Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- Republicans used to dominate the northern states and orchestrated expansions of federal power, while Democrats, who dominated the South, opposed these measures. So, how did this switch happen? Read the full explainer: www.livescienc...
Videos • Explainers • Science News
SUBSCRIBE to the Live Science RUclips channel → www.shorturl.at...
Twitter→ / livescience
Facebook→ / livescience
Instagram→ / live_science
For the science geek in everyone, LiveScience.com breaks down the stories behind the most interesting news and photos on the Internet, while also digging up fascinating discoveries that hit on a broad range of fields, from dinosaurs and archaeology to wacky physics and astronomy to health and human behavior. If you want to learn something interesting every day, #LiveScience is the place for you.
Why every time I look up party switch I just get gigantic time skips in history.
Because this is the major event in American politics that caused a major realignment of the parties. It’s important for conservatives to bury the truth about this. If every person today understood the truth behind the southern strategy, we most likely wouldn’t be so divided today. As most people would not want to associate with republicans
@Christina Welk Well, if the parties in the US supposedly didn't switch, why did the north and south switch parties?
Yea exactly. magically forgets kkk and slavery and the fact that Republican Party was formed as anti slavery party. Democrats will do anything for votes. Lie cheat kill to stay in power. There were no switch just some republicans got really corrupted. Some Democrats ended up in the wrong party. #walkaway
@@CulturalMarxist4985 it’s a good question. May be have something to do that jim craw was gone and regular rural people just liked small government approach. May be
@@SevenFootPelican please tell me what this so called “major realignment” was because all I saw in this video was cherry picked evidence to attempt to argue the parties switched. And while some politicians did change parties after the civil war both parties still retain the values and principles one is desperately attached to race within America and the other is about being realistic and collected.
Since when is freeing slaves “expansion of federal power”? That’s more like expansion of individual liberty
They were seen as property so it was like the governments coming in and taking ur property
Slave owners didnt see slaves as people. Conservatives at the time didnt even consider Black people humans on equal standing to them. The government forcing slave owners to free their slaves was seen as a violation of their states rights to own cattle basically.
@Laurence Buttler In 1655, Anthony Johnson, a black tobacco farmer and former indentured servant, sued in Virginia Commonwealth Court to have his runaway indentured servant declared a slave and his private “property”...he won on an appeal. So, first slave owner in America was a black man! 🤯
www.encyclopediavirginia.org/court_ruling_on_anthony_johnson_and_his_servant_1655
Billy Dee this has been proved false many times. www.facinghistory.org/reconstruction-era/anthony-johnson-man-control-his-own
Omg smdh
1:21: If you can’t take the time to properly spell what you are attempting to educate us about, you lose all credibility.
😂😂
So trump lost all credibility as well
Ever heard of a typo?
@Y'all-Qaeda Yeehawdist I'm a PISSED OFF Republican. This Cheeto-von-Tweeto has NO place holding public office, he couldn't even be trusted to administer a nonprofit for sick kids. Be off, you troll.
@Y'all-Qaeda Yeehawdist saying "another libtard rekd made it sound like you were a far right... If it was sarcasm, a /s helps boomers relate to the haich-tee-emm-ell (for those who remember blinks)
Let’s say this was true. It still doesn’t change their voting records.
Lee Branom / just ask them to prove their opinions with facts...they never can.
Fact Police when’s the last time you saw a Democrat with a confederate flag
@Bo Bob actually check their not right wing they are more center left. Conservatives don't care about the color of your skin only money.
@Keri The modern day Democrat would be Republican during the Civil War. Did you not just watch this video with the rest of us? There was a political realignment. If you were to look up the democratic beliefs, you first see, "The modern Democratic party emphasizes egalitarianism, social equality, protecting the environment, and strengthening the social safety net through liberalism. They support voting rights and minority rights, including LGBT rights, multiculturalism, and religious secularism," but briefly in the dictionary as, "favoring or characterized by social equality; egalitarian."
@@berry5557 Southerners are more Republican today, dunce. That doesn't mean "the parties switched". People change and migrate. A Confederate flag isn't a symbol for racism. The DNC only cares about race and use the race card for profits and black support. Republicans don't care about the color of one's skin.
For god sakes, stop make videos I have to read!!!!! THAT'S WHY IM WATCHING RUclips!!!!
And that is the problem people don't read they go off of what people say
They never switched rhetoric. They evolved. But their location changed since it’s people that determine it and populations change
The republican party never caused as great harm I say this as a foreigner minority I can clearly see they are trying to group people so we fear them
The underlying themes of their rhetoric have been largely consistent, the Republicans carrying the torch for Americanism and the Democrats claiming the mantle of the common man, but each has been clearly retooled to some extent as their coalitions have evolved.
@@johnweber4577I disagree. Democrats have been selling the exact same things from the beginning, getting the exact same results they always have. The only thing that they changed is the label/marketing campaign.
Republican talking points were picked up by politicians who didn't believe in them, but sold to enough people over enough generations that they eventually did start do believe them.
The most glaring example of the catastrophic flaws of a (2) party based system, imo. Stay an independent thinker.
Edit: after re reading your comment, I don't disagree. I clearly didn't pay close attention the first time.
They never switch.
Amen to that but only one democrat switched during the early part of the 20 th century but no Republican switched to the Democratic side anf fdr was not for small government
So you would still support the same party if it were the 1850s? I wouldnt.
@Terry Connor Name calling isn't a counter argument lmao
prove it, come on. if the parties never switched, you must support socialists because the old republicans did too, right?
@justrosie1 Let’s look at one example, the southern strategy. This is not the only factor in the party realignment, but it was a pretty damn big one. Now, first first thing to realize - Nixon was very much not what we would call a republican today. He voted for the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and Desegregation, multiple acts written and proposed by dems that, sectionally shown, voted for them in higher amounts. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party_and_region However, more important than that, he was in favor of things like Affirmative Action (and instituted the frist version of it in the US) He also created one of the largest environmental pushes. However, this doesn't actually prove that the man was a progressive right winger, quite the opposite. For one, most of these were left wing policies. Alongside what you mentioned, he was also a public fan of Keynesian economics, he created regulatory bodies to watch over things like steel manufacturing, he devised of the "Nixon Shocks," more major public expenditures with huge budgets, basically banned the use of direct gold to cash transfer, froze prices and wages for a period and created more regulatory bodies to do that, supported abortion rights, supported the federalization of healthcare for the poor and creating HMOs with a graduated price based on income, as well as just increasing the scope and budget of the government immensely. So, I have to ask, what about him was right-wing? Perhaps his part in warfare, but at the same time, that's a bit of a stretch. The man seemed nothing like your modern republicans, and theres a reason for that. Now, I would recommend looking at his inauguration speeches and platforms, which i'll link below. You'll notice that the first (1960) link talks about civil rights extensively, and makes it a key point of the platform. The second (1964) mentions it much less, and the third republican party platform of 1968 did not mention civil rights at all. So as the Southern Strategy was implemented and progressed, that previous key part of republican policies that was their civil rights advocacy completely faded away. You can see it in previous platforms, civil rights was front and center... until the Southern Strategy, the push to accept racist white southerners into the party. At the same time, the northern dems were outvoting both the northern republicans on most issues (mostly the civil rights bill, which was proposed by a democrat) and the southern dems, though voting for the Civil Rights bill in very low numbers, still outvoted the republicans, who didn’t vote for it at all. That was how Nixon’s plan worked - the party of civil rights as a title had just transferred over, as they both took advantage of each other’s old voting base. Now, just to clarify - Nixon didn’t do this out of any firm ideological need. He did it because he was an old, paranoid racist, who really wanted to win an election. This was most likely more of a strategy adopted out of panic and paranoia as to his possible loss than a roundly rational political push. However, I suppose it worked, and the strategy continued for literally decades after he first implanted it in a quick bid of political panic. He won by playing both sides, appealing the racists who wanted someone to represent them alongside the civil rights advocates who trusted him after his previous work in the field. It didn't work in the long run for him, but it left a massive, profound impact on the blurring party dynamics that had shifted so far already. It was a bit like the straw that broke the camel's back. Now, that wasn't actually the only point at which major party switches happened. For example, there was a huge socialistic populist movement in the south a long while before the civil war, which slowly moved to the north, from the farmers to the factories. Figures like FDR helped nudge it along as well, by being associated with left wing economic polices, and having a wife that advocated for progressive social polices. But if none of that convinces you, just look at figures like Alexander Schimmelfennig, August Willich, Charles Dana, or Horace Greeley, incredibly influential people within the repulbican party and military… all outspoken socialists and communists. Hell, Greeley employed Marx for a while. Then you have people Giuseppe Garibaldi, leftist revolutionaries that Lincoln explicitly praised, and even invited to become generals in the union.That would be like if Reagan praised Castro and made him a honorary citizen. And I could go on and on, about the policies of the south and north, but I think this is enough for now. IF you’d like more, i’d be happy to go into more, about things like the RR and the LR and how they folded into the republican party, or how many of the dixiecrats physically left vs how many would open up their position to be taken by a republican, and on and on and on. I can talk about party switches since the point the parties first existed, or other parties existed in their place. But I’ll wait and see if that’s necessary and wanted before I dive off on another rant, because this was already a lot and it accomplished my point.
Here are those links
presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1960…
presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1964…
presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1968
Lol. Seeking “Expansion of federal power” was enlisting federal law, by majority vote btw, to force the end of slavery.
