BearForce2 said:
OaktownBear said:
BearForce2 said:
OaktownBear said:
BearForce2 said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
BearForce2 said:
Go!Bears said:
BearForce2 said:
NYCGOBEARS said:
And this is everything wrong with the Democrats in one tweet.
It describes you pretty well, doesn't it?
You have the honor of being affiliated with the party of slavery.
I suspect that at some point it should be accepted that the members of the pro slavery wing of the Democratic Party have been dead for at least 100 years.
I give you credit for acknowledging the facts. This is suppressed knowledge, they don't teach it in schools for a reason.
You went to a really bad school. I was taught this in my school. My wife was taught this in her school. Both of my kids learned it in their school. All raised in good ol' liberal Bay Area public schools. No one is hiding this fact.
That's great for you and your family. But overall, this distinction is overlooked because it's embarrassing to the party.
No it's not. It is absolutely basic US history taught in every US history course. You are lying or being lied to or more likely believing every nut job conservative who makes a claim on the internet.
The AP US History curriculum is a national standard that you must adhere to if you are to be designated AP. It leads to a nationally standardized test. I mention it because it is a nationally defined standard. Part of that curriculum is a thorough teaching of the election of 1860 that goes into detail about the candidates, including Douglass, the Northern Democrat, and Breckinridge the Southern Democrat who won every Southern state. And of course Lincoln the Republican (the first one) who won the election without winning a southern state. (And actually a fourth candidate as well) Again, standard curriculum. If a kid doesn't know it, they will get bad marks on any questions about the time on the National AP test.
Further, the Dred Scott decision is standard curriculum as is Buchanan's role in that and his support for slave owner rights and the fact he is a Democrat. It's what Buchanan is most known for. It is also clearly set out even on Wikipedia which Americans stupidly get sometimes seemingly most of their education from.
Again standard curriculum. You need to know it on the AP test.
I've also taken an online college US History course. It is not only mentioned it is prominent.
What you are claiming is just BS. Democrats being the party that supported slavery and ran against Lincoln is absolutely covered. You can't understand the Civil War without knowing that.
Geez it is embarrassing how easily people buy whatever tinfoil hat conspiracy someone wants to sell
Yes, high school history curriculum but let me backtrack here to try to get to my real point of discussion. The left leaning media and academia commonly push this narrative that the GOP is party of racism and this was even before Donald Trump. Do you think throughout history Republicans are the party associated with racism rather than Democrats or is it a more recent trend and if so, around when?
Quote:
Yes, high school history curriculum but let me backtrack here.
No. You aren't going to backtrack that fast. You made a claim. It was totally wrong. And the point of my discussion is that some conservatives like you keep trying to make the claim that public K-12 is indoctrinating kids with liberal teaching. Public schools are run by local school boards elected at the local level. It is nonsense to think that they are unified in liberal thought especially in areas dominated by conservatives. It is basically the conservative play book at the moment to discredit any institution or expertise so that when the facts don't support you, you can ignore them. You made a completely bullshyte argument.
Quote:
The left leaning media and academia commonly push this narrative that the GOP is party of racism and this was even before Donald Trump. Do you think throughout history Republicans are the party associated with racism rather than Democrats or is it a more recent trend and if so, around when
Fine. If we are going to move on from here on the basis of truth and honesty, I'm happy to have an honest conversation. Whether a party is "racist" or not is a matter of opinion.
No one is pushing a narrative that the GOP has been the party of racism throughout its history. Everyone knows Lincoln was a Republican. The opinion is based on the civil rights era.
The problem with your argument here is that you are trying to make this a simple dichotomy and politics are messy. By setting up a simple "rule" to break down, you cite any exceptions to this rule as a means of disproving it. But the history of American politics doesn't work that way.
The Democratic Party has been split among Northern and Southern Democrats since well before the Civil War. And in fact the Democrats nominated Stephen Douglass in 1860 who was known for his opposition to the Dred Scott case. The Southern Democrats revolted and nominated their own candidate, Breckinridge. So for all intents and purposes the Democrats had two candidates - Douglass who ran in the North an lost to Lincoln, and Breckinridge who ran in the South and won. Had Douglass defeated Lincoln in the North, he would have been the guy that became president without winning a single Southern state and the South would still have been majorly ticked off, though probably not to the point of secession. This is a split that existed for over a century and still has vestiges. For instance, in the aftermath of race riots in the North, Truman desegregated the military in 1947 and Northern Democrats pushed through a civil rights plank to the Democratic platform causing Thurmond to run as a Dixiecrat in 1948. The Democratic Party basically had North-South fault lines for over a century.
