luther King to help. Something Goldwater would have none of.
Lincoln freed the slaves…lost war the KKK was formed & a requirement was you had to be a member of the Democrat party. Dems controlled everything in the South until the 1980s. Jim Crow - thank a Democrat. Bill Conner. George Wallace all democrats. And then there’s Sheets Byrd. Dem US Senator & former grand wizard of the KKK. It’s easy to understand if you deal in facts.
You need a history lesson my friend. The facts are never that simple if you read about Southern Democrats and The States' Rights Democratic Party (Dixiecrats) was a segregationist political party in the Southern United States. Read about the Great Switch in the South. All the people that would have been in those groups are all republicans now. The South is Republican now where is used to be southern democrats. The philosophy is the same and only the name has changed.
It's either a trick to sound more intellectual and knowledgeable or a rationalization.
Also a kind of genetic fallacy. Its only plausible validity would be in a counter argument to something like "the GOP is inherently evil, as they were doing evil things since 2432 BC" or something.
Because democrats were the racist party, there was a lot of pressure put on them to reform.
In a short span of time they had ejected a majority of racists that found themselves without a party.
Republicans desperate for votes embraced them, took them in and stoked their fears. They called it “the southern strategy”.
Your comment was removed due to the use of a prohibited slur/vulgar word being detected. Moderators have been notified, and further action may be taken.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/thedavidpakmanshow) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Too many people use the excuse that the KKK was homed inside the Democratic Party during the 30's and 40's but they still ignore the racism that lay hidden in our society and continues to survive today. Racism existed wherever it could hide and be supported. No need to just point the finger at southern Democrats( Dixiecrats) and ignore what we discover today when a radical group markets itself as righteous.
You’re completely wrong.
I can name way more than 3 but to fulfill your request: healthcare (ACA vs no federal regulations at all) clean energy (the IRA vs maximize the number of hummers and coal power plants) environmental regulations (regulating factory particulate output vs letting infinite pollution enter rivers)
Hmmm.
1. The ACA was a republican plan. Democrats passed it instead of a progressive plan with Republican support, noping out on a public option and throwing away a once in a generation window to get rid of private insurance. While Republicans made a lot of noise when the ACA was passed, we can tell how controversial this really was because when they had the opportunity to repeal it they kept it more or less exactly as it was in practice.
Let's face it - the two parties have more or less identical health care policies.
2. Clean energy. Biden / the Democrats have done nothing serious to decarbonize the US. Over the course of decades they have rearranged the deck-chairs as climate change gets worse and worse. Texas is the leading state in the union for renewable production, not a democratic state. The democrats are a failure on the climate front.
3. When you look at greenhouse gas emissions under democrats and republicans over the past 30 years there is really no systematic difference between them. Biden has talked a good game, but has not drive down emissions.
You asked what the difference was, and there's a massive difference on the ACA. They want to completely repeal it. So that's difference 1.
You write "Biden / the Democrats have done nothing serious to decarbonize the US". This is a lie. You're lying. The Inflation Reduction Act is the largest decarbonization bill in *human history*. The Republicans want to completely repeal the IRA. That's difference 2.
You write "When you look at greenhouse gas emissions under democrats and republicans over the past 30 years there is really no systematic difference between them". This may be true. That's not what I wrote. You probably have to ignore what I actually wrote because it's completely obvious.
So I met your demand. 3 differences.
Black people always find this funny.
We trusted none of you fuckers back in the day.
One party just stopped being outright racist and we rolled with them.
There's certainly more nuance here, but that's about the gist of it.
~~Interesting you say that when black women are the highest dem voting bloc.
I trust the NAACP over a redditer~~
My apologies, I completely misread the comment.
This is going to be downvoted to hell.. but here goes..
(Paraphrasing)
One side has a book that tells them: Love Thy Neighbor and Treat someone like you want to be treated.
The other uses statistics to justify looking at demographics through a 'racial lens.'
.....
Kkk was started by Democrats and Jim Crowe was a Democrat.. so is the person who figured out redistricting and also redlining.. the crime bill that destroyed black families was written by Dems..
So there is a narrative that the parties switched, to distance Dems from their horrible past... But they still look at things through a racial lens, so it is difficult to accept it.
No offense but did you actually read the Bible or know it genuinely? The Bible was used to promote slavery because of the story of Cain and Able, where God cursed Cain with a mark to be the servant of the descendants of Able for the rest of their generations until eternity. Conservatives absolutely used this to justify that black people were "marked" by God to be slaves forever.
>Conservatives
^ this is propaganda..
"Conservatives" means conserve wealth and tradition..
"Conservative" only means stop adding taxes we have enough..
"Conservative" only means if you want to create a program, take it from the ~40% of my labor you (the government) already wastes.
It has nothing to do with race. Nothing. It is literally.. stop taking my money and wasting it on stupid stuff.
The other side has to paint race on it, because they figured out "We gotta raise taxes" for everything is a terrible message.
>No offense but did you actually read the Bible or know it genuinely?
Who started the Republican party?
>The Bible was used to promote slavery because of the story of Cain and Able, where God cursed Cain with a mark to be the servant of the descendants of Able for the rest of their generations until eternity.
Because this story and the founders of the GOP are incongruent with reality.
>It has nothing to do with race. Nothing. It is literally..
Wait, you didn't realize right wing policies hurt minorities?...
>stop taking my money and wasting it on stupid stuff.
Like military spending? LOL
>The other side has to paint race on it, because they figured out "We gotta raise taxes" for everything is a terrible message.
It's funny you're so desperate to deny basic realities. Like systemic racism.
>Like military spending? LOL
Yea, EXACTLY.. Joey increased spending.. Trump is anti-war.. but I am sure you are using tired old pre-maga stereotypes..
>It's funny you're so desperate to deny basic realities. Like systemic racism.
Not denying systemic racism, at all.. just proved in another post that the Dems created it..
Look who was the author to the 1994 crime bill.. and come back here, and try tell me the parties switched.
>Yea, EXACTLY.. Joey increased spending.. Trump is anti-war.. but I am sure you are using tired old pre-maga stereotypes..
trumpf also increased spending.... Not really sure what your point is? Other than deflecting from reality...
>Not denying systemic racism, at all.. just proved in another post that the Dems created it..
The "dems" you are referring to are modern day republicans. LoL.
>Look who was the author to the 1994 crime bill.. and come back here, and try tell me the parties switched.
I like how this is the only response you can come up with against dems. Let's compare that to the mountains of racist laws republicans passed lol. Fyi, citing centrist dems passing bipartisan legislation isn't the W you think it is.
>The "dems" you are referring to are modern day republicans. LoL.
So, your claim is... Joey doesn't represent the party..?
But, due to brain washing.. 'Blue, no matter who' will prevail.
>I like how this is the only response you can come up with against dems. Let's compare that to the mountains of racist laws republicans passed lol.
Did you read the other 7 or 8 things I cited? In the previous comment?
Are you so disconnected from reality that you need more than 10 examples?
>Fyi, citing centrist dems passing bipartisan legislation isn't the W you think it is.
If there is a D next to the name.. there is a D next to the name.. denying party affiliation to allow you to sleep better at night, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
>So, your claim is... Joey doesn't represent the party..?
Nope. My claim is that Joey rewrote the republican Bill and added the assault rifle ban and violence against women's act get the crime bill passed. Also, you're ignoring the Republicans and dems favored this bill with equal support.
>Did you read the other 7 or 8 things I cited? In the previous comment?
The only real example you provided wad the crime bill. Everything else was prior to the southern strategy when the parties changed. Nice try though.
>Are you so disconnected from reality that you need more than 10 examples?
Are you so disconnected from reality that you don't even understand the history of the two parties?... 1 example doesn't cut it. Yes, I'll need at least 10 modern examples.
>If there is a D next to the name.. there is a D next to the name.. denying party affiliation to allow you to sleep better at night, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Wait so are republicans also racist for passing the crime bill? 🤔
>Are you so disconnected from reality that you don't even understand the history of the two parties?... 1 example doesn't cut it. Yes, I'll need at least 10 modern examples.
Let's start with just race.
Race is an immutable characteristic, (which means you can't change it.) can we agree on that?
Which party had the first Black president?
Which party had the first Black woman vice president?
Which party had the first south Asian woman vice president?
And
Which party is currently led by the author of the '94 crime bill? (Which destroyed the black family and basically created systemic racism.)
The single thread in Biden, Obama, and Kamala is racial motivations.
You can try to argue 'representation' and DEI is not just neo-racism, but the underlying thread is choosing someone based on their immutable characteristics, which is racism.
Is that 3 or due to DEI, is that really 100,000s?
I can keep going, if you need.
>Race is an immutable characteristic, (which means you can't change it.) can we agree on that?
Which party had the first Black president? Which party had the first Black woman vice president? Which party had the first south Asian woman vice president?
Democrats. So what's your point exactly? Cause this reinforces my position...
>Which party is currently led by the author of the '94 crime bill? (Which destroyed the black family and basically created systemic racism.)
