But, as a rule, white Anglo-Saxon males already had civil rights. They already could vote, could serve on juries, could trade freely. We’re not talking about rights intrinsic to humanity…we’re talking about “civil rights”…those rights that a person has to participate in civic life.
And that was the factor. If you had kept everything else the same, except for desegregation and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I really don’t think you would have seen such a shift to the Republicans by the south.
Perception. Note the word “perception” in my assertion. The same sort of perception has carried over to the modern day — consider the protests against “special rights” for gays.
I noted the word “perception”, and I agree with you…there was the perception of “special rights”. What I was saying, though, was that the embracing of the civil rights cause by the Democratic party (along with the perceptions of special rights for blacks that a number of white southerners felt) was the primary factor in the change from voting for Democratic presidential candidates.
Where I’m disagreeing with you is in these statements:
and
My contention is that the change in southern regional allegance wasn’t due to a general shift to the left, but instead because of one specific shift on the matter of civil rights for blacks.
Absolutely incorrect.
While the South had been solidly “Democratic” for a long time, that was entirely because the Democrats promised to continue to support (or at least not interfere with) segregation.
However, describing those Democrats elected as “Conservative Democrats (like Harry Truman)” is extremely misleading. Many of those “Democrats” elected by the South were indistinguishable from Republicans except on the issue of Civil Rights. Even Truman favored nationalized health care and supported the unions in a way that horrified “Southern Democrats” like Jimmy Byrnes. Other “Conservative Democrats” like John Nance Garner fought tooth and nail against FDR’s New Deal.
The shift started during Johnson’s second term, not Reagan’s first- note that in 1964, the Deep South went Republican, and Nixon had no problem carrying the South in 1972; even though it was a Nixon landslide, Eisenhower hadn’t done nearly as well in the south in either of his landslides in the '50’s. And the shift was entirely due to northern Democrats being willing to abandon their defense of segregation.
What caused the shift was not a Democratic “abandoning” of conservative and moderate principles; what caused the shift was that there was no longer a reason to refuse to vote for Republicans (the civil rights battle having been lost), and those “conservative Democrats” who voted in lockstep with the Republicans on every issue simply had no reason to continue to pretend they were Democrats. Therefore, politics in the South fell to Democrats vs. Republicans just as it was in all other sections of the country, rather than the Democrats vs. Democrats that it was previously. The South tending to be a more conservative area than the rest of the country, it only became natural for it to elect more Republicans than Democrats.
Don’t forget about the voting districts!
:rolleyes: Then the South needs to learn what you need to learn: A person who supports progressive, or even redistributive, taxation is not necessarily a socialist of any kind, let alone a Marxist.
That’s nothing new, although it is something that we can all agree has been done by both parties. So, does the Senate seem like not so bad an institution now since there aren’t any districts to be manipulated? 
True, and I would hope both parties could now agree the practice must be ended. Nevertheless, the Florida GOP (unlike the California GOP) for some reason is dead against taking the redistricting power away from the state legislature.
Nevertheless, Republican gerrymandering efforts in the past few years have been so brazen and so successful (remember Texas?) that, I heard on the radio just this afternoon (I’ll try to find a cite) that the Democrats have no hope of winning control of the House next November unless they get a national aggregate vote majority of no less than 57%.
:rolleyes: No, it still seems like an institution that makes no sense at all.
Hear, hear!
Don’t bother with the cite, I believe it. That’s why the Republicans did it in the first place! I’m just not convinced that the Republicans are more likely to use this tactic than the Democrats. Even in Texas, one can very well argue that they were just undoing the gerrymandering that the Democrats had done before them.
Hey, you can’t blame me for trying!
But I’ll take exception with your “no sense at all” statement. It makes all kinds of sense to me, and to most other Americans. Even the Europeans, whom you seem to idolize, aren’t going for strict representation in a potentially unified Europe. I’m afraid your views on this subject are way out of the mainstream.