People don’t seem to realize what is meant when it’s said the parties switched “sides.” It is far better and better to understand to say they traded each other’s ideological views. It’s quite common world wide that during long periods of time political parties change ideologies and views as the world changes. I guarantee you in fifty years the Democratic and Republican Parties will be vastly different to how they are now. Hell, states that solidly vote one way may actually vote the opposite way or even be fairly purple. The point I’m to make is that, yes, the Republicans at the time were the big government party. How can you deny it? It’s clearly stated in their platform! They wanted federal expansion of government power. It’s right there in black and white. Abolishing slavery was clearly a liberal and radical view at the time. Democrats opposed abolishing slavery. In other words were anti-social progress. Sounds like how some Republicans are now with social issues? It isn’t a conspiracy theory. If you want to say that the Democrats found a new way to enslave the blacks, that’s another argument. But that can still be the case even if the Republicans were left and Democrats right then. Look at Presidential elections from that time, you’ll clearly see the South largely voted blue and the North red. The Republicans always have been the party of big business. It’s just at that time, big businesses needed lots of government intervention. Now big businesses do not need or want lots of government intervention.
Your comment is false. Demographics and societal norms a cross states have changed in many geographical areas across the United States, however, even though some tactics and beliefs of each party have changed they are still the same for the most part. The republican party was NOT a federal government party, they supported states rights more, however were particularly keen on small government in general and protecting human rights such as abolishing slavery and pushing the civil rights act and women's suffrage. Today, the left does the same thing in devaluing human life, i.e.abortion. also, they are still heavily obsessed with race, just look at their support for affirmative action and planned parenthood as well as the victim culture.all of which are very racist. The right continues to push for freedom for all people and lives and have continuously supported equal rights. The progressive party was created by Theodore Roosevelt, a republican. So no the parties did not switch and neither did their ideas. If you read political articles from century old republicans and democrats you'll find that their beliefs are EXTREMELY similar
If they switched when did they because I'm getting different answers!!
Andrew Jones / your emotional but fact-less plea trying to explain the “Switch” failed. Stick to facts. Just because the Democratic Party finally came to their senses after 150 years of slavery & racism, doesn’t mean the Republican Party took their place. There is zero evidence of that. The Democratic Party has never even formally apologized to the black community for their deadly racist history. That would draw the attention of the 50% of leftists who do not even know this history. The Republican Party did not believe in judging people by skin color during President Lincoln’s time & they do not believe that today. Republicans have always believed in individual liberty...that is what “Conservatives” are conserving! You cannot say the same for the Democratic Party that still believes everyone should be judged or grouped by skin color. Prove me wrong!
@@factpolice1865 The kkk was founded by former Confederates who were Democrats at the time because that was conservative racist and pro states rights party at the time. Now racists and the south support the Republican party because the Republican party adopted pro states rights and conservative policies to appeal to southern whites and racists while at the same time the Democratic party adopted progressive policies.
They never switched, its a lie. @@cannontaylor97
They didn't switch sides
The 420 Garage They did switch, this video explains it pretty well.
so if the KKK decide to not be racist anymore should people forget their past? there was no switch in parties, only switch in strategy. they switch from oppressing black folks to buying black votes
Will Higgins nope, they never switched sides. Democrats have been and always will be the party of the KKK as its clear till this day. Will Quigg Grand dragon of the Cali KKK is a Democrat. Voted for Hillary and donated $20k to her campaign.
Robert Byrd, Ex grand dragon of the kkk was a Democrat when he was a Klan member and continued to be a Democrat till the day he died. Robert Byrd...Hillary's so-called mentor.
You been lied to Will, the party's never switched sides.
Pon Pon Well the KKK is less innocuous then the term ‘Democrat’ in America.
One branch of a by gone incarnation of a group like a major American political party is next to meaningless.
The 420 Garage Quigg was the one lying. www.snopes.com/kkk-endorses-hillary-clinton/
And Byrd famously denounced the Klan.
Strom Thurman was well known as a anti-civil-right advocate and his switched parties in the sixties and stayed in office until the 2000.
Coming from the perspective of an independent, I think there at least five important factors that often get overlooked in this discussion...
1) The Democratic Party from the start in its form as the “Democratic Republicans” housed both the nation’s left-wing faction, the Jeffersonians indisputably were at the Founding as evidenced by things including their support for the French Revolution as well as then being to push for non-landowners to get the vote, and one representing Conservative Southern planter elites that came to be known as the “Tertium Quids” in a tenuous alliance forged out of their shared fear of the Federalists creating an unrestrained tyrannical National government. It’s a dividing line that would continue and be highlighted in their various breaks throughout their history. Including their figurehead of his time John Randolph of Roanoke parting ways with Thomas Jefferson while serving as his Speaker of the House, the Cotton Whigs going against Andrew Jackson after the Nullification Crisis of 1832, the Southern Democratic Party against Stephen Douglas before the election of 1860 and the States’ Rights Democratic Party against Harry S. Truman before the election of 1948. The Whig Party, which housed the main northern and southern conservative factions, being the most important piece of precedence for the Republican Party today. And there wasn’t a complete switch out for the party as much as some constituencies moved around. It’s also interesting to note that in terms of major public figures even around the Second World War Hollywood leftists like Henry Fonda, Richard Widmark, Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall were still Democrats while the big Hollywood conservatives like John Wayne, Frank Capra, Gary Cooper and Barbara Stanwyck were already Republicans.
2) When you look at the states that made a hard flip towards the Democrats on state electoral maps, according to district maps the areas outside the city centers even in non-Southern states still largely vote Republican as they always had done historically and that’s just the case in every region of the country. What’s not often considered is just how much those expanded. For instance, California went from 5 electoral votes at the turn of the 20th Century to 33 today, largely due to the metropolitan sections. Areas that the northern Democrats from before the Civil War strived to gain ground in. Being much more familiar to the party today in attempting to appeal to laborers and immigrants. And managed to start gaining substantial influence over New York City and Boston due to their disproportionately high Irish immigrant populations. Enough so that a large number of Whigs claimed that the victory of James Polk’s election was due to the influx of “Irish Catholic Hordes”. The Republicans subsequently had to work really hard to try and win them over.
3) Views in the purposes and expression of federal power have shifted over time. During the First Two Party Systems and the earlier part of the third government action like tariffs and infrastructure projects were more often viewed by economic populists as something that benefited business owners more than it did the common people. And those business owners both large and small supported the Federalists, Conscience Whigs and Lincolnian Republicans because they saw their policies as things that could broaden the horizons of their business opportunities. It’s not a coincidence that the “Gilded Age” followed a period of largely uninterrupted control of the national government by Republicans after the Civil War while the populists that first emerged to criticize it came out of the Democratic Party. Historically, their rivals wanted to block their expansion into common American communities and put them under the heel of corporations that would create more complex social hierarchies. Feeling that it was easier to maintain relative equality in a world of yeoman farmers largely held to a particular plot of land than one filled with corporations that could transcend state if not national lines. There is a direct correlation between the country becoming more industrialized and the Democrats embracing federal power as a means to curb corporate power in contrast to the efforts of the Republicans and their forebears to facilitate economic growth. Their use of federal power conversely started waning as the country became more fully industrialized. Theodore Roosevelt is the figure that kind of confuses the issue, but he at least maintained that his in his words “Progressive Conservative” program of moderate reform was meant to keep true radicals like William Jennings Bryan, Eugene V. Debs or even Woodrow Wilson from taking power and throwing things out of balance. He targeted malfeasant behavior on their part more than railing about economic inequality like modern Democrats. Regardless he wound up splitting with the Republican Party, not permanently mind you, because he felt they were too rigid in their conservatism. The best comparisons to make would probably be with Britain’s Benjamin Disraeli and Germany’s Otto von Bismarck who used government programs as a means to maintain societal stability and curb the sway of the rising socialist movements.
4) Regardless of what anybody thinks of them, it was the lineage of the Democrats that really pushed America’s political landscape left-ward in ways we often just take for granted now. Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson fought to democratize the system, ironically it went so far that they were also early opponents of the electoral college, while Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt were the chief architects of the administrative state we have today. In that light I think they were inevitably going to be the party that would come to court Socialism. Heck the first avowed socialist to run for president, Debs, started his political career as a Democrat. Often times Republicans who get tagged as Progressives by the modern Left, they did socially liberal things in the classic sense which promoted equality of opportunity and before the law more than they transformed the system at large. Or at most, they made compromises that were still lesser to what their rivals advocated. Lincoln is often tagged as a big government proto-Progressive, but that downplays the context of his entire tenure being during a Civil War in which the fate of the entire country was in the line, meaning he had to assume his duly appointed role as commander-in-chief. Not to mention his rival Jefferson Davis did all the same things in the aim of winning, and taking even more draconian control over the South’s economy, and it got so bad that his Vice President Alexander Stephens walked away to join the opposition for fear he was becoming a despot. Yet you won’t see many people calling him a Progressive nowadays. As best argued for in his often ignored in his Cooper Union Address, though his 1864 response to the New Work Democratic Republican Workingman’s Association also provides great insight, Lincoln in no uncertain terms identified himself as a conservative. Similarly Dwight Eisenhower called himself a “Dynamic Conservative” and used that role to put down violent opposition to the “Brown v Board of Education” ruling but was not in favor of the government intruding into the private sphere. He decided to work within the framework of the New Deal, telling his brother in a letter it would have been political suicide not to, but didn’t try to expand it and managed to make a number of pro-business concessions along the way. Even Theodore Roosevelt, who did do more to transform the government than the other two, was doing so to a less radical degree than his biggest rivals among the Democrats, Populists and Socialists were arguing for. Which, as said before, was in part a means to keep them from being able to get to power and go too far. It might be argued that he was further left than most of today’s Republicans, but he wasn’t the politician furthest to the left in his time. One of those further being his partisan rival Wilson himself who, among other things, was indiscriminate rather than restrained in his use of Antitrust legislation because he saw them as intrinsically holding back common Americans from being able to succeed, advocated self-determination rather than imperialism in his foreign policy and saw the state as having a pro-active role in leading the nation through a transformation to an idealized end rather than taking on particular issues that were causing unrest in the present.