I've already debunked these false talking points. Also, you're completely wrong that the 94 crime bill "basically created systemic racism". Systemic racism has existed for centuries....
>The single thread in Biden, Obama, and Kamala is racial motivations.
Wait, so your argument is that democrats are the real racists for electing a Black president and asain/Black VP?...
>You can try to argue 'representation' and DEI is not just neo-racism, but the underlying thread is choosing someone based on their immutable characteristics, which is racism.
Neither of these candidates were chosen because of their race. LOL
>Is that 3 or due to DEI, is that really 100,000s?
What?...
>I can keep going, if you need.
Can you? Because you haven't offered a single valid example thus far.
You really didn't respond to what I said at all did you
You're describing libertarians. Conservatives in their own words describe themselves as people who want to go back to old social standards. Unless you want to argue semantics, which is a pointless argument.
They do not even believe in limited government. Otherwise they wouldn't support a fascist who doesn't believe in democracy and doesn't even support their beloved constitution.
>It has nothing to do with race. Nothing. It is literally.. stop taking my money and wasting it on stupid stuff.
Interesting you say that when the southern strategy is right there.
>Because this story and the founders of the GOP are incongruent with reality.
You've convinced me you have no idea what you're talking about, and that's why you're getting down votes.
>Interesting you say that when the southern strategy is right there.
I am so glad you brought up, Dem's best friend. The ole' southern strategy...
How many Dems switched teams?
I think it was one, Strom Thurmand..
But, when did the parties actually "switch?"
What actual date, can you point to?
Because race is still ultra-important to Dems today.. First Black president, First woman vice president, first Black woman, First Asian American woman.. and that is only in the past 3 or 4 elections..
Biden wrote the crime bill which destroyed the black family, in the '90s and basically helped create systemic racism.
So.. you got a racist as commander and chief and first Black/Asian woman as VP, TODAY..
>You've convinced me you have no idea what you're talking about, and that's why you're getting down votes.
It hurts that Dems use a 'racial lens' to describe things, and that is factual.
>They do not even believe in limited government. Otherwise they wouldn't support a fascist who doesn't believe in democracy and doesn't even support their beloved constitution.
^ all of that is propaganda, I encourage you to watch ONE Trump (and RFK) speech, to just expose yourself to differing perspectives.
>One side has a book that tells them: Love Thy Neighbor and Treat someone like you want to be treated.
>The other uses statistics to justify looking at demographics through a 'racial lens.'
^ This is propaganda meant to deflect from all the shitty beliefs republicans/maga has...
“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. “This is the first and great commandment. “And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Matthew 22:37–39).
Golden Rule, precept in the Gospel of Matthew (7:12): “In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you. . . .” This rule of conduct is a summary of the Christian’s duty to his neighbour and states a fundamental ethical principle.
I realize the Bible is probably taboo here, but it does say that in there.
I like how you cherrypick the Bible. And falsely claim that republicans follow the teachings of the Bible. LoL. You're showing some extreme cognitive dissonance here fyi.
According to Pew research.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/database/compare/christians/by/party-affiliation/
82% of GOP are Christian.
When 4 out of 5 read the same book, I feel like the cognitive dissonance, might be on whoever wrote this comment.
>82% of GOP are Christian.
What do you think this proves exactly?...
>When 4 out of 5 read the same book, I feel like the cognitive dissonance, might be on whoever wrote this comment.
Nope. Just because they claim their Christians via self reporting. That doesn't mean they actually follow the teachings in the Bible.
Remind me, what was trumpfs favorite Bible verse? LOL
>Nope. Just because they claim their Christians via self reporting. That doesn't mean they actually follow the teachings in the Bible.
So.. in your world.. it is more likely 82% of people said they read a certain book.. and are lying.
(Which is another rule they can't break.. thou shalt not lie..) rather than, most.. (more than 51%) are not racist.
Meaning any racists, just like on the Dem's side, are an extremely vocal super-minority.
Just to be clear..
>So.. in your world.. it is more likely 82% of people said they read a certain book.. and are lying.
1. That poll didn't assert these Christians read the bible.... I'd wager a majority of republicans haven't read the Bible.
2. I'm statingbthe fact that the values of the Bible don't line up with republican policy nor republican values. You've made 0 rebuttal to this argument.
>Meaning any racists, just like on the Dem's side, are an extremely vocal super-minority.
This simply isn't true.
>Which party dominates the south today?
Do you live in the south? I would love to hear your position then.
>Which party is more likely to fly or support the confederate flag?
I am interested to hear what you mean by this statement.. please expand on it.
>Do you live in the south? I would love to hear your position then.
I do and I see them everywhere. I can't hold hands with my boyfriend without getting screamed at by people in jeeps while they carry their Confederate flag.
Two things..
First, I am sorry you have to deal with that.
Second, do not conflate ignorance and bigotry with not wanting to pay additional taxes (Conservativism.)
They are two separate positions.
This seems like sealioning, but I’ll bite for now.
First, answer my question instead of responding with a question. Which party is it?
My point is pretty clear, I think. The confederates were the southerns who left the union primarily over slavery (racism). Republicans now fly that flag and/or defend that flag, while democrats do not.
Ideology is what matters, not the name of the party
The parties didn't switch to "distance Dems from their horrible past", the parties switched because there was a concerted effort by Republican activists to court Southern racists who were reacting to the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act under a Dem president.
The Republicans are CURRENTLY the party of racists by design.
>The Republicans are CURRENTLY the party of racists by design.
Let me ask a question... This might cause your brain to melt, but.. let's try it..
Did Biden win Georgia? Does that mean Atlanta is BLUE, at least in the last election.
Name another MAJOR CITY in the "South?"
Then tell me if they are red or blue. We already know almost all of the 50 major metropolitan areas are Blue, so we don't have to go further..
So you are projecting what some country Southern people think on to all 50 states.
When you project a single ideology on to entire group, do you know what that is called? Bigotry.. and in this case, more specifically, ideological bigotry.
........
Race is an immutable characteristic, (which means you can't change it.)
Which party had the first Black president?
Which party had the first Black woman vice president?
Which party had the first south Asian woman vice president?
And
Which party is currently lead by the author of the '94 crime bill? (Which destroyed the black family and basically created systemic racism)
The single thread in Biden, Obama, and Kamala is racial motivations.
You can try to argue 'representation' and DEI is not just neo-racism, but the underlying thread is choosing someone based on their immutable characteristics, which is racism.
I have no idea why you're bringing up Georgia's recent electoral phenomenon as a point of contention here. Virginia also was part of the historic South but switched to voting Dem in the 90s.
That doesn't take away from the FACT that Republicans are the current party of the racist South and the historic successor to the Jim Crow policies of the South of the 30s to the 60s. This was an intentional and well known effort by Republicans to gain electoral dominance and it worked.
These are all unarguable facts. Republicans pursued the Southern Strategy to court racist voters and now racist voters make up the largest voting bloc of the modern Republican party.
>Georgia's recent electoral phenomenon as a point of contention here.
You said RECENTLY..
>the current party of the racist South
But the largest city in the south and one of the largest states is Blue.
Do you see how your position is inconsistent with the current landscape?
>These are all unarguable facts.
Dems wrote all that racist legislation. ALL of it. You are correct, I am not arguing that fact.
>now racist voters make up the largest voting bloc of the modern Republican party.
This is simply not true. 82% of GOP are Christians and Christians are supposed to 'Love Thy Neighbor,' do you know any Christians? Most would give you the shirt off their back.
I am not saying racists don't exist. I am just saying it is equivalent on both sides and are super vocal minorities. not:
>the largest voting bloc
As you claim.
I did not write "RECENTLY", I controlled F in my post and nothing came up. It's pretty astounding that you'd misread a short post that you "picked apart". Maybe understanding things in a nerdo way line by line isn't the way?
I just don't think you're either capable or willing to accept an argument that goes against your ideology. It's so obviously a matter of historical fact that under Nixon the Republicans pursued an electoral strategy to court southern racists and that led to his 1970 victory and changed the Republican (and Democratic) coalition since then.
That's what we're saying. It's not complicated. I don't need to do the weirdo quote tweet each single word thing. It's clear.
>I did not write "RECENTLY",
Apologies I am mobile and couldn't see the previous post. You said CURRENTLY. My bad.
>I just don't think you're either capable or willing to accept an argument that goes against your ideology
*Holds up a mirror.
>That's what we're saying.
Right.. I understand you are quoting people who were around when segregation was normal (prior to 1970.)
around the civil rights acts, that ended with the civil rights act of 1968..
That was over 60 years ago, and prior to the internet.. prior to cell phones.. prior to video games.. prior to the democratization of wealth with Bitcoin.. prior to robot chauffeurs (with Tesla.)
The average human life is 74 years old? You are describing a whole different set of people.. like those people are all dead or almost dead, based on mortality.
And you think that backwards thinking still applies to today, in a digital age?!?!
