Difference between revisions of "U.S. "Party-switch" myth"

Revision as of 01:58, April 22, 2021

The alleged U.S. "party switch" claim made by liberals^[1] and progressives^[2] over decades is a political hoax and conspiracy theory that attempts to smear the Republican Party. The narrative, which has been crafted with the help of Communists (who infiltrated the Democratic Party over the decades^[3] and who are known to lie, deceive, and engage in historical revisionism for the sake of being contrarian^[4]), typically assumes that the Democrat and Republican parties "switched sides" during the 1960s, where the Republican Party somehow became the party of "racists" and the Democrats suddenly becoming the "champions of civil rights."^[5] Many reputable historians and political scientists such as Carol Swain (see this video) and political commentators such as Bob Parks^[6][7] strongly agree that the parties did not switch sides,^[5] as the Democrats only switched strategies with Communist help.

While many modern leftists will note the liberal policies promoted by the Republican establishment for a while during the 1900s that dissipated in the 1960s to promote their myth, it's important to note the conservative roots of the early foundations of the Republican Party, as mentioned below. Leftists also falsely^[8] characterize President Dwight D. Eisenhower as a liberal Republican^[9][10] when he tended to favor conservative policies.^[11]

Some leftists including the extremist hate group Occupy Democrats imply that the current Republican Party models past racist Democrats in using racially charged baiting to maintain their voter base.^[12] This is false, as patriotic conservative Republicans since the party's foundation have consistently advocated for the same pro-civil rights, pro-human rights, pro-free market, pro-business, pro-tariff, and nationalist principles as well as emphasizing on individual responsibility. Furthermore, these liberal charges ignore the fact that the modern-day Democratic Party treats black voters in the same respect it regarded poor Southern whites in the past.

Civil Rights Acts

See: Civil Rights Act of 1957 and Civil Rights Act of 1964

Map of electoral votes in the 1968 United States presidential election

Liberals often point to Lyndon B. Johnson's so-called advocacy for civil rights to push the myth. This was despite the fact that Johnson worked to water down the 1957 Civil Rights Act, weakening it down by removing the stringent voting protection clauses^[13] in addition to adding a jury trial amendment,^[14] which then-senator John F. Kennedy, joining segregationists at the urging of Johnson, voted for.^[15] The latter was to ensure that little to no progress on civil rights would be made in the South, as the jury would almost certainly acquit the defendant.^[14] Segregationist Florida senator George Smathers also helped Johnson's scheme.^{[Citation Needed]} It was afterwards that the legislation was passed, in which Johnson then supported in the final Senate floor vote.^[16] It was reported that the Texas Democrat had referred to the legislation as the "n***** bill".^[17]

One of the most important aspects of perpetuating this myth is the faux talking point surrounding the response by Southern Dixiecrats to the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.^[18] The myth involves looking at a map of the 1960 Electoral map and comparing it to the 1964 Electoral map, all while ignoring the results of the 1968 Presidential Electoral map. Aided by leftist historians,^[19] one is supposed to see the Democrats winning the South in 1960, losing it in 1964, and concluding that this must be where the "party switch" took place.

For this myth to hold, Republicans should have won the South in as large of numbers in 1968 as in 1964, though they didn't. In the United States presidential election of 1968, Republicans lost almost the entirety of the South. Democrat George Wallace, running on a third party ticket, took a bulk of the Deep South and Republicans even lost Texas to the Humphrey/Muskie ticket.

Additionally, as correctly noted by Dinesh D'Souza, the passage of the Civil Rights Act had greater Republican support than it did Democrat support.^[20]

Of the six Republican senators who voted against the final passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Goldwater (left), Hickenlooper (second from left), Cotton (center from right), and Simpson (right) were principled conservatives/libertarians who adamantly supported civil rights for blacks but opposed sections of the bill that would increase the size and scope of the federal government, despite leftist whitewashing that especially attempts to smear the Arizona senator as "racist". All of them voted for other civil rights legislation though tended to favor such measures on the statewide level rather than on the federal level due to concerns of an expanding federal bureaucracy.

