How the Republican party lost the black vote, and gain the support the descendants of slave owners

[basquebromance]

under Trump, there was never a worse time to be black, and there was never a better time to be a white Republican

/thread

 

[theHawk]

Dims certainly cannot put away their inherent racism.

Note that this diehard Republican poster didn't deny being racist, but simply attempted to lump Democrat's in with him by the retort, "well Democrats are slightly less racist than us!"

You idiots keep claiming Republicans are racist, or that they somehow pander to racists. Yet you can never actually show us racist legislation that discriminated against blacks.

Democrat policies have destroyed the black communities, inner cities have been run by Democrats for decades. The proof is right there.

 

[jbrownson0831]

under Trump, there was never a worse time to be black, and there was never a better time to be a white Republican

/thread

Right, because there were so many jobs available that black unemployment was at an all time low....worst thing that could happen for blacks.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Dims certainly cannot put away their inherent racism.

Note that this diehard Republican poster didn't deny being racist, but simply attempted to lump Democrat's in with him by the retort, "well Democrats are slightly less racist than us!"

Actually, Mr Wizard, the point I am making is that those who constantly harp and whine about racism are, in fact,.....the true racists. Simple enough for even you to understand right??

I understand you're like a child.

 

[theHawk]

under Trump, there was never a worse time to be black, and there was never a better time to be a white Republican

/thread

Yea, lowest black unemployment ever. How terrible for blacks to have jobs and pay taxes.

Why would white conservatives want bad things for blacks? We’re the ones that have to pay for all their welfare programs, we’re the ones that become victims of their crimes when they turn to crime. We would rather see blacks be employed and not committing crimes and filling up prisons.

 

[jbrownson0831]

Dims certainly cannot put away their inherent racism.

Note that this diehard Republican poster didn't deny being racist, but simply attempted to lump Democrat's in with him by the retort, "well Democrats are slightly less racist than us!"

Actually, Mr Wizard, the point I am making is that those who constantly harp and whine about racism are, in fact,.....the true racists. Simple enough for even you to understand right??

I understand you're like a child.

No, I have common sense and reasoning...that makes you the child right looneybin?

 

[basquebromance]

Trump's work on civil rights led the NAACP to give him a Lifetime Achievement Award

wait...by "Trump", i meant Frank Sinatra

Sinatra sang "Old Man River" with MLK in the audience. 1Million+ views on Youtube!

 

[theHawk]

Why would blacks vote republican in the late 60's.

Yea, why would they when they had already been voting with the Party of the KKK for 30 years? The Dems were offering more and more welfare.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Dims certainly cannot put away their inherent racism.

Note that this diehard Republican poster didn't deny being racist, but simply attempted to lump Democrat's in with him by the retort, "well Democrats are slightly less racist than us!"

Actually, Mr Wizard, the point I am making is that those who constantly harp and whine about racism are, in fact,.....the true racists. Simple enough for even you to understand right??

I understand you're like a child.

No, I have common sense and reasoning...that makes you the child right looneybin?

You display neither of these things.

 

[jbrownson0831]

Dims certainly cannot put away their inherent racism.

Note that this diehard Republican poster didn't deny being racist, but simply attempted to lump Democrat's in with him by the retort, "well Democrats are slightly less racist than us!"

Actually, Mr Wizard, the point I am making is that those who constantly harp and whine about racism are, in fact,.....the true racists. Simple enough for even you to understand right??

I understand you're like a child.

No, I have common sense and reasoning...that makes you the child right looneybin?

You display neither of these things.

Sure I do looneybin. Didn't vote for Pinochijoe, actually showed up, showed an ID and voted like a real American. kept my job, gave my welfare checks to the church, and don't wear a facediaper anymore. Your turn sheeple....

 

[WTH_Progs?]

Dims certainly cannot put away their inherent racism.

Note that this diehard Republican poster didn't deny being racist, but simply attempted to lump Democrat's in with him by the retort, "well Democrats are slightly less racist than us!"

PROGS like to make shit up huh Atlanta's fool?

 

[2aguy]

Beginning in the late 1950s and early 1960s, there was a political shift in the United States which saw the Democratic party be taken over by the liberal northern branch of the party and saw the decline of the conservative southern Branch also known as the Dixiecrats. the Dixiecrats were the party of Jim Crow they were the southern Democrats who opposed integration and many of whom belonged to far right extremist groups such as the klu Klux Klan and neo-nazis.

Led by northern Democrats such as JFK, the parties political policies began to reflect more liberal values such as integration and civil rights.