5) Kind of bringing all these ideas together is the acknowledgment that throughout America’s history the electoral college has essentially necessitated that whichever party the Southern majority is aligned with has to kind of give them special treatment to keep them as a voting block and as such have often owned the discussion in a way. It was the case for the Democrats for a long time, and they even tried to maintain it in in recent times by putting up less ostentatiously Southerners like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. They seem to have given up on it when George W. Bush handily won the South in 2000. It effects things on the national level greatly but in the state level you do have guys like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mitt Romney as governors passing some moderate progressive policy ala TR where appealing to the South obviously isn’t a problem.
I’m not going to say that there’s nothing to the argument, but it’s far more complex than saying the teams straight up switched jerseys and therefore they should be viewed as being exactly analogous to the parties as they were in the previous centuries.
Here is a pertinent sixth point I’ve thought of that I believe is worth adding because I do think it’s relevant to the overarching debate:
6) As an addition to the economics point the idea that advocating for lower taxes or limited government is inherently some kind of racist dog whistle is fallacious. Firstly, by that logic Pro minimum wage and abortion legislation is inherently racist as well. Seeing as there were fairly early proponents of the former who saw an added benefit that it would disincentive employers from hiring non-white workers while abortion has a history of often being tied in with eugenics projects including the likes of Planned Parenthood back to the now sainted Margaret Sanger. But again, that’s not to say that people advocating for them now are racists. But each idea needed to be given it’s fair shake in a discussion without being dismissed by simply applying sinister motive to it. I’d like to point out that the early Republicans to make it a point to roll back government like Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge, long before the party switch is took place, had a better track record on speaking out for Civil Rights than their contemporary Progressive Democrat counterparts like Wilson and FDR. For a point of comparison Harding on October 26, 1921 went into the lion’s den of Birmingham, Alabama where he delivered a speech decrying racism and argued that everybody should be treated equally under the law. Wilson on the other hand upon getting into office re-segregated the federal government. Which again, should highlight the fact that racism is inherently applicable to any particular position on the scope or role of government.
John Weber so did they switch
@Send Pubes Depends on who you’re referring to and what about them you’re saying switched. I don’t agree with an idea that there was a hard all encompassing switch. The Republicans historically have been the business friendly party to promote character building while the Democrats historically have been the party to claim to speak for the common man and lead the charge against economic elites. I can go into more detail about that if you want. I will say that certain historical voting blocks certainly shifted and that a constituency strongly influenced by an often dissident faction within the party. The question remains whether there are really all that many heirs to the Tertium Quid tradition I mentioned in my post and how influential they are.
John Weber what about a switch in terms of their stance on racism and approach (or lack there of) to civil rights? Looking at the Democratic and Republican parties....it seems like the Republican Party that exists today is not the party of Lincoln.
@@tinbitberhanu8125 well evidently not because both parties shift ideology in certain viewpoints on certain arguments over the course of hundreds of years, to say that any one party stays completely the same would be utterly naive the Republican party today is less involved in social problems and more so in economics because well strong nations require strong economies but Republicans have always had a relatively stable viewpoint on economics
There is an instinct to trace political evolution backward from now rather than to start at the beginning. That’s how notions like Conservatism being innately about small government and Liberalism a big one arise. The associations were reversed in fact at the Founding. The Hamiltonian Federalists represented a kind of Classical Conservatism which saw a strong national government as essential to preserving order. The Jeffersonian Republicans espoused a rigorous Classical Liberalism which perceived it to be an oppressive tool of the elite. As liberal teachings had informed the American Revolution, both camps were influenced by them. They reached consensus on recognizing natural rights, constraining government power, abandoning hereditary titles of nobility as well as the separation of church and state.
The Hamiltonians, however, maintained conservative attitudes on central banking, protectionism, restricting immigration and property requirements for the vote. The Jeffersonians championed the liberal ideals of laissez-faire, free trade, open immigration and extending political suffrage to the common man. A nationalist versus internationalist divide emerged which shaped a lot of their disagreements. Perhaps the fiercest ensued when looming conflict around England and France aggravated tensions. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the federal over state position was used for conservative purposes when Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition Acts. Efforts to thwart radicalism that involved putting foreigners under scrutiny. And the anti-federalist stance, albeit complicated by later battles, was applied for liberal ends when Republicans retaliated with the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. Decrying them as violations of civil liberties, they asserted that the states could declare federal laws that they deemed unconstitutional void. A big deal in an age of centralized empires.
Though the sectional question of slavery shook up the political landscape in a variety of ways, those concepts carried on in essence as the guiding orthodoxies for the modern Republican and Democratic leaderships. But the distinction has been obscured in memory. Take two icons for limited government types who embodied the competing intellectual traditions. Hamiltonianism in the Republican Calvin Coolidge and Jeffersonianism in the Democrat Grover Cleveland. Cleveland vetoed an immigration bill which featured a literacy test as a barrier in 1897 while Coolidge signed into law such a proposal in 1924. Cleveland ran on reducing tariffs while Coolidge kept tariff rates high. Cleveland opposed national banks while Coolidge let the Federal Reserve be. Cleveland set in motion the landmark antitrust lawsuit known as the Sugar Trust Case while Coolidge ended a string of administrations that had launched many of them.
Cleveland put into place the Interstate Commerce Commission to protect consumers by overseeing trade while Coolidge appointed to it and the subsequent Federal Trade Commission hands-off commissioners to facilitate economic growth. It is their shared commitment to individualism, low taxes, sound money, balanced budgets and fiscal restraint that attracts the overlapping fans. Increasing demand for government intervention ignited during the Progressive Era blurred the line between the old-fashioned conservatives and liberals weary of it. Their ideas, regardless of the historical rivalry, now tend to get lumped together in the conservative category and pit against Progressivism. It also treated as one thing, usually under the name Liberalism, despite the initial disharmony there as well.
The Republican Theodore Roosevelt and Democrat Woodrow Wilson were the first progressive presidents from their parties. Though it was their successors who coined the terms Progressive Conservatism and Progressive Liberalism for their ideologies, each described himself with the pair of labels. Both differed from their classical counterparts with respect to the scope of government, but there are parallels in how they contrasted each other. Comparing Roosevelt and Wilson helps in differentiating between them. Roosevelt akin to Coolidge signed off on measures to curb immigration which included a literacy test in 1903 while Wilson like Cleveland before him rejected legislation of that sort in 1917. As expressed in his 1902 State of the Union Address, Roosevelt advocated protectionism. Wilson, on the other hand, favored free trade. A goal propounded in his Fourteen Points.
Both pursued economic regulation. But though dubbed the Trustbuster, Roosevelt was not hostile to monopolies on principle. Approving of what he called good trusts like U.S. Steel. Wilson pushed for the Clayton Antitrust Act in a bid to level the playing field by breaking them all up. The argument between nationalism and internationalism gained a new dimension with their foreign policy opinions. TR believed in the superiority of Anglo-Saxon societies and, as affirmed by his Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, their duty to police the world. Conversely, Wilson claimed that no nation was fit to sit in judgement of another. His ultimate aim was global governance through the League of Nations. Much like Classical Liberalism, Progressive Conservatism is largely overlooked in these discussions. Observing them can illuminate trends which go back to the First Party System.
Conditions created by the Second Industrial Revolution prompted the re-examination of accepted conservative and liberal precepts. Elements of both parties became convinced that government action was needed to remedy escalating unrest. Especially after the rise of the Populist Movement which fought for agrarian and industrial labor interests. The Populists coalesced into the People’s Party until rallying to the Democrat William Jennings Bryan to defy the rich and aid the poor. Republicans such as Roosevelt concluded that reform was necessary to prevent the country from descending into chaos. The key difference was that Bryan’s party selected him as its presidential candidate three times while Roosevelt’s gave him the vice presidency because it was thought that he couldn’t rock the boat there. Only taking office by chance after the assassination of William McKinley. And a greater number of delegates lent their support to the moderate William Howard Taft instead when he attempted to go for a third term.
Admirers of Cleveland left to form the National Democratic Party when Bryan came out on top in 1896. Likewise, Roosevelt and his followers walked out to organize the original Progressive Party after Taft received the nomination in 1912. Each split benefited the other major party and they quickly declined. Internal debates persisted, but precedents were set. Though Bryan never won, Wilson acted on several of his causes. And Franklin Roosevelt actually endorsed Wilson, not Teddy, in 1912. He built on his prototypical administrative state with the New Deal. An agenda of then unmatched government activism. In keeping with Warren G. Harding and Coolidge’s Post-Wilson Return to Normalcy, Republicans led by Robert Taft worked at rolling it back. The election of Dwight Eisenhower marked a truce. His philosophy of Dynamic Conservatism made peace with the New Deal zeitgeist, but he sought to rein in any excesses.
The further turns within the Democratic and Republican parties are clear-cut. The New Left and New Right adopted by George McGovern and Ronald Reagan both challenged the popular assumptions of their day. Focusing on social issues and government control. The Third Way and Compassionate Conservatism advanced by Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both moved toward the center. Reflecting upon the free market and social justice. Each establishment now confronts a populist wave. Democratic Socialism and National Conservatism are embraced by those that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have emboldened. Fed up with the ruling class, both aspire to tilt the balance of power.
Granted, each from early on housed factions that spanned the political spectrum. Of note are those epitomized by the Democrat John C. Calhoun and Republican Horace Greeley. Calhoun defended the status quo for Southern planters while Greeley promoted Utopian Socialism. The two served as prominent party figures up until they, alongside other dissidents, were faced with critical disputes which drove them apart. Calhoun set up the Nullifier Party after a bitter falling-out with Andrew Jackson due to him standing by the federal government in a mounting crisis with South Carolina over the Tariff of 1828. Greeley ran as the Liberal Republican Party nominee against Ulysses S. Grant in the election of 1872 in protest of scandals in his administration tied to big business. But not even allying with their partisan adversaries, the Nullifiers with the Whigs and the Liberal Republicans with the Democrats, was enough to defeat Jackson or Grant. Most of their members soon dispersed among them both.
