The Republicans had chosen the Southern Strategy. Democrats could have cynically competed for the angry white vote. They chose not to. I think that’s a credit to the Democrats, choosing the moral high ground and ceding the South to the GOP, as LBJ predicted would happen. Sometimes politicians show that they have principles. Funny, huh?
That was in 1968 - LONG after blacks started voting for Democrats. That certainly can’t explain why blacks were attracted to the Democratic party, or why Democrats welcomed them.
Why?
It’s hilarious, and naive, and self-serving to say that a bunch of viciously racist Democrats who spent a century enjoying their power and privilege while vigorously hating blacks, and reacted to the civil rights movement with extreme measures, suddenly woke up one day and said “hey, that’s wrong. we should be nice now.”
Come on.
I think the process happened more gradually than that. And involved a lot of Dem pols who were never very emotionally invested in racism anyway, but just used it to get votes, and then dropped it when the cultural wind changed.
But, really, what does all this history have to do, now, with the future of the GOP?
They had a choice- change heart or change party.
There were no “new black voters” in the South in 1964. The Voting Rights Act wasn’t passed until the following year.
Why? What forced that choice?
Racists were quite happy being Democrats, even when many up North were not racist, for 100 years. Explain why they felt the sudden need to either change parties or not be racist.
And again, I’m not just talking about 1964. I’m talking about roughly 1932 to 1968, including the latter half, after the VRA was enacted.
Yes. I agree. And not just the cultural wind - blacks suddenly getting the vote in the South.
Still, this doesn’t explain why Republicans would choose MORE racism instead. Why is that?
I know what you’re talking about. I just don’t know why you’re talking about it, because it’s not true.
I’m at the point where I can explain it for you but I can’t understand it for you. I’ve fulfilled my moral obligation to shed light, but I can’t pry your eyes open.
What a lame-ass copout.
Pearls before swine and all that. You can’t give wisdom to one unwilling to receive.
Wow, you’re worse than I thought.
I challenged your ideas, and you tried to defend them for a while, and then you got tired and switched to “I’m smarter than you and if you can’t see how awesomely smart I am and how my words are self-evident and need no defense, it’s your fault.” What you really mean is “I’m giving up because I’m either too lazy, or I realize you’ve exposed serious flaws in my thinking, but I don’t have the cajones to just leave quietly.”
I have no obligation to continue to present logical arguments to one who refuses to reciprocate.
My arguments have been perfectly logical.
(It’s kind of funny that you said in another thread “If you do that, you’re just as bad as they are” though).
Bye.
Sigh. Who do you think there’s more of in the South, blacks or whites?
Gawdammm, kid …
Yes, I know. That’s one of the points I was trying to draw out of him, to counter his idiotic claim that a bunch of seething racists suddenly woke up one day and deciding to be nice people.
Good point. It’s not as if this is going to be the most important single issue to many voters. But it’s also not as if issues are considered separately with some kind of weight system. The way we connect facts is by telling stories about what they mean. And the narrative of Republicans dishonestly opposing a successful program precisely because they feared it would be successful and help people to the point of actually shutting down the government over their fearmongering demagoguery certainly isn’t something that will help Republicans get elected.
Because blacks could already vote in the North. Democrats like to pretend that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was purely an altruistic move rather than political calculation but the fact is that Democrats needed black votes to continue to control the Northern cities. Cities used to be much more influential. The patronage that came with running a city not only lined the pockets of the local elite smart enough to be on the winning side but also provided the resources to influence national elections. Democrats traditionally relied on siding with immigrant groups, who were always plentiful in busy Northern cities, for the votes they needed. After the war many of the new workers were African-American and they demanded more than just respect for themselves but also respect for their kin still living under Jim Crow.
Civil Rights may have cost the Democrats the South but not supporting it could have cost them the North. A quick look at the electoral votes of Dixie compared to the industrialized Northern states is an indication of why the Dems made the choice they did.
Unfortunately it’s much more difficult to get people to change their minds than it is to convince them in the first place. The administration bungled the rollout of the new services and that’s going to continue to cost them votes. But as time goes on that resentment will be a smaller and smaller motivation and in the meantime the obvious success of the program will be building support for the Dems.
That’s true only if prices don’t go way up, which they will be this fall. That’s not going to look good.
With the Administration trying to lower expectations by talking about single digit increases as a favorable outcome Democrats have reason to worry. But where rate spikes happen is important too. If rate increases are much higher in Obamacare-rejecting states like Penna, Ohio, and Wisconsin then that’s not great for a GOP already saddled with the obstructionist label.