Recognizing this Republican leaders such as Barry Goldwater who was their presidential candidate in 1964, came out in opposition of civil rights. Now they didn't do this because they were card carrying white supremacists or even agreed with those politics. they did it cuz they were politicians and they thought they could win the 1964 election by stealing the southern vote away from the Democrats whose party was becoming more liberal. Their mistake was believing that their party would retain the black vote regardless of what they did. They believed that black voters would still see them as the party of Lincoln that ended slavery, and would not pay attention to them pandering to the same people who were oppressing them at that time. they were wrong and the Democrats were very easily handed the election because of the black vote linden Johnson's outspoken support of civil rights easily allowed him to beat Barry Goldwater.

A good number of southern Democrat politicians attempted to sabotage the election by refusing to support Lyndon Johnson as their candidate and even going as far as promoting votes for Barry Goldwater over their own candidate. This was done for two reasons. The first was Johnson's support of civil rights and opposition to Jim Crow, and the second was out of protest of allowing black voters and politicians to join the Democrat caucus. Several of these southern Democrats, including high-ranking leaders in the party such as Strom Thurmond, who's defected in 1965 following the civil Rights Acts passage and join the Republican party. This was the building block for the modern Republican party that blends the southern Democrats far right social policies with the GOPs original business first economic policies.

It's went so far that by today the parties have pretty much done a complete 180 on social policies with the Republicans now promoting the same policies that the southern Democrats did at that same time, anthemats now being controlled by the liberal northern Democrats almost completely promote the policies of the Republicans originally stood for socially.

Nothing you posted is true or accurate....the democrat party has remained the party of racism, as you can see in their attempts to resegregate society by race, and their full court press to keep Asians out of colleges and universities....and looking the other way as democrat party voters violently attack Asian Americans...

 

[2aguy]

Beginning in the late 1950s and early 1960s, there was a political shift in the United States which saw the Democratic party be taken over by the liberal northern branch of the party and saw the decline of the conservative southern Branch also known as the Dixiecrats. the Dixiecrats were the party of Jim Crow they were the southern Democrats who opposed integration and many of whom belonged to far right extremist groups such as the klu Klux Klan and neo-nazis.

Led by northern Democrats such as JFK, the parties political policies began to reflect more liberal values such as integration and civil rights.

Recognizing this Republican leaders such as Barry Goldwater who was their presidential candidate in 1964, came out in opposition of civil rights. Now they didn't do this because they were card carrying white supremacists or even agreed with those politics. they did it cuz they were politicians and they thought they could win the 1964 election by stealing the southern vote away from the Democrats whose party was becoming more liberal. Their mistake was believing that their party would retain the black vote regardless of what they did. They believed that black voters would still see them as the party of Lincoln that ended slavery, and would not pay attention to them pandering to the same people who were oppressing them at that time. they were wrong and the Democrats were very easily handed the election because of the black vote linden Johnson's outspoken support of civil rights easily allowed him to beat Barry Goldwater.

A good number of southern Democrat politicians attempted to sabotage the election by refusing to support Lyndon Johnson as their candidate and even going as far as promoting votes for Barry Goldwater over their own candidate. This was done for two reasons. The first was Johnson's support of civil rights and opposition to Jim Crow, and the second was out of protest of allowing black voters and politicians to join the Democrat caucus. Several of these southern Democrats, including high-ranking leaders in the party such as Strom Thurmond, who's defected in 1965 following the civil Rights Acts passage and join the Republican party. This was the building block for the modern Republican party that blends the southern Democrats far right social policies with the GOPs original business first economic policies.

It's went so far that by today the parties have pretty much done a complete 180 on social policies with the Republicans now promoting the same policies that the southern Democrats did at that same time, anthemats now being controlled by the liberal northern Democrats almost completely promote the policies of the Republicans originally stood for socially.

The dixiecrat lie....

emocratic party be taken over by the liberal northern branch of the party and saw the decline of the conservative southern Branch also known as the Dixiecrats. the Dixiecrats were the party of Jim Crow they were the southern Democrats

The lie about dixie crats changing parties...

What happened to all those racist Dixiecrats that, according to the progressive narrative, all picked up their tents and moved from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party? Actually, they exist only in the progressive imagination.

This is the world not as it is but as progressives wish it to be. Of all the Dixiecrats who broke away from the Democratic Party in 1948, of all the bigots and segregationists who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I count just two—one in the Senate and one in the House—who switched from Democrat to Republican.