Friction lingered between right-leaning Republican and left-leaning Democratic national parties and the left-wing Republicans and right-wing Democrats holding considerable sway at the state level with whom they compromised. The La Follette Wisconsin Republican and Talmadge Georgia Democratic machines were examples which came to blows with the Coolidge Campaign and FDR Administration. More infrastructure development coupled with gradual modernization led to the regions converging economically and culturally. That resulted in Republicans and Democrats amassing vast majorities of conservatives and liberals. Broadly speaking, along small town and big city lines. Both have indeed changed with time, quibbled over details and contained shifting coalitions. But their values remain fundamentally rooted in Hamiltonian pro-business conservative nationalism and Jeffersonian anti-elitist liberal internationalism.
Demoncraps have always been and will always be racist scumbags don't let this asshole fill your heads with bullshit look for yourselves parties never switched only a cock sucker lije this racist fuck will go along with it look ruclips.net/video/EplolSj01d8/видео.html
I just noticed that there's a response to my comment here that I can't read for some reason. Lol
No matter how much you try to explain it off, a switch never happened!
@@coe8159 the parties never flipped - check the voting records and not just hearsays - the Democrats were still in control of the south until the 1990s
Vikash Prakash the Republican Party was traditionally a very liberal party and was popular among black voters, in the early to mid 1900s my family was republican but switched when the party stopped being liberal and the democrats gained support among black voters while they lost the support of older white voters. The democrats held the south until the 1990s as the switch was happening. If the Republican Party was at all like it was in the 1860s I would be 150% on their side but I’m not as the modern day Democratic Party is more like that then republicans.
Vikash Prakash democrats didn’t like the beliefs anymore so they switched to republican and republicans switched to the democratic party bc they didn’t believe in the republican belief anymore
You’re right, there was never a switch. It’s mostly referred to as political realignment. :)
@@cookie1266 more fancy words
There was no bloodletting ceremony. The Big Switch is a lie. Thanks for playing.
If the parties in the US supposedly didn't switch, why did the south and north switch from Democratic to Republican?
@@CulturalMarxist4985 The parties didn't switch. The people did, though. So "unofficially", they did switch.
(Part 1)
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats
Southern Democrats are members of the U.S. Democratic Party who reside in the Southern United States.
In the 19th century, Southern Democrats were people in the South who believed in Jacksonian democracy. In the 19th century, they defended slavery in the United States, and promoted its expansion into the West against northern Free Soil opposition. The United States presidential election of 1860 formalized the split in the Democratic Party and brought about the American Civil War. Stephen Douglas was the candidate for the Northern Democratic Party, and John C. Breckinridge represented the Southern Democratic Party. Abraham Lincoln, who opposed slavery, was the Republican Party candidate.[1] After Reconstruction ended in the late 1870s so-called redeemers controlled all the Southern states and disenfranchised blacks. The "Solid South" gave nearly all its electoral votes to the Democrats in presidential elections. Republicans seldom were elected to office outside some Appalachian mountain districts and a few heavily German-American counties of Texas.
(Part 2)
The monopoly that the Democratic Party held over most of the South first showed major signs of breaking apart in 1948, when many white Southern Democrats, upset by the policies of desegregation enacted during the administration of Democratic President Harry Truman, created the States Rights Democratic Party. This new party, commonly referred to as the "Dixiecrats", nominated South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond for President. The Dixiecrats won most of the deep South, where Truman was not on the ballot. The new party collapsed after the election, while Thurmond became a Republican in the 1960s.
(Part 3)
President Lyndon B. Johnson, although a southern Democrat himself, signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965. This led to heavy opposition from both Southern Democrats and Southern Republicans. Subsequent to the passage of civil rights legislation, many white southerners switched to the Republican Party at the national level. Many scholars have said that Southern whites shifted to the Republican Party due to racial conservatism.[2][3][4] Many continued to vote for Democrats at the state and local levels, especially before the Republican Revolution of 1994.
There was not a party switch, but a location switch.
Yes, the most racist people are in the GOP and their constituents.
Then explain why southern conservatives wave the confederate flag when the confederacy was led by the Democratic Party not the Republican Party
@@Mikerich_94 Exactly, these people are beyound retarded. No wonder the republican leaders want less education about america's history in school. These so called modern republicans are really mainly the dixiecrats from the south. Aka the ones that opposed abolition of slavery and opposed the civil rights and the equality of black people. Hell, they even do it still. Look at the comments. Yet the most foolish believe that they are the party of lincoln.
@@Mikerich_94 There was a migration of southern democrats to the North and west due to economic collapse of the southern economy.
Republicans from the north started to migrate south in search of opportunity for business investment and development. It is well documented
@@alvnphmn There is no evidence for this what so ever. Furthermore, are you also suggesting that republicans in the north moved to the south because they wanted to take part in that southern economy that collapsed?
They switched when Goldwater opposed the landmark civil rights act of 1964 which converted the south to the Republican Party. Alabama Mississippi South Carolina and Georgia had never voted republican in history until that election. LBJ and the democrats pissed them off
If that's true, then how did Nixon lose the South? Also how did racist Democrat Alabama Gov George Wallace win? He was the one who said, "Segregation now, segregation for ever". This was when he refused to let blacks enter a college campus. The military was deployed to escort blacks into campus.
@@monkeystank5241 either address the point or don’t waste my time. Goldwater the gop candidate of 1964 opposed civil rights and was the first republican since the civil war to win the Deep South because of his racial rhetoric in his campaign.
@@dongf5628 you didn't address my points. The parties never switched, but the demographics did. There were lots of people moved into the South from the North, and vis-versa after the economy recovered in 1947 after the Great Depression. It was demographics that changed not parties. I know all this history because I lived through it.
The pc argument the parties switch is propaganda so modern Democrats can't be blamed for slavery. It's a lie! Besides, you can still see some Jim Crow in major inner cities run by Democrats, such as oppression and lack of education for the purpose of controlling the black vote.
Again, if the parties switched in '64, how did racist Democrat Alabama Gov George Wallace win 1963 through 1982, and Republican Nixon lose in '68 in the South if it was Republican?
Goldwater was not a racist, though he opposed the Civil Rights Act, integration by SCOTUS, and the Christian Right, but was anti-Communist and supported gay rights and the Vietnam War. Goldwater won only 5 Southern states, but in all gained only 52 electoral votes in total to LBJ's 482.
Democrat Jimmy Carter won president in '76, carrying all Southern States except Virginia. Isn't that odd if the South was all Republican? Southern States all had Democrat controlled Legislators and Governors throughout the 60s.
Why do you suppose the Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act of '64 for 75 days?
@@monkeystank5241 good you admitted I was right. He did the southern strategy and won only southern states which was my point. George Wallace was one dude and carter was the only democrat to do well there since 64. Proving my point
@@dongf5628 only 5 of all the Southern states is correct, but the parties didn't switch. If you research the elections, the South still voted for Democrat Governors and State Representatives.
Those 5 Southern States voted for Goldwater only because they opposed the Civil Rights Act LBJ was willing to support.
The Democratic Party was in favor of small government way back in history. KKK stands for Ku Klux Klan were Democrats, so does White Supremacy support for the Democrats. Republican Party were in favor of big government at the time during the Lincoln era. Since FDR took office in 1933 the Democratic Party went for big government, social programs, raising taxes, social justice, equality, gay marriage including same sex marriage, open borders for illegal immigrants, free healthcare, universal basic income, universal healthcare, abortion, oppose death penalty, support gun control, legalize marijuana, and more crime. Republican Party supports less government, religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, oppose same sex marriage including gay marriage, lower taxes, cut regulations, capitalism, conservatives, anti-drugs including marijuana, support the death penalty, oppose illegal immigration, supports the constitution, anti-Muslim/Islam, against diversity, more jobs for the American citizens not foreigners, and more etc. Now the White Supremacy, KKK stands for Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazi, White Nationalists, Neo-Confederate, and more are the Republican Party today. I’m a Republican right now and I’m not switching to another political party at all for a long time maybe a Libertarian Party or Nazi Party in the future not a Democrat.
@jonathannightfire8768
This is horrible "history". The southern democrats opposed any federal expansion that would threaten slavery or give the industrial north any advantage whatsoever. They opposed the creation of many western states because they could not guarantee that the new states senators would vote with the abolitionist north. They were never for "smaller government" as a virtue itself, but were fighting a rearguard action against abolition.
+++ The true choice is legitimate (representative) government vs illegitimate "privatized" government (oligarchy, feudalism, work camps, etc)
Love the group this is from. Politics on a science group. The only way science becomes untrue --- insert politics into it.
Then it becomes pseudoscience.
@@Oandad
That's when Freud puts his &*@# in it actually
Are you aware of the branch of study known as political science?
yes. it's not science. It's false just like the premise of this video.
1800 democrats fear the blacks - slavery
1900 democrats fear the mix - segregation
2000 democrats fear the whites - progressivism
it's the same message, the same fear, the same party. Juist cause democrats have tried to rewrite history. They still haven't changed. No switch. They still do this:
Don't listen to the person's message, judge them based on their appearance. You know...... the opposite of MLK.
@@dmtudder The history of politics is not, in itself, political. Fearing history because it doesn't agree with your views is, however, very political.
Stop saying flip like the DEMs are the true Republicans
If they didn’t switch tell me why it’s the Republicans the same party who voted for Abraham Lincoln are flying the Confederate flag.
@@Phantom_275 The party didn't switch because Republicans just got support in south in 1990s and the party right now does not like the flag but knows it history and should be kept and on display in certain areas to teach the future about what happened in America it dark period in time.
They understand it should not be in the government is which is why Mark Esper has ban the flag and getting ready to rename bases in the military
Which he is Republican.
Plus it the people choice to fly what flag as they want not the party.
@@juancarlosdelgado2238 If the parties in the US supposedly didn't switch, why did the south and north switch from Democratic to Republican?
Earnest Scribbler thank you
@@CulturalMarxist4985 the people switched, not the parties. just because people in the north now vote blue, doesn't take away from the fact that it's the same democrat party that founded the KKK and started a civil war to KEEP slaves...
