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
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
@@FilthyTrot 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.
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
P Hollywood how it’s a myth. I truly don’t know just trying to figure out how the north and south’s Democrat/republican majorities switched from the civil war era to now.
@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)
@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.
The one united cause the republician party had was "That all men are created equal;" which was second on their 1860 party platform only after establishing the perpetuation of the republican party and it's principals. This actually puts the principals with at least as much importance as the party. First, this meant slavery must be abolished and later that was expanded to slavery must be abolished at all costs. Second was that people needed to be able to do business and move freely in a moral way not overly constricted by other citizens or governments. The republicans were trying to eliminate the control of the individual from other individuals. For this, roads and transportation routes were needed, currency needed to be standardized and slave ownership had to become a federal offense since the southern states weren't doing it on their own. This was never intended to be an unlimited expanding ideology that would control everything. That is evident in the idea republicans didn't want one set of people or society in general to control other people. So nothing switched.
@@TheChosenOnes_482 you must be a Democrat and you need to learn some history. The Republican party was the party of abolition. This meant the Republicans had no slaves. And many black men were Democrats which were owners of slaves. Hundreds of thousands of Republicans died so that everyone could be free. Hundreds of thousands of Democrats died trying to keep slavery. Democrats have been trying to control people for a very very long time. That hasn't changed one bit since they lost the civil war. Joseph Rainey was seated to the House of Representatives in 1870 and he was a Republican. So republicans killed people that fought to keep slavery and voted a former slave in as a congressman.
@@TheChosenOnes_482 You do understand that Lincoln was a Republican right? Democrats fought hard to keep and expand westward with slavery. Do some research man. Gun control was about keeping former slaves seeking justice from owning firearms.
Abraham Lincoln: "Labour is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labour and could never have existed if labour had not first existed. Labour is the superior of capital and deserves the much higher consideration." There's also the fact that Karl Marx was a vocal supporter of Lincoln and the American Civil War. Isn't Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus is also enough evidence that he'd be condemned as a communist by the current Republican Party?
@@jaredh9463 Yeah, sure. The parties must not have changed at all since the 1800s. That explains why the Democratic Party made Barack Obama its nominee, and why Donald Trump who's essentially become the Republican Party empathizes with and is as popular as he is among white supremacists.
"ALL MEN CREATED EQUAL" it should have read "ALL WHITE MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. If you put things into context then you would realize that the founding fathers werent Referring to anyone but Whites. No one wants to admit that. Anyone can be racist but this country has institutionalized racism in every system because the foundation of America was built of of white superiority off the killing of the Indians and off of free labor of the blacks. You guys always say "Heritage not Hate" Well your heritag is an evil one and nothing to be proud of.
@@existing3628 yeah because the beliefs of the south and north have changed. Mostly due to the north having big cities, therefore they are mostly liberal
@@SwooopieShark bro what kKK? like what a fucking weak boogie man. What are they even 3000 deep? If the parties switched explain Carter...explain Clinton
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
@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
@@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
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.
You may be stupid, but that's ok. You might want to know two things about him. One, he was in office before the switch. It just made political sense to retain his role. And second, he was the most conservative dem *ever* to take his position.
@Aidan Barton You may be a gullible ignoramus but that’s not okay. Exalted Cyclops Democrat Senator Byrd was a lifelong racist...so thanks for agreeing there was no party switch. It was fun watching you try to justify your racial hatred and support of the party that started KKK.
@@billydee4272 I'm not a dem, child. But it's funny to watch people like you try to deflect from your own racism. Byrd left and revoked the klan nearly a century ago... but was always conservative. In fact, he openly admitted that was the only reason he joined the KKK, they were conservative. So thanks for admitting that the party switch happened, and it's fun to watch you try to justify your racial hatred and support of the ideology that started KKK.
