More about the false narrative about the"Southern Strategy"

A while ago I wrote an essay regarding the  The Fallacy of the Republican/Democratic Flip/Flop on Civil Rights and Racism

Recently I had an occasion to revisit the subject.

There is a difference between a platform and a worldview. Millions of people do not just decided one day that they will forsake a premise of their life long value system against racism, and decide they want to be racists to get more votes. It is more than intellectually dishonest to propose such a thing, it is ludicrous. As has been seen over and over, people with solid moral compass, attempt to maintain their course (and even if they fail they still no what is right and what is wrong); it is those with abhorrent and selfish values, that believe people are inferior to them, that often times seem the light and change their moral compass. Further the whole idea of the Southern Strategy is Republicans took over the Democrat oppression of blacks, something there is no evidence of. In fact during the 1960s Republicans took control of Presidential elections no state and local elections. So regardless of who Southern racists voted for President, the Democrats would stay fully in charge of the state and local government for decades.

The whole Southern Strategy revisionist history was nothing more than identity politics, pushed by the likes of the extreme left wing by people such as Paul Krugman (Krugman says the Dixiecrats became Republicans, but fails to mention the Dixiecarts Party was founded and dissolved in 1948. So somehow the ex- Dixiecrats waited some 16 years to become Republicans. The truth is all the Dixiecrats fell back into the Democrat party and only 3 ex-Dixiecrats actually switched sides in the 1960s and became Republicans. The point is numerous historians and political scientists have written exposés on the false narrative of the flip/ flop Southern Strategy.

"Political scientist Nelson W. Polsby argued that economic development was more central than racial desegregation in the evolution of the postwar South in Congress.[104] In The End of Southern Exceptionalism: Class, Race, and Partisan Change in the Postwar South, the British political scientist Byron E. Shafer and the Canadian Richard Johnston developed Polsby's argument in greater depth. Using roll call analysis of voting patterns in the House of Representatives, they found that issues of desegregation and race were less important than issues of economics and social class when it came to the transformation of partisanship in the South.[105] This view is backed by Glenn Feldman who notes that the early narratives on the southern realignment focused on the idea of appealing to racism. This argument was first and thus took hold as the accepted narrative. He notes, however, that Lassiter's dissenting view on this subject, a view that the realignment was a "suburban strategy" rather than a "southern strategy", was just one of the first of a rapidly growing list of scholars who see the civil rights "white backlash" as a secondary or minor factor. Authors such as Tim Boyd, George Lewis, Michael Bowen, and John W. White follow the lead of Lassiter, Shafer and Johnston in viewing suburban voters and their self interests as the primary reason for the realignment. He does not discount race as part of the motivation of these suburban voters who were fleeing urban crime and school busing.[10] " wikipedia

 "If the parties had in some meaningful way flipped on civil rights, one would expect that to show up in the electoral results in the years following the Democrats’ 1964 about-face on the issue. Nothing of the sort happened: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so. History Lesson: Racist Democrats and the Big Lie

The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’

The Myth of the Southern Strategy (2)

The "Southern Strategy" Myth

Misunderstanding the Southern Realignment

The Myth of the Racist Republicans

"Their Democratic Party home during America’s most horrible years of racism and bigotry – murder and; mayhem – hatred and terrorism – intolerance and exclusion. But let’s take a look at how many Dixiecrat segregationists became Republicans after 1964. Only these three (3) switched parties, how surprising!

Gov. Mills E. Godwin, Jr. D-VA
Sen. Jesse Helms, Jr. D-NC
Sen. Strom Thurmond D-SC"

Did the Democrats and GOP “Switch Sides” after the Civil Rights Act in 1964?