I disagree. The US in the 1960s was a very noisy place. It wasn’t just rights for blacks, but rights for women, rights for homosexuals, rights for animals, rights for trees. It was a cacophony of people clamoring for rights for their group. There was no Democratic leader above the din. And Southerners don’t like noise.
That may well be. But a person who expresses that view by saying, “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good” is at least an idiot.
You’ve got to let go of this one. Every Senator ascribes to that idea. At least HRC is honest about it. Perhaps she is a Marxist, but if so, then they all are. And where does that leave us?
With Republicans in control of Congress, and Democrats without any ideas beyond “Bush bad”.
I think there is a fundamental disconnect between the average American voter and the extremists of the political spectrum in America, particularly on the subject of taxes. If the Democrats want to present some tax changes (read “increase”) with some specified purpose in mind - eliminating the deficit, for example - I imagine they could get somewhere. But the more things they claim they are going to do - eliminate the deficit and set up universal health care and save the environment and increase spending on education and increase Medicare spending and etc. - the more likely they are to run into a problem.
A laundry list of projects like the above seems to signal that whoever is suggesting it is staking an unlimited claim to the taxpayer’s paycheck. They also seem to be staking an unlimited claim to the role of the federal government to tell everyone what to do. This tends to appeal to two groups - [ol][li]poor people, who don’t pay taxes anyway, and therefore have a vested interest in voting for Robin Hood, and those who want an unlimited role in telling other people what to do. [/ol][/li]
Poor people are a minority in America. And those who want to tell other people what to do divide into two further sub-groups - conservatives who want to tell other people what to do, and liberals who want to tell other people to do something else. The kind of agenda being pushed by the Democrats is not likely to appeal to the first sub-group. Thus, the Democrats’ only chance is to get support from the second sub-group.
But the second sub-group is already overwhelmingly Democrat. Thus, the Democrats don’t gain anything from appealing to them. Same for the poor.
I doubt seriously that the Democrats are willing to add something that would appeal to the first sub-group - that would alienate the second sub-group.
So, ISTM that the Democrats’ only chance is to back off on appealing to the second sub-group. And that kind of advice seems always to be greeted with shrill cries of horror from the ideological purists on the SDMB.
Ergo, it would seem the Democrats are SOL - unless they jettison the ideological purists, or at least take them for granted the way Republicans are perceived as doing with the Religious Right. Clinton used this strategy well with blacks - remember him repudiating Sister Souljah and signing the death warrant during the 1992 campaign? And he was still “the first black President”. Gays still voted for him overwhelmingly, despite the “don’t ask, don’t tell” fiasco.
And yet this kind of advice gets consistently rejected on the SDMB. “If we have to compromiseat all, we would rather not win.”
And so moderates are left with a choice between Republicans, with their vocal faction of “conservatives who want to tell other people what to do” and limited designs on my paycheck, and Democrats, with their vocal faction of “liberals who want to tell other people what to do” and unlimited designs on my paycheck.
If I could find a candidate who was fiscally conservative and socially libertarian, I would vote for him or her in preference to anyone else. If the Democrats want me to change my vote, they will have to offer such a candidate. If they throw up their hands in horror at the very idea, well…
Regards,
Shodan
Well said Shodan.
-XT
Ever been to a NASCAR race?
Would Jesse Ventura do?
I am going to stipulate that in the history of American democracy, crooks of all stripes and parties have tried to steal votes … often succeeding. Must I get cites for you?
The “no paper trail” Diebold machines are a dream come true for them. I’ll be voting in the 2006 and 2008 elections, but I have no idea if my votes will be cast for the person I choose.
But that’s, I say, that’s music, boy. 
Well said, Shodan. The only thing I take issue with is your broad characterization of the poor. There are lots of poor people who have high moral character, don’t cheer for Robin Hood, and have no interest in taking things from others. I know this because two of them raised me.