If you are talking about switching ideals, it's a big NO. The Democratic party from the past centuries don't want blacks to vote but now, they want blacks to only vote their party; abortion for black babies known as eugenics but now promotes abortion for everyone; don't want blacks to own guns but now don't want all to own gun. There's no switch from the ideals of Dems. And if you want to talk about black voting Dems after 1964, you will notice that the south already voting heavy for Republicans since 1930's but you still have civil rights ammendment of 1960s by about 96% Reps and 70% Dems.
Uh, northern and southern dems voted for the civil rights bill much more than northern and southern republicans, alongside that the bill was written by the dems. Also, the ideologies absolutely switched, because republicans used to be a leftist party that welcomed in socialists and communists.
Let’s look at one example, the southern strategy. This is not the only factor in the party realignment, but it was a pretty damn big one. Now, first first thing to realize - Nixon was very much not what we would call a republican today. He voted for the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and Desegregation, multiple acts written and proposed by dems that, sectionally shown, voted for them in higher amounts. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party_and_region However, more important than that, he was in favor of things like Affirmative Action (and instituted the frist version of it in the US) He also created one of the largest environmental pushes. However, this doesn't actually prove that the man was a progressive right winger, quite the opposite. For one, most of these were left wing policies. Alongside what you mentioned, he was also a public fan of Keynesian economics, he created regulatory bodies to watch over things like steel manufacturing, he devised of the "Nixon Shocks," more major public expenditures with huge budgets, basically banned the use of direct gold to cash transfer, froze prices and wages for a period and created more regulatory bodies to do that, supported abortion rights, supported the federalization of healthcare for the poor and creating HMOs with a graduated price based on income, as well as just increasing the scope and budget of the government immensely. So, I have to ask, what about him was right-wing? Perhaps his part in warfare, but at the same time, that's a bit of a stretch. The man seemed nothing like your modern republicans, and theres a reason for that. Now, I would recommend looking at his inauguration speeches and platforms, which i'll link below. You'll notice that the first (1960) link talks about civil rights extensively, and makes it a key point of the platform. The second (1964) mentions it much less, and the third republican party platform of 1968 did not mention civil rights at all. So as the Southern Strategy was implemented and progressed, that previous key part of republican policies that was their civil rights advocacy completely faded away. You can see it in previous platforms, civil rights was front and center... until the Southern Strategy, the push to accept racist white southerners into the party. At the same time, the northern dems were outvoting both the northern republicans on most issues (mostly the civil rights bill, which was proposed by a democrat) and the southern dems, though voting for the Civil Rights bill in very low numbers, still outvoted the republicans, who didn’t vote for it at all. That was how Nixon’s plan worked - the party of civil rights as a title had just transferred over, as they both took advantage of each other’s old voting base. Now, just to clarify - Nixon didn’t do this out of any firm ideological need. He did it because he was an old, paranoid racist, who really wanted to win an election. This was most likely more of a strategy adopted out of panic and paranoia as to his possible loss than a roundly rational political push. However, I suppose it worked, and the strategy continued for literally decades after he first implanted it in a quick bid of political panic. He won by playing both sides, appealing the racists who wanted someone to represent them alongside the civil rights advocates who trusted him after his previous work in the field. It didn't work in the long run for him, but it left a massive, profound impact on the blurring party dynamics that had shifted so far already. It was a bit like the straw that broke the camel's back. Now, that wasn't actually the only point at which major party switches happened. For example, there was a huge socialistic populist movement in the south a long while before the civil war, which slowly moved to the north, from the farmers to the factories. Figures like FDR helped nudge it along as well, by being associated with left wing economic polices, and having a wife that advocated for progressive social polices. But if none of that convinces you, just look at figures like Alexander Schimmelfennig, August Willich, Charles Dana, or Horace Greeley, incredibly influential people within the repulbican party and military… all outspoken socialists and communists. Hell, Greeley employed Marx for a while. Then you have people Giuseppe Garibaldi, leftist revolutionaries that Lincoln explicitly praised, and even invited to become generals in the union.That would be like if Reagan praised Castro and made him a honorary citizen. And I could go on and on, about the policies of the south and north, but I think this is enough for now. IF you’d like more, i’d be happy to go into more, about things like the RR and the LR and how they folded into the republican party, or how many of the dixiecrats physically left vs how many would open up their position to be taken by a republican, and on and on and on. I can talk about party switches since the point the parties first existed, or other parties existed in their place. But I’ll wait and see if that’s necessary and wanted before I dive off on another rant, because this was already a lot and it accomplished my point.
It's not as simple as just saying the parties switched.
Historically both parties had conservative and liberal wings. It's only in the modern era that the parties have fully sorted on ideology for the most part. But regardless, the switch to the extent it exists has to do with the relationship between the south and the Democratic party.
People point to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but the real point where the deterioration of that relationship started was 1936. That year, in an otherwise boring election where FDR crushed Landon and won all but two states, the Democrats made a major change to how the party functioned with lasting implications: with FDR's backing, they got rid of the rule that required the nominee and platform to have the support of 2/3 of the delegates instead of a simple majority (something many of them had wanted to do for a long time, especially after the 1924 convention took 103 ballots)
Besides making it easier to choose a candidate, this took away the south's ability to effectively veto anything the party wanted to do that they didn't like, a fact that began the divorce between the south and the rest of the party over the following decades (the south was more than a third of the party, but not a majority). In fact in 1948, a full 16 years before the Civil Rights Act, the south walked out of the DNC and ran their own candidate after the party put a strong civil rights plank in the platform with Truman's backing.
The split would continue worsening over the following decades, intensifying after 1964 (especially in Presidential elections) and finally reaching it's conclusion with the wipeout of the last few remaining southern blue dog ancestral Dem strongholds in 2014 (when Republicans among other things finally won control of Arkansas for the first time since Reconstruction). And as a side effect, with the influx of conservative southerners into the Republican party, the conservative wing there came to dominate (previously the conservative and non-conservative wings had been roughly equally strong; Nixon's ability to bridge the two is part of why he ended up on all but one Republican ticket from 1952 through 1972). And because of that, some parts of the liberal wing of the Republican party switched as well (or at least some people who in the past would have ended up as liberal Republicans ended up becoming Democrats instead).
So **tl;dr** the switch was the conservative south losing its ability to control the Democratic party through minority rule and gradually drifting away from it (with several inflection points along the way) and realigning with the more ideologically friendly conservative wing of the Republican party, a move that allowed non-conservatives in the Democratic party to gain greater influence and diminished the influence of non-conservatives in the Republican party.
Conservative and Liberal had completely different meanings prior to the 1960's. Every patriotic American considered themselves Liberal. It just meant they favored liberty. Conservative referred to temperament and had nothing to do with their stance on issues. Conservative just meant they weren't radical. Lincoln was Conservative.
Liberal didn't become a political philosophy until the 1960's, which referred to being anti establishment and leftwing. Conservative wasn't a political philosophy until the 1970's meaning traditionalist or strict constructionist.
Best explanation.
Well, it appears that the level of discourse around this subject has remained about the same since last I checked which is kind of a shame. Lol
There was no switch!! As racism went down in the south and as the racist democrats died off the Republican Party grew in the south. Democrat children in the south, not racist like their parents. Democrats had a democrat governor for EVERY confederate state almost exclusively from the civil war to the late 1980’s after Ronald Reagan.
WHAT THE HELL
THE PARTIES ARE STILL THE SAME DAM THING
Then why did the north and south switch parties?
@@CulturalMarxist4985 They didn't, it's now unban vs rural, instead of north vs south. Democrats can win southern states and Republicans can win northern one's too.
@@elijahsabo3846 Still, the Republican Party in the US now has vastly more support from the south, in which conservative and white supremacist organisations have consistently been far more popular than in the north throughout history, and the KKK fanatically fawns over the Republican Party. To my knowledge, it also now tends to be Republicans who brandish Confederate flags and protest against the removal of Confederate statues. I mean, the bunker boy vocally opposed the movement to rename Confederate-themed military bases:
ruclips.net/video/xhP7V1An3SY/видео.html.
Now are you still gonna deny that the parties switched? LOL.
it’s the same people lol you can track it through history. lol. notice how they have no real proof or evidence showing this they just say it and use hyperbole?
Or a third option, they've neither switched nor stayed the same.
I personally don’t think this makes very much sense. From all the reading I’ve done it appears more that the Democratic Party and Republican party just had different objectives for the times. Why is it shocking that Republicans who pushed for a larger government to solve issues didn’t want the government to grow to large.
This is fantasy history.
prove it, come on. if the parties never switched, you must support socialists because the old republicans did too, right?
Aidan B They didn't. Where the hell did you get that from?
Yeah, right and Republicans love representing the Dixiecrat flag in the south because they loved those old school Democrats... you're full of shit
@@johnweber4577 that’s quite a speech there, no doubt plagiarized from somebody else. Not impressed.
@@randallmartin2549 Firstly, it's most certainly my own writing. Secondly if you did read it you should know that I'm not actually disagreeing with you. I elaborated on why the concept of a party switch is at best oversimplified and at worst an opportunistic misrepresentation.
I see that we had the flat earthers make plenty of comments.
I'd go with flat earth over "the great flip" lol.
@the magic chanch shell All 'evidence' manufactured by the NASA.
The only switch I am aware of is when the Communists bought out the democrat party, when they were going under.
How could the parties have switched if the Democratic Party today is still about race and identity politics just like they were during slavery and Jim Crow?
Because they never did. This is democrat propaganda because they hide to admit their party wasn’t the party that freed the slaves. All this is, is a bunch of propaganda from the left.
The gop are racist now
@jaranarm
so there was no party switch what happened was they readjusted views
About absolute power
Think about it as these labels: progressive and conservative. Do you really think in the time of lawful slavery the North was conservativeand the South was progressive? The parties did flip their ideology. If this is too much for your brains to handle I don't know what to say. This is probably an eighth grade 1/2 hour lesson.