@Aidan Barton I’m not a rep, princess. But it’s funny to watch racist, intellectual midgets like you try to justify Democrat’s well-documented history of racial violence & national division while excusing the hero worship of a KKK Exalted Cyclops. Byrd didn’t “switch” because there was no “switch” and historical revisionists depend on the naïveté & gullibility of slow-witted simpletons like yourself to parrot ludicrous stupidity that’s rejected by history itself. Run along now, you imbecilic moron...as I’ve little patience for racists who’re too stupid to even realize they’re racists pissants. Reject this... Robert Byrd ruclips.net/video/PRMp4U1dCUM/видео.html
@@billydee4272 Oh suuure, you're not a republican. You just swallow their fascistic racist lies day in and day out, and spend hours a day online defending them. Trump isn't going to sleep with you, sweetie. But it's ok, we all know how much you love to justify (and continue) the right's long history of of racial violence & national division while making up whatever excuses possible. I hate to break it to you, but Byrd was the most conservative dem in his position, and in the party. The "left" only liked him even a small bit because unlike other conservatives (most of whom are now in the republican party), he actually grew out of the KKK and rejected it. It's funny, you don't see the KKK endorsing Byrd for his elections. Who did they endorse again? Oh right, Trump. The parties switched, and idiots like you can never escape that fact. Don't worry, even us removed from the partisan bullshit know it. You can try to justify your petty historical revisionism and blatant denialism all you want, but it doesn't change the facts. I know how much you guys love to discount and silence minorities, but you aren't shutting me up or making me run away that easily. Perhaps you should learn your history and stop supporting one of the most racist ideologies to ever exist, conservatism. Let's ask a question - are you in favor of Affirmative Action?
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.
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
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.
Hello from England. I still cannot get my head around the fact that the south was once democrat and supported slavery and how it all completely reversed after the civil war. Mind boggling. What a strange country the USA is.
@@johnweber4577 Gulp! Did you write all that especially for me or was it a cut and paste? If you wrote it all for me then I am honoured indeed. I will have to find 1/2 hr to read it, and I will... but not tonight as it is 12:46 am so going to bed.
@@darthbuzz1 it’s my standard reply on the topic to be honest. Lol. I hope it doesn’t come off as aggressive. I apologize about the length but it does seem that on highly contentious topics like this if you don’t make a full case you often get accused of cherry picking so I just try to avoid that. Haha. I also hope you find it interesting. I’d also like to keep the record straight that I am as of now a Libertarian leaning independent as opposed to a partisan GOP apologist. I just think it’s better to accept both have had their better and worse moments and are going to consistently evolve over time as opposed to there having always been two teams of straightforward heroes and villains throughout all of time with the one caveat being a name swap. I just feel like political conversation would be so much more productive if we could get past trying to spin the other team as the perpetual Legion of Doom. Lol
@@johnweber4577 Well, that was very interesting and a whole lot more complicated than I thought. I now know much more about American politics than British. I think Bernie Sanders is my favorite US politician and would have preferred him for president over any of the others. I consider myself to be a leftist liberal animal rights activist and liked Tony Blair the most out of recent leaders. Politics these days is all about greed and wealth and the poor continue to get poorer and the rich get richer while the Earth is being raped of is few remaining resources and the last remnants of wildlife. GoVegan!
Try telling that to Republicans though. It's funny too because today they are racist as fuck and against big government so it makes perfect since that the parties switched, but that's inconvenient for Republicans
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.
@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
@@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?
(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.
@@FilthyTrot the original post is referring to the senate and house of representatives. 1 from the senate and 1 from the house, the rest remained democRats! You my friend are referring to when Nixon broke the blue wall in the south. Learn your history!
@Dead Eyes89 yea right, all democRats are about is splitting up this country by race! They are the ones who are pushing the entire idea of separating us by race and pandering for minority votes and doing nothing to help us!
@@edwardgonzales73 What do you mean? Democrats have overwhelmingly more support than Republicans from minorities and nominated the first African American US President.
@@FilthyTrot you really need to read up on the democRats party! They are the party of the KKK and fought against the Civil right movement! All their programs that they claim help minorities actually hurt minority people! SMFH, read a book already!
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.