So if there may have been some Southerners upset that the Civil Rights Act passed while blaming Democrats along the way, they would not have chosen as their home the Republican Party, who were the Act's greatest supporters. Of the 171 Republicans in the House in 1964, 136 of them voted for it.^[21] Of the 33 Republicans in the Senate, 27 of them voted for it.^[22] This is 79 percent of House Republicans, and 82 percent of Senate Republicans. It's furthermore important to note that all three Republican senators opposing the 1964 bill who were also in office during the 1957 Civil Rights Act (Barry Goldwater (R–AZ), Bourke Hickenlooper (R–IA), and Norris Cotton (R–NH)) had voted in favor of the latter.^[16] Most Northern Republican representatives who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act had also supported the 1957 bill,^[23] while the Southern Republicans who voted against civil rights legislation were beholden to their constituencies over their party's support for civil rights.

Democrat Sen. Albert Gore, Sr. fervently opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and unsuccessfully sought to weaken the bill.

On the Democrat side, 153 of 244 House and 46 of 67 Senate members voted yes. That is 63% of Democrat house members and 69% of Democrat Senate members. These numbers become even more bleak for the "party myth" idea when you compare the yes and no votes from Northern and Southern Democrats. Virtually every Southern Democrat voted against the Civil Rights Act, meaning that Southern voters had no reason to punish them. Additionally, while the bill was on the Senate floor it was the subject of filibustering from Southern Democrats for 57 days,^[24] the longest filibuster in U.S. history. It was a Northern Republican, Everett Dirksen of Illinois, who broke the filibuster. Dirksen was a noted conservative, along with then-House Minority Leader Charles A. Halleck, a prominent member of the Conservative Coalition who was also an advocate for the legislation. The two became famous during the time, with the Congressional Leadership Statement then being known as "The Ev and Charlie Show".^[25] Other conservative Republicans included Joseph W. Martin, a strong civil rights advocate from Massachusetts and leader of Coalition, though more moderate compared to Halleck; Leslie Arends; and Robert A. Taft.^[26]

The modern-day Democratic Party is mostly shaped by the party leadership of Lyndon Johnson, who made it much more liberal. Realizing that segregationists getting their way would destroy the party on a national level, he flip-flopped as president from his past opposition to civil rights in publicly announcing his support for and signing the 1964 Civil Rights Act; this ensured that the Democratic Party's history of racism could be whitewashed via deceit.^[27] Johnson, a racist who privately held a strong contempt for blacks, was purported by credible accounts to have once said:^[17]

Goldwater, Hickenlooper, Cotton, and Simpson

Barry Goldwater, known for having been a staunch leader of the conservative wing of the Republican Party during the 60s, is often falsely smeared by liberals as a "racist" for having voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Among such, NPR has propagated mischaracterizations of the Arizona senator that have been refuted.^[28] In contrast to whitewashing attempts by deceitful leftists, Goldwater was a strong proponent of civil rights, having voted in favor of the 1957 Civil Rights Act.^[16] He had also been a member of the NAACP at the time, and his only opposition to the 1964 bill came from his objections to Titles II and VII on a constitutional basis in opposing excessive federal government powers,^[29][30] stating:^[31]

Note that this represents Goldwater's firm view that federal and state powers as directed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights should be firmly upheld; while liberals claim he was supposedly a "racist", he merely differed from others such as Everett Dirksen in his preferred approach to enacting civil rights.^[31]

He asserted on the Senate floor on June 19, 1964:^[29]

I am unalterably opposed to discrimination or segregation on the basis of race, color or creed, or on any other basis; not only my words, but more importantly my actions through the years have repeatedly demonstrated the sincerity of my feeling in this regard.

...

I repeat again: I am unalterably opposed to discrimination of any sort and I believe that though the problem is fundamentally one of the heart, some law can help—but not law that embodies features like these, provisions which fly in the face of the Constitution and which require for their effective execution the creation of a police state. And so, because I am unalterably opposed to any threats to our great system of government and the loss of our God‐given liberties, I shall vote “no” on this bill.

