Get PJ Media on your Apple

Unexamined Premises

History Lesson: Racist Democrats and the Big Lie

March 28th, 2013 - 5:07 pm

First, 1968, as the Vietnam War approached its high-water mark and the antiwar movement was starting to roll:

1968: still semi-solid

Nixon picked up some of the states of the Old Confederacy, largely because of their pro-military tradition and support for the war. “Wallace,” for those of you born yesterday, was Democrat George Wallace, a rabid segregationist who founded the American Independent Party and ran for president on its ticket. He won 13 percent of the popular vote, and carried five states in the Deep South for a total of 46 electoral votes.

Four years later, Nixon faced the first modern Democratic Party presidential candidate, George McGovern, who ran on a “Come Home, America” platform, and on whose campaign many of today’s radicals cut their teeth. Two items of note in the linked video clip: Missouri Senator Tom Eagleton was McGovern’s first running mate, who got dumped by the Compassion Party after it came out that he had been hospitalized for clinical depression and had undergone shock therapy. The other is McGovern’s extensive quote from “This Land is Your Land,” a hit for Peter, Paul and Mary written by the communist fellow-traveler, Woody Guthrie.

1972: the Cod stands alone

Yes, the South voted for the Republican — but so did every other state except for Massachusetts, which was the first indication of just how far gone the Bay State already was.

Four years later, Nixon was in San Clemente in the aftermath of Watergate, and a Southern governor named Jimmy Carter, whose only claim to the White House was that he was not RMN, was running against the Accidental President, Jerry Ford:

1976: you can go home again

Yes, twelve years after the Solid South supposedly flipped to the GOP, here it was, back again, helping to elevate a native son past the Michigander. The two Reagan wipeouts of 1980 and 1984 began the alignment of the South with the GOP — but it was partly reversed by Bill Clinton in 1992:

1992: Back to Bubba

Kevin concludes:

The Republican ascendancy in Dixie is associated with the rise of the southern middle class, the increasingly trenchant conservative critique of Communism and the welfare state, the Vietnam controversy and the rise of the counterculture, law-and-order concerns rooted in the urban chaos that ran rampant from the late 1960s to the late 1980s, and the incorporation of the radical Left into the Democratic party. Individual events, especially the freak show that was the 1968 Democratic convention, helped solidify conservatives’ affiliation with the Republican party. Democrats might argue that some of these concerns — especially welfare and crime — are “dog whistles” or “code” for race and racism, but this criticism is shallow in light of the evidence and the real saliency of those issues among U.S. voters of all backgrounds and both parties for decades. Indeed, Democrats who argue that the best policies for black Americans are those that are soft on crime and generous with welfare are engaged in much the same sort of cynical racial calculation President Johnson was practicing when he informed skeptical southern governors that his plan for the Great Society was “to have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years.” Johnson’s crude racism is, happily, largely a relic of the past, but his strategy endures.

So the next time a Regressive tries to repeat the Thurmond myth, show him the maps — and make the Democrats own their history. They don’t like it very much, and who can blame them?

Also read: 

Don Young, and the Democrats’ Homer Simpson Problem

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Because I enjoy stuff like pulling the wings off flies and poking lefty punks with pointy sticks. They're accustomed to having a monopoly on sneering insults; I like to sneer and insult them.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Thanks for the wonderful summary. Also relevant is that despite often being referred to as "Southern conservatives," the Democrats who supported segregation largely represented a different type of conservatism from the free-market, classical liberal variety of Republicans. Having been a solid part of FDR's New Deal coalition, most were pro-union economic populists, not supporters of capitalism. But since the word "conservative" is used to describe them, it is assumed this conservatism is the same as, say, Reaganism.