In the Senate, that solitary figure was Strom Thurmond. In the House, Albert Watson. The constellation of racist Dixiecrats includes Senators William Murray, Thomas P. Gore, Spessard Holland, Sam Ervin, Russell Long, Robert Byrd, Richard Russell, Olin Johnston, Lister Hill, John C. Stennis, John Sparkman, John McClellan, James Eastland, Herman Talmadge, Herbert Walters, Harry F. Byrd, George Smathers, Everett Jordan, Allen Ellender, A. Willis Robertson, Al Gore Sr., William Fulbright, Herbert Walters, W. Kerr Scott, and Marion Price Daniels.

The list of Dixiecrat governors includes William H. Murray, Frank Dixon, Fielding Wright, and Benjamin Laney. I don’t have space to include the list of Dixiecrat congressmen and other officials. Suffice to say it is a long list. And from this entire list we count only two defections.

Thus the progressive conventional wisdom that the racist Dixiecrats became Republicans is exposed as a big lie.

The Dixiecrats remained in the Democratic Party for years, in some cases decades. Not once did the Democrats repudiate them or attempt to push them out.


Segregationists like Richard Russell and William Fulbright were lionized in their party throughout their lifetimes, as of course was Robert Byrd, who died in 2010 and was eulogized by leading Democrats and the progressive media.
The Switch That Never Happened: How the South Really Went GOP - American Greatness
===========

 

[CrusaderFrank]

They couldn't put down their racism.

They're still bitterly clinging to it.

Biden said: your people can't figure out the Internet, poor kids can be just as bright as white kids and you have Gov Blackface (d-VA)

 

[2aguy]

Beginning in the late 1950s and early 1960s, there was a political shift in the United States which saw the Democratic party be taken over by the liberal northern branch of the party and saw the decline of the conservative southern Branch also known as the Dixiecrats. the Dixiecrats were the party of Jim Crow they were the southern Democrats who opposed integration and many of whom belonged to far right extremist groups such as the klu Klux Klan and neo-nazis.

Led by northern Democrats such as JFK, the parties political policies began to reflect more liberal values such as integration and civil rights.

Recognizing this Republican leaders such as Barry Goldwater who was their presidential candidate in 1964, came out in opposition of civil rights. Now they didn't do this because they were card carrying white supremacists or even agreed with those politics. they did it cuz they were politicians and they thought they could win the 1964 election by stealing the southern vote away from the Democrats whose party was becoming more liberal. Their mistake was believing that their party would retain the black vote regardless of what they did. They believed that black voters would still see them as the party of Lincoln that ended slavery, and would not pay attention to them pandering to the same people who were oppressing them at that time. they were wrong and the Democrats were very easily handed the election because of the black vote linden Johnson's outspoken support of civil rights easily allowed him to beat Barry Goldwater.

A good number of southern Democrat politicians attempted to sabotage the election by refusing to support Lyndon Johnson as their candidate and even going as far as promoting votes for Barry Goldwater over their own candidate. This was done for two reasons. The first was Johnson's support of civil rights and opposition to Jim Crow, and the second was out of protest of allowing black voters and politicians to join the Democrat caucus. Several of these southern Democrats, including high-ranking leaders in the party such as Strom Thurmond, who's defected in 1965 following the civil Rights Acts passage and join the Republican party. This was the building block for the modern Republican party that blends the southern Democrats far right social policies with the GOPs original business first economic policies.

It's went so far that by today the parties have pretty much done a complete 180 on social policies with the Republicans now promoting the same policies that the southern Democrats did at that same time, anthemats now being controlled by the liberal northern Democrats almost completely promote the policies of the Republicans originally stood for socially.

Barry Goldwater was a Civil Rights hero.......he wasn't against Civil Rights, he was against the government telling people what they could do with their own property....

You have no idea what you are talking about....you read some left wing crap that lies about this subject....and you posted it...



The Southern Strategy Myth and the Lost Majority

Goldwater had supported the 1957 and 1960 acts but believed that Title II and Title VII of the 1964 bill were unconstitutional, based in part on a 75-page brief from Robert Bork.

But far from extending a welcoming hand to southern segregationists, he named as his running mate a New York representative, William E. Miller, who had been the co-author of Republican civil-rights legislation in the 1950s.


The Republican platform in 1964 was hardly catnip for Klansmen: It spoke of the Johnson administration’s failure to help further the “just aspirations of the minority groups” and blasted the president for his refusal “to apply Republican-initiated retraining programs where most needed, particularly where they could afford new economic opportunities to Negro citizens.”

Other planks in the platform included: “improvements of civil rights statutes adequate to changing needs of our times; such additional administrative or legislative actions as may be required to end the denial, for whatever unlawful reason, of the right to vote; continued opposition to discrimination based on race, creed, national origin or sex.”