Meanwhile, Southerners really had no place to go because resentment of Republicans over the Civil War and Reconstruction ran deep.
So when did this pattern of support change? I don't think that is hard to see. From the end of Reconstruction through the 1960 presidential election, the Democrats won every southern state with the exception of a couple of Dixiecrat states in 1948. The Civil Rights act was passed in July of 1964. LBJ trounced Goldwater that year everywhere except in Goldwater's home state and Goldwater won every deep south state. Since 1964 the Democrats have done terribly in the South, especially the deep south. (Deep south commonly defined as Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina.)
1968 - Democrats lost every southern state
1972 - Democrats lost every southern state
1976 - Democrats won every southern state with Southerner Carter as candidate.
1980 - Democrats lost every southern state except Carter's home state of Georgia.
1984 - Democrats lost every southern state
1988 - Democrats lost every southern state
1992 - Democrats, with southerner Clinton, won 7 of 12 southern states (I'm not including Florida as part of "southern states" as Florida is fundamentally different from the rest of the south, but Clinton lost Florida) and 2 of 5 deep south states. However, he did not win a majority in any southern state except for his home state of Arkansas, winning by taking the overwhelming majority of the Black vote and having the White vote split 3 ways with Ross Perot taking a large percentage.
1996 - Clinton won 5 of 12 southern states 1 of 5 deep south states. He only carried a majority in Arkansas and Louisiana
2000 - Southerner Gore lost every southern state
2004 - Democrats lost every southern state.
2008 - Democrats lost every deep south state. won 2 of 12 southern states, Virginia and North Carolina who are probably the least "southern" of the southern states and whose demographics have significantly changed.
2012 - Democrats won 1 southern state - Virginia, if you could call Virginia a southern state for political purposes anymore.
2016 - Democrats lost every southern state.
From 1964 to the present, with the exception of 1976, Democrats have received a majority vote in the deep south 2 times in 65 chances, with one of those times being the candidates home state.
From 1968 until the present, with the exception of 1976, Democrats have received a majority vote in the South overall 7 times in 136 chances, 3 of those times being the candidate's home state.
So I think it is safe to say that the Democrats as a national party lost the region that has had the most problems with racism due to its support of Civil Rights. I think it is also safe to say that due to its support of Civil Rights the Democrats locked down the Black vote and when the Democrats have won a Southern state it has been as a result of winning almost the entire Black vote, which is a significant percentage in the South, and winning enough of the White vote and the White vote that it is winning is not the most anti-Civil Rights segment of the White vote.
I would also argue that Goldwater strongly courted the racist vote. I would say the same for Nixon. That does not appear to be the case for Ford. Whether you want to call it "racist" or not, Reagan ran against policies supported by Blacks and hated by some Whites, like affirmative action. Bush I clearly stoked racial fear with his political ads. Trump returned to strongly courting the racist vote directly.
It is also clear that demographics are changing. It is also clear that the nature of racism in America is changing.
As for voting for local and regional elections, yes, that certainly took longer. There is good reason for that. The Southern portion of the Democratic party was not for Civil Rights. See Dixiecrats. Based on its history through the Civil War and Reconstruction you did not start a political career in the South as a Republican. So as of 1964 whether liberal or conservative, racist or not, politicians were Democrats. Changing parties midway through a political career is not common. So voters tended to split their votes between voting against the pro-civil rights national Democrat at the top of the ticket and the local, often anti-civil rights Southern Democrats underneath. So, yes, there were a lot of racist Democrats in the house and senate.
Frankly, growing up in California as a kid who paid attention to politics but was too young to understand the history, I used to ask why the heck they were voting Democrat (though happy to take the votes).
As an additional point, I was born in 1969 and was interested in politics from an early age. Every party political convention in my lifetime has had the same dynamic. Lots of minorities on the floor at the Democratic convention. Virtually no minorities at the Republican convention.
So yes, I think it is clear that from the Civil rights movement forward, the National Democratic party has been the party that has supported civil rights issues for minorities and has been supported overwhelmingly by minorities. They also took advantage of historical advantages in local elections in the South as long as they could hang on. It is also clear that since the Civil rights movement, the National Republican party has been the counterbalance to pro minority issues, has very little minority support as a result and has very much advanced in local elections in the south in non-minority districts from that point forward.
Whether you want to call that the "party of Racism" or not is up to you. But the Democrats have banded a coalition of overwhelming support of minorities and partial support of Whites and the Republican supporters have been overwhelmingly White. On a national level 1964 basically flipped the switch. On a local level 1964 was the cause but it took longer.
