It shows how some people are amazingly willfully ignorant. Take a look at it broken down by geography (which for some reason you ignored) and you’ll get a more clear picture.
Correct. Northern Democrats were more likely to vote for it than northern Republicans. Southern Democrats were more likely to vote for it than southern Republicans. But because the south was represented more by Democrats than Republicans, there were more no votes cast by Democrats.
Southerners opposed civil rights no matter which party they were from.
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0–1
Now that those voters are republicans, it makes sense that black voters wouldn’t want anything to do with them. Electoral demographics have changed since the 1960s. The south is very GOP and the democrats have taken over more liberal areas in the west and northeast.
Moved to Great Debates.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
He is trying to found an argument on the specific term Dixiecrat.
The Dixiecrats did not exist in the 1960s. Their official membership is not relevant to the fundamental shifts in the parties around the civil rights act.
Sometime ago, probably in the late Fifties, maybe earlier, there were a series of meetings, the characters present and accounted for, doubtless the great movers and shakers of our Society. At these meetings, it was decided that the mass of unwashed hoi polloi be divided up between the Political Parties, each to it’s needs. One side would get the Whites, one the Blacks. One side would get the intelligentsia and the other, the traditionalists. One party would watch over the Environmentalists and Audubon types and the other would occupy itself with the Corporate polluters. The illegal immigrants would go to one side, the struggling homeowners, mostly to the other. The Liberals go here, the Conservatives go there. We were all sorted out, labeled by religion, culture, color and patriotism. The details shifted from year to year … players changed sides, but the effect has been the same. The Republicans are the “Bad Cops”, the Democrats, the “Good Cops”. They act out their little show in front of us to manipulate the outcome. The Good Cop will give you something for your cooperation (vote), the Bad Cop will threaten you for same. It just worked out that most of the Black voters have found the Good Cop more appealing … more supportive. In reality, both “Cops” work for the same boss … it’s just easier to “divide and conquer” than dealing with everyone the same way. They offer us different choices for figure-head leader and let us choose one from their selection, really just rival quarterbacks on the same team. They tempt us with little rewards, like free abortion or lower Capital Gains Tax, but the rulers never change, just their spokesmen. It’s so transparent, one wonders at the motivation to keep beating the dead horse that is Civics 101, but the propaganda works, so the methods remain largely unchanged.
Well, that was something.
I don’t know why the answer has to be more complicated than since the late 60’s the Democratic party has been perceived to do more for minorities, especially blacks (hispanics too, which accounts for the large percentage of hispanic voters who vote Democrat), than the Republicans have. That trend has continued to this day. To me, there is simply no mystery here.
I disagree.
Did you see that video of Rand Paul speaking to African American students? I don’t remember what university he was at, but he seemed honestly perplexed that they made essentially the simple argument that you did, rather than buying his “party of Lincoln” schtick.
I think many republicans honestly don’t get this.
You want the south you give up minorities. It’s either or, can’t have both.
I’m unsurprised that Rand Paul doesn’t get it. And I agree…a lot of Republicans don’t get it. My dad (a hispanic who comes from a long line of Democrats) doesn’t get it, and he’s a pretty intelligent guy.
I disagree with your use of the word “perceived”. I think it’s clear that the Democratic Party has done more for minorities than the Republican Party. The interesting word here is “more”. More of what? Define and measure that, and then judge the outcome. Start with welfare spending … you must choose your own sources, but once you’re into the tens of trillions, all signs point to fail.
I’d say freeing the slaves pretty much trumps everything else, but those parties are not the ones we have today.
more defense of voting rights, less obvious attempts at disenfranchisement of African Americans.
More defense of progressive taxation, less efforts to tamper with social security.
More efforts to move towards universal health care, less preference for the er as the primary source of health care for poorer people.
More representation of and less condemnation of the “47%”.
More African Americans at conventions, fewer campaigns kicked off in Philadelphia, Mississippi.
It is trivially easy to develop a long list of these…
The reason I put the weasel word ‘perceived’ in there was in case someone decided to make the case that ‘more’ was a variable. It is, of course, and it’s going to be all about world view and whether one thinks that what the Democrats have done have helped minorities or hurt them, or whether one thinks that, I guess, the tough love formula that the Republicans seem to PERCEIVE that they have done to help minorities outweighs the good intentions of the Dems. To me, this boils down to perception. Q.E.D. my use of the word.
I agree with the first part of your sentence here…the reality is that the Democratic Party HAS done more (in concrete terms) for minorities than the Republican Party has. Which is why they have such good brand loyalty numbers from minorities. Again, no real mystery to me. You are going to be loyal to someone who you think is doing things in your interest than someone who isn’t.
From our good friends at ThinkProgress, a new academic insight…
**Study Suggests Southern Slavery Turns White People Into Republicans 150 Years Later
**
Interesting is all one can say.
“The past isn’t dead, it isn’t even past.”
- William Faulkner
Sorry to be redundant, but I thought I would expand on the point about the Dixiecrats. I used to use the term loosely to refer genetically to southern democrats of the early to mid 20th century who were not progressive regarding racial issues.
I came to learn recently that among the right there is circulating an argument that goes like this: The list of Dixiecrats was specifically a, b, c… and these individuals remained Democrats, so it is not true that Dixiecrats switched parties in response to racial issues.
This is of course a highly misleading, facile and childishly offensive argument that is itself no more accurate than it is to say that the Republican party is the party of Lincoln, so therefore…
The Dixiecrats were a short-lived party that was a breakaway faction of segregationist Democrats who wanted specifically to fuck with the 1948 election. They went away after that.
The life course of specific Dixiecrats has about as much application to the issue of the movement of southern Democrats to the Republican party as my chronic flatulence has to the issue of health care in America.
You’re mostly right, but I squirm at terms like “tough love” and “good intentions”. I perceive that you are as sarcastic about the Republicans loving anyone outside of their own sphere as I, yet I’m uncertain you are applying that same cynicism to the Democratic Party. I won’t go so far as to allow that the actual Democratic Party has good intentions toward minorities … I believe the Politicians see minorities as simple vote generators (and perhaps servants and gardeners) and care about them to the extent the farmer cares about his laying hens … as long as they are laying eggs, they won’t get eaten.
Don’t forget Jesse Helms.