And Goldwater’s fellow Republicans ran on a 1964 platform demanding “full implementation and faithful execution of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and all other civil rights statutes, to assure equal rights and opportunities guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen.” Some dog whistle.

 

[2aguy]

Beginning in the late 1950s and early 1960s, there was a political shift in the United States which saw the Democratic party be taken over by the liberal northern branch of the party and saw the decline of the conservative southern Branch also known as the Dixiecrats. the Dixiecrats were the party of Jim Crow they were the southern Democrats who opposed integration and many of whom belonged to far right extremist groups such as the klu Klux Klan and neo-nazis.

Led by northern Democrats such as JFK, the parties political policies began to reflect more liberal values such as integration and civil rights.

Recognizing this Republican leaders such as Barry Goldwater who was their presidential candidate in 1964, came out in opposition of civil rights. Now they didn't do this because they were card carrying white supremacists or even agreed with those politics. they did it cuz they were politicians and they thought they could win the 1964 election by stealing the southern vote away from the Democrats whose party was becoming more liberal. Their mistake was believing that their party would retain the black vote regardless of what they did. They believed that black voters would still see them as the party of Lincoln that ended slavery, and would not pay attention to them pandering to the same people who were oppressing them at that time. they were wrong and the Democrats were very easily handed the election because of the black vote linden Johnson's outspoken support of civil rights easily allowed him to beat Barry Goldwater.

A good number of southern Democrat politicians attempted to sabotage the election by refusing to support Lyndon Johnson as their candidate and even going as far as promoting votes for Barry Goldwater over their own candidate. This was done for two reasons. The first was Johnson's support of civil rights and opposition to Jim Crow, and the second was out of protest of allowing black voters and politicians to join the Democrat caucus. Several of these southern Democrats, including high-ranking leaders in the party such as Strom Thurmond, who's defected in 1965 following the civil Rights Acts passage and join the Republican party. This was the building block for the modern Republican party that blends the southern Democrats far right social policies with the GOPs original business first economic policies.

It's went so far that by today the parties have pretty much done a complete 180 on social policies with the Republicans now promoting the same policies that the southern Democrats did at that same time, anthemats now being controlled by the liberal northern Democrats almost completely promote the policies of the Republicans originally stood for socially.

Your perpetuating the lies about Barry Goldwater...a real Civil Rights hero...

Barry M. Goldwater: The Most Consequential Loser in American Politics

Goldwater treated all people the same.

As a private citizen, he flew mercy missions to Navaho reservations, never asking for recognition or accepting payment. He felt that “the red man seemed as much—if not more—a part of Arizona and America as any white or black person.”[20]

Moreover, a few weeks after Goldwater was discharged from the Army in November 1945, Democratic Arizona Governor Sidney Preston Osborn asked him to organize the Arizona Air National Guard.

One of Goldwater’s first recommendations, soon approved, was to desegregate the unit. Goldwater’s integration of the state’s Air National Guard took place more than two years before President Harry Truman integrated the U.S. armed forces.

Goldwater was an early member of the Arizona chapters of both the NAACP and the National Urban League, even making up the latter’s operating deficit when it was getting started. Later as a Senator, he desegregated the Senate cafeteria in 1953, demanding that his black legislative assistant, Kathrine Maxwell, be served along with every other Senate employee after learning she had been denied service.

In the mid-1970s, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, investigating improper operations of the intelligence community in the United States, proposed that transcripts of the FBI tapes about Martin Luther King Jr.’s alleged indiscretions be published.

An outraged Goldwater declared he would not be a party to destroying King’s reputation and strode out of the committee room. A fellow Senator recalled that Goldwater’s protest “injected some common sense into the proceedings,” and the electronic surveillance transcripts were not released.[21]

That his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on constitutional grounds and not political considerations was underscored in the final week of the fall campaign.

Speaking in Columbia, South Carolina, Goldwater condemned segregation and declared that government must treat “all men as equal in the arena of law and civil order.”[22] He pledged if elected President to implement all provisions of the act. His forthright pro-civil rights speech was televised on 87 stations throughout the South.

---

NPR Wrong on Goldwater '64, Civil Rights, Say 4 Who Were There

As for the Republican nominee's position on the Civil Rights Act, Goldwater had said he would vote for passage if Section II on public accommodations and Section VII on equal employment opportunity were removed. With his view reinforced by a detailed memorandum from Phoenix lawyer and future Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Goldwater felt these sections were unconstitutional, were unenforceable without a federal police force, and would lead to the creation of racial quotas and affirmative action.