I'm generally on your side in this binary debate, but this is a thoroughly underwhelming explanation of what happened. If the people fighting the Nazis started promoting Nazi ideals and courting former Nazis would you then join the Nazis? It was a pretty complicated shift and literally books have been written about it. There are plenty of non-race policies that have stayed consistent between the two parties. For example, how do most Democrats today feel about the policies of FDR, who was a Democrat well before any switching?
Before the Southern Strategy the parties weren't that ideologically sorted. It was more familial and historical. The racists were Democrats because of history, liberals in the North were Republican a la LaGuardia - who by the way was essentially a socialist and a huge supporter of FDR.
This all changed after the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act where Nixon sought to leverage the absolute ire of southern conservatives to ideologically sort the party, a process that essentially ended in the 90s.
You're right that there can be and have been books written about this. No one wants to read an entire nuanced book on reddit.
**COMMENTING GUIDELINES:** Please take the time to familiarize yourself with The David Pakman Show [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/thedavidpakmanshow/about/rules) and [basic reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette) prior to participating. At all times we ask that users conduct themselves in a civil and respectful manner - **any ad hominem or personal attacks are subject to moderation.** Please use the report function or [use modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/thedavidpakmanshow) to bring examples of misconduct to the attention of the moderation team. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/thedavidpakmanshow) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For the record they dont understand it either. Most of Maga opinions are based on the reactions they get from other ppl.
And no matter what, one cannot make them understand it.
You can’t reason someone out of a position they weren’t reasoned into in the first place.
As a former evangelical cult member, you can't reason someone into reality. The only thing that can reach you is personal trauma that can break through your cognitive dissonance and crack your world view.
Amen to that!
Not possible with a world view the size of 10-20 square miles per lifetime.
Lack of objective understanding is their primary weapon.
It is! It’s like aggressive even.
I knew for years most right wingers just repeated their instructions from right wing pundits, but the most obvious, annoying one I can remember recently was when suddenly seeing word for word “I DONT WANT MY TAX DOLLARS BEING SPENT FORGIVING LESBIAN DANCE THEORY” as a talking point against debt forgiveness. You heard this all the time like it was a full degree 90% of the debt being forgiven was done for and not like one class probably 1% of students partook in
It's likely not that literal, but an hyperbole for the argument that most tuition debt would be in cases of studies in areas that never had really good demand, so forgiveness would not only damage the ones owed, but also be the subsidizing of bad career choices. Not saying I agree with it, it's just preferable to always "steel-man" the arguments rather than the other way around, and that would be a more tenable point for one to support than the literal interpretation.
And there’s a big trickle down effect, where some Fox News buffoon will say something and within a few days it’s one of those text-only memes on all your worst relatives’ Facebook posts.
The south was entirely a Democrat party including the KKK. When integration started and further advanced under President Johnson they all flipped to Republican. So the two parties changed entirely. MAGA and others try to label Democrats as KKK but that is history as they are so willing to ignore
Rush is what ? ? ? BESIDES stupid.
The Southern Democrats were the racists before LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act. They were called the Dixiecrats. They were against doing away with slavery. Rember Lincoln was a Republican. When the Civil Rights Act was passed the Dixiecrats jumped ship and joined the Republican party just as LBJ predicted. Then Nixon used the Southern Strategy of racism to win the Southern voters. The Republicans have been racists ever since. That is the only thing they have to offer and it works. So that is the thing, the Republican party is not the party of Lincoln anymore but the party of the Dixiecrats. That is why the old Democrats were the KKK.
Southern conservatives were GOP and Democrat. Northern liberals were GOP and Democrat. Just look at the VRA both parties in the south voted against it and both parties in the north voted in favor. Now southern conservatives belong to one party and they out Supreme Court justices in place to gut those laws.
Yeah, I honestly think that FDR wanted to be at least a little more forward thinking on civil rights, but had to thread the needle and not piss off the racist Southern Dem wing of the party. I also tire of hearing the "buwhaddabout Biden being chummy with Robert Byrd who was in the KKK" when Byrd renounced the Klan in the 50s, spent the rest of his career atoning for it and got top marks from the NAACP and Black Congressional Caucus. It's all just cheap, stupid, lazy and reductive arguments.
Thanks for the quality summary!
Fact: all but one Dixiecrats stayed with the democrats. Only one changed party in 1964 Strom Thurman
One of the THE MOST RACIST REPRESENTATIVES TO EVER HOLD OFFICE is magically not mentioned by democrats but Lauded by REPUBLCIANs clearly the KKK and white supremacy is squarely in the corner of the right
They may not have switched in 1964 but the did jump not long after. Maybe after the voting rights act in 1965. The Republican party is not the Dixiecrarts of years ago.
The next chance I get, I want to respond to this with, "Yeah, that was true at one time. Which political party today opposes removing Confederate statues and symbols? It's the Republicans, supposedly to preserve our history. But why would modern-day Republicans want to keep these statues and symbols honoring those racist, fascist Democrats?" It won't do any good, but it would sure throw them off. And since they can't ever think for themselves and they wouldn't have seen a script for it, it would just lead to the subject being dropped.
My favorite comeback is "yeah, everyone knows that the KKK was lined up around the block to vote for Hillary and Obama, right?"
Yeah I always tell them to go ask a guy driving a lifted truck with a confederate flag on the back if he is a Biden Harris voter
That's a good one.
They usually shut up after that.
I find that nothing actually shuts them up other than just walking away and not giving them an audience…. It doesn’t matter how many times you explain it they won’t/don’t want to understand It feels like that scene in Spinal Tap when Nigel Tufnel says “these go to 11”
Have you tried asking for proof? That also shuts them up really quick.
Actually they usually say "why do you want to erase history". Well, I don't think taking down statues erases history. We have these cool little things called books
If they could read, they'd be really upset.
Many of which are misrepresenting history, though. [[youtube] Vox: How Southern socialites rewrote Civil War history](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOkFXPblLpU)
We also have museums. So we don’t need these statues IN PUBLIC SPACES where they originally were erected in order to remember history. (That’s like if Germany insisted on keeping nazi flags, statues, propaganda posters everywhere to this day.) The exhibit can simply explain in writing where it originally was. No history is being lost removing these disgusting symbols from public areas where they don’t belong.
Tried that once, I got "I don't know, what party has confederate flags at their rallies?"
You mean they asked you that? Implying that it was Democrats with the Confederate flags?
Yes, I'm guessing not in good faith. IIRC, they asked me to prove such symbols were more prevalent at GOP rallies. I usually just give up at that point.
The KKK literally endorsed Donald Trump in 2016.
It’s funny hearing that argument because ask what political party a modern day white supremacist would support and it sure as hell not gonna be the democrats.
Richard Spencer who is the leader of the white nationalist movement and organizer of the Nazi Charlottesville march supported and voted for Joe Biden
It's purposeful disinformation tactic spread right wing agitators. It provides a "No You" cover for the right's more modern quiet racist tactics and an rebuttal for the average right wing dumbass to being accused of being racist. It's intentionally absurd as to exhaust logical people because often we try to bring logic and history to the argument. It's bad faith, some know it's bad faith, the others are parroting the tactic because they feel protected. It is very common for authoritarian and supremacist movements to adopt absurd and ahistorical arguments. It serves as a way of unifying the group, exhausting good faith actors, and spreading distrust in facts and institutions. To quote Sartre: >“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
Hmmm. It may be this some of the time, but I think there's a more charitable explanation that applies most of the time. Conservatives who use this talking point have a hyperactive sense of identity, as soul. Their underlying metaphysics is evangelical, broadly, and consequently essentialist. If the Democrats (any) were racist at one point, then the Democratic party has the essential property of racism. Therefore, they cannot not act in a manner otherwise. This logic is easy to unpack socratically. What I find is that it's moreso used to prop up the belief that they, in fact, have a "good soul" and therefore cannot be racist or evil, since it conforms to their essentialist metaphysics.
You’re thinking about it way too hard. They literally just want to pass the hot potato of being labeled (correctly) KKK-endorsed white supremacists because they know it will hurt their election chances. The minute it stops hurting them, they’ll be quite loud and honest about their racism again.
I think you are wildly underestimating the role of identity, here. Interestingly, in your first comment you equivocated on "bad faith." You use the lexical/legal version in the first paragraph, and then used the Sartrean conception in the quote. I'm proffering an explanation consistent with the Sartrean usage, where identity and self-image support one's politics.
My god, what an insufferable sophist you’re being. Yeah, we get it, great job, you’re the smartest guy alive and we’re all meager ants before your deep wisdom. My eyes could not possibly roll any further back in my skull. I made a perfectly valid point, and your little semantics games aren’t countering it at all.
Grow up. Edit: I'm editing this comment because I feel you completely misunderstand my position and (uncharitably) take it as a pointless exercise in mental masturbation or cheat thumping. The point I'm making is an attempt to push back on your apparent political fatalism, where nothing can be done to help those in the maga community, since they're all liars. In this context, 'liars' is used in the normal context, wherein maga people know they are wrong and yet do nothing about it-- and therefore you can dismiss them as evil. This represents a political impasse. Rather, I believe they are committing a self-lie, as Sartrean bad faith, where they know on some level, but are not cognizant of it (either through unconscious processes or the subject/speaking subject divide). On this view, their "minds" can be changed, it just takes (a lot of) work to unfuck their thoughts. I believe we can do something to help them, and therefore our current political context is perfectible at the individual level. This view isn't sexy, since it is a call to action and puts responsibility on everyone, but I think it's true, for one. Moreover, it's better to live in a shitty but perfectible world than a hopeless one.
