re: The Mythical Party Switch: When was that?

quote:

---

The example I’ve never heard anyone be able explain away is RvW. 6-3 decision w Dems going 1-2 against. Rs going 5-1 for.

It’ll be a cold day in hell before any modern SC votes like that on the abortion issue. I’d call that a switch in ideologies if I’ve ever seen one

---

ALL arguments for the supposed switch are social.

Which is stupid

FDR was a liberal. His opponents were conservatives. Had Pelosi lived when FDR was president she still would have been a Democrat and have McConnell lived when FDR was a president he still would have been a Republican.

If Democrats really believed the supposed party switch then they couldn't run around taking credit for the New deal or the great society. More to the point modern Democrats would oppose those things and Republicans would be massively trying to expand them if the party switch was real.

Anyone who believes the party switch shows a complete inability to think outside of what they've been told to think

Well, let me remind you of your hisroreeeee

The Republican party was founded by Abolitionist, among others, in large part to end slavery.

The first President from that party, Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation proclamation, the 13th amendment and won the Civil war.

He was promptly assassinated by a group of Angry Democrats.

Democrats fiercely opposed Lincoln on all of the aforementioned issues.

Democrats founded and promoted the KKK.

Jim Crow was a Democrat and Democrats supported and passed the so called Jim Crow laws.

Republicans opposed and eventually ended said laws.

Republicans stood with fellow Republican, Martin Luther King to pass Civil rights legislation.

A Democrat killed him.

JFK, a tax cutting civil rights believing Democrat was killed by a Democrat and, if Conspiracy theorists are to be believed, it was a left wing cabal...

RFK also killed by a lefty radical...

LBJ literally said he would trick the NWords into voting Democrat for 100 years.

How's that working for African Americans in Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, etc...

Know your historeeeeeeeeeed

Why is it stupid? Do social stances on issues not have their part in people’s political ideologies? I’d argue for many voters, it’s the defining factor.

If your point is simply that social issues, in general, are less important, I totally agree.

My post was just an example, it wasn’t a clean departure. But both parties have shifted, and continue to shift, throughout the years. Did they “switch”? Depends on how you look at it.

quote:

---

Why is it stupid? Do social stances on issues not have their part in people’s political ideologies? I’d argue for many voters, it’s the defining factor.

---

Yes. But if social stances caused a bunch of Democrats from previous to suddenly switch and vice versa, that should have carried their other stances with them.

Alas. Democrats remained Democrats. And Republicans remained Republicans which is why no one says the New Deal is really a Republican thing and why Obamacare was STILL a Democrat thing.

quote:

---

If your point is simply that social issues, in general, are less important, I totally agree

---

No. My point is that movement on one subset of issues doesn't count as a party switch. Especially when even that movement is debatable. The entire argument FOR the movement rests on the idea thatwhen Democrats started proposing big government policies in the name of supposedly being pro black and then labeling opposition to those policies anti-black that this is really true description of the situation. In fact it's just a reflection of what Democrats always were and what Republicans always were

quote:

---

Furthermore, are you representing the idea that if RvW was heard again today the vote would be similar???

---

Possibly. Maybe even more weighed to abortion this go around, who knows...

The SCOTUS is supposed to make rulings based on the Constitution itself and their interpretation of it. Not based on religious beliefs or what a subsection of the population deems immoral.

People cheer SCOTUS party affiliations because they are ignorant for the most part and it's an easy thing to understand.

The biggest wins for Trump have been nominating justices who interpret the Constitution as stated, rather than a changing document.

I like everything you said, and want to agree, but that’s just not how it turns out more often than not.

Plus my example is a virtual complete flip, an extreme example. Maybe some would “cross” so to speak, but damn near all? I just can’t see it happening.

quote:

---

The Mythical Party Switch

---

Depends on whether or not you believe that the name of the party is the defining feature or if their platform is the defining feature.

quote:

---

Depends on whether or not you believe that the name of the party is the defining feature or if their platform is the defining feature.

---

This has always been my argument. The name of the party has never mattered, it's an irrelevant point.

What matters are the policies and how those policies are used to target specific demographics. Democratic policies have always been the same, but the target audience switched. The exact same thing can be said about Republicans.


ShortyRob equates all forms of government welfare to being about poor people. That has and will never be the truth. Big Business pre 1970 LOVED Big government for infrastructure, banking reforms, and limiting worker protections. Dont get me started on the Military Industrial Complex boom when we were "fighting communism" in Vietnam.

Big government became the bad guy when they were used to protect the common man and provide civil protections. It's harder to hire for people to work low wages when government sets an artificial floor.

quote:

---

Things like desegregating schools, and the Voting Rights act of 1965 left conservative Southerners who made up the Bible belt and other conservative enclaves throughout the country susceptible to voting for a candidate that was was not a Democrat, the party that had traditionally been in the majority in the south up to that point. If the map below, taken from an academic paper on the Southern Strategy below, wasn’t labeled for the 1968 election, you might believe it was a map of the highest concentrations of Trump supporters, except the Rust Belt probably isn’t quite yellowish/red enough. But you get my point. Wallace was a hard line segregationist. That’s a racist to you and me, and he also ran in ’68 as an Independent.

---

The "Party Switch" was about western votes in new states

So in a nutshell, when progressives stand still, they become conservatives.