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😂
Ah yes, the good old party switch of the 1960s, because all of the old democrats like FDR and Wilson were totally conservatives and the old republicans like Harding and Coolidge were totally liberals. This definitely isn’t a myth or anything thats just brought up in discussions about Lincoln
Im an independant and its insane the things i see and hear on both parties. Even at me when i admit the pros and cons of both. and they swear I side or vote with one side only. People ask or say the parties have switched and no longer the same as back then. Well for starters of course its not the same because times have changed and theres different issues to tackle so the parties adapt and fight for and against causes. But what remains the same of both parties are the fundamental values and what they stand for as far as politics and the county. All the new things they "say" they stand for is bullshit or new to appeal to people. Like the democrats saying they fight for tolerance and ration equality! Bullshit! They dont! They care for that vote because without they are nothing. The republicans have been the party of racial equality and freedom for all and rights for everyone. The thing is those progressives that vote democrat yelling they want racial justice is actually a republican attitude! But they have been sucked into and manipulated by the left to feel its the Democrats because of the new use of the racial equality banner! They have not done ONE THING to help different races and its communities! Prove me wrong! The welfare program? That helps them? maybe for that fast money but it keeps you under government control, dependant and seen as the bottom of the contributions to society and for yourself. The welfare program hurts you ini the long run, You will NEVER get out of it and realize your potential. It keeps you with the vicitim mentality. Look at where we are now. So upset and people who are not on the bottom and are thriving that they want to tear them down and blame them for their misfortune and poorness. The moment they accept this and say victim no more and take initiative to thrive or be amongst other like minded people then they will leave poverty behind. Sadly many wont because they are to proud to admit this, or too brainwashed by the left or dont know where to begin, or dependant on that next welfare check. The only thing Republicans are wrong and guilty of is not fighting back and harder to gain the peoples trust and votes back.They lost those votes to the Left. They are too conservative and soft and rather not fight. They do hope people can open their eyes and do research in fact they dont even say vote for us or give you incentives or lies to do so. They want you to be free thinkers, independent thinkers and educate yourself. They fight for your freedom, and independence and freedom of speech! They will welcome all no matter what race as long as you want to be a happy and a contributor and not a menace to society. Another thing republicans look bad which is not their fault is as a collective there's many whites. This turns off blacks and minorities but the obvious answer is many blacks stand together and ignorantly choose and are persuaded to stand with the democrats. The Dems have successfully manipulated them to feel they need to and depend on them by appealing to them by using welfare and preaching racial equality. But thats a pretty slogan for we want government to control people and be more in their lives and to equally have them at their use (a precursor for socialism). Also many blacks also vote democratic because they dont want their family and race to call them a sellout. What makes the Republicans look bad is the few that are highly religious that turn off many liberals but thats not all republicans faults. And the ignorant white supremacists that are not even a significant large percentage in the nation vote red. They dont speak for the Republicans in fact the Republicans denounce them and dont stand by them. The white supremacists vote red because red is the more patriotic party, The one that stands for America and its history and values and they resonate with that. Thats not a conservatives/republicans fault! There are many white supremacists and nationalists and KKK admirers and racists in the democratic party as well. Most of these people are ignorant and live in rural areas that dont know any better. The fact people fight and argue and call people on the right racist because they vote for Trump is insane and ignorant and racist in itself. The democrats are the party that preach tolerance and denounce fascism yet have been violent, intolerable and bullying people to side with them or else and have been practicing fascist tactics! No one is the same! No one should vote for a president for single issues and the character of one does not reflect someone elses if they have some things in common. We all should agree to disagree without facing persecution and hate. Not everyone that votes for Trump thinks the same nor has the same ideals for what policy they voted for or dislike or want for the country. Thats as ignorant as saying all democrats vote for Biden because they want communism or want the economy to fail or like touching and smelling women and children, or must admire corruption and political fascism. Would democrats like to be labeled that for voting for Biden? Then they should not ignorantly say those who vote Trump hate blacks or hispanics. It just makes them look stupid with no good argument but more intolerance and names thrown to offend as they usually do cause all they do is act out on emotion not intelligence or something simple as facts. All people need is to do research and educate themselves before jumping on the bandwagon of a party affiliation and attacking the other!
Alex - You have used many words to say a lot of dumbass, bullshit propaganda. 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".
@@rb032682 How ironic, you replied with so many words to say a lot of dumbass, bullshit propaganda too. You have soo much leverage now, hope you enjoy yourself lol. I really dont care what ignorant people think, it doesnt matter thats why they are deemed ignorant. I just gave my two cents if anyone cared to read at that moment and since you started off disrespectfully and insanely ignorant with your false history on "conservatives" (which I expressed that times have changed and I'm independent and not choosing sides but clearly you showed you are partisan and anti conservatives) I couldnt care to continue reading after your second sentence.