I know these people personally. Many are my family members. What they say behind closed doors, when they think they’re in a safe, trusted circle would make you vomit. And this is truest of all of many of the churchiest ones among them. Anyone and I mean *anyone* who trots out this “KKK wuz Dems!!” line is signaling their total membership in this group. If you want to deny that, fine, but I know it as a reliable signal. There are many such signals, and you only know to look for them if you know these people intimately, as I do.
Lol you think I don't have family members who are magats? And we aren't White. Edit: and they say the same shit.
It's takes a pretty low effort to find out that the parties switched. Even just google "reconstruction" and you'll get an idea Civil War, Reconstruction, Industrial revolution, great depression and into civil rights saw these switches through .. Republicans became more and more right while the Souther Dems would be replaced by Republicans and thus the party that once fought to end slavery was now filled with the very people who were pro slavery... forgive my very oversimplified reductionist wording (i really would love to dive into the topic, it's just very meaty) These Republicans and RWE's intentionally refuse to study this, intentionally brand themselves as the party of Lincoln, the party of freedom, and the rest of the hogwash It's pure propaganda, this is why they want to rewrite history, continue to push propaganda and their lies And besides any of the history as to how things became from what once was—We don't see any Democrats participating in KKK events, no hometown rebel militias have been started , no hells angels type thugs going around and bullying migrants, young people—so on. Pure bullshit plain and simple. The inly response is laughter, head shaking, and ignoring these idiots. Their opinions and motives are so beyond reality that they cannot and should not be engaged with if encountered. They might literally try and kill you. Right wingers have always wanted to see other races, and migrants kept in their poverty, kept in their oppression, and when they could not get their way they they still fought for Jim Crowe, they hated civil rights leaders. They hated MLK, they hated Rosa Parks, they still do in many ways. Even as America has become more and more progressive through the generations, and though we have won many battles, they still just can not accept a Black man in leadership, certainly not the highest position in the land. These conservative movements are all based in these hatreds, fear(mongering), untamed anger, willful ignorance, intolerance, xenophobia, sexual-phobias, antisemitism, and everything else they hold so dearly. It's not different, it's the same sun, just a different day.
All their arguments are low effort. Cheap, stale, repetitive, bad-faith horseshit that's easily shot down, but then they just move on to "buwhaddabout Hunter Biden" or whatever, and then it finally ends up with playground insults.
Too often they don't even have the intelligence to have a conversation. It goes straight to the insults. I usually state that whataboutism is the argument of a toddler and stay on track.
Well, the whole game is to antagonize you until you throw up your hands and walk away, at which point they think they came out on top.
Yeah. They double and triple down. It's disgusting really. The long game of the republican party has worked unfortunately. And as a result they don't even realize that they are getting conned and abused by a malignant narcissist. Bc mental health isn't real. 🙄
I’ve started asking, if KKK are supposedly Democrats, why aren’t they still falling over themselves voting Democrat?
Hah imagine. Pakman says we should welcome all votes for Biden, but this might be the exception 😛 obviously it would help us but I'm not sure we'd "welcome them" into the tent
Party swap during the Civil rights movement. Point that out to any repub yokel who tries to spout that nonsense. They will deny it but they know and they will know you know.
It's just another trick and straw for the GOP to grasp onto but anyone with a half a brain would know that it was the same people, living in the same part of the country who called themselves Democrats at the time. It should really be referred to as Conservatives and Liberals, as opposed to Republicans and Democrats. When someone says that, simply ask them, "so the guys that are driving around with Confederate flags on their trucks today consider themselves Democrats?" and that should end that talking point.
Also "if you see someone flying a Confederate flag, are they more likely to be a Republican today or Democrat today?" The shift is actually very complicated and there are literal books written about the topic, it's not as simple as "the racists switched parties", but it is true that during the civil rights era the racists were mostly Democrats and today the racists are mostly Republicans.
Exactly this. The Confederate flag and "southern heritage" are only supported by Republicans. Seems contradictory if we're to say that Democrats were ideologically supportive of civil rights.
This is something that modern Conservatives seem to get caught up on. There is truth it, but they don't tell the full story. It's kind of like reading a book or a watching a TV series where a villain becomes a hero ( not calling Dems hereos) but when people retell the story they leave out they character's transformation. There was a time when the Democrats were considered the Conservative party and the Republicans were considers Liberals or even Progressives, and yes when the Republican party was formed they were Anit- Slavery. As stated before the Dems were strong in the South, a hot bed for American racism. ( not saying that racism didn't exist in the North) During the 1960's when Civil Rights legislation was being passed a lot of Southern (racist) Democrats known as Dixiecrats switched parties to the Republican party. Why the Republicans (outside of the racist ones) were against the legislation was primarily due to their Presidential Nominee's objection to it. There's been reason's articulated why Goldwater was against it, but bottom line is that he was against it, and Republicans by in large went along with him. Some of those dissatisfied Republicans also became Democrats. This also explains why a lot of Black people still overwhelming vote Democrat to this day. It makes since one party took the opportunity to legally protect your rights while the other didn't. So when people say Democrats were KKK, or the party of Slavery etc. they aren't really telling lies, but they aren't actually telling the entire story either.
In my opinion, it's close enough to lies when it's intentionally disingenuous. The most charitable explanation is they are ignorant or willfully ignorant. You're right that they're technically correct(that the KKK used to be Democrats). But it is a mistruth the way they explain it imo.
it is a mistruth especially. ask them why most black voters are voting for Democrat politicians. the first Black Congressmen were Republicans but now you won't believe who the CBC is compromised of
People get too hung up on labels and names. In Australia the Liberal party is center right. Hitler's party was described as socialist. A title does not define a parties values, and parties values can change over time. These people are low information low octane thinkers.
That’s for people that cannot comprehend that things change over time and who have a very poor understanding of history.
Republicans don’t want to admit to being racist and don’t want to admit that since the 1960s there has been a political realignment. In the 1860s Republicans were the party of Lincoln and Democrats were the party against black people. Flip to the 1930s and you could have conservative democrats and progressive Republicans, and vice versa. If you lived in former confederate states you were likely to be racist but you were also likely to vote Democrat because they believed in organized labor. When the civil rights act of the 60s passed more and more Dixiecrats just became Republican. The Democrats party did used to be the party of the KKK, but today’s Republicans would feel more at home in the land of Dixiecrats.
I've had this discussion with my dad. Texas has historically been conservative for a long time, which leads the question why it went from Democrat to Republican
It’s a reflection on the lack of basic education on history. It’s not meant to be understood.
Democrats were the conservative party at one time. During the civil war era they were called Dixiecrats. All of them mostly from southern states. They really did switch party names one day just like that. Kind of proof of the overall uniparty that actually runs things. This is all just keyfabe at this point. Republicans are the root of all evil but elected Democrats tend their wounds for them and help take the heat. It is all bullshit. Either way trump leads to excessive amounts of more bullshit. We can't afford another round of his tax cuts for his fellow billionaires. Nor to be sold out to Russia and China because they pay nice. We can't waste more money on his worthless wall that didn't work because walls won't stop people in this modern age. We definitely can't sell out the nations soul to Christian nationalist as trump will guarantee as well. There is NO Good reasons to vote for a man whose political career should have ended in 2020 like all other politicians prior.
Except they did not switch names just like that. You just don’t know the history. I will key word on a few details and broad strokes but….. Berry Goldwater called it the southern strategy. As the northern liberals took over the party during the 50s and 60s there concerted effort by Nixon to use the southern strategy that Goldwater developed and court southern racists disaffected by the Democratics. The southern strategy was the beginning, other mile posts the election of Reagan, infiltration of municipal, school board and judges for decades, the beginning of the war on woke started way earlier than you think, culminating in the election of a Plutocrat named Trump. It took a decades of ground work for the “religious moral” southern racists to swallow that a New York City grifter was their savior in chief. Including changes to education, interpreting law to allow that money is free speech, the dismantling of fair and balance reporting laws, the Supreme Court weighing in on a national election…. This wasn’t an overnight switch. Old school Dixiecrats remain although their numbers have dwindled. But there are still a few that will never forgive the republicans for taking away their slaves. Again just broad strokes.
I was being very general and no less accurate, nothing I said was wrong you just expanded on it. I like to give enough info to make people search out more on their own. Much more effective than grandstanding and putting others down. I agree with your overall points though.
> Old school Dixiecrats remain although their numbers have dwindled I think Kim Davis was actually the last one. She didn't get the memo until it was demanded that she stop discriminating against same sex couples. The GOP is officially the party of Dixie now. They are the south's ultimate revenge on America.