This vote will be reluctantly cast, because I had hoped to be able to vote “yea” on this measure as I have on the civil rights bills which have preceded it; but I cannot, in good conscience to the oath that I took when assuming office, cast my vote in the affirmative. With the exception of Titles II and VII, I could wholeheartedly support this bill; but with their inclusion, not measurably improved by the compromise version we have been working on, my vote must be “no.”

If my vote is misconstrued, let it be, and let me suffer its consequences. Just let me be judged in this by the real concern I have voiced here and not by words that others may speak or by what others may say about what I think.

Goldwater furthermore opposed and voted against an amendment introduced by Al Gore, Sr. to weaken the bill,^[32][33] yet liberals attack the Arizona senator rather than Gore despite the latter's record in opposing civil rights.^[34]

Senators Bourke Hickenlooper, Norris Cotton, and Milward Simpson voted against the final passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act for the same reasons as Goldwater. They were also strong conservatives who believed that while civil rights legislation was a priority and a necessity, parts of the bill would cause federal government overreach.^[35][36] Simpson previously had signed a civil rights bill as governor of Wyoming which outlawed segregation in the state.

Hickenlooper and Cotton had also voted in favor of invoking cloture to end the Southern filibuster on the 1964 Civil Rights Act.^[37]

Southern strategy

For a more detailed treatment, see Southern strategy.

There are several myths surrounding the so called Southern strategy, most notably, out-of-context quotes taken from a taped interview with Lee Atwater. The full context of the interview thoroughly refutes liberal deceit that has been perpetuated by leftists.^[38]

Inconsistencies

See also: Liberal logic

The myth of the parties "switching" is very inconsistent with actual U.S. history. The Republican Party only became much more right-wing during the 1910s, after Theodore Roosevelt and his Republican progressives at the time split with the Taft-supporting conservatives. The Democrat Party arguably (according to some) became much more left-wing during the 1930s during the New Deal coalition era. Progressives who brainwash youth in the modern-day education system erase in history textbooks examples of certain racist liberals such as Hugo Black. They furthermore ignore the fact that many racist Democrats in the 30s were leftists who fervently supported the New Deal,^{[note 1]} including Theodore Bilbo, Tom Connally, Claude Pepper,^{[note 2]} Lister Hill, and John Sparkman. It should also be noted liberal Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt's support came strongest from the Deep South in his election/re-election victories.

Anti-lynching legislation

Despite insistence by leftists that the Democrat opposition to civil rights legislation (including anti-lynching legislation) was exclusively from "conservative"/Southern Democrats, it's important to note that a 1937 anti-lynching bill passed the House with opposition from both the Southern bloc in addition to 15 Northern Democrats.^[39] Of those who voted on the legislation by party, it got 96% support from Republicans and only 62% from Democrats.

In late July 1937, Senate Democrats successfully tabled an anti-lynching effort twice. On July 26, the Senate voted 41–34 to kill an anti-lynching amendment,^[40] with the "Yeas" including future Supreme Court justice Hugo Black and future Vice President Alben Barkley. Over a dozen Northern Democrats voted with the Southern bloc to kill the amendment. 61% of Democrats voted in favor of tabling.

Five days later, the majority of Senate Democrats (66% of them) voted yet again to kill the amendment in a 46–39 vote.^[41]

Democrat Theodore G. Bilbo was an extremely racist Democrat from Mississippi who blocked anti-lynching legislation and was an apologist for racial violence.

Racist New Deal leftists

The election of the deeply racist Democrat Woodrow Wilson (who had Southern roots) to the presidency in 1912 and re-election in 1916 led to a rise in Southern progressive Democrats who were internationalists/globalists.^[42] They were opposed the isolationism and nationalism of many conservative Republicans, a fact that modern-day progressives have covered up to whitewash important details of U.S. history.

Future president Lyndon Johnson was first elected to the United States House of Representatives from Texas' 10th congressional district as a liberal New Dealer and an ardent supporter of then-president Franklin D. Roosevelt.^[43] Johnson had opposed every civil rights measure in his first two decades in Congress,^[44][45] even anti-lynching legislation.^[46] In his 1948 Senate campaign against governor Coke R. Stevenson in the primary, he asserted in a speech:

Mississippi Democrat senator Theodore Bilbo was an epitome of left-wing racism; he was a virulent, vitriolic demagogue who justified lynching and was a member of the Ku Klux Klan.^[47] During his 1940 re-election bid, Bilbo called himself:^[48]

After his re-election victory, President Franklin Roosevelt congratulated the vile segregationist as:^[48][49]

"...a real friend of liberal government."