@@rb032682 Let us guess, you have not one bad thing to say about non-conservatives? lol The problem here is you are generalizing now. So you lose your point casting all as a collective evil but the other half as the greater good when history has proven to be otherwise. Let me remind you we werent even around in those times and you are beating a dead horse. From what I glanced at your posting, it seems you desperately want to cast conservatives negatively or responsible for American embarrassments yet many of those the Democratic party was responsible for and you either ignorantly or intentionally mislabeled it as conservative doings. Nice try but made the whole argument with you trivial. Even if what you said were true, you admitted that conservatives "changed" and ''attempted" to "fix and do right". When will Democrats do good and right their wrongs?
No, child. I'm sorry you seem to think that your biased, partisan nonsense is accurate, but let me correct you, in a more concise way than you conservatives seem capable of. - What remains of both parties are not the same fundamental values, since said values have shifted throughout history, even being traded between parties. - Democrats, by definition, are currently the party fighting for tolerance and racial equality. - The republicans stopped caring about racial equality and freedom the second they embraced conservatism. - the republicans are not the party of racial equality and freedom for all and rights for everyone, given their open opposition to all of those things. - progressive politics aren't a "republican attitude," you just want to deny the past of conservatism. - You have already been proven wrong on this point, the democratic party has objectively done more to help minority groups than the republican party. - American welfare exists with the explicit and obvious goal of bringing people back into the workforce, the opposite of "dependent," and there is no evidence to suggest that "you never get out of it." - the idea of a "victim mentality" for minority groups is an explicitly conservative notion. - The majority of people who "tear down the thriving" do so because the "thriving" forced them into said position and advocate for systems that lock them in said position, and they like you are unwilling to take responsibility for their actions. Ignoring the reality of your life will not stop your poverty. - Republicans are wrong and guilty of many things, but not hating minority groups enough isn't one of them. - Republicans despise academia and free press, they openly advocate for you to not be free or independent figures. - The conspiracy theory that "blacks" have been manipulated into voting progressive is literally from the KKK. - You evidently have no idea what socialism is, nor what the democratic party is. - You have no evidence for these claims. - Republicans continually fail to denounce white supremacist figures and ideas, and even when they do, their actions tell a very different story. - There are, objectively, not many white supremacists/nationalists or KKK members in the democratic party. - There's nothing racist about calling out a racist. - No, child, the democrats have not been "practicing fascist tactics." - Not tolerating the intolerant is a capstone policy of democracy. - The reason you can lump all republicans together on most issues is because they follow their leaders without thinking. - Pointing out Trump's long history of racism isn't ignorant. - Pointing out intolerance and racism isn't "stupid," nor is it "intolerant." It's a statement based in fact. - You, evidently, have not educated yourself on a single one of these matters, hence falling in line with conservative and republican ideology 100%, without a single critical thought. - The history regarding conservatism, the ideology of the confederacy, is far from "false." - you're attempting to deflect from the long history of conservatism's crime by saying that many happened under democrats, ignoring that the democratic party used to be a white, southern, religious, conservative party. - To point out those facts is purposeful, not done out of ignorance or as a mistake. - Conservatives have hardly changed at all since their segregationist days, minus not being allowed to be openly racist and complaining about it. - the democrats not only have fixed their own wrongs, as in, the wrongs of liberals, but have to work extra hard to fix the wrongs of conservatives, from slavery to jim crow, while conservatives just step back and deny the whole thing. - Despite claiming to be independent, you seem unable to meaningfully distance yourself in any way from conservatism. Hope that helped, conservative denialist?
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
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.
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.
prove it. You can't. 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.
As confounding as it might sound from a modern perspective, the historical Democratic ethos can basically be boiled down to “egalitarianism with hierarchical characteristics” while that of the old Republicans and their Whig predecessors was a “hierarchy with egalitarian characteristics”. Or at least those were consensus positions they could accept. This is what makes these debates tricky.
Yeah they flipped platforms, and we all know how Democrats love small government, low taxes, and Ronald Reagan. Woodrow Wilson is just such a hero to todays Republican party.
@@williampennjr.4448 how ignorant are you? The democratic party literally used to be the party of "small government." One of the most racist presidents in our history, Andrew Jackson, was Trump's favorite, his hero.
dummy when did I say civil rights was before Wilson? The Topic is about the alleged party flip which I debunked sarcastically using Wilson.as an example.