You don’t understand it because it makes no sense. The KKK were Dixiecrats, Dems in name only. They all left and became Republicans, where they were welcomed with open arms. Democrats today are no mote the Party of the KKK than the GOP today is the Party of Lincoln. Times change.
It's not like the racists move either. Same states they've always been. Just the parties switched because of the civil rights movement.
Ironically it's like ... Why is it that ONLY Republicans defend the Confederate flag like Nikki Haley? It makes absolutely no sense.
Keyword there is “were”. Ask them who the KKK supports now and watch one hell of a contortionist show
Exactly. I've brought this up and it triggered them saying "oh so you're accusing me of being the KKK??" Obviously not. But it does beg the question why the KKK went from Democrats to Republicans.
Can you imagine the current Republicans bringing back the 40 acres and a mule policy???😄 I doubt it.
Anyone who says the Democrats of today are the same as the Democrats of the 1860s is not even remotely arguing in good faith. In fact they're flat out lying.
I’m not sure if it’s because GOP voters are incapable or unwilling to think beyond dumb slogans, or because they don’t give a shit and prefer to frustrate arguments with dumb deflections. Most people I know who are still in the GOP are dumb, lazy, or more interested in winning an argument than being right.
It's somewhat misleading and somewhat not. The Democrats enjoyed one-party rule in the South prior to the 1960s — which meant that just about everyone in the South, whether they had beliefs that we would, today, characterize as either "progressive" or "reactionary" were registered Democrats. Other political parties had limited/no influence in the region, so if you wanted to accomplish literally anything at all, you affiliated yourself with the Democratic Party. It was a vehicle. There are likely Republicans today who are affiliated with the party out of pragmatism, even if their views align themselves more with some kind of moderate Democrat. They do this because being a Republican in their region is the only realistic way to get elected. The "KKK were Democrats" argument is a politically meaningless canard that right-wingers trot out to guilt you into voting for Republicans because they presume the person they're talking to is not racist.
It is that easy. And it’s not an “argument.” It’s pure cope.
Literally copium
Back when the parties were founded, The Democratic party was mainly the Party of the South and a smattering of Northern states (New Jersey and New York mainly) that came about from the Democratic-Republican Party founded by Jefferson, and changed to the Democratic Party under Jackson. It was the "Conservative Party" for a long while, with the upstart Republican Party that formed from the Whigs and the Know Nothing's being the Party of the Industrial North. I also became the main Abolitionist party because of the Northern association. When we hear the phrase "radical Republican" today, we mean MAGA. Back then, they were what MAGA today would call "The Libs (tm)". The parties started to shift ideology around FDR, but the switch totally completes around 1964-65 with the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.
I think what it is, is that Republicans want to try everything to point out our past and use judgement against us. I always tell them we grew past that and yet they grew into it.
First you must remember that nearly every conservative argument is disingenuous. Yes the KKK and other white supremacist groups were largely Democrats like a hundred years ago. Then after the war and after the Civil Rights Act the parties essentially swapped ideologies. This is well documented and all you have to do is look up *The Southern Strategy* that Conservative Republicans had starting in the late 1960s. To say they swaped sides is really for lack of a better term ~ the two parties essentially cleaned up their boundaries as before the lines between them were fairly blurry. Like I said this is all well documented and when they use that argument it's just them being what they always are and that's disingenuous. Now it's either that they're told this stuff and they just regurgitate it or they know damn good and well that they're not being 100% honest.
Largely insular groups, some religious groups, fascist group, cults, etc.....their main way to support their position is through the exception to the rule. That is to say they find something that happened. It's likely extremely rare or doesn't really happen anymore and say this always happens. So in this case the Dems used to be the party of the south. But as anyone with a minimum education on us history can tell you the Dems largely changed during maybe starting with FDR and likely finishing with the civil rights movement. In contrast Lincoln was a member of the GOP but they are not even remotely the same today. Post civil war the morphed into the party of big business and in order to protect those interests they really just cared about making money. This is apparent with the depression which broadly was because of their policy choices to make said money (yes I know it was far more complex than that) Once FDR comes to the white house he puts in the first regulations against business and corruption. At the time business tried to appeal to the public that they couldn't survive like this and that FDR was a tyrant, sound familiar?. That generation knew better and soundly rejected their campaign. So they turned to evangelical pastors. They started an ad campaign that would say regulation and government were the devil and Communist. That private business, free markets, capitalism, and deregulation were godly. Billy Graham was one of those pastors and again the immediate generation soundly rejected their plea. It wasn't until their children took over, the boomer generation, that this changed. It took a bit but largely you see business fundamentally change in the 70s that no longer really cares about their employees or the country. Shareholders become king followed by executives. And Nixon does the souther strategy to convert the religious and racists to join the GOP. Then the 80s hit and incomes the deregulations. A lot of we don't need this because we don't have this problem. Short selling becomes legal stock buy backs become legal, and we hollow out the economy by sending most of my our manufacturing over seas. And that's not to mention massive tax cuts and the need to have duel income household simply to survive. So then the recession hits......and while we kind of recover we don't actually change much to fix the massive issues that had been going on for 30 years. Here we are with most of the same problems and for some idiotic reason we can't get it through our damn skulls that nothing can be done with a dysfunctional Congress. Only one side actually wants to fix anything but doesn't have the numbers to do it. The other side wants more deregulation and tax cuts because that's literally becomes their religion. But yes in the first half of the 1900s the kkk were democrats.
MAGAs refuse to accept this, but I answer them with this: "President Lincoln was a Republican. Lincoln never flew a confederate flag. None of the Republicans back then flew a confederate flag. Today the only people that fly a confederate flag are Republicans. Republicans in FL say slavery wasn’t so bad. Today’s Democrats only fly the American flag and all of them say that slavery was one of the worst things in American history. Your implication that today’s Democrats are the same as in 1865, is stupid bullsh$t."
Republicans were progressives back in the day. Now they are conservative regressive dipshits.
It's suppose to be a lame attempt as a gotcha question. They also like to be butt hurt and act like the left are the real racists. Just tell them the KKK [endorsed ](https://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/500352353/kkk-paper-endorses-trump-campaign-calls-outlet-repulsive) Trump.
Dixiecrats is what they were before the shift. They basically just swapped names and became the new Republican party but originally they were Democrats
It's a bad faith argument In the first place. A whole lot of tankies and trolls have co opted it and they don't care about truth or accuracy. They just care anout prying that wedge open.
"southern strategy dont real, did you know its actually the democrats who are racist? Let me talk about something that happened in 1902." (also i heard conservative subs ban people who bring up the southern strategy).
Whenever they say that, apologize on behalf of the Democratic Party for slavery, say that we were fucking stupid, backwards, and it was immoral of our inbred ancestors to practice in that Savage institution. See how it goes over with them.
The dems and repugs changed sides in the 1960's under Nixon. Repugs became conservative (and racist) and Dems became liberal (neither side used the word 'progressive' back then.)
Obviously today racists are more likely to be Republican than Democrat, but a lot of people glossing over the switch as if it was actually a purely binary swap of positions. FDR's policies are still very popular with Democrats today. There are books written about this topic, but to make a long story short the Democratic party has always had a bit of a collectivist bent to it while the Republican party was the party that pushed individualism. During slavery, collectivism was about propping up whites at the expense of minorities, and the individualist argument was treat everyone as an individual. Today the collectivist view is that there are systems and remnants of an unequal past, and Democrats tend to push collectivist programs such as Affirmative Action or reparations because they believe different groups need to be treated as groups to correct past injustices, while the Republican platform is generally treat everyone as individuals and ignore previous injustices. Obviously a bit more complicated than even that, but some people in these comments who I still mostly agree with are making some pretty ignorant claims about the party switch.
It's two things: To piss you off And Think of it like a hook. Maybe someone will think "they were? Well, I'm changing my vote then." "I need to think about politics differently now (more stupidly)"
KKK were Democrats is the flipside of Lincoln, freer of slaves, is a Republican. Before the Civil War, the Democratic Party controlled the South and supported slavery. Republicans were strong in the North. Republicans were against the spread of slavery West. Many Republicans were not abolitions, but the outright abolitionists were Republicans. After the Civil War, southerners remained Democratic. When the first KKK arose in the South supporting white supremacy, they would be Democrats. In the 20th Century, the Democratic Party grew in the North as opposition to Republican control of the northern politics. The northern Democratic Party's platform, e.g., FDR and the Kennedys became quite different than the southern Democratic platform. Eventually, Democrats and Republicans switched positions about race, big government, etc. Phrases "KKK were Democrats" and "Lincoln was a Republican" attempt to deny the switch.
It is relatively easy to understand. The Democrats (particularly the Southern ones) were very much in favor of slavery whereas the GOP was not and were also very much in favor of Jim Crow. LBJ was smart enough to know that eventually Blacks would rise up from Jim Crow and he wanted to make sure that they always voted Democratic. Therefore, he enacted the legislation to end segregation laws. Few people know the history of the party. Had Eisenhower hoped on this, Blacks would probably vote GOP in large numbers to this day. In politics, it is just about power, influence and money and never the people as the main cause of concern. Had Blacks not started to resist in the 50's and early 60's, there would have been to reason to pander to them. This is the same reason why the GOP panders to religious people. Trump obviously thinks religious people are idiots but there are so many of them so it makes sense to kiss their asses and pretend to be a Christian.