"He was absolutely right about [the two sections of the Civil Rights Act] and they did lead to precisely what Goldwater and most conservatives were afraid of," said Tom Winter, then executive editor of Human Events, who would join Ryskind as its co-owner a year later. As for the "extremism in the defense of liberty" speech, Winter recalled watching it from a San Francisco restaurant "and cheering it because it was clearly about freedom and fighting communism. I certainly didn't think it had anything to do with race."

 

[2aguy]

Beginning in the late 1950s and early 1960s, there was a political shift in the United States which saw the Democratic party be taken over by the liberal northern branch of the party and saw the decline of the conservative southern Branch also known as the Dixiecrats. the Dixiecrats were the party of Jim Crow they were the southern Democrats who opposed integration and many of whom belonged to far right extremist groups such as the klu Klux Klan and neo-nazis.

Led by northern Democrats such as JFK, the parties political policies began to reflect more liberal values such as integration and civil rights.

Recognizing this Republican leaders such as Barry Goldwater who was their presidential candidate in 1964, came out in opposition of civil rights. Now they didn't do this because they were card carrying white supremacists or even agreed with those politics. they did it cuz they were politicians and they thought they could win the 1964 election by stealing the southern vote away from the Democrats whose party was becoming more liberal. Their mistake was believing that their party would retain the black vote regardless of what they did. They believed that black voters would still see them as the party of Lincoln that ended slavery, and would not pay attention to them pandering to the same people who were oppressing them at that time. they were wrong and the Democrats were very easily handed the election because of the black vote linden Johnson's outspoken support of civil rights easily allowed him to beat Barry Goldwater.

A good number of southern Democrat politicians attempted to sabotage the election by refusing to support Lyndon Johnson as their candidate and even going as far as promoting votes for Barry Goldwater over their own candidate. This was done for two reasons. The first was Johnson's support of civil rights and opposition to Jim Crow, and the second was out of protest of allowing black voters and politicians to join the Democrat caucus. Several of these southern Democrats, including high-ranking leaders in the party such as Strom Thurmond, who's defected in 1965 following the civil Rights Acts passage and join the Republican party. This was the building block for the modern Republican party that blends the southern Democrats far right social policies with the GOPs original business first economic policies.

It's went so far that by today the parties have pretty much done a complete 180 on social policies with the Republicans now promoting the same policies that the southern Democrats did at that same time, anthemats now being controlled by the liberal northern Democrats almost completely promote the policies of the Republicans originally stood for socially.

Lyndon Johnson was a real racist....who only supported the very final Civil Rights acts because he knew if he didn't, the democrats would lose the black vote......he was a suspected member of the klan and voted against every single civil rights act, including the anti-lynching laws........until it was politically necessary to vote for the last two....

LBJ’s Democratic Plantation - American Greatness
https://amgreatness.com/2018/09/02/lbjs-democratic-plantation/
there is a man who, according to a memo filed by FBI agent William Branigan, seems to have been in the Ku Klux Klan. This memo was only revealed in recent months, with the release of the JFK Files.


Lyndon Johnson opposed every civil rights proposal considered in his first 20 years as lawmaker

"He had been a congressman, beginning in 1937, for eleven years, and for eleven years he had voted against every civil rights bill –

against not only legislation aimed at ending the poll tax and segregation in the armed services but even against legislation aimed at ending lynching: a one hundred percent record," Caro wrote.


"Running for the Senate in 1948, he had assailed President" Harry "Truman’s entire civil rights program (‘an effort to set up a police state’)…Until 1957, in the Senate, as in the House, his record – by that time a twenty-year record – against civil rights had been consistent," Caro wrote.

=========

The Party of Civil Rights | National Review

The Party of Civil Rights

The depth of Johnson’s prior opposition to civil-rights reform must be digested in some detail to be properly appreciated.

In the House, he did not represent a particularly segregationist constituency (it “made up for being less intensely segregationist than the rest of the South by being more intensely anti-Communist,” as the New York Times put it), but Johnson was practically antebellum in his views.

Never mind civil rights or voting rights: In Congress, Johnson had consistently and repeatedly voted against legislation to protect black Americans from lynching.


As a leader in the Senate, Johnson did his best to cripple the Civil Rights Act of 1957; not having votes sufficient to stop it, he managed to reduce it to an act of mere symbolism by excising the enforcement provisions before sending it to the desk of President Eisenhower.