@@williampennjr.4448 But you didn't debunk anything, you ran away from facts you didn't like and used an example that was itself easy to debunk. You really aren't that good at this, are you? Sorry you got proven wrong.
@thefobbie The dates you gave are literally all pre-swap. You even said yourself that the swap happened around 1964, which is the end date for the examples you provided. I don't give a flying fuck who made the civil rights movement. Kudos to the Republican party, they did something very right there. I care about where it's going. And frankly, the Democratic party is a lot more promising in the modern era.
@@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.
@@FilthyTrot 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...
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.
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.
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.
its very simple, Ask yourself which party supported the new deal, the income tax and Roosevelt, and which party does now. That will tell you if the party switch happened or not. What side was Woodrow Wilson on?
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.
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
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
@@FilthyTrot 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.
The parties each had sizable liberal and conservative wings and werent very polarized until the Democrats decided to add civil rights to their platform in 1948 and the parties slowly began sorting on idealogical lines from there. The one party south occasionally started supporting various third party tickets and eventually Republicans starting in 1964 (Ike was personality and doesn't count) and as social conservatives began to leave the Democratic party, the GOP was waiting with open arms. The problem for the Democrats for a solid 24 years was that white social conservatives (regardless of fiscal preference) were a substantial majority of the general electorate at that time.
@@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.
Also Bull Connor, AKA Martin Luther King Jr.'s worst enemy, never switched sides either. Most Dixiecrats refused to become Republicans simply based off southern history.
Correct, Robert Byrd was a DemoKKKrat when elected in the 1950's. He made the decision to change his racist past and stick with the DemoKKKrat party. Robert Byrd was a RW'r.
He was not a Grand Wizard. He was barely an initiate and called it his greatest mistake. David Duke however, was a Grand Wizard, and was a Republican SR. He stated that he was running "to defend the rights of European Americans". He claimed that his platform has become the Republican mainstream and added, "I'm overjoyed to see Donald Trump and most Americans embrace most of the issues that I've championed for years."
The DemoKKKrat party back in the 1950's was going through a transition. The conservative base of the DemoKKKrat party wasn't happy about the DemoKKKratic party changing it's platform to support rights for black people. Around that time period, most conservatives moved over to the republican party because they were using the 'southern strategy' to pull in the racist voters of the DemoKKKrat party. Robert Byrd decided to not move to the republican party but stay in the democratic party.
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.
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! 😒
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.
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.
it should have been, as this is the truth But they did. Just because you're unwilling to critically engage with the past doesn't mean the past didn't happen.
@@HeadgeHunter I'm sorry, bud, this is false. The southern conservatives were the party of slaves, jim crow, segregation, in both parties. It's the left, the progressives, the liberals, who freed them, which is why you despise them. The conservatives are the ideology of slavery. How dare you suggest black people are happy with their own enslavement? Stop telling people to switch to your pro-slavery side.
My main question for anyone in favor of a big government: Why do you trust our government enough to give them absolute power? I can't think of any time in history our government showed us we can trust them. Everyone loves the "hope and change" bit, but has government actually changed? Why do people keep falling for it?
@Andre Calvit Nope. I'm comprehending. I choose not to engage with someone who's willing to justify the overt powergrab that we all see with the current administration. I'm just biding my time before I leave this shithole country that was once the best nation in the world. Now, we have critical race theory making white people the scapegoat for everything bad, we have a government more engaged in the interest of China than protecting its own citizens, we had 6 months of nationwide riots torching up cities without impunity and no one cared, but goddamn, you have one day where the right to a cue card from the left and stormed the capital , and that's all we hear about. I'm tired of this country being thrown away, so good riddance.
@Andre Calvit Dude, we can go back and forth on all these talking points, but it's a lost cause. I really don't feel the need to argue with a stranger on RUclips where this requires a lot of nuisance. As I said before, keep believing your government has your best interest in mind. Keep buying into thinking the serve you and not themselves. I don't give a shit and I'll certainly won't change your mind. It's a fruitless endeavor to be having the conversation. So, go ahead and pigeonhole me. I don't give a shit. And yes, I really do hate what America has become. Bye now.
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.