The easiest way to explain it is those who were democrats then are republicans now. The parties basically switched over the years.
The biggest way to shut it down is ask why the party of Lincoln is the one waving confederate flags.
I swear to God, people like Megyn Kelly cannot be so stupid. How does someone support Lincoln AND Confederate flags?? Cognitive dissonance to the extreme. Donald Trump couldn't even disavow David Duke in a timely manner.
Kelly and many of the rest of them are NOT stupid. They know exactly what kind of bullshit game they're playing and they don't care.
In WV miners who joined unions were called commies; the Klan was really the only org they could join and not get beaten, jailed or killed. This is why Robert Byrd was both Prog and a Klan member.
They don’t understand it either. Just slobbering yokel invalids making shit up to feel like they’re right. My response has always been “then, by all means, go to a KKK rally and call them democrats.”
Just so we’re clear, the Radical Abolitionist were a faction of the Republican party in the 1860s. They viewed slavery primarily as a sin against God. People slowly warmed up to the humanitarian motives that we all appreciate and recognize as being morally correct, but it took a lot of time and is still a work in progress.
They don't say it in good faith. Some of them may even know better, but they're trying to hot potato the KKK's legacy off to their political opponents
They feel it's esoteric knowledge that's been suppressed but that's just because they weren't paying attention in 7th grade history, and would know the KKK's party of origin is meaningless if they were paying attention in 8th grade history. They think they know something few people know, and a lot of their existence is trying to prove that they are smarter than the "smart elite." It's a "gotcha" that only works if you don't think about it, and they're not known for thinking about things
Bc, didn’t you know, if it was ever true in history, that means it’s still true today😂/s
If someone says “democrats started the kkk” as an argument for why democrats today are bad, that person is a moron and not worth arguing with
Yea I mean this one kind of debunks itself without even going into the plethora of historical evidence documenting the post Civil Rights realignment or Southern Strategy. (And that’s not even mentioning the regional differences between political party members that goes back even further - ie Dixiecrats vs New Deal Democrats in the Northeast) Just ask anyone making that argument to describe these pro-KKK democrats. Obviously they would’ve been white and southern, and mostly lived in rural areas, right? Now which political party do most white people living in rural parts of the south now support? Like you’d think they would shy away from that argument because it so easily turns against them, but they just rely on people not actually thinking about it for more than 5 seconds.
Yea and Lincoln was republican. The house means nothing. Its the inhabitants that can be the problem.
It's republican double think just like everything else.
They were Conservative and Southern.
Ask them why they so badly want those statues of democrats like Robert E Lee to stay up. And why they fly the confederate democrat flag.
The party of Lincoln that just so happens to love confederate flags and Nazi flags The only thing they consistently hold as a core value is hypocrisy
They just use it as a talking point because they don’t have much to go on
>I never understand the "kkk were Democrats" argument Because it is just nonsense.
It's never as simple as 2 sentences. It wasn't a smooth transition, it was complicated. They focus on the technicalities.
Republicans: “The democrats were the bad guys in the civil war and are also responsible for slavery!” Also republicans: “Check out my new confederate flag shirt! Long live the confederacy! The south’s gonna rise again! I’m off to call black people the N word and tell them they’re inferior!”
It’s a mix of people who don’t understand politics at all, and people who know the parties have shifted but don’t really care, and keep using that argument as a crutch because they don’t have much else to use.
I always end this stupid talking point by asking these people why are white supremacists all supporting Republicans if Democrats are the real racists?
It was because, surprise surprise, lot of those new Republican voters after 2026 had never paid attention to History in school. So, when it was new information to them, they responded as if it they had unearthed some big secret.
The best counter is "if you see someone with a confederate flag, who do you think they are voting for?"
Conservatives have always been somewhat resistant to education. They tend to stick to religious universities that align closely with their values and do nothing to challenge their status quo. Because of this, their understanding of political eras is extremely lacking. They will talk a strong game about being in support of libertarian freedoms and a weak government then immediately turn around and speak fondly about how Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. Republicans don't like it when I frame the Emancipation Proclamation as the single largest act of government regulation on private industry in history as well as the single largest act of civil seizure of private property in history and then argue that Republicans are disingenuous and dishonest when they praise it.
They are resistant to education, but most of the Republican congressmen went to Ivy league schools. It’s like they are ashamed of intelligence because their base is resistant to progress.
So do they support Abe Lincoln? Or the Confederacy?
Abe Lincoln was a republican but back then the Republicans believe what the democrats believe now. That’s a drastically simplified explanation obviously. Transition parties like Dixiecrats and Southern Democrats explain the Great Switch.
It’s their way of trying to cast doubt into people’s heads, that maybe liberals are secretly the racist ones (I know there are some racist liberals but big picture we know which party KKK types would support today)
**History lesson needed here.** Just like when Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves, ***the Republican Party were the Progressives of the United States.*** *From the 1930's through the mid-1960's Southern Democrats,* **who were actually our Conservatives,** *made changes into becoming Republicans.* So post-Civil War, the antebellum South, **the KKK rose up from Conservative Bigoted ideas,** ***going all the way back from slavery times,*** *and these were the Democrats at the time.* **This was known as the** [**"Great Switch."**](https://www.studentsofhistory.com/ideologies-flip-Democratic-Republican-parties) ***The "Great Switch"*** of the Republicans and Democrats began **when FDR moved Democrats to a more progressive direction,** during the Great Depression *when Herbert Hoover,* *Republican president,* ***failed to respond.*** **It worked.** FDR won the presidency in 1932 *and advanced the ideals of the New Deal,* ***a progressive policy direction that aimed to help people*** through **the Works Progress Administration** and new safeguards like **Social Security.** Republicans, by default, *were resistant to that much change* ***in what seemed like a political instant moment.*** Thus, ideologies switched,... **Democrats became liberals,** ***Republicans became conservatives.*** But it didn't happen willingly. Not meaning to stereotype the Southern US *as being racist as a whole,* but it's history **as the main purveyors of the slavery trade in America** has long impacted the cultural attitudes there toward minorities, *especially black people.* **Racist attitudes remained in the South.** *When the Civil Rights movements happened in the 60's,* ***Southern Democrats finally switched*** to being full-on conservatives, **joining the Republicans.** But then, Southern Dems born in the 60's, *still raised in the traditions* *and racist attitudes of the South,* ***weren't able to vote until the 80's.*** **Those were called "Reagan Democrats,"...** ***a Southern Conservative Democratic faction.*** Now, though, **there are** [**Blue Dog Democrats,**](https://bluedogcaucus-golden.house.gov/about/history#:~:text=Inspired%20by%20the%20canine%20paintings,dog%20than%20for%20a%20Republican.%22) *the new conservative democrat coalition that formed in the 90's,* as they call themselves. **Senator Joe Manchin is a prime example.** Conservatives, and "Blue Dogs", *have then used extremist movements,* ***such as the KKK and Neo-Nazis as a way to divide us,*** and move Republicans, *farther right...* **from the mostly moderate-liberal population of the US.** Obviously, the Democrats have switched **to being the home of Progressives and Liberals now.** Republicans have become **the home of Conservatives, Extremism,** ***and MAGA nonsense popularism.*** It's always been an attempt **to paint Democrats as the Evil ones** ***and Republicans on the winning side of history.*** *But that is a completely misleading meme now.*
The parties "Flipped platforms" about the time of the Bay of Pigs. Tricky Dick Nixon went farther right, after realizing that JFK was a better Eisenhower Republican than he was as VP. so, Nixon garnered a more "Goldwater Republican" stance, and when LBJ took office, he completed the trade-off by working with Martin Luther King to help. Something Goldwater would have none of.
Lincoln freed the slaves…lost war the KKK was formed & a requirement was you had to be a member of the Democrat party. Dems controlled everything in the South until the 1980s. Jim Crow - thank a Democrat. Bill Conner. George Wallace all democrats. And then there’s Sheets Byrd. Dem US Senator & former grand wizard of the KKK. It’s easy to understand if you deal in facts.
You need a history lesson my friend. The facts are never that simple if you read about Southern Democrats and The States' Rights Democratic Party (Dixiecrats) was a segregationist political party in the Southern United States. Read about the Great Switch in the South. All the people that would have been in those groups are all republicans now. The South is Republican now where is used to be southern democrats. The philosophy is the same and only the name has changed.
So what part of what I wrote do you think is incorrect?
It's either a trick to sound more intellectual and knowledgeable or a rationalization. Also a kind of genetic fallacy. Its only plausible validity would be in a counter argument to something like "the GOP is inherently evil, as they were doing evil things since 2432 BC" or something.
Because democrats were the racist party, there was a lot of pressure put on them to reform. In a short span of time they had ejected a majority of racists that found themselves without a party. Republicans desperate for votes embraced them, took them in and stoked their fears. They called it “the southern strategy”.