Also, there's a logical flaw in the whole racists-went-to-the-GOP narrative, which is: THe GOP platform didn't change from before Civil Rights to after Civil Rights. It always stood for what it stood for, so there was no change in ideology that allegedly drew in the racists. Some of the most conservative people in the GOP helped pass the CRA, including Everett Dirksen. This is the point at which liberals resort to another rhetorical trick: that Dirksen et. al. were from the "moderate" wing of the party.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
A basic tenant of the antebellum pro-slavery argument was that blacks were like children. Children need to be provided for, and supervised. Funny how some things never change with Democrats.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (54)
All Comments   (54)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
The south did not care whether Blacks were desegregated/de-jim crowed or allowed to vote as much as they hated Washington D. C. Yankees interfering with States rights.
Southerners generally do not as a rule really consider the south a part of the United States. Just as Georgian's don't see Atlanta as the leader of the state politics.
I've seen all three political parties and I ain't a bit impressed with any of them, career politicians and lobbyist who care about their own little agenda's as opposed to what the constituents want.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I left the democrat party because I was tired of Clinton being soft on Islamic attacks of US forces and the fact that Al Gore gave me the impression he was nothing but a slippery con man out to make a buck off the backs of the poor.
John Kerry? I served in The South East Asian land war known as Vietnam I wouldn't vote for John Kerry unless it's to colonize Mars. Then I'd help him win and ship him into orbit around Mars.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Then how do you explain the photograph MSNBC's Chris Matthews showed on Hardball of the book of racial codes the Republicans have been using since the Reagan era? http://www.thedailyrash.com/chris-matthews-unveils-photograph-of-republican-racial-code-book
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
If you're stupid enough to believe something like that, it is no wonder the Country has gone to Hell in a handbasket. Ignorant child, do you believe anything you hear on TV? The shame of it is that you probably can and do vote.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Here's the key part you miss.
1) The old Racist Democrats thought that blacks were inferior, and thus it was ok to have gov't laws against them, to help the whites.
2) The new Racist Democrats think that blacks are inferior, and this is why the racists support Affirmative Action to help the inferior race.
2b) BUT, rather than be honest about the inferiority reason, they blame prior white racism as the reason to support Affirmative Racism.

Republicans have always been against racist laws, against racist laws that help whites, and now against racist laws that "help" blacks.

The results in Detroit make it debatable if Affirmative Racist welfare policies really help blacks.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Mr. Walsh: While I agree w/what you say, and can easily see how you trace the history of which you've given us a taste, I'm interested in more in-depth info. So I thought -- perhaps I'd buy what you yourself call your "short" book? So I went to Amazon to purchase it. Sir, I am not in the habit of paying 10 cents per page. Even my fav. authors, both fiction & non-fiction, do not demand this kind of remuneration! Even Thomas Sowell's newest book is 3 1/2 cents per pg. You regard yourself WAY to highly in this digital age. That you were with "Time" for quite a ... um, time, does not make this even slightly palatable. (in fact, in light of what "Time" is now, it makes it downright disgusting). If you wish to make ANYthing on this book, PLEASE reprice it downward, at least on Amazon. Thank you.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
You're complaining about 7 bucks for a book - because it's short?

Books aren't priced by the page - there's some fixed cost in publishing a book, regardless of its length.

Check it out of the library or wait until you can pick it up used.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I don't set the price, the publisher does.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The title of this piece has it right. There is a big lie involved. Thing is, though, the big lie is being perpetrated by the author of the piece. Trying to ignore the capture of the Republican party by the South is on a par with claiming that the Nazis weren't rightists.

One small point: racist southerners have a long history of support for a conservative versions of free market economics. That was true even before the Civil War when the largely agrarian South favored low tariffs. It remained true thereafter. Thus support for slavery morphed into hostility to unions. The Southern states were big fans of right-to-work laws because the dominant political class wanted to keep wages low so their low-tech industries would remain profitable. The renamed southern Democrats who now dominate the Republican party have given up on open racism but they haven't had to change many of their other opinion to get along with the more rancid elements among the northern Republicans

