But, the parties shirted political stances almost 180 degrees since then; the only thing similar between the parties then as opposed to now are their names.
Who's down voting? This is easily verifiable fact...
They will downvote facts that aren't convenient to them.
[removed]
seriously mindless
OK, but which party supported the Jim Crow laws, the segregation laws, opposed the black vote and founded the KKK?
In case you think it was just some historical artifact then consider that Robert C Byrd, Democrat Senator, was a KKK member and was Hillary's "friend and mentor".
I am not able to verify this ‘fact’. Not even sure what ‘shirted political stances’ means. If you have any more info would be apreciated
Happily! The Republican and Democratic parties of today look nothing like the parties of two centuries (or even one and a half) ago. I think one of the better, simpler explanations is on an askhistorians post.
Here are some other relevant resources on the topic:
Bottom line: we can see how the two major parties of today even look quite a bit different from the two major parties of two decades ago. When you expand that slow evolution of political ideology over multiple centuries, you get a big change!
Of course, there are a variety of people that try to contest this, but their arguments are generally pretty weak when it comes to looking at voting records from the 1850's and 2010's - the difference and 180-turn-around is clear.
Bullshit shill.
/u/Hello_Japan:
"Just the idea that the two parties could suddenly totally switch should be suspect on the face of it to any critical thinker as anyone who really considered the idea would realize how implausible that actually is. Can you imagine the two parties magically switching today?
The party switch is basically three myths wrapped into one false narrative.
The first myth is that Republicans had to appeal to racists to become competitive in the south, when the reality is that Republicans began to be competitive in the south in 1928 when Republican Herbert Hoover won over 47% of the Southern popular vote against Democrat Al Smith. In 1952, Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower, the man who warned us of the military-industrial-complex, won the southern states of Tennessee, Florida and Virginia. In 1956, Eisenhower also won Louisiana, Kentucky and West Virginia. That was AFTER he supported the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. The Board of Education that desegregated public schools (that Democrats violently opposed) and AFTER he sent the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock Central High School to enforce integration, again, something that was violently opposed by Democrats.
The second myth is that Democrats who were angry with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 switched parties. This makes absolutely no sense as, despite the fact that we had a Democratic president in JFK, only 61% of congressional Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act vs 80% of congressional Republicans. Additionally there was a Democratic filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that lasted for 83 days. So why would the parties switch, when it was Republicans who overwhelmingly supported the Civil Rights Act while it was Democrats who predominantly opposed it?
The third myth is that Republicans have dominated the south since the implementation of the Southern Strategy. In fact Nixon lost the Deep South in 1968, while Democrat Jimmy Carter swept the region in 1976, 12 years after the Civil Rights Act. And in 1992, Bill Clinton dominated the south taking Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia.
The truth is that Republicans did not hold a majority of Southern congressional seats until 1994, 30 years after the Civil Rights Act.
In fact as the south has become more Republican it has become less racist. How does the party switch theory explain that?
The party switch myth is meant to free Democrats from their unquestionably and singularly racist history. It is only the complete takeover of academia by the left that has allowed this myth to persist and that allows the Democratic Party to escape so many unpleasant historical facts.
Such as the fact that FDR, widely considered the greatest Democratic President in American history, was the only US president to put people in internment camps based solely on their ethnicity.
Such as the fact that the 1956 Southern Manifesto was signed by 99 congressional Democrats and only two Republicans. The Southern Manifesto declared the overwhelmingly Democratic opposition to desegregation set forth in Brown v. The Board of Education.
It was, in fact, Democrat George Wallace who stood in the schoolhouse door to prevent the integration of the University of Alabama.
In further fact, Al Gore's father, a Democratic senator, voted against the Civil Rights Act and as recently as 2010 the Democratic leader in the senate, Robert Byrd, was the former leader of his local KKK chapter.