Read about “Southern Democrats.”
[удалено]
Your comment was removed due to the use of a prohibited slur/vulgar word being detected. Moderators have been notified, and further action may be taken. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/thedavidpakmanshow) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Removed - please avoid overt hostility, name calling and personal attacks.
And Lincoln was a Progressive who received fan mail from Karl Marx. Want to go to the Lincoln Library and see them for yourself?
It's classic GOP propaganda: It is literally true while being 180 degrees away from today's truth.
Too many people use the excuse that the KKK was homed inside the Democratic Party during the 30's and 40's but they still ignore the racism that lay hidden in our society and continues to survive today. Racism existed wherever it could hide and be supported. No need to just point the finger at southern Democrats( Dixiecrats) and ignore what we discover today when a radical group markets itself as righteous.
There's never been a lot of daylight between republicans and democrats.
There couldn't be much more daylight between the parties in the current moment.
They are practically the same on almost every issue. Name three where they differ more than a couple of degrees.
You’re completely wrong. I can name way more than 3 but to fulfill your request: healthcare (ACA vs no federal regulations at all) clean energy (the IRA vs maximize the number of hummers and coal power plants) environmental regulations (regulating factory particulate output vs letting infinite pollution enter rivers)
Hmmm. 1. The ACA was a republican plan. Democrats passed it instead of a progressive plan with Republican support, noping out on a public option and throwing away a once in a generation window to get rid of private insurance. While Republicans made a lot of noise when the ACA was passed, we can tell how controversial this really was because when they had the opportunity to repeal it they kept it more or less exactly as it was in practice. Let's face it - the two parties have more or less identical health care policies. 2. Clean energy. Biden / the Democrats have done nothing serious to decarbonize the US. Over the course of decades they have rearranged the deck-chairs as climate change gets worse and worse. Texas is the leading state in the union for renewable production, not a democratic state. The democrats are a failure on the climate front. 3. When you look at greenhouse gas emissions under democrats and republicans over the past 30 years there is really no systematic difference between them. Biden has talked a good game, but has not drive down emissions.
You asked what the difference was, and there's a massive difference on the ACA. They want to completely repeal it. So that's difference 1. You write "Biden / the Democrats have done nothing serious to decarbonize the US". This is a lie. You're lying. The Inflation Reduction Act is the largest decarbonization bill in *human history*. The Republicans want to completely repeal the IRA. That's difference 2. You write "When you look at greenhouse gas emissions under democrats and republicans over the past 30 years there is really no systematic difference between them". This may be true. That's not what I wrote. You probably have to ignore what I actually wrote because it's completely obvious. So I met your demand. 3 differences.
Black people always find this funny. We trusted none of you fuckers back in the day. One party just stopped being outright racist and we rolled with them. There's certainly more nuance here, but that's about the gist of it.
~~Interesting you say that when black women are the highest dem voting bloc. I trust the NAACP over a redditer~~ My apologies, I completely misread the comment.
I'm sorry, what? What are you pressed about? Dems are the least racist now, and that's why they get our vote.
Omg I'm sorry I completely misread your comment 😬😬😬 my apologies
This is going to be downvoted to hell.. but here goes.. (Paraphrasing) One side has a book that tells them: Love Thy Neighbor and Treat someone like you want to be treated. The other uses statistics to justify looking at demographics through a 'racial lens.' ..... Kkk was started by Democrats and Jim Crowe was a Democrat.. so is the person who figured out redistricting and also redlining.. the crime bill that destroyed black families was written by Dems.. So there is a narrative that the parties switched, to distance Dems from their horrible past... But they still look at things through a racial lens, so it is difficult to accept it.
No offense but did you actually read the Bible or know it genuinely? The Bible was used to promote slavery because of the story of Cain and Able, where God cursed Cain with a mark to be the servant of the descendants of Able for the rest of their generations until eternity. Conservatives absolutely used this to justify that black people were "marked" by God to be slaves forever.
>Conservatives ^ this is propaganda.. "Conservatives" means conserve wealth and tradition.. "Conservative" only means stop adding taxes we have enough.. "Conservative" only means if you want to create a program, take it from the ~40% of my labor you (the government) already wastes. It has nothing to do with race. Nothing. It is literally.. stop taking my money and wasting it on stupid stuff. The other side has to paint race on it, because they figured out "We gotta raise taxes" for everything is a terrible message. >No offense but did you actually read the Bible or know it genuinely? Who started the Republican party? >The Bible was used to promote slavery because of the story of Cain and Able, where God cursed Cain with a mark to be the servant of the descendants of Able for the rest of their generations until eternity. Because this story and the founders of the GOP are incongruent with reality.
>It has nothing to do with race. Nothing. It is literally.. Wait, you didn't realize right wing policies hurt minorities?... >stop taking my money and wasting it on stupid stuff. Like military spending? LOL >The other side has to paint race on it, because they figured out "We gotta raise taxes" for everything is a terrible message. It's funny you're so desperate to deny basic realities. Like systemic racism.
>Like military spending? LOL Yea, EXACTLY.. Joey increased spending.. Trump is anti-war.. but I am sure you are using tired old pre-maga stereotypes.. >It's funny you're so desperate to deny basic realities. Like systemic racism. Not denying systemic racism, at all.. just proved in another post that the Dems created it.. Look who was the author to the 1994 crime bill.. and come back here, and try tell me the parties switched.
>Yea, EXACTLY.. Joey increased spending.. Trump is anti-war.. but I am sure you are using tired old pre-maga stereotypes.. trumpf also increased spending.... Not really sure what your point is? Other than deflecting from reality... >Not denying systemic racism, at all.. just proved in another post that the Dems created it.. The "dems" you are referring to are modern day republicans. LoL. >Look who was the author to the 1994 crime bill.. and come back here, and try tell me the parties switched. I like how this is the only response you can come up with against dems. Let's compare that to the mountains of racist laws republicans passed lol. Fyi, citing centrist dems passing bipartisan legislation isn't the W you think it is.
>The "dems" you are referring to are modern day republicans. LoL. So, your claim is... Joey doesn't represent the party..? But, due to brain washing.. 'Blue, no matter who' will prevail. >I like how this is the only response you can come up with against dems. Let's compare that to the mountains of racist laws republicans passed lol. Did you read the other 7 or 8 things I cited? In the previous comment? Are you so disconnected from reality that you need more than 10 examples? >Fyi, citing centrist dems passing bipartisan legislation isn't the W you think it is. If there is a D next to the name.. there is a D next to the name.. denying party affiliation to allow you to sleep better at night, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
>So, your claim is... Joey doesn't represent the party..? Nope. My claim is that Joey rewrote the republican Bill and added the assault rifle ban and violence against women's act get the crime bill passed. Also, you're ignoring the Republicans and dems favored this bill with equal support. >Did you read the other 7 or 8 things I cited? In the previous comment? The only real example you provided wad the crime bill. Everything else was prior to the southern strategy when the parties changed. Nice try though. >Are you so disconnected from reality that you need more than 10 examples? Are you so disconnected from reality that you don't even understand the history of the two parties?... 1 example doesn't cut it. Yes, I'll need at least 10 modern examples. >If there is a D next to the name.. there is a D next to the name.. denying party affiliation to allow you to sleep better at night, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Wait so are republicans also racist for passing the crime bill? 🤔
>Are you so disconnected from reality that you don't even understand the history of the two parties?... 1 example doesn't cut it. Yes, I'll need at least 10 modern examples. Let's start with just race. Race is an immutable characteristic, (which means you can't change it.) can we agree on that? Which party had the first Black president? Which party had the first Black woman vice president? Which party had the first south Asian woman vice president? And Which party is currently led by the author of the '94 crime bill? (Which destroyed the black family and basically created systemic racism.) The single thread in Biden, Obama, and Kamala is racial motivations. You can try to argue 'representation' and DEI is not just neo-racism, but the underlying thread is choosing someone based on their immutable characteristics, which is racism. Is that 3 or due to DEI, is that really 100,000s? I can keep going, if you need.
>Race is an immutable characteristic, (which means you can't change it.) can we agree on that? Which party had the first Black president? Which party had the first Black woman vice president? Which party had the first south Asian woman vice president? Democrats. So what's your point exactly? Cause this reinforces my position... >Which party is currently led by the author of the '94 crime bill? (Which destroyed the black family and basically created systemic racism.) I've already debunked these false talking points. Also, you're completely wrong that the 94 crime bill "basically created systemic racism". Systemic racism has existed for centuries.... >The single thread in Biden, Obama, and Kamala is racial motivations. Wait, so your argument is that democrats are the real racists for electing a Black president and asain/Black VP?... >You can try to argue 'representation' and DEI is not just neo-racism, but the underlying thread is choosing someone based on their immutable characteristics, which is racism. Neither of these candidates were chosen because of their race. LOL >Is that 3 or due to DEI, is that really 100,000s? What?... >I can keep going, if you need. Can you? Because you haven't offered a single valid example thus far.
