Robert Byrd, JW Fulbright, George Wallace, John Stennis, Richard Russell, John Sparkman, and that’s just off the top of my head.
I don’t blame you for thinking its false, its one of those things that everyone accepts is true, yet simply isn’t. Not even close to being true, actually. It just shows you what dominance of the education system by an ideology can accomplish.
Stennis, Wallace and Byrd all reversed their previous segregationist views.
So did Fulbright. Russell and Sparkman retired/died before the GOP Southern Strategy fully took hold.
No, that would mean recanting a large part of what they stand for. The Democrats did just that in the mid-60’s, though.
Because they’re Americans. :dubious:
Well by that metric so are the tea partiers and i hope the Dems do their utmost best to alienate them.
Wallace did not remain a segregationist Dem until he died; he broke with the Dems and formed his own American Independent Party (which still exists in remnants). Which provided a sort of way-station for white racists migrating from the Dems to the GOP. Wallace won only five states, all Southern, in 1968: Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia. In 1972, with Wallace and the AIP out of the picture, Nixon won every one of those.
Not even you believe that.
The key point is that he recanted his segregationist past, and apologized and asked forgiveness whenever and wherever he could for it before he died. He did rejoin the Dems, too.
As was pointed out in subsequent posts, you are incorrect. And you’re also ignoring the larger point, which is that black voters rejected the Republican party since the 60s because that party made a strategic effort to appeal to southern white racists to win elections. It worked pretty well for a few decades, but now it’s backfiring.
Since white voters are also a declineing portion of the populace, and have a smaller turn out rate than black voters, is it a wonder why Republicans still chase them? For the record, black voters are turning out for presidential elections in greater rates than whites.
http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Trending-Who-s-voting-4500708.php
The whole “state’s rights” thing muddied the issue somewhat. I still retain some respect for Barry Goldwater. He made a principled stand voting against the Civil Rights Bill of '64 and called it a real crisis for him, as he was committed to equality under the law but could not bring himself to acknowledge some overarching Federal power to enforce it. Personally, I think he was wrong on both the spirit and the letter, and not just wrong, but damn! wrong.
But I take him at his word, a privilege I accord few Republicans. Segregationists trotted out “state’s rights” over and over again, and it is often used to this day to protect the Forces of Darkness. Perhaps they have a point, dunno. TG, IANAL.
But in the instance of Civil Rights and the crisis of the time (a matter of living memory for those of us doddering towards the shuffleboard court) was so awful, so urgent, that it needed to be done by any means necessary.
Respect the Constitution, protect and serve, certainly. But if it stands athwart urgently needed justice, justice we are honor bound to respect above all else, then let it be set aside. Respectfully and reluctantly, of course, but set aside nonetheless.
That’s really dangerous thinking. If the Constitution can be set aside for a good reason, it can be set aside for an evil one.
So it is a suicide pact?
Its not for a “good reason”, like some minor injustice brought into line. It was fucking huge and demanded nothing less but extraordinary attention and effort. And even then, the road was hard, long and bloody. And if the Constitution is crushed by an emergency effort to justice then what a shabby and vulnerable thing it is.
Bad enough to be oppressed by a man, damned if I’ll take it from a ghost!
I personally tend not to give Goldwater a pass. What got me was he was in favor of a activist foreign policy to help the people that were living under Communist regimes. And I was struck by the paradox that Goldwater wanted the United States government to actively work for freedom for foreigners living in other countries - but he didn’t want the United States government to take any action for the freedom of American citizens living here in this country. I can’t accept his belief that the American government didn’t have an obligation to the American citizens suffering under government-sanctioned discrimination.
I haven’t any real doubt that he was wrong on this issue, but nonetheless, I think “…his belief that the American government didn’t have an obligation…” overstates the case. Like so many of a conservative mind set, he valued structure and authority over progress. That is not to say he felt no such obligation, but that he didn’t see the urgency of that obligation as you and I do. And so it went.
Of course, it could also be that my estimation of him is faulty and clouded by vague sentiment. I thought Jim Morrison was a poet for about two weeks once, so …
You do realize I didn’t make anything up, correct?
As it is, wtf are you reading? Democrat to Republican ratio since 1936
1936: 71 - 28
1940: 67 - 32
1944: 68 - 32
1948: 77 - 23
1952: 76 - 24
1956: 61 - 39
1960: 68 - 32
1964: 94 - 6
1968: 85 - 15
1972: 87 - 13
1976: 85 - 15
1980: 86 - 12
1984: 89 - 9
1988: 88 - 10
1992: 82 - 11
1996: 84 - 12
2000: 90 - 8
Exactly as I said. Before you try to critique anyone, make sure you know what it is you’re trying to respond to. Or read your OWN cite.
Yeah, later than Strom Thurmond did.
And there’s more to civil rights than segregation. Thurmond voted for the MLK holiday. Byrd voted against.
That was only due to the presence of Barack Obama at the top of the ticket.
White voters will always be vital because a) they are the majority and will remain the majority as long as we all live, and b) they are a swing group.
There’s no point in going after monolithic groups, especially since as another poster pointed out, Republicans would have to change their ideology to appeal to black voters. The most important part being that black voters trust the federal government and mistrust state and local government. The REpublicans aren’t going to be the anti-federalist party, so forget about it.
Hispanics and Asians on the other hand, there’s nothing in particular preventing them from supporting small government and the 10th amendment.
Byrd voted for it.