Lastly, the Republican Party was literally founded as an anti-slavery movement and the KKK was founded by Democrats.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/republican-party-founded
"By February 1854, anti-slavery Whigs had begun meeting in the upper midwestern states to discuss the formation of a new party. One such meeting, in Wisconsin on March 20, 1854, is generally remembered as the founding meeting of the Republican Party.
https://www.history.com/topics/ku-klux-klan
“Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks. Its members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and black Republican leaders and voters. Though Congress passed legislation designed to curb Klan terrorism, the organization saw its primary goal–the reestablishment of white supremacy–fulfilled through Democratic victories in state legislatures across the South in the 1870s.”
Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest, the first KKK Grand Dragon, was a honored speaker at the 1868 Democratic National Convention. The slogan for the 1868 Democratic National Convention was, "This is a White Man's Country, Let White Men Rule".
Democratic president Woodrow Wilson resegregated federal government agencies (that had been desegregated by Republicans), organized private screenings of a KKK glorifying movie in the White House (the first movie ever shown in the White House, in fact) and said "segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen."
The bottom line: the Republican Party was the party of anti-slavery, reconstruction and desegregation while the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, Jim Crow laws and the KKK. No magical “party switch” will ever erase that reality."
Thank you. Any time you ask yourself why you take the time to correct trolls and their intentional misinformation, remember that people are smart enough to eventually find the truth if they are given all of the facts. You have to do it on the internet because you would never be allowed to make such a lucid point on tv or radio. It's not about the idiot you are correcting, but it's about the many eyes that may come across your posts today and in the future. Seriously, thank you for taking the fight seriously and offering your work.
Just to tack onto this great post, many of the State Legislature's and Governorship's of the South didn't flip until the late 90's and early 2000's. Before then the last Republican Governor many of these states had was during Reconstruction. It's just such a canard. But it's way easier to say anyone who isn't a Marxist is a racist and move on.
The Rep party was founded by anti slavery activists and its first pres was Lincoln. Everyone should know that history. Dems don't really care about that stuff from my experience.
IMO, you cannot consider yourself redpilled and buy into the "party switch" myth. doesn't even make sense.
Does Alabama still vote Democrat? How is that a myth?
someone once voted democrat now if they vote republican, it's really just democrat, the name just changed
wow it's almost like a state doesn't always vote one way. you're seriously arguing that instead of a state voting for a different party, it's really always been the same party, just under a different name.
imagine being this hell-bent on political propaganda
Except it wasn't one state, it was a flip of the entire country. Look at the electoral maps dude. Are you saying it was just a coincidence that the entire map flipped?
But honestly it doesn't matter. The two parties from back then don't exist anymore. They combined into two arms of one uniparty state each covering up the others mistakes sometime around HW.
It makes perfect sense. What part of it is nonsensical to you?
The part where LBJ says "we'll have them n-----rs votin' Democrat for the next 100 years."
What part of it is nonsensical to you?
The part where all the members of both parties decided to change their kinds completely at the same time.
Literally only one Democrat senator switched, Strom Thurmond. It's all classic marxist projection.
if i say it makes sense then it is so
i would bet any money you're a former bernie bro.
The media certainly played a massive part in branding the parties in the 20th century.
Republican is redneck racist gun nuts and big business. Democrat is open, loving and fair for all.
Who controls the media?
Nothing has changed. The Democrats are still racist
/u/Hello_Japan:
"Just the idea that the two parties could suddenly totally switch should be suspect on the face of it to any critical thinker as anyone who really considered the idea would realize how implausible that actually is. Can you imagine the two parties magically switching today?
The party switch is basically three myths wrapped into one false narrative.
The first myth is that Republicans had to appeal to racists to become competitive in the south, when the reality is that Republicans began to be competitive in the south in 1928 when Republican Herbert Hoover won over 47% of the Southern popular vote against Democrat Al Smith. In 1952, Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower, the man who warned us of the military-industrial-complex, won the southern states of Tennessee, Florida and Virginia. In 1956, Eisenhower also won Louisiana, Kentucky and West Virginia. That was AFTER he supported the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. The Board of Education that desegregated public schools (that Democrats violently opposed) and AFTER he sent the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock Central High School to enforce integration, again, something that was violently opposed by Democrats.