Funny how people in the comments think that parties stay the same. The Republicans of the 1860s to the early 20th century were big government and progressive. The Democrats were the small government and conservative party. Republicans had a big presence in the North while the Republicans had a big presence in the South. Also progressive ideologies are more prevalent in the cities while conservative ones are more prevalent in the rural areas. In present day, Democrats are the ones supporting big government and progressive agendas while Republicans are small government (states rights) and are conservative. The South of the United States is well known to be a Republican stronghold. The south was the region that seceded from the United States and formed the confederacy. There are pockets of more liberal areas in the South but they are in the cities. From this evidence it is easy to see that Republicans and Democrats switched party platforms and the regions of their concentration swapped. The individuals that would likely have become Democrats switched to the Republican Party and the individuals that would likely have become Republicans became Democrats. Present day confirms this. The Democratic Party were the first ones to elect a African American president. 80-90 percent of African Americans vote Democratic in the presidential elections. In the late 19th century it was the opposite. The majority of African Americans voted Republican. I used to be Republican myself. Republicans that disliked this video are upset that they being exposed as something different from what they think they are. They want to be the Party that gave us great presidents as Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and want to be associated with the party that was against slavery because it puts them in the right when it comes to history. It makes them feel good. Sad thing is that the Republican Party of today is the Democratic Party of the 1860s to early 20th century.
Part I: The first thing to get out of the way that any political party in America or otherwise has been an absolute monolith is of course and oversimplification. But talking about the record of the foundational Republican and Democratic Parties do think the is indeed an underlying dynamic that never changed in spite of some evolution in their policy positions and shifts in their constituencies. For the most part I won’t be talking about “Dixiecrat” politicians who very much acted like their own force even back to the Founding. Though the voting blocks they had influence over did have some considerable overlap with support for the platform of the Democratic Party proper, particularly early on. And even into the 20th Century they were able to garner support from several Southern segregationists for Left-wing economic projects like the New Deal and the War on Poverty. It’s when socially progressive initiatives became more prevalent that the coalition became more irreconcilable and industry coming to the South made the pro-business party all the more alluring. And somewhat problematically the South does wind up taking up a lot of the conversation for whatever party they’ve sided with given how the electoral college is set up. The Republicans, as well as their precursors among the Federalists and the Whigs, historically tended to be the business friendly party that promoted character building while the Democrats, as well as their predecessors among the Anti-Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans, have historically claimed to be the party that spoke for the common man and led the charge against economic elites on their behalf. You just need to look at major conflicts that were framed as being “The Elites versus The People” during each party system even before the 20th Century. Prominent examples including Alexander Hamilton versus Thomas Jefferson on the issue of the Revolutionary War debt speculators, Henry Clay versus Andrew Jackson on the issue of the National Bank and William McKinley versus William Jennings Bryan on the issue of the Free Silver movement. It was the Republican forerunners Hamilton, Clay and McKinley who defended the interests of economic elites including speculators, bankers and industrialists while it was the Democratic forerunners Jefferson, Jackson and Bryan who claimed the mantle of sticking up for the exploited common American. Class angst has always been a driving force for the Democratic Tradition. Back at the time of the Founding before the establishment of sizable minority communities, the full development of urban centers and the sharp decline in the agricultural population it was poor often rural whites who were portrayed as the oppressed underclass in in a system rigged to the benefit of more well off city folk and wealthy business moguls in the Northeast. The kind of rhetoric they employ now is similar but with the lines delineating the systemically oppressed and covert oppressors being redrawn over time as the party and their constituency evolved. Republicans for the most part while fighting oppression rarely blamed the American system of give at large or called it rather than some misguided laws as oppressive. Men like Alexander Hamilton, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley and Calvin Coolidge operated within the tradition of the American School of economics. Adopting mostly from Classical economics supplemented by some not socialist but critically applied mercantilist policy meant to bolster and protect the national economy. So that the country would not become dependent on its foreign rivals for manufacturered goods and incentivize a more industrious society. All in all, creating a thriving modern economy. That is why business owners large and small supported them and their interventionist policies like tariffs and infrastructure. It should also be stressed that during the 19th Century, those kinds of policies were commonly supported by conservative parties. Unless one wants to do something like argue that Benjamin Disraeli’s Tories were to the Left of William Gladstone’s Liberal Party in England. Which would be quite a contested take. It should be noted that they also tended to promote self-improvement, discipline, personal responsibility and lawfulness as virtues in what have some come to refer to as the “Whig Ethic”. The Democrats historically have tended to exhibit unease if not disdain towards the modern industrial capitalist economy as something that allows for the oppression of corporations