In late January 1937, southern senators Tom Connally, Richard Russell, Jr., Walter F. George, and Claude Pepper filibustered an anti-lynching bill to prevent it from passing in the Senate.^[50][51][52] All four were pro-New Deal liberals/leftists; Connally was a pro-Roosevelt New Dealer, Wilsonian progressive and globalist;^[53] Russell was mostly a New Dealer;^[54] George voted for a number of New Deal programs,^[55]; Pepper was regarded as a longtime champion of liberal causes throughout his political career.

Even North Carolina Democrat senator Josiah Bailey, a member of the Conservative Coalition who co-wrote the Conservative Manifesto,^[56] was a progressive and globalist.^[57]

Hill political machine in Alabama

For several decades, the single-party Democrat politics of Alabama was dominated by the political machine of Lister Hill, a longtime segregationist senator from the state. According to the Encyclopedia of Alabama:^[58]

While Hill wasn't a demagogic agitator in the manner of race-baiters like George Wallace, he nonetheless consistently opposed civil rights legislation to appeal to the racism of many voters in his state in order to maintain political power.^[58] Along with other prominent politicians from Alabama (including John Sparkman^[59][60] and William B. Bankhead), he appealed to left-wing economics/big government policies which racist whites during the time backed.

"Conservative" Democrats

Despite referred to erroneously by many leftists as a "conservative Democrats", segregationists Richard Russell, Jr. and Walter F. George mostly favored liberal policies as a U.S. senators.[54][61]

Some moderately liberal, progressive segregationist Democrats have been misleadingly labeled as "conservative Democrats" by modern-day leftists which whitewash their voting records. One example is Richard Russell, Jr.; despite some outlets including HISTORY^[62] calling him a "conservative", Russell supported a number of liberal, big government policies.^[54] While he was fiscally conservative in terms of budget and spending evident in his previous tenure as governor of Georgia,^[63] Russell still backed the Tennessee Valley Authority, rural electrification programs, and other federal government programs, being the chief sponsor of the National School Lunch Act.

Segregationist Allen J. Ellender has also been labeled as a "conservative Democrat" despite having taken several liberal/progressive positions as a senator. Even a biographer who insists he was "essentially a conservative" admits the following:^[64]

Sen. Walter F. George of Georgia, like Russell, has been dubbed by some sources as a "conservative".^[61] However, those sources admit that he mostly backed the New Deal during his tenure, only breaking from Roosevelt after 1937. George furthermore was an internationalist (globalist) on foreign policy like most establishment Democrats of his time whose rise to power stemmed from the presidency of racist progressive Woodrow Wilson.

Allen Ellender is often misleadingly labeled as a "conservative Democrat".

Ellender, an opponent of McCarthy's investigations of communist infiltration within the U.S. government, voted in favor of the censure against the Wisconsin Republican.^[65] He also advocated closer relations with the Soviet Union, downplaying the threat of communism.^[66]

President Lyndon B. Johnson praised Ellender in 1964 and 1966 when signing into law federal government programs for having advocated their passage in Congress.^[67][68]

Former West Virginia senator Robert Byrd, once an Exalted Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan, has been labeled by some sources as a "conservative Democrat"^[69] despite his more liberal positions^[70][71] and the fact that he began his political career campaigning heavily as a New Dealer.^[72][73] Even after professing to regret his racism, Byrd still used the n-word.^[74] While a Klansman, he wrote to the notorious segregationist demagogue Theodore Gilmore Bilbo:

According to Bill Clinton at Byrd's funeral, the West Virginia Democrat merely "was a country boy" "trying to get elected."^[75]

Southern history

Former Sen. James William Fulbright of Arkansas, a noted segregationist, represents many aspects of the modern-day Democratic Party beyond racism; favoring globalist policies, promoting anti-Zionism, and especially becoming increasingly liberal over time. His legacy received the praise of Bill Clinton.^[76]