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
To all Pjmedia readers,
Please don't waste your time responding to Jim Harrishmuck a.k.a. Jim Hitlerson. He has venomous opinions about everything. He thinks he knows everything about everything. He thinks he has the answer to all of the world's problems. He's what Thomas Sowell might call a self-anointed messiah. He's extremely childish. He throws tantrums. He evades questions. He hates Jews and hates Israel. Please don't pay attention, to this immature, malignant, narcissistic, anti-Semitic demagogue.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I find it rather amusing that a neo-Nazi like Jim Hitlerson would talk about Nazis and racists. He has a vicious hatred of Jews and of the world's only Jewish state, based partially on a malicious misunderstanding of what is meant by "The Chosen People". He sympathizes with people, movements and groups that want to annihilate the entire Jewish people and the world's only Jewish state. He resents the very concept of a Jewish state. He spews lies about Jews and Israel that would make Joseph Goebbels beam with pride.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Jim, the Nazis called themselves the National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party. Do you think they were joking?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Oh, the useful idiot is back among us. Idiot Jim, the NSDAP weren't rightists. Native Southerners aren't economic conservatives; they're just cheap because their whole heritage is being poor. Stupid, high tariffs on European/British manufactured goods were recipricated against Southern cotton; of course the Southerners were opposed to high tariffs . Anything else you'd like to argue, fool?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Hey Art Chance,
I have to ask you again. Why do you dignify Harrishmuck with a response? If decent people like you just ignore him, he'll disappear.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Because I enjoy stuff like pulling the wings off flies and poking lefty punks with pointy sticks. They're accustomed to having a monopoly on sneering insults; I like to sneer and insult them.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Arguing with Harrishmuck is like arguing with a schizophrenic homeless person who washes windshields at a freeway off-ramp.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Harrishmuck is a malignant tumor. Responding to him is like blood vessels that feed a carcinoma. If you ignore him, he'll wither away like a tumor that's deprived of blood.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Um, what color is the sky in your world? Racist Unions and Democrats favored higher minimum wage laws because blacks would often work for less just to have a job. The Unions were formed to control the labor market and keep blacks out, and the minimum wage was designed to price blacks out of the labor market (based on the racist belief that they were not worth a white man's wages).
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
You need to work on your history a bit. Unions were formed to influence the labor market and secure better wages, hours, and conditions for their members. Once established, unions were opposed to anyone who might diminish their wages and conditions. The people most likely to be used to diminish their wages and conditions were immigrants first, and then blacks. Nativism and racism may well have been contributors, but then as now unions opposed anybody who threatened their wages and conditions. The Davis-Bacon Act madating "prevailing wages" on government contracts was enacted specifically to keep Southern contractors from out-bidding Northern contractors on public contracts in the North by relying on cheaper labor, some of which was black. Even today, many Southerners in the skilled trades are reluctant to let a black do more than hand, hold, and lift, so it isn't like the Southern contractors were bringing black carpenters and electricians to Yankeeland, but they were bringing black laborers. The fact was the Southerners would work for less and undercut the local contractors, so the contractors found friends in Davis and Bacon, one of which was from NY, can't remember which.

Minimum wages under the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act weren't set to price blacks out of the labor market, they weren't in the labor market in the place where minimum wages actually had an effect, The South. The mandated minimum wage was set so low that it only affected The South and rural West. In The South, Blacks had a foothold in masonry work, as locomotive firemen, and as laborers in construction and manufacturing but simply weren't allowed in skill trades or higher wage manufacturing work, of which there was very little of the latter in The South of the 1930s. The real issue with minimum wage was that The South had resisted all attempts to improve the appalling economic conditions there through industrialization and the issue was indeed racial. If the workers at a factory or other industrial operation tried to get better wages and conditions all the management had to do was threaten to bring in black labor and the workers would come to heel or accept concessions to keep their jobs. Essentially, minimum wages kept blacks from pricing themselves IN to the labor market and even as The South saw industrialization in WWII and afterward and improving wages and conditions for white labor, rural blacks remained in the peonage of share-cropping and tenant farming and casual agricultural labor until after the Civil Rights and Great Society legislation of the mid-to-late 1960s.

It is lost to Democrat "Southern Strategy" myth-making that into Kennedy's time, the face of poverty and oppression was the rural Southern or Appalachian white, particularly white women. Go look at Democrat literature from the '30s to the early '60s and see who they were trying to appeal to in terms of improving health and living conditions. When I started school in the mid-'50s they were still instructing teachers in the white school to be on the lookout for kids with signs of rickets. Blacks were not a Democrat constituency until after the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, and Great Society legislation. To the extent that they could and did vote at all in The South, they voted Republican.

Were Democrats and unions, to the extent they existed, in The South racist? Of course they were, as was pretty much everybody else. But Southerners didn't set the policies of the Democrat Party of that era, though they were powerful enough to influence it, and the paltry union presence in The South certainly had little effect on the policies of organized labor. The Left figured out how to use race, racism, and a plethora of other "isms" as cudgels both to keep their constituencies intact and to bludgeon anyone who opposes them. The very word racism has pretty much lost all meaning. Those of us who grew up in it know what it means and what it looks like. We don't see much of it now, though more than a decade or so ago, and most of what we see comes from blacks, many of whom are every bit as racist towards whites as Gene Talmadge's "Wool Hat Boys" of 75 years ago were towards blacks.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Hey I been meaning to ask you for some factual data that only you would have.

How many republicans belong to a labor union, are stewards or hold other unions postitions of title?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I don't know of any reliable data. There is some on how union members vote and they aren't monolithicly Democrat like many claim. That is especially the case with statewide and National elections. That said, they're predominantly either Democrats or NPs that mostly vote Democrat.