I'ts Time for Democrats to Come Clean on Their Racsim

Democrats want the country to forget is they are the cause of all the civil unrest in the country. The Blackman's psyche was all but destroyed during the more than 100 years of slavery by the Democrats, and the result of that damage continues through today. Under the Democrats Blacks were bought as slaves; oppressed, beaten, raped, work to death and even murdered with impunity, yet the Democrats want Blacks to forget all this.The usual Democrat response when confronted with this, is it's just history and has no bearing on today; really? Why don't you ask the Black-man if  being enslaved 150 years ago still matters.

After a bloody civil war the Northern armies, lead by the Republicans, finally defeated the Democrats, but the Democrats were not willing to end the oppression of the Black man. During times of reconstruction, the Democrats created new rules to oppress Black. Jim Crow laws (enforced by the KKK) were meant to put Blacks in their "place," resulting in voter suppression and discrimination in all areas of the society, yet the Democrats want Blacks to forget all this. The Democrats were also the craftsman of segregation, pushing oppression under the auspices separate but equal; and again yet the Democrats want Blacks to forget all this. This is the stain on the soul of the Democrats; and in some bizzaro world, Democrats seek to demonize conservatives. There is nothing that conservatives have ever done that even comes close to the inhumanity from the Democrats during the years of Slavery and Jim Crow and Segregation. And even now, Blacks have again been segregated in high crime cities run by Democrats.

After years and years the Democrats keep assuring they're the only ones that care about the Black-man, but their station in life continued to deteriorate. There was a hope that the first Black President would finally get them off the merry-go-round of poverty, broken families, high crime and unemployment, that Blacks have endured under the care of the Democrats. But no. Under Obama the Black-man's poverty rate increased along with unemployment; even as the economy started to recover and jobs vacancies started to open up, instead of foster employment for the Black community, Obama is bringing in 100,000s of immigrants, ignoring that these immigrants will take the very jobs that blacks need. Liberals may say subjectively that Republicans are racists because of their speeches and policies, but we know Democrats are racists because we have history and the consequences of their stewardship of the Black-man. And even if Democrats have turned over a new leaf, it does not alleviate them from the responsibility of what they have done; they can not transfer blame to the Republicans and/or try to re-write history to absolve themselves.

There is a fairy tale the Democrats like to tell. They say the southern Dixiecrats joined the Republican party, and that led to the Republicans becoming the racist party that they are. Really!  You have the Republicans with 100 year head start on civil rights, against the Democrats with a 100 year record of slavery and racism. Then in the 60's the Republicans after a 100 years of civil rights promotion, decided to become the most racist political party, in order to capture the southern racists vote. Simultaneously, the Democrats with their 100 year record of racism, decided to become the party of civil rights. What an incredible story! Unfortunately the timeline just doesn't add up. You see the Dixiecrats, ie the States' Rights Democratic Party opposed racial integration and wanted to retain Jim Crow laws and white supremacy in the face of possible federal intervention. They formed in 1948 to try and remove the Truman's name from the ballot in the south and replace it with their own. While this resulted in the Dixiecrats winning Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina, but to everyone's surprise Truman won regardless. The Dixicrats were dissolved and it's members filtered back into the still very still very racist Democrat party of the South. Now jump seven years, and the Democrats say that the Dixiecarts became the racist Republican party. The other issue, besides the Dixicrats having dissolved their party 7 years earlier, is that while the Southern states did begin to vote for Republican presidential candidates, it would be several decades before the Southern Democrat's hold on the state houses would be wrested away by the Republicans, and the South was finally free of Democrat racism.    

It's no wonder that Blacks are angry and lashing out at the representatives of the status quo; the police. But it is the Democrats that control the status quo in these cities, but instead of taking responsibility, they demonize the police who are only doing what they are ordered to do by the Democrats! The Democrats will never be able to undo the damage they have done to the Black-man; there is no "re-start"  with this. Today the Democrats keep ripping of the scab of racism and blaming it on the Republicans, who really have nothing to do with it. And the Black-man will never raise up out of their current station in life, until the Democrats start treating the Black-man as equals instead of a voting block.