Johnson’s Democratic colleague Strom Thurmond nonetheless went to the trouble of staging the longest filibuster in history up to that point, speaking for 24 hours in a futile attempt to block the bill. The reformers came back in 1960 with an act to remedy the deficiencies of the 1957 act, and Johnson’s Senate Democrats again staged a record-setting filibuster.

In both cases, the “master of the Senate” petitioned the northeastern Kennedy liberals to credit him for having seen to the law’s passage while at the same time boasting to southern Democrats that he had taken the teeth out of the legislation.



Johnson would later explain his thinking thus: “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days, and that’s a problem for us, since they’ve got something now they never had before: the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this — we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

 

[2aguy]

It was a complicated issue that goes beyond the “southern strategy”.

While there is no question that Nixon coveted the votes of conservative Southerners, he was hardly the first Republican to do so. The eventual migration of Southern Democrats into the GOP had more to do with deep economic, demographic, and political forces that had been in operation for decades.
To belabor the obvious, the Republican Party has always been our more conservative political party, and the South has always been our most conservative region. But Southern conservatives were alienated from the GOP because of slavery and the Civil War. However much affinity they might have for Republicans on issues such as national defense or taxes, they were never going to formally join the party of Abraham Lincoln.

And so America had a historical anomaly, in which conservative Southerners found themselves permanent members of our more liberal political party, the Democrats. It took a great deal of compromise and political skill to keep Northern liberals and Southern conservatives sufficiently allied to win the White House and control of Congress.

The first cracks in this unholy alliance appeared as early as 1938. Franklin Roosevelt, irritated by the lack of support many Southern Democrats were giving to various New Deal programs, tried to purge some of them in the Democratic primaries. This effort failed miserably and Republicans made big gains thanks to Democratic disunity. The result further alienated Southern conservatives from Roosevelt.

The Western Origins of the “Southern Strategy”

The untold story of the ideological realignment that upended the nation

newrepublic.com

This is all about the myth of the Southern Strategy...

the creator of the southern strategy was rejected….

see page 4, bottom of first column...

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/books/phillips-southern.pdf





On the Southern Strategy lie itself......
The "Southern Strategy" is a Lie | Pundit House
Believe it or not, the entire myth was created by an unknown editor at the New York Times who didn’t do his job and read a story he was given to edit.

On May 17, 1970, the New York Times published an article written by James Boyd. The headline, written by our unknown editor, was “Nixon’s Southern Strategy: It’s All in the Charts.”

The article was about a very controversial political analyst named Kevin Phillips. Phillips believed that everyone voted according to their ethnic background, not according to their individual beliefs. And all a candidate had to do is frame their message according to whatever moves a particular ethnic group.

Phillips offered his services to the Nixon campaign. But if our unknown editor had bothered to read the story completely, he would’ve seen that Phillip’s and his theory was completely rejected!

Boyd wrote in his article, “Though Phillips’s ideas for an aggressive anti-liberal campaign strategy that would hasten defection of the working-class democrats to the republicans did not prevail in the 1968 campaign, he won the respect John Mitchell.” (Mitchell was a well-known Washington insider at the time).

A lazy, negligent editor partially read the story. And wrote a headline for it that attributed Nixon’s campaign success–to a plan he rejected.

In fact, Phillips isn’t even mentioned in Nixon’s memoirs.

Is all of this the result of a negligent copy editor at the New York Times? Or did they purposely work with the Democrat Party to create this myth? That has crossed my mind and it’s certainly not beyond the realm of possibility.



********

The "Southern Strategy" is a Lie | Pundit House

Ken Raymond
Jun 2011

Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”, which the democrats say is the reason black people had to support them during the 1960′s–is a lie.

And it’s probably the biggest lie that’s been told to the blacks since Woodrow Wilson segregated the federal government after getting the NAACP to support him.
After talking with black voters across the country about why they overwhelmingly supports democrats, the common answer that’s emerges is the Southern Strategy.

I’ve heard of the Southern Strategy too. But since it doesn’t make a difference in how I decide to vote, I never bothered to research it. But apparently it still influences how many African Americans vote today. That makes it worth investigating.

For those that might be unfamiliar with the Southern Strategy, I’ll briefly review the story. After the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, most blacks registered as democrats and it’s been that way ever since.

And that doesn’t make any sense when you consider the fact that it was the democrats that established, and fought for, Jim Crow laws and segregation in the first place. And the republicans have a very noble history of fighting for the civil rights of blacks.

The reason black people moved to the democrats, given by media pundits and educational institutions for the decades, is that when republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon ran for president in 1968, he employed a racist plan that’s now infamously called the Southern Strategy.