Much depends on what kind of union. Only about 7% of the private sector workforce is union and most of them are in "Third Sector" businesses and industries such as utilities, transportation, and others that are either heavily regulated, require significant permitting, or require public funding. A union carpenter or electrician may technically work for a private construction firm but unionized contractors almost exclusively do business with government or on projects that require extensive permitting and which are heavily regulated or which use public funds. Unions really can't organize the employees, so they organize the government to give them a project labor agreement. They often work in concert with their greenie friends to hold up projects until the greenies get some payola in the form of bleeding edge technology that nobody would voluntarily pay for and which happens to be owned by a greenie, a few greenie apparatchiks get jobs as "monitors" or some such and the union gets a project labor agreement. Along the way Democrat politicians often get checks. In the Third Sector there really isn't the adversarial collective bargaining relationship that the bargaining law envisioned. The union and management work together to get more money out of the taxpayers and shareholders. Generally, the only way you can get on one of these jobs is to have come through the union and most of them are union and Democrat loyalists. If there are any Republicans holding office or a paid position, it is merely a beard so that the union can get somebody at the Republican table.

The public sector is actually more politically diverse. This is mostly because few public employees have ever been organized by a union or have come through the union to get their job. Public employee unions organize the government which then gives them the employees. Public employees ocassionally have the opportunity to vote on which union will represent them but usually have never had the opportunity to vote on whether to be represented at all. Lower level public employees perceive it to be in their interest to vote for Democrats. This is aggravated by the fact that Republicans fail to distinguish between the interests of the unions and the interest of the employees and a lot of Republicans spend a lot of time bashing public employees. Where supervisors are unionized they tend to have more Republicans simply because these employees have been around longer and have seen how Democrats treat supervisors and managers who get crossthreaded with a Democrat Administration or with a union. Law enforcement employees have historically followed the federal precedent of being in independent, unaffiliated unions and being both more conservative than other public employee unions and being standoffish towards those unions. Some law enforcement unions will endorse Republicans simply because they know that Democrats are likely to make a lesbian social worker their boss. That independent tradition has been seriously eroded in recent years though. The symbiosis between Democrat politicians and police and fire unions is the reason why in the union states employees with a GED or HS education and 100% employer paid training are making $100K/yr. and more.

When I was Alaska's head of LR, Swartzenegger's guy and I were the only Republican appointee heads of LR in the Country. Recent events have changed that a bit, e.g., WI, MI, and OH, but not much. The union states are Democrat states, at least until they go bankrupt. There used to be a few public employee union officials who'd claim to be Republicans just to be at the table but they are very rare these day and tend to be old-timers, and while they may write a check or go to an event, I seriously doubt they ever vote Republican.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Civil War And The Litmus Test - "Will you shoot Americans?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNuiLJHejKM&feature=player_embedded
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Thanks for the wonderful summary. Also relevant is that despite often being referred to as "Southern conservatives," the Democrats who supported segregation largely represented a different type of conservatism from the free-market, classical liberal variety of Republicans. Having been a solid part of FDR's New Deal coalition, most were pro-union economic populists, not supporters of capitalism. But since the word "conservative" is used to describe them, it is assumed this conservatism is the same as, say, Reaganism.

Also, there's a logical flaw in the whole racists-went-to-the-GOP narrative, which is: THe GOP platform didn't change from before Civil Rights to after Civil Rights. It always stood for what it stood for, so there was no change in ideology that allegedly drew in the racists. Some of the most conservative people in the GOP helped pass the CRA, including Everett Dirksen. This is the point at which liberals resort to another rhetorical trick: that Dirksen et. al. were from the "moderate" wing of the party.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Also, there's a logical flaw in the whole racists-went-to-the-GOP narrative..."

Precisely! Thanks for clearing that up!!! Wish we could get back to simply left, right, and moderate in terms of our political identities or left and right with moderates being the independents. I'm all for a growing and stronger independent party with a real centrist platform these days.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The CRAs legally made whites second-class citizens. Barry Goldwater and even NR made this plain at the time (although I expect all records have been destroyed since). It is true that the GOP platform has not changed regarding racial dominance, but the Dems have changed from the historic pro-white, to the FDR coalition of poor whites and blacks, to pro-minority and anti-white. Now, what whites are left with is a choice between the virulently anti-white, anti-Christian, anti-normal Dems and the not-explicitly anti-white GOP. There is today no pro-white party. It might already be illegal to form one.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Its not pro white vs pro black, or rich vs poor. It is pro big gov elite vs pro individual freedom. Dems have always been on the pro big gov side, whether gov was used to oppress blacks directly, or indirectly keep them down with handouts, crime, and condescending favoritism. Dont fall for the dem trap of acting like the white supremicist they claim conservatives are. And dont make the false claim that the dem policies are in any way good for blacks, they are harmed just as bad, they just have not realized it yet. Repubs have always been for colorblind equal treatment from gov, the only fair and sound policy.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"The CRAs legally made whites second-class citizens."