to be inflicted on the common person. That is why early in America’s history you had men like Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson romanticized the agrarian lifestyle. They believed that it was easier to maintain relative equality in a world of yeoman farmers held to a particular plot of land rather than one filled with corporations that could transcend state if not national lines. They also saw urbanization as an alienating and corruptive force. And that the people without such influences would exhibit their natural goodness. Ultimately, the innovation of an industrialized society was not worth the more complex social hierarchies that would emerge. Therefore, they opposed the interventionist policies their rivals were championing. Claiming that they were more to the benefit of big business than the people. It would be true to argue that there were socialistic people who supported Lincoln and the Republicans. But they were about as relevant as the white nationalists who by default support Republicans today. They aligned on certain issues but a fringe that in each case is often exaggerated nowadays order to slant the narrative about what the Party was then and is now. And now for a long discursion on the turn of the 20th Century as it’s a key but often foggy subject that is often used to make certain points. A major being two key figures often being removed from context. Them being Grover Cleveland and Theodore Roosevelt. Meant to create the image that the Democrats were at the time the party of big business and that it was the Republicans who took a stand against them. Which for starters ignores everything I’ve brought up previously. Cleveland is often used as the face of the Gilded Age when it was already under way during a time of largely Republican controlled federal government following the Civil War including four presidents between Andrew Johnson and Cleveland. Even most of the oft-derided robber barons were Republicans. Arguably, Cleveland and the “Bourbon Democrats” were the forerunners to Bill Clinton and the third way “New Democrats”. An adjustment in the Democratic Party to the Gilded Age as the latter seemed to be to the Reagan Revolution. Both veering into Classical Liberalism and making inroads with big business. Much to the chagrin of radicals in the party. Another interesting parallel tough is that out of each movement you got a scholarly politician, Woodrow Wilson from the Bourbon Democrats and Barack Obama from the New Democrats, who would win the presidency and actually become one of the most Progressive presidents if not the most up until that point when economic tensions started running high. Taking a more deliberate approach in implementing the kinds of ideas the radicals wanted. Which brings us to TR. The most glaring omission in the narrative most often surrounding him is the populist movement spearheaded by radicals like the aforementioned William Jennings Bryan and Tom Watson in retaliation to the Gilded Age. The populists came to the conclusion that I’m an industrialized America an expansion of federal power was needed to curb corporate power and became a dominant force within the Democratic Party by the end of the 19th Century. Teddy became concerned that the unrest in the country could lead to the populists being elected and throwing the system out of balance if not start a full scale revolution.
@@johnweber4577 Well, isn't Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus in the American Civil War enough evidence that he'd be condemned as a communist by the current Republican Party? I mean, even the likes of Nixon and Reagan look like Democrats compared to the current Republican Party.
"Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms?" Why ask a question when it never happened? This is like asking "Why did JFK become a woman?"
_"Why do most black Americans vote Democratic?"_ *Here's an idea. Think of each political party (Democratic/ Republican) as a house. Now think of a political ideology (Liberal/Conservative) as the people who live in these two houses.* > Let's start around the Civil War era (1860's) and say most of the people who hated and despised you lived in one of those houses. *Let's say the blue Democratic house.* >And most of the people who treated you decently lived in the other house. *Let's say, the red Republican house.* >And for decades, the majority of people who hated and despised you lived in that blue Democratic house. ___ So naturally, you wanted nothing to do with that blue house. You preferred the people in that red house who were more inclined to treat you decently. *RESULT- For decades, (late 1800's- early 1900's), black Americans were loyal to the red Republican house. (Where Lincoln and the Abolitionists had resided.)* >Then as years passed, an interesting thing happened. You began to notice it was becoming harder to know which house to avoid. Gradually, some of those people who hated and despised you began showing up in the red "R" house. At the same time, more of those people who treated you decently began to show up in the blue "D" house. After a while, each house had some people who hated you and some people who treated you fairly. It was no longer so easy to know which house you should avoid as it had been in decades past. *RESULT- By the mid 1900's, (Civil Rights Movement) noting a definite trend, many black Americans left the red (R) house for the blue (D) house. But a minority still remained In the red (R) house.* >Then after a few more decades, it became clear that neither house had as many people who hated and despised you as they had in decades past. In both houses, the majority of the people in them now treated you decently and fairly. But what you DID notice, is as the trend continued, that the vast majority of those people who DID still hate and despise you NOW lived in the red "R" house. *RESULT- A notable majority of black Americans favor the blue "D" house even though it's not quite as clear-cut because the hateful people have less power and influence than they once did. (Unfortunately, their influence has still not been completely erased and is beginning to trend upward.)* *QUESTION: SHOULD BLACK AMERICANS AVOID THE BLUE HOUSE BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO HATED AND DESPISED THEM **_,_** OR AVOID THE RED HOUSE WHERE MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO HATE AND DESPISE THEM **_?_** ...think about it.*
@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).