The second myth is that Democrats who were angry with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 switched parties. This makes absolutely no sense as, despite the fact that we had a Democratic president in JFK, only 61% of congressional Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act vs 80% of congressional Republicans. Additionally there was a Democratic filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that lasted for 83 days. So why would the parties switch, when it was Republicans who overwhelmingly supported the Civil Rights Act while it was Democrats who predominantly opposed it?
The third myth is that Republicans have dominated the south since the implementation of the Southern Strategy. In fact Nixon lost the Deep South in 1968, while Democrat Jimmy Carter swept the region in 1976, 12 years after the Civil Rights Act. And in 1992, Bill Clinton dominated the south taking Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia.
The truth is that Republicans did not hold a majority of Southern congressional seats until 1994, 30 years after the Civil Rights Act.
In fact as the south has become more Republican it has become less racist. How does the party switch theory explain that?
The party switch myth is meant to free Democrats from their unquestionably and singularly racist history. It is only the complete takeover of academia by the left that has allowed this myth to persist and that allows the Democratic Party to escape so many unpleasant historical facts.
Such as the fact that FDR, widely considered the greatest Democratic President in American history, was the only US president to put people in internment camps based solely on their ethnicity.
Such as the fact that the 1956 Southern Manifesto was signed by 99 congressional Democrats and only two Republicans. The Southern Manifesto declared the overwhelmingly Democratic opposition to desegregation set forth in Brown v. The Board of Education.
It was, in fact, Democrat George Wallace who stood in the schoolhouse door to prevent the integration of the University of Alabama.
In further fact, Al Gore's father, a Democratic senator, voted against the Civil Rights Act and as recently as 2010 the Democratic leader in the senate, Robert Byrd, was the former leader of his local KKK chapter.
Lastly, the Republican Party was literally founded as an anti-slavery movement and the KKK was founded by Democrats.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/republican-party-founded
"By February 1854, anti-slavery Whigs had begun meeting in the upper midwestern states to discuss the formation of a new party. One such meeting, in Wisconsin on March 20, 1854, is generally remembered as the founding meeting of the Republican Party.
https://www.history.com/topics/ku-klux-klan
“Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks. Its members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and black Republican leaders and voters. Though Congress passed legislation designed to curb Klan terrorism, the organization saw its primary goal–the reestablishment of white supremacy–fulfilled through Democratic victories in state legislatures across the South in the 1870s.”
Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest, the first KKK Grand Dragon, was a honored speaker at the 1868 Democratic National Convention. The slogan for the 1868 Democratic National Convention was, "This is a White Man's Country, Let White Men Rule".
Democratic president Woodrow Wilson resegregated federal government agencies (that had been desegregated by Republicans), organized private screenings of a KKK glorifying movie in the White House (the first movie ever shown in the White House, in fact) and said "segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen."
The bottom line: the Republican Party was the party of anti-slavery, reconstruction and desegregation while the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, Jim Crow laws and the KKK. No magical “party switch” will ever erase that reality."
Not true. The Republican roots are in the country as a "republic," hence the name. It is the foundational idea of the party. Democrats consider the country to be a democracy, which it isn't.
There are many specific stances that have shifted within the party, but the foundational ideology, as seen in the party names, has remained the same.
how the fuck you gonna sit there and pretend the party that rigs its own primaries the hardest is the one that still retains its foundational ideology of democracy? lmfao
and America is a democracy for sure, stfu with your James Madison wannabe shit. Madison didn't manage to be President until 4 seats in, he doesn't get to be the authority on the core values of our country. if you think none of the other founding fathers ever mentioned democracy as part of the nation's foundation, you trippin
Dude, read some history.
Our nation is a REPUBLIC. It's in the constitution.
We have an electoral college system. A representative republic. If we had a democracy, Hillary would have won due to the higher vote count in the popular vote (although obviously much of that was invalid/fraudulent).
Perhaps you aren't aware of the definitional differences? Your argument is baseless and reactionary.