The Southern Strategy basically means Nixon allegedly used hidden code words that appealed to the racists within the Democrat party and throughout the south. This secret language caused a seismic shift in the electoral landscape that moved the evil racist democrats into the republican camp and the noble-hearted republicans into the democrat camp.

And here’s what I found, Nixon did not use a plan to appeal to racist white voters.

First, let’s look at the presidential candidates of 1968. Richard Nixon was the republican candidate; Hubert Humphrey was the democrat nominee; and George Wallace was a third party candidate.

Remember George Wallace? Wallace was the democrat governor of Alabama from 1963 until 1967. And it was Wallace that ordered the Eugene “Bull” Connor, and the police department, to attack Dr. Martin Luther King

Jr. and 2,500 protesters in Montgomery , Alabama in 1965. And it was Governor Wallace that ordered a blockade at the admissions office at the University of Alabama to prevent blacks from enrolling in 1963.

Governor Wallace was a true racist and a determined segregationist. And he ran as the nominee from the American Independent Party, which was he founded.

Richard Nixon wrote about the 1968 campaign in his book RN: the Memoirs of Richard Nixon originally published in 1978.

In his book, Nixon wrote this about campaigning in the south, “The deep south had to be virtually conceded to George Wallace. I could not match him there without compromising on civil rights, which I would not do.”

The media coverage of the 1968 presidential race also showed that Nixon was in favor of the Civil Rights and would not compromise on that issue. For example, in an article published in theWashington Post on September 15, 1968 headlined “Nixon Sped Integration, Wallace says” Wallace declared that Nixon agreed with Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren and played a role in ”the destruction of public school system.” Wallace pledged to restore the school system, in the same article, by giving it back to the states ”lock, stock, and barrel.”

This story, as well as Nixon’s memoirs and other news stories during that campaign, shows that Nixon was very clear about his position on civil rights. And if Nixon was used code words only racists could hear, evidently George Wallace couldn’t hear it.

Among the southern states, George Wallace won Arkansas , Mississippi , Alabama , Georgia and Louisiana . Nixon won North Carolina , South Carolina , Florida , Virginia , and Tennessee . Winning those states were part of Nixon’s plan.

“I would not concede the Carolina ‘s, Florida , or Virginia or the states around the rim of the south,”Nixon wrote. ”These states were a part of my plan.”

At that time, the entire southern region was the poorest in the country. The south consistently lagged behind the rest of the United States in income. And according to the

“U.S. Regional Growth and Convergence,” by Kris James Mitchener and Ian W. McLean, per capita income for southerners was almost half as much as it was for Americans in other regions.

Nixon won those states strictly on economic issues. He focused on increasing tariffs on foreign imports to protect the manufacturing and agriculture industries of those states. Some southern elected officials agreed to support him for the sake of their economies, including South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond.

“I had been consulting privately with Thurmond for several months and I was convinced that he’d join my campaign if he were satisfied on the two issues of paramount concern to him: national defense and tariffs against textile imports to protect South Carolina ‘s position in the industry.”Nixon wrote in his memoirs.

In fact, Nixon made it clear to the southern elected officials that he would not compromise on the civil rights issue.

“On civil rights, Thurmond knew my position was very different from his,” Nixon wrote. “I was for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and he was against it. Although he disagreed with me, he respected my sincerity and candor.”

The same scenario played out among elected officials and voters in other southern states won by Nixon. They laid their feelings aside and supported him because of his economic platform’”not because Nixon sent messages on a frequency only racists can hear.
=================

Nixon had an excellent record on civil rights. He supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He was an avid champion of the desegregation of public schools. The progressive columnist Tom Wicker wrote in the New York Times, “There’s no doubt about it — the Nixon administration accomplished more in 1970 to desegregate Southern school systems than had been done in the 16 previous years or probably since. There’s no doubt either that it was Richard Nixon personally who conceived and led the administration’s desegregation effort.”

Upon his taking office in 1969, Nixon also put into effect America’s first affirmative action program. Dubbed the Philadelphia Plan, it imposed racial goals and timetables on the building trade unions, first in Philadelphia and then elsewhere. Now, would a man seeking to build an electoral base of Deep South white supremacists actually promote the first program to legally discriminate in favor of blacks? This is absurd.

Nixon barely campaigned in the Deep South. His strategy, as outlined by Kevin Phillips in his classic work, “The Emerging Republican Majority,” was to target the Sunbelt, the vast swath of territory stretching from Florida to Nixon’s native California. This included what Phillips terms the Outer or Peripheral South.