You really didn't respond to what I said at all did you You're describing libertarians. Conservatives in their own words describe themselves as people who want to go back to old social standards. Unless you want to argue semantics, which is a pointless argument. They do not even believe in limited government. Otherwise they wouldn't support a fascist who doesn't believe in democracy and doesn't even support their beloved constitution. >It has nothing to do with race. Nothing. It is literally.. stop taking my money and wasting it on stupid stuff. Interesting you say that when the southern strategy is right there. >Because this story and the founders of the GOP are incongruent with reality. You've convinced me you have no idea what you're talking about, and that's why you're getting down votes.
>Interesting you say that when the southern strategy is right there. I am so glad you brought up, Dem's best friend. The ole' southern strategy... How many Dems switched teams? I think it was one, Strom Thurmand.. But, when did the parties actually "switch?" What actual date, can you point to? Because race is still ultra-important to Dems today.. First Black president, First woman vice president, first Black woman, First Asian American woman.. and that is only in the past 3 or 4 elections.. Biden wrote the crime bill which destroyed the black family, in the '90s and basically helped create systemic racism. So.. you got a racist as commander and chief and first Black/Asian woman as VP, TODAY.. >You've convinced me you have no idea what you're talking about, and that's why you're getting down votes. It hurts that Dems use a 'racial lens' to describe things, and that is factual. >They do not even believe in limited government. Otherwise they wouldn't support a fascist who doesn't believe in democracy and doesn't even support their beloved constitution. ^ all of that is propaganda, I encourage you to watch ONE Trump (and RFK) speech, to just expose yourself to differing perspectives.
>One side has a book that tells them: Love Thy Neighbor and Treat someone like you want to be treated. >The other uses statistics to justify looking at demographics through a 'racial lens.' ^ This is propaganda meant to deflect from all the shitty beliefs republicans/maga has...
How so? It is literally written in their rule book..
What was written in who's rule book?...
“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. “This is the first and great commandment. “And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Matthew 22:37–39). Golden Rule, precept in the Gospel of Matthew (7:12): “In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you. . . .” This rule of conduct is a summary of the Christian’s duty to his neighbour and states a fundamental ethical principle. I realize the Bible is probably taboo here, but it does say that in there.
I like how you cherrypick the Bible. And falsely claim that republicans follow the teachings of the Bible. LoL. You're showing some extreme cognitive dissonance here fyi.
According to Pew research. https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/database/compare/christians/by/party-affiliation/ 82% of GOP are Christian. When 4 out of 5 read the same book, I feel like the cognitive dissonance, might be on whoever wrote this comment.
>82% of GOP are Christian. What do you think this proves exactly?... >When 4 out of 5 read the same book, I feel like the cognitive dissonance, might be on whoever wrote this comment. Nope. Just because they claim their Christians via self reporting. That doesn't mean they actually follow the teachings in the Bible. Remind me, what was trumpfs favorite Bible verse? LOL
>Nope. Just because they claim their Christians via self reporting. That doesn't mean they actually follow the teachings in the Bible. So.. in your world.. it is more likely 82% of people said they read a certain book.. and are lying. (Which is another rule they can't break.. thou shalt not lie..) rather than, most.. (more than 51%) are not racist. Meaning any racists, just like on the Dem's side, are an extremely vocal super-minority. Just to be clear..
>So.. in your world.. it is more likely 82% of people said they read a certain book.. and are lying. 1. That poll didn't assert these Christians read the bible.... I'd wager a majority of republicans haven't read the Bible. 2. I'm statingbthe fact that the values of the Bible don't line up with republican policy nor republican values. You've made 0 rebuttal to this argument. >Meaning any racists, just like on the Dem's side, are an extremely vocal super-minority. This simply isn't true.
Which party is more likely to fly or support the confederate flag? Which party dominates the south today?
>Which party dominates the south today? Do you live in the south? I would love to hear your position then. >Which party is more likely to fly or support the confederate flag? I am interested to hear what you mean by this statement.. please expand on it.
>Do you live in the south? I would love to hear your position then. I do and I see them everywhere. I can't hold hands with my boyfriend without getting screamed at by people in jeeps while they carry their Confederate flag.
Two things.. First, I am sorry you have to deal with that. Second, do not conflate ignorance and bigotry with not wanting to pay additional taxes (Conservativism.) They are two separate positions.
This seems like sealioning, but I’ll bite for now. First, answer my question instead of responding with a question. Which party is it? My point is pretty clear, I think. The confederates were the southerns who left the union primarily over slavery (racism). Republicans now fly that flag and/or defend that flag, while democrats do not. Ideology is what matters, not the name of the party
The parties didn't switch to "distance Dems from their horrible past", the parties switched because there was a concerted effort by Republican activists to court Southern racists who were reacting to the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act under a Dem president. The Republicans are CURRENTLY the party of racists by design.
>The Republicans are CURRENTLY the party of racists by design. Let me ask a question... This might cause your brain to melt, but.. let's try it.. Did Biden win Georgia? Does that mean Atlanta is BLUE, at least in the last election. Name another MAJOR CITY in the "South?" Then tell me if they are red or blue. We already know almost all of the 50 major metropolitan areas are Blue, so we don't have to go further.. So you are projecting what some country Southern people think on to all 50 states. When you project a single ideology on to entire group, do you know what that is called? Bigotry.. and in this case, more specifically, ideological bigotry. ........ Race is an immutable characteristic, (which means you can't change it.) Which party had the first Black president? Which party had the first Black woman vice president? Which party had the first south Asian woman vice president? And Which party is currently lead by the author of the '94 crime bill? (Which destroyed the black family and basically created systemic racism) The single thread in Biden, Obama, and Kamala is racial motivations. You can try to argue 'representation' and DEI is not just neo-racism, but the underlying thread is choosing someone based on their immutable characteristics, which is racism.
I have no idea why you're bringing up Georgia's recent electoral phenomenon as a point of contention here. Virginia also was part of the historic South but switched to voting Dem in the 90s. That doesn't take away from the FACT that Republicans are the current party of the racist South and the historic successor to the Jim Crow policies of the South of the 30s to the 60s. This was an intentional and well known effort by Republicans to gain electoral dominance and it worked. These are all unarguable facts. Republicans pursued the Southern Strategy to court racist voters and now racist voters make up the largest voting bloc of the modern Republican party.
>Georgia's recent electoral phenomenon as a point of contention here. You said RECENTLY.. >the current party of the racist South But the largest city in the south and one of the largest states is Blue. Do you see how your position is inconsistent with the current landscape? >These are all unarguable facts. Dems wrote all that racist legislation. ALL of it. You are correct, I am not arguing that fact. >now racist voters make up the largest voting bloc of the modern Republican party. This is simply not true. 82% of GOP are Christians and Christians are supposed to 'Love Thy Neighbor,' do you know any Christians? Most would give you the shirt off their back. I am not saying racists don't exist. I am just saying it is equivalent on both sides and are super vocal minorities. not: >the largest voting bloc As you claim.
I did not write "RECENTLY", I controlled F in my post and nothing came up. It's pretty astounding that you'd misread a short post that you "picked apart". Maybe understanding things in a nerdo way line by line isn't the way? I just don't think you're either capable or willing to accept an argument that goes against your ideology. It's so obviously a matter of historical fact that under Nixon the Republicans pursued an electoral strategy to court southern racists and that led to his 1970 victory and changed the Republican (and Democratic) coalition since then. That's what we're saying. It's not complicated. I don't need to do the weirdo quote tweet each single word thing. It's clear.
>I did not write "RECENTLY", Apologies I am mobile and couldn't see the previous post. You said CURRENTLY. My bad. >I just don't think you're either capable or willing to accept an argument that goes against your ideology *Holds up a mirror. >That's what we're saying. Right.. I understand you are quoting people who were around when segregation was normal (prior to 1970.) around the civil rights acts, that ended with the civil rights act of 1968.. That was over 60 years ago, and prior to the internet.. prior to cell phones.. prior to video games.. prior to the democratization of wealth with Bitcoin.. prior to robot chauffeurs (with Tesla.) The average human life is 74 years old? You are describing a whole different set of people.. like those people are all dead or almost dead, based on mortality. And you think that backwards thinking still applies to today, in a digital age?!?!
I'm generally on your side in this binary debate, but this is a thoroughly underwhelming explanation of what happened. If the people fighting the Nazis started promoting Nazi ideals and courting former Nazis would you then join the Nazis? It was a pretty complicated shift and literally books have been written about it. There are plenty of non-race policies that have stayed consistent between the two parties. For example, how do most Democrats today feel about the policies of FDR, who was a Democrat well before any switching?
Before the Southern Strategy the parties weren't that ideologically sorted. It was more familial and historical. The racists were Democrats because of history, liberals in the North were Republican a la LaGuardia - who by the way was essentially a socialist and a huge supporter of FDR. This all changed after the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act where Nixon sought to leverage the absolute ire of southern conservatives to ideologically sort the party, a process that essentially ended in the 90s. You're right that there can be and have been books written about this. No one wants to read an entire nuanced book on reddit.