👏
There is zero historical evidence for the parties switch. Black voters had ready largely voted democrat since the 1930s and many white dominated southern states had voted republican multiple elections before the civil rights act of 1964. So, if this is really so simple, please give historical evidence
Fine go line by line on their platforms and show me how they switched. They haven't. Republicans have always been constitutionalists. And they still are today. They are opposed to race based laws of today. And they were during slavery. The only way a moron like you can argue otherwise is to do it in generalities and throw out broad terms like "ideology" without actually going into any specifics.
I read there was some of a switch down south in the 1930's, it had nothing to do with civil rights, or anything like that regarding race. It actually had to do with economics at the time. There actually is no legitimate full blown proof of a full blown switch. But, yes the fringe groups of the right are religious and racist. The country was built on judeo Christian principles. I think there were equally racist folks in both parties during that whole era. But, orginally Republicans did propose civil rights bill in 1960, all Democrats opposed it. Republicans I think lost their identity and became warped by big money, they were the party of freedom- they should of been the ones proposing gay marriage. Republicans are going to go through a revolution very soon, you will see they are going to become the "new libertarian progressives" they once were. I think we are going go see a major change for the better in the Republican party in the upcoming years. Also, Barry Goldwater thought civil rights should be handled by state Gov't, not the federal government. Actually Goldwater in later years supported Gays in the military, this was 1980's ( that was an extremely progressive stance for Goldwater to have at that time) You can look it up. When Goldwater said he preferred the state government pushing civil rights laws, the racists flocked to the party. I don't think Goldwater was as racist as people assume, he was more libertarian and small government. Also the north did not have segregation laws in the 1960's, that was actually more so down south. I say it all to say- the Democrats have a racist history, and repubs have a messed up history too. But, it matters what platform you stand on today. Frankly in 2019- I think the democratic party is way more obsessed with race then Republicans are, that does say something.
Kevin Kamin / your elementary knowledge of history is very obvious! In the real world you have to use facts to back up your opinion...you did not lightweight.
Democrats have always judged people by the color of their skin...in the 1800’s they judged Americans by skin color through slavery of those with black skin - FACT. In the 1900’s they judged Americans by skin color by passing & implementing Jim Crow Laws against those with black skin. In the 2000’s they see Americans by skin color first so they can group races.
Republicans judge you by the content of your character in the 1800’s, 1900’s & 2000’s.
You are a few French fries short of a happy meal😂
i am so proud of the people in the comments. it's like watching "Inside Edition";
- when they blamed PewDiePie
--- soon after they disabled the comment area
- highlight the cruise ship leaving couple/family behind
--- has not disabled yet but soon it will
mate, the switch happened.
Lincoln was for allowing states and territories the right to determine the issue of slavery (10th amendment). This is how all the northern states ended slavery. The Dems wanted to dictate from the federal level. This states rights issue for each party has not chenged.
I'm third party.
ok
Same! Independent here :)
@Marshall Kinnaird
What's wrong with Democratic Socialism?
@Marshall Kinnaird
Are you referring to taxes?
@Marshall Kinnaird
"Perfectly Fine"?! Yeah maybe for the Upper class. This was the guilded age. All the luxuries that they had, all productivity, the "prosperity" was built off of the backs of Slaves (until 1863), the Lower class, immigrants, etc. And these people didn't even get payed a basic living wage!! They worked like 70 hours per week earning less than to at least get a Friday Night chicken on the table!! The valueless money was covered in gold. The rich got richer and the poor got poorer. And in 2020 it's happening again.
Back on topic, our government collects our taxes to channel this money into creating oppurtunities for the American People and anyone wanting to come to find the American Dream. This should be the prime role of our government (in my opinion).
I'll take the like to dislike ratio as my fact-check.
honestly. this video couldn't be more incorrect, historically speaking.
The parties never switched.
Then how do you explain the fact that white supremacists used to be mostly Democrats, but TODAY IN 2022, they are overwhelmingly loyal Republicans? That would indicate change definitely occurred.
This is obviously not a factual channel given the fact that the idea that the parties flipped has long been debunked.
When you lose interest in being hateful, you leave the Democratic Party for the Republican Party.
Isn't saying that at this point stooping a little low?
Most ignorant shit I’ve ever read...if you can HONESTLY look at the Republican Party and come to that conclusion something is seriously wrong with you
TK 411 if you come to the conclusion that the Democrats are even good politicians and care about the people, then you’re just as dumb as the people who think Trump is for them
Samuel De La Rosa thanks to Trump my wallet got fatter
Ahriman 616 which is about the only he’s really done. This guy is more than likely a do nothing like Obama, and it’ll be the corporations and Israel who comes first like how it was with Obama and companies like Monsanto, and countries like the Middle East even tho he drone striked most of them illegally
it switched in terms of small vs big government...didn't switch in terms of race stuff
The fuck it didn’t. Which side is home to the majority of racists at this point?
@@hitthegoat both...
Hitthegoat Democrats, you know, the party that views black people as a minority and act like black people wouldn’t be able to live without them, and take advantage of them. while republicans mostly view them as normal members of society.
Of course both sides have there fair share of racists, the left definitely acts like they need help and make them seem like they can’t stand on there legs anymore.
@@hitthegoat Democrats
@@hitthegoat
look around you.. the Democrats are BY FAR the home of racists.. they just don't see themselves as racists.. they see it as "social justice" so it's "ok"..
also, Democrats have always been the party of big government..
Republicans have always been the party of a CONSERVATIVE government.. which means as small of a government as possible.. while still running the country..
The Republican Party has usually been about freedom. Freedom for African-Americans (Lincoln, Eisenhower), freedom from large, powerful corporations (Theodore Roosevelt, Taft), freedom from too powerful of a government (Reagan, Trump).
Correct, progressives have usually been about freedom, freedom from slavery, etc. It is conservatives who hated blacks having freedom and love slavery.
Lincoln wasn't a conservative, he was a progressive.
You're under this bizarre notion that conservatives have always voted republican. Nope.
Theodore Roosevelt was a Democrat.
Current Republican party isn't about your freedom, but power, control and money for Corporate America! Democratic party represents working class and poor, Republicans represent the rest! 😒
@@lindamcdonald6560 Franklin Roosevelt was a Democrat, Theodore Roosevelt was a Republican.
Lincoln was listed a Republican on my place mats of the listing Presidents.
Judging from all the thumbs down tags, I didnt even have to watch the entire video. But what I did watch was a load of horseshit lol.
The big lie!!! Lol
prove it, come on. if the parties never switched, you must support socialists because the old republicans did too, right?
There was no switch. This is revisionist history.
Derrick Pirkey Saying the didn’t switch is revisionist.
You denying the proof of the switch is revisionist history
Interesting that you think the confederate south was a bunch of left wingers in 1860. Who's rewriting history again?
It's not revisionist history. Ask a 80-year-old white southerner. The KKK endorses the Republican party.
Yep, the KKK used to endorse the DemoKKKrat party. Wherever the conservative culture goes, the KKK goes.
Well that's a funny way to look at it. Lol
IMHO They didn't "switch". They both have dirty players and some honest ones. I'm more for individual rights myself. I've voted for both parties.
Kochservatives have always opposed individual power (except their own Tyranny by Minority).
That’s called ending slavery
Even the verbiage used in the video shows a discontent for the Red side. They should at least try to present a balanced fictional story.
Except it's isnt fictional, u just don't like facts tho I agree it is biased but just look at the facts.
that's because the racist rich red are on the wrong side of history and the Left is currently on what will be the right side of history
prove it, come on. if the parties never switched, you must support socialists because the old republicans did too, right?
The parties never switched platforms that’s a myth
They switched platforms because they didn’t. Fake news. Moving on.
prove it
They didn't. The overt racism of slavery became the racism of dependence by the same party. A person trying to free slaves in 1858 trying to get poor blacks off of government dependence would be regarded as the enemy. Today, even the suggestion that democrat "help" might be perpetuating the problem is not even allowed to be discussed and m,et with accusations of the very things they themselves are doing. And I'm not talking about all Democrats. Lots of my good friends are democrats. They just aren't leftists. that's the difference a liberal and a leftists. You can disagree with liberals and still be close friends. With leftists, not so much. The Democrat party and the Republican party are both too inadequate for 80 million voters As the country grows, so will the two parties, and folks within the parties will have less and less in common. Each party now has several factions with different visions and goals. It is only going to be get worse unless we get rid of the stupid two party system.
Only four other countries have a two party system. Three are island nation of less than 3 million people each and the other is Zimbabwe with 15 million, with just over 80% of the population of the LA metro area. And then there is us, the third largest nation on the planet, 335 million people spread from Key West to Nome and Bangor to Honolulu that are all supposed to fit into and vote for the one-size-fits-all party of their prefered shade, red or blue. This in a country where you can get 20 kinds of mayonnaise and a hundred different makes and models of cars.
What a Joke!
prove it, come on. if the parties never switched, you must support socialists because the old republicans did too, right?
Wow. I can't believe all the grown-ass adults on here denying the party switch. It's mind boggling.
For those grown-ass adults, ask yourselves why the south is still predominantly conservative, if they were, and still are Democrats.
@Knowle Austin I know it's not the south that's Democratic. They once called themselves Democrats, which is why we're commenting on a video about the party switch.
@Knowle Austin Most of them were. You really need to read up on the southern strategy.
Pull up a county map of any national election... not a state map. Like 90% of the land mass is Republican.... north, south, east, and west.
Like the earlier comment... its only the big cities that vote Blue. And just for kicks.... compare that map to a poverty or crime heat map.
Crime and poverty seem to fall hand in hand with Democrat led cities.