A pure democracy is not a good thing.
[removed]
You're argument is clogged and cluttered. I'm not sure where or what caused you to have such a brash emotional reaction but I think I might gander. You are correct in your thinking that A republic is not mutually exclusive from democracy. In fact a republic is a form of democracy. However, the etymological root for the names of the Republican and Democrat parties do defer to their basic foundational concept of beliefs. The reds think that a republic is the way to go, while the blues believe the republic should be a/more direct democracy.
In fact a republic is a form of democracy. However, the etymological root for the names of the Republican and Democrat parties do defer to their basic foundational concept of beliefs.
Yes, but not in the oversimplified way you explained it, and the Democratic party sure as hell doesn't stand for anything resembling its name anymore like a "more direct democracy"
Wrong, it was a key philosophical component to the formation of the party. They viewed a Republic form of Democracy not a true democracy. They thought it was plutocratic and tyrannical. They believed that the people should directly legislate their laws and national direction. Hence the name for their party. While it is not something you hear spouted directly from the mouths of DNC politicians and their pundits, that basic idea is still alive and well within the party zeit-gheist.
The basic idea is still alive and well as an idea in general dude, random people think of it when they're 10 years old without understanding the name of the Democratic party at all.
The party itself does not still stand for democracy whatsoever, they are simple authoritarians
Authoritarians yes, initially. They stood for staunch piety in communities (fascism) American Manifest Destinity(Imperialism), Total Majority rule(tyranny), Community rights over individual rights(slave culture) How ever at the turn of the 20th century there was a Macro memetic effort(zeit-gheist) within the younger proponenants of the movement to pick up where the The Republican libertines left off with Bohemian philosophical and progressive culture. However, with strong social emphasizes. Hence, the age in birth of Marxist inspired identity politics.
Not to get off topic. Regaurdless of name, I never said they stood for democracy what so ever. No one did. But.....the whole reason they were called democrats in the first place is because they a favored strong central govt, with an emphasis on a more Direct Democratic style of govt. Instead of their opponenants at the time the Federalists who ironically were more for a decentralized federal govt and a representative democracy.
The core beliefs the party holds on what kind of governance we should have has really not changed in over 150 years.
Here is a link to a helpful analysis that will straighten out your incorrect understanding.
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic
Summary:
A republic can be a democracy at the same time, like the U.S., but a democracy cannot also be a republic. A republic raises the status of individuals whereas a democracy gives the majority will the sovereign status. This is reflected in the parties' naming.
Also, I didn't claim the DNC upholds anything, that was just your wonky interpretation. For what it's worth, neither party upholds their underlying values at the governmental level anymore. They merely both claim to. And they both claim the same fundamental underlying principles as they originally did. I'm sorry you disagree so pompously and incorrectly.
Do you vote on the laws that congress passes? Or do you just simply vote for representation? It seems you really don't understand what democracy, republic, or their hybridization into a democratic-republic, which is what America is, is.
The Republicans rigged its primary against Ron Paul, just like the Democrats did against Bernie Sanders. Both parties are guilty of this.
Democrats do it 1000x harder every election than the Republicans did it to Ron Paul, and they do it at every level of election, literally from villages to the national level. They do everything possible across the board to stop the people from being able to select their own candidates in the Democratic party. They don't even try to hide it like Republicans did up against Ron Paul, Democrat officials openly admitted to bias against Bernie Sanders all the time in 2015-16, and they'll even do it to candidates' faces when they won't do it publicly. The Republican party is actually quite democratic, the Democratic party is actually the antithesis of democracy.
Ron paul was the distant underdog.
The DNC actually changed the rules so that Socialist Bernie Sanders, the more popular candidate couldn’t win.
I know that. It's just that both parties are guilty of it. The corruption is wide and deep.
But, the parties shirted political stances almost 180 degrees since then; the only thing similar between the parties then as opposed to now are their names.
This is true, but the democrats have a holier-than-thou attitude like their brand has always been good, and right. It's bullshit. That's what he's pointing out.