Nixon recognized the South was changing. It was becoming more industrialized, with many northerners moving to the Sunbelt. Nixon’s focus, Phillips writes, was on the non-racist, upwardly-mobile, largely urban voters of the Outer or Peripheral South. Nixon won these voters, and he lost the Deep South, which went to Democratic segregationist George Wallace.

And how many racist Dixiecrats did Nixon win for the GOP? Turns out, virtually none. Among the racist Dixiecrats, Strom Thurmond of South Carolina was the sole senator to defect to the Republicans — and he did this long before Nixon’s time. Only one Dixiecrat congressman, Albert Watson of South Carolina, switched to the GOP. The rest, more than 200 Dixiecrat senators, congressmen, governors and high elected officials, all stayed in the Democratic Party.

The progressive notion of a Dixiecrat switch is a myth. Yet it is myth that continues to be promoted, using dubious case examples. Though the late Sens. Jesse Helms of North Carolina and John Tower of Texas and former Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott all switched from the Democratic Party to the GOP, none of these men was a Dixiecrat.

The South, as a whole, became Republican during the 1980s and 1990s. This had nothing to do with Nixon; it was because of Ronald Reagan and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.” [/QUOTE]

The conservative appeal to patriotism, anti-communism, free markets, pro-life and Christianity had far more to do with the South’s movement into the GOP camp than anything related to race.

Yet the myth of Nixon’s Southern Strategy endures — not because it’s true, but because it conveniently serves to exculpate the crimes of the Democratic Party. Somehow the party that promoted slavery, segregation, Jim Crow and racial terrorism gets to wipe its slate clean by pretending that, with Nixon’s connivance, the Republicans stole all their racists. It’s time we recognize this excuse for what it is: one more Democratic big lie.

The myth of Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy’

 

[22lcidw]

You got to love when the literal KKK openly support Republicans, and yet the Republicans still try to claim that the Democrats are the ones who support white supremacy and hate black people.

Yes, but be nice to them...Trump has destroyed their party and their minds.

And they have guns...lots and lots of guns. So just be nice to them.

Go to the poorer ghetto areas and live. You won't.

 

[TheParser]

Beginning in the late 1950s and early 1960s, there was a political shift in the United States which saw the Democratic party be taken over by the liberal northern branch of the party and saw the decline of the conservative southern Branch also known as the Dixiecrats. the Dixiecrats were the party of Jim Crow they were the southern Democrats who opposed integration and many of whom belonged to far right extremist groups such as the klu Klux Klan and neo-nazis.

Led by northern Democrats such as JFK, the parties political policies began to reflect more liberal values such as integration and civil rights.

Recognizing this Republican leaders such as Barry Goldwater who was their presidential candidate in 1964, came out in opposition of civil rights. Now they didn't do this because they were card carrying white supremacists or even agreed with those politics. they did it cuz they were politicians and they thought they could win the 1964 election by stealing the southern vote away from the Democrats whose party was becoming more liberal. Their mistake was believing that their party would retain the black vote regardless of what they did. They believed that black voters would still see them as the party of Lincoln that ended slavery, and would not pay attention to them pandering to the same people who were oppressing them at that time. they were wrong and the Democrats were very easily handed the election because of the black vote linden Johnson's outspoken support of civil rights easily allowed him to beat Barry Goldwater.

A good number of southern Democrat politicians attempted to sabotage the election by refusing to support Lyndon Johnson as their candidate and even going as far as promoting votes for Barry Goldwater over their own candidate. This was done for two reasons. The first was Johnson's support of civil rights and opposition to Jim Crow, and the second was out of protest of allowing black voters and politicians to join the Democrat caucus. Several of these southern Democrats, including high-ranking leaders in the party such as Strom Thurmond, who's defected in 1965 following the civil Rights Acts passage and join the Republican party. This was the building block for the modern Republican party that blends the southern Democrats far right social policies with the GOPs original business first economic policies.

It's went so far that by today the parties have pretty much done a complete 180 on social policies with the Republicans now promoting the same policies that the southern Democrats did at that same time, anthemats now being controlled by the liberal northern Democrats almost completely promote the policies of the Republicans originally stood for socially.

Maybe the Republicans should stop trying to get certain groups' support.

Republicans should announce what they stand for.

Then if a group supports those goals, they will vote for Republicans.

If a group opposes those goals, then fine. Go vote for the Dems.

(It seems that more and more African Americans, Asian Americans, and Hispanic Americans feel they support Republican goals. If the majority of those groups do not, that is their right. The Republicans, for their part, should stop getting on their knees and begging any group for support.)