Yeah everybody here has read about the Southern strategy... That's why they know it's not factual lol. The South Had an industrial boom which lead more people in the south to lean republican. It was mostly due to economic reasons on both sides. FDR's new deal those "social programs" bought A lot of black votes As well as poor whites. LBJ Who as a senator voted against every discrimination law, Only finally pushed civil rights act When running for presidential office, And is known for his more than questionable comments about buying negro votes. And there was only 1 or 2 democrats that officially switched and became Republicans And their ideals switched with them Which is why they became pro civil rights. The rest of democrats stayed democrats until they were out of office. Including Al Gore's father 😉.
- Don't tell people to read about something When you clearly haven't yourself. You likely just listen to somebody explain to you what the Southern strategy was, And like many left wingers Are incapable of thinking for yourself And go along with this LAZY propaganda.
@@jimmieboy0214 because democrat run cities are pretty much the only cities.
Now look at the poorest states
They never changed parties lol. You should watch Dinesh D’Souza.
Thats misinformation. Its about ideology not titles. The south has always been conservative and the north liberal. This is why America is so stupid you guys watch too much fox and prageru videos
@@OkItsJustSean Truth is misinformation when its inconvenient for you to look in the mirror.
@@justice4all343 Actually this narrative is pure propaganda. If you'd actually look at a map of the US election results for the past 100 years you'd see that the South and most conservative states were blue and democratic/liberal states were red until the mid 1900s right around the 60s. That's when the colors changed completely because thats when the public started voting completely different. SIMPLE GOOGLE SEARCH WILL SAVE A DEBATE. PLEASE DO IT.
prove it, come on. if the parties never switched, you must support socialists because the old republicans did too, right? Also, lol D'Souza. He was disproven muliple times.
Whatever one thinks of the party switch thesis, I myself have issues with it, Dinesh D'Souza to my mind is way too blinkered in his analysis by unbridled partisanship to be a great source on the topic.
This isn't entirely true. Modern Republicans and Democrats both believe in "big government", they just believe in big government in different things. Democrats believe in social programs, republicans believe in military power.
That’s largely been true but it’s kind of hard to say. After Trump, the Republican is in a weird limbo and identity crisis right now clinging on to the anti-woke rhetoric set by desantis.
As far anyone is concerned the Republican party is mainly the Trump party
It’s like saying bloods and crips switched sides foh 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
They did....the first bloods where crips but that's unrelated.....
1. Google: Presidental election results by state.
2. Note: The changes after 1964.
3. Your welcome. The video is right.
prove it, come on. if the parties never switched, you must support socialists because the old republicans did too, right?
For accuracy and clarity in USA political/governmental/historical discussions, it is often better to use terms like "liberal" and "conservative" rather than party labels such as "Democratic" or "Republican".
It was "conservatives" who were the slaver terrorists.
It was "conservatives" who wrote a "terrorist welfare benefit" into the constitution which encouraged slaver terrorism and rewarded the terrorists with excessive national governmental power. (a.k.a. - The Electoral College + the 3/5ths rule.)
It was "conservatives" who made a lame attempt at forming a separate country based solely on terrorism. The csa.
It was "conservatives" who brought genocide to the American First Nations.
It was "conservatives" who formed the kkk and similar terrorist gangs.
It was "conservatives" who wrote the terroristic Jim Crow laws.
It was "conservatives" who tortured and lynched blacks for "entertainment".
It was/is "conservatives" who honor their "Heritage OF Hate".
It was "conservatives" who became so butt-hurt about losing their welfare benefit they went to war to preserve the "free stuff" awarded to terrorists(slavers), the csa.
It was "conservatives" who were so ashamed of their terrorist crimes against humanity they revised their history books and invented "the lost cause" fairy tale to deflect attention away from their terrorism.
It was "conservatives" who invented "Manifest Destiny" in a lame attempt to justify their genocide.
It was "conservatives" who erected loser trophies and monuments to honor csa terrorists and csa terrorism.
It was/is "conservatives" who attempt(ed) to hide their terroristic greed under the guise of "patriotism" and "christianity".
This is quite possibly the dumbest comment on this page. Congrats on your epic fail.
You can be a Democrat conservative and a Republican conservative. Democrat conservatives wanted to keep slavery, Jim Crow, racism and identity politics and the status quo. Republican conservatives want to keep our Constitutional freedoms we have. You're a fuggin idiot.
FOr aCcUrAcY
🤣
@@silvermediastudio Cry more, slaver
Learn something here! ruclips.net/video/UiprVX4os2Y/видео.html
Falsehood. They never switched. Ever.
prove it, come on. if the parties never switched, you must support socialists because the old republicans did too, right?
They didn't.
Easiest example to show the switch happened. The confederates were Democrats and the union were Republicans. Today, those who fly and support confederate flags fall under which political party - Republicans. There was an obvious reason for this - the parties realigned their ideals and the people followed suit. If you disagree explain why the southern, pro-confederate individuals now vote Republican.
What 🤣
Starting with the Civil War dynamic doesn't really help given that the Republican Party wasn't fully formed yet and the Democratic Party was a shadow of its former self. It's more illuminating to point out that both the Union and Confederacy contained a mix of Whigs and Democrats from the Second Party System, each notably having housed a bisectional coalition, among their ranks. Keep in mind how Abraham’s Lincoln and Jefferson Davis’ original vice presidents Hannibal Hamlin and Alexander Stephens were a former Democrat and Whig respectively.
The switch never happened.....Learn more before Making videos
@@wowthatscrazy5222 As racism left the south the south became more and more republican. Don't see how that equates to a party switch but all right. California used to be republican what does that mean? That's nothing. Demographics change.
@@wowthatscrazy5222 The KKK literally supports the democrats
ruclips.net/video/tyTl7r1vVdI/видео.html&ab_channel=TheDrewmanShow
Robert Byrd KKK and is a democrat.
Hugo Black KKK and is a democrat.
Theodore G. Bilbo KKK and is a democrat.
John Brown Gordon KKK and is a democrat.
Joseph E. Brown KKK and is a democrat.
Bibb Graves KKK and is a democrat.
Clifford Walker KKK and is a democrat.
George Gordon KKK and is a democrat.
John Tyler Morgan KKK and is a democrat.
Edmund Pettus KKK and is a democrat.
John W. Morton KKK and is a democrat.
William L. Saunders KKK and is a democrat.
John Clinton Porter KKK and is a democrat.
Benjamin F. Stapleton KKK and is a democrat.
history
Yes many Southerner consider the confederate flag as part of there heritage just like this man
ruclips.net/video/zHqa2uFw2Vc/видео.html&ab_channel=IslandPacket
People don't want there statues removed, So? It's history it should not be removed. Are they supporting the statues of the opposition to be removed? If the answer is no then they don't want anything to be removed. Not rocket science.
It's funny wen you say segregation because it's only on the left that we hear people in support of it. ruclips.net/video/gPy0DBdcNU8/видео.html&ab_channel=SkyNewsAustralia
ruclips.net/video/CRmkw8XBMKk/видео.html&ab_channel=PragerU
ruclips.net/video/monJz1Epswg/видео.html&ab_channel=TurningPointUSA
Also democrats have actually won in the South in 1976 and 1992 and even today they hold a strong presence in the South so what exactly is that supposed to mean?
southerns who fly the confederate flag don’t do so because of their republicanness but rather as part of their southern identity. Rasicm/slavery on the other hand were a driving factor of being a democrat, it was rooted in the politcal ideology. Jim crow laws were implemented and upheld by democrats. MLK was a republican according to statements of his own family (he certainly would be today) and fighting a democrat president is hardly anything new, it had nothing to do with obamas skincolor, rather his political ideas. Also, white supremacists like richard spencer openly endorsed for biden for the 2020 election. You sound a like generic leftist who knowns nothing about history, politics or anything for that matter. How many dixiecrats actually switched sides? That's right one, one person. All the others remained democrats, yet there is a party switch?
There was a switch. All of you who said there wasn’t, go back and learn your history.
Tiny din0 I know my history.. the big switch.. aka the big lie.. do you know your's?
Leo Chang yes I do I actually have been studying for some time
Leo Chang i can provide a evidence if you like
Then give evidence
Venusaur The Jag Master factmyth.com/factoids/democrats-and-republicans-switched-platforms/
If this was any more vague and pointless it would be an abstract painting.
I'm a conservative and I believe in reciprocity, my values align with Abraham Lincoln's and his align with mine. I judge people on the content of their character and not the colour of their skin. I believe in the rule of law and that all men and women are created equal. In 1861 democrats opposed these values and caused the deaths of over 620,000 people in the Civil War. Democrats also opposed women suffrage in the 1920s and civil rights in the 1960s, Now Democrats want to usurp the will of the people by trying to impeach their very popular president in secret closed-door meetings with secret witnesses all without having any evidence of a real crime. All this because they know they can't beat him in a fair election. On top of that, 2 1/2 years and millions of wasted tax dollars on a failed coup attempt with their Russia collusion hoax. Democrats want you to think some kind of switch in ideology happened but history shows different. I think this is what happened in the south, the racist democrats weren't able to oppress the people any longer due to the civil rights movement thus allowing conservative values to flourish. Racist democrats then became the liberals they are today, no big switch in ideology just a change in tactics. They started focusing their greed on the poor in the big cities with big social programs to force government dependence upon the people. Liberal politicians now stay in office a lifetime to promote liberal programs to buy the votes of the poor, then they line their pockets with special interest money while standing on the backs of the very people who continue to elect them.
Oandad So if your values are true do you believe in the blm movement, people kneeling for equal right, conservatives only want to talk about race when they highlight democrats past, I know the parties switched because republicans always complain how minorities talk about race and the kkk literally marched for trump and some recently held places in government in the Republican Party. The democrats then are the republicans now
@@amisings3716 Joe Biden 1993: Unless we do something about that cadre of young people, tens of thousands of them born out of wedlock without parents, without supervision, without any structure, without any conscience developing because they literally have not been socialized… If we don’t they will, or a portion of them will become the predators 15 years from now. Madam President we have predators on our streets… Again, it does not mean that because we created them that we somehow forgive them or do not take them out of society to protect my family and yours from them. They are beyond the pale. We have no choice but to take them out of society.