When people abuse the constitutional equal rights to any class of people regardless of skin color or economic standing, the federal government steps in to restore the constitution equally among all citizens. That said, I do think federal enforcement of such, should be enacted under sunset laws and reviewed circumstantially on a period schedule for justified continuation. The upside to the CRA is, that over time more and more educated blacks and other minorities have risen up and yes, even come to the GOP ideology side.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The only thing "conservative" about The South is its resistance to change and emphasis on preserving history and tradition, including religious tradition. Neither of those is really reflective of political philosophy. Since the Civil War the salient characteristics of The South were that it was poor, isolated, and xenophobic and that white supremacy was ingested in the air you breathed and the segregated water fountain you drank from.

There was nothing conservative about the antebellum state governments or the Provisional Government of the Confederate States; they were not reticent to use government's taxation and police powers to achieve state ends. State governments built railroads and canals extensively before the Civil War. During the war, the PGCS had elaborate social welfare and capital construction programs, e.g., the salt programs, the niter program, and the Augusta, GA gunpowder plant, and while the PGCS was not as heavy-handed as the US Government was in the border states, the government and the armies' police powers were heavily used.

After the war, race and cheap labor were the driving forces. There was an attempt at a Southern populism, it is easy for farmers to hate bankers, merchants, and manufacturers, see, e.g., Georgia's Tom Watson, but attempts to rally the poor farmers or the poor textile workers allways fell victim to racial politics. Anytime the workers at a mill wanted better wages and conditions, all the management had to do was threaten to bring in black labor. Anytime there was talk of raising property taxes for better schools, nobody wanted to pay taxes that the blacks wouldn't pay or to do anything that would benefit them. Separate but equal was anything but equal; I remember the Black school in my home town. To this day many of those states rely on sales taxes and user fees heavily because the large landowners don't want to pay property taxes and as I've had said to me many times by people I know in politics in Georgia that at least the blacks, but they don't say blacks if they know you, will have to pay sales tax.

Everybody I knew voted for Goldwater in 1964 and it wasn't because we'd suddenly become enamored with Western Libertarianism. The South and Southerners didn't have a racial epiphany in the mid-'60s, they had de-segregation forced down their throats by federal authority. Yes, there is an easiness in personal relations between the races in The South, at least the rural South, that doesn't exist elsewhere in the Nation nor really even in the large Southern cities, though many would argue that any city big enough to have a professional sports team isn't really Southern anyway. But Southern Blacks and Whites have lived side by side and worked together, at least in the fields, for centuries. You would drink out of the same water bucket and gourd dipper as the black hands in the field, but you wouldn't let them in your front door or let them use your rest room. From what I see when I visit my Georgia relatives, the public South is far more integrated than most of the rest of the Country. The private South is more segregated than it was in the days of Jim Crow.

I think Zell Miller had it about right; Southerners didn't leave the Democrats, the Democrats left them. Today's Democrats are not the Party of FDR, or even Kennedy and LBJ. They were becoming what they have become by Carter but by Southern standards, Carter was a traditional Southern liberal. In The South of those days "liberal" and "educated beyond high school" were pretty much synonyms. Southerners because of their distrust for state solutions and that is really a distrust for anything big, not just government, and because of their resistance to change and adherence to tradition simply could not go into the "small c" communist world of the Democrat Party from Clinton on. They went to the Republicans because they had nowhere else to go and as current controversies inside they Republican Party indicate, they aren't real comfortable with the Republlicans either.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I am glad to see someone standing up and proclaiming the truth, and calling the democrats out! Now, what took so long?


Democrats See "people of color" as "Useful Idiots"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UObEdF_uhaw

Revealing the Truth about the Democratic Party Part 2: The Parties Switched

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3LqPedoxSk


Rare Live Footage of one of the first anti rascism songs ever


Billie Holiday - Strange Fruit


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4ZyuULy9zs


1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
LOL. The above picture is the one I've been using as my twitter avatar for months.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All