With respect to the 1960s and the era when the parties are rumored to have "switched sides" en masse, a review of the senators and governors at the time tells a completely different story.^[77] Since the end of Reconstruction in 1874 and 1967, Arkansas had no Republican governors; in the 53 years after 1967, Republicans have only occupied the governorship for 17 years. In fact, since the founding of the GOP until 2020, Republicans have only occupied the governors office in Arkansas for 21 out of 152 years. During the 93 years of an unbroken string of Democrat governors from 1874 until 1967, Democrat terrorists committed at least 237 known lynchings.^[78]

It should be noted that the Congressional districts representing eastern Tennessee and northwestern Arkansas, during the Democrat "Solid South" days, voted reliably Republican and have since before the Civil War; as examples, the two Congressional Districts of Tennessee representing eastern Tennessee have voted Republican in every Congressional election since before the Civil War (with the exception of the 1st District electing a Democrat twice in the 1870's; the 2nd District's voting record is unbroken). This is because both areas were mountainous and thus not suited to plantation farming and the accompanying Democrat slave power. The shift in party loyalty from Democrat to Republican within the rest of the South had no change on party loyalty in these areas; they remain solidly Republican.^[7]

Voting record analysis

Additionally, below is are tables showing the votes of Southern Democrat senators and congressmen on the Civil Rights Act. Many of those served for years both before and after the Act. Looking at the senators table, only one switched parties, and did so due to disenchantment toward the Democrats over racially-motivated Great Society programs and preference toward big government. Moreover, where Democrats did have their terms in office come to an end, for any number of reasons, their successors were also largely Democrats.

It was not until the Republican Revolution of 1994 that for the first time in modern American History the Republicans held a majority of Southern congressional seats, a full three decades after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.^[79] As the South became less racist, it became more Republican.^[76]

Many progressive revisionist historians try to point to Senator Strom Thurmond as proof to their claim of some mass "party switch".^[80] However, because Thurmond was among very few who did, he is an outlier. Conversely, several notable Senators remained as Democrats well into the 1970s. Two were Albert Gore, Sr. and J. William Fulbright, the latter of which was a mentor to future President Bill Clinton.^[76]

Some liberal sources including The Guardian^[81] and Vox Media^[82] attempt to deceptively whitewash the historical context of the 60s by claiming that the issue was much more attributed to region than party, showing statistics that Northern Democrats were more supportive of civil rights than Northern Republicans and likewise for the South. However, it's important to note that there were very few Southern Republicans during the time in contrast to a higher proportion of Southern Democrats, deeming such an outlook entirely misleading. Furthermore, as the Republican Party barely held any significant political power in the South during the time, the few congressional Republicans in the area who opposed civil rights were mostly outliers compared to the party's overall strong backing of civil rights.

Party platforms

See also: Democrat plantation

Early history

The Democratic Platform Is For The White Man, 1869

See also: Democratic party

Despite sleazy left-wing smears, it is important to note that the first Republican Party platform in 1856 advocated "inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in the idea that it applied to everyone and not just some.^[83] In addition, it stressed the violations of due process, the right to bear arms, the right to freedom of speech, all that were "done with the knowledge, sanction, and procurement of the present National Administration". It also rejected rule by the sheer mighty, scoffing it as shameful and dishonoring.

Important notes to mention about the similarities between the Republican Party at the time of its foundation and in its present day are more numerous than many liberal Democrats would like to admit. Founded as a party opposed to slavery on the basis of universal human rights regardless of certain physical traits and characteristics, Republicans continue using the argument in the present day against abortion (see: Slavery and abortion). In addition, many early Republicans had recognized the right to bear arms as being vital, including black anti-lynching advocates such as Ida B. Wells, who said:

On the issue of trade, Republicans then supported economic protectionist measures and higher tariffs on foreign goods, as similar to the current economic nationalist wing of the Republican Party today led by Donald Trump. The early Republicans criticized polygamy in their first party platform as well, calling it a "twin relic of barbarism", similar to their opposition to the homosexual agenda today.

See also

• Southern Manifesto
• Black history

Notes

References