Google it, there's a video
@@amisings3716 Sounds like Joe Biden is the one who wants to put people back in chains, you should ask him if black lives matter.
Oandad First you didn’t answer my question if you support black live matter movement or people peacefully kneeling because of police brutality. Since you dodged my question I guess you don’t have the guts to say. Second I’m not a joe Biden supporter he track record is messy, just a bunch of empty promises who will stick with corporate money. Third I’m personally anti theist, which means I’m don’t believe in a diety or religion but am spiritual which means I believe that there’s an afterlife since a I’ve experienced seeing a ghost just not in the form of heaven and hell. Conservatives like to live in this bubble where they don’t want to explore or see other people perspectives, I grew up religous most of my family and friends are, some are not we coexist pretty great. I’ve personally never had an interest in getting married just because I’ve seen people stay in unhappy marriages while also seeing people in great marriages I’ve also seen people who’ve been together for years without getting married. Also we do have predators in the streets gangs, police officers many dangers that come from marriages as well. Now the most logical explanation off the party’s switching is that the south who is conservative we’re democrats and the north liberal were republican how do you think they just all switched a whole population so drastically
@@Oandad I was under the impression my favorite 1st family the Obamas are Democrats. No?🤔
they didnt switch platforms.
Party’s never switched only the geographical views have
prove it, come on. the republicans used to be socialist, so you're a socialist
@devilangle1334
They never switched.
The video makes many assertions but does not provide supporting data (legislator and electorate voting patterns, who sponsored what legislation, changes in party affiliation, etc.). This argument for a switch in party platforms is NOT compelling, IMO.
Agreed but to the defense of the video its only 7 mins long and was giving the gist of it. Im sure we could find more in depth videos or information if we looked for it.
Well people are making many assertions in the comments and providing no support.
@@katepausig8562 We may be agreeing, but I'm not sure. Because people DO make unsupported claims does not mean they SHOULD make unsupported claims.
@@katepausig8562
it's hard to prove a negative.. if it never happened, how do you prove it never happened? possibly by showing that Republicans have always supported civil rights? or maybe the fact that the first Republican congressman was in the 1800s? whereas the first Democrat congressman (woman) was in the 1990s?
prove it, come on. if the parties never switched, you must support socialists because the old republicans did too, right?
Everything politics touches it ruins
This has already been debunked
Yeah, White Southern Confederates these days are definitely Democrats.
except it hasn't, and anyone saying that clearly hasn't put in any independent research.
Republicans: Oppose movements to ban Confederate flags and remove Confederate statues, and have overwhelmingly the most support from the KKK.
Red hats: "Duh...the parties never switched."
What a stupid false equivalence. We dont ban shit or erase history, thats what fascist tyrants and the American Taliban want to do. All the Confederate statues were of people PARDONED after the Civil War. They were all American servicemen and veterans. And no one cares about the KKK, which is made up of maybe 3000 people nationwide.
Richard Spencer the leading racist today supports Biden. You've been brainwashed.
A comment so stupid i have to reply 2 years later.
Opposing destruction of statues doesn't mean you support the south. Democrats have also attempted to destroy statues of Lincoln and Washington. The kkk doesnt exist currently but joe biden gave the eulogy at klansman Robert byrds funeral. Hillary Clinton called the same klansman her mentor. That klansman along with the majority of segregationists remained Democrats for life. The party switch myth is a very sad attempt at rewriting the racist history of the Democrat party that only the most gullible person could believe
Hahaha some how ?!?!?!?!?!?
Barry Larry Did you even know watch the video?
Republicans enjoyed a clear majority of support among the nation's voters throughout the 1920s due to economic prosperity. Pres. Coolidge was the first President to be recorded on film in 1924 making a strong case for "economy in government ". This worked well until the stock market was artificially inflated to unsustainable levels by a host of Americans treating Wall Street like slot machines. After the stock market crash of 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression, big government was better than Hoover's hands off policy.
Times were desperate. The southern states gravitated toward the Democratic party, for a time-
Eventually, when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Bill into law, the entire democratic 'solid south' deserted to the Republican Party. Party allegiance is historically fluid. It all depends on what party is viewed as serving the best interests of, and by, the majority of voters in any given state. Which, like it or not, was how things were designed.
i didnt come to youtube to read.......
What year did the republicans and democrats switch.
It wasn't an instant swap, but a gradual process over several decades.
That's kind of hard to believe because there's no date when it took place in history.
@@DavidFernandez-bs3ld Some events just take longer than one specific date to happen. If you want a starting point though, it arguably began in 1969 with the campaign of Richard Nixon, continuing through Reagan's campaign and presidency, all the way into the 90's where the conservative realignment of the Republican party neared completion.
omg y’all need to stop bickering. I don’t really identify with either party so hear me out. The confederates typically we’re against abolitionists, and didn’t want to be apart of the union. The opposite for the unionists. Obviously people fought for different reasons on both sides, but that pretty much sums it up. As time progressed opinions changed. It’s absurd to say both parties kept the same tradition ideals for hundreds of years. It’s immature to throw a hissy fit and say that all democrats and the democratic party is racist because majority of their party (confederates) were racist back then. It’s also absurd to say all republicans are progressive and peaceful because of what their party stood for 100s of years ago. Both of these parties kept some ideals and both switched and slightly changed SOME of their beliefs throughout time. The KKK was made by democrats, and many democrats back then were confederate and were not abolitionists. Now the KKK identifies with the republican party but has similar ideals from the past. Mostly every person who waves that confederate flag identifies as republican even though that flag was created by democrats. It’s funny how many republicans will defend the confederate flag and go on a rant about how it doesn’t represent retaliation from the union, slavery, etc. but when they realize the democrats fought for that they’ll be all over them. Like I said earlier I don’t identify with either party but many republicans here are really just choosing the party switch when it fits their agenda and are making generalizations about the whole democratic party. I think it’s just dumb to demean someone’s party and call them racist or vice versa because of the affiliation their party had 100s of years ago. All that should matter is what they believe in now. Making these huge generalizations and only believing the party switch (or vice-versa) when it suits you is not gonna accomplish anything. I’ll repeat myself, it’s idiotic to say all democrats are racist and non-progressive from what their party originally stood for. I’m able to acknowledge that both parties have changed a lot from then.
From what I’ve heard and seen many democrats and republicans don’t claim or identify with past actions of their party, so I think it’s dumb to have fits over this and try to prove whether a party is racist or not based on the parties original ideals with quite obviously have changed and that person doesn’t agree with.
@@Maya-ud4se I honestly agree, but at the same time there is a lot of evidence for the parties very much changing course, and I think it shouldn't be ignored.
The switch never happened
This sounds like a lot of bullshit to me
Curbing* not curing.
How did this “swtich” happen? 1:21
it literally explains it in the video...
@@yahualharis7230 I was just commenting how they spelled “switch” wrong.
@@HamzaKhan-xj1mi oh okay lol my bad i didnt notice haha.
@@yahualharis7230 But they actually dont explain anything in the video
You need to loose the "music and captions" and have a human being READ your copy. This is as half-assed as that Robo-Voice garbage. Way to phone it in, guys.
Ridiculous
look up, Dinesh D'Souza, party switch and look up the FACTS he has to back him up .
I remember watching him get wrecked in a Debate with Secular Talk. Souza looked like a failure and a clown as people clapped and laughed at him.
I mean yeah but you do know there were some people that didn't switch their parties right? Do all of you think everyone left their parties?😂😂😂 if anyone ever been frustrated with that talking point you can just say that that is not true they even documented who left and who didn't. Why do you think so many racist had their hands involved with civil rights and happened to be Democrats? That's f****** hilarious hiding right underneath your noses.
They didn't
Because government keeps getting bigger.... makes sense
Hoax.
if you can’t name at least 3 but i would like 5 people who switched parties but no views your opinions don’t matter
How about millions of people from the South that now vote Republican instead of Democrat....
They never did. The democrats were very much the same as republicans until the early 1900s when rosevelt started doing some shit.
prove it, come on. if the parties never switched, you must support socialists because the old republicans did too, right?
The parties never switched. Stop the cap!
They didn’t tho
only 2 dems left and no republicans. This is propaganda!
incorrect, the party switch was of policy not individuals.
She blinded me with "Live Science"! (think Thomas Dolby)
I heard a lie, or should I say revision of history with the missing details. Not a good source
Rinos are not Republicans!
LOL this is a lie. They NEVER switched
Interesting how the video keeps using the term "social justice" and not "civil rights"
Why does it matter?
@@CulturalMarxist4985 social justice is a progressive liberal standpoint and only been around for a few decades. Civil rights has been around for a century.
@@24packman74 Wouldn't social justice include civil rights?
@@CulturalMarxist4985 no because civil rights includes all social justice excludes the privilege class real or not.
@@24packman74 Well, social justice is a pretty broad term. It just refers to justice in society and I don't see why civil rights aren't just.
They didn't
They did. Actually watch the video and see the proof.
@@DubABattery I watched the entire video. This 1 video does not contradict the numerous other out there disproving this. You can't change history to make the left seem civil.
@@TioManfredo It seems you are the one trying to change history by saying leftist is the same as democrat. When it was not.
If that was the case, then The KKK would be pro-communist. But they were very anti communist
@@DubABattery facts
@@DubABattery no, just like democrats today, the KK was a racist group looking only for superior race and diminishing any one outside their own. Difference now is it has become a circular firing squad for a race to become the most minority. The left only cares about race, not ideas. They have mentally enslaved blacks to vote only for their racism and hatred. Robert Byrd was eulogized by Joe Biden. The Democrat who tells blacks "you ain't black" unless you vote for me. Once again, do as I say or else. Look at any minority and how they are treated whem they are not Democrat
This comment section didn’t pass the vibe check
We need an internet driving license!
Elaborate, please