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".
@@rb032682 Massive reform on how voting works at the last second, proposing court packing w/ 15 Justices to only have liberal judges in a non partisan body of government, gun registry pushed, defunding local police to be replaced by federal policing, and attempting to increase covid lockdown/spending when the virus is at an all time low with a returning economy to name a few. Pointless garbage that just gives more to the federal, less to the state, and keeps the dems in power as long as possible.
@@rb032682 WTF are you ranting about you idiot? Are you trying to argue that the democrat South is equal to the modern Republican? Let us remember that Lincoln, a republican, wanted to conserve the union and the founding words in the constitution. "We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." Doesn't seem very similar to any modern liberal thought that I know of. Tear down the system and the lessons learned through our history is the modern liberal mantra.
im confused on how your going to argue with a fact? Does it not add up to you that democrats back in the 19th Century wanted lower tax's, reduced/no tariffs , and the the republicans wanted higher tax's, were industrial, and did not think that slavery was right? Republicans were mostly found in the north where agriculture was not a profound as in the south, leading to the want of slaves. Republicans back then were into industry, another reason they supported high protective tariffs. this is the total opposite of today, its alright to accept that a party has its flaws just like every party. Washington was correct when saying that the creation of parties will bring a divide in the the nation.
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.
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.
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 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..
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.
Earnest Scribbler , after the war the wealthy republicans bought large pieces of land in the south and democrats financially decimated by the war moved north looking for manufacturing jobs. Does it really make sense that anti slavery people would leave the Republican Party which was created based on the idea of anti slavery to join the democrat party which was known as the party of slavery? That’s like BLM and the KKK agreeing to swap names.
@@Snafu1911 Point still stands. The Republican Party now has far more support than Democrats from the southern American states in which segregation and the activities of the KKK have consistently been far more popular than in the north throughout history and the KKK overwhelmingly supports the Republican Party. It also now tends to be Republicans who brandish Confederate flags and protest removing Confederate statues. I mean, Donald vocally opposed the movement to ban Confederate flags: ruclips.net/video/xhP7V1An3SY/видео.html. Now are you still gonna deny that the parties switched? LOL.
During the Constitutional Convention in Philly, for the Southern Democrats, they wanted black slaves, who were not allowed to vote, to count as 5/5ths, for Congressional count for representation in Washington, or establishing the number of Congressional members of a state. The Republicans argued that blacks have no representing in the South, so blacks should count as 0/0th. But to get the Southern states to sign the Constitution, the 3/5ths was the compromise. Andrew Jackson, the founder of the current Democrat party, in 1820 forced the Native Americans and forced to their relocation to the Oklahoma Territory. This was the Trail of Tears. Before the Civil War, Democrats where trying to expand their power by expanding slavery into the newly formed states. It's comical when some claim the South was Democrat and today mostly Republican, thus assuming the parties switched. Many Democrats switched during the 60s, including Ronald Reagan in '62. Very few Republicans switched. When Reagan was elected, many more Democrats switched.
Let me help you here, bring you to reality. During the Constitutional Convention in Philly, for the Southern Conservatives, they wanted black slaves, who were not allowed to vote, to count as 5/5ths, for Congressional count for representation in Washington, or establishing the number of Congressional members of a state. The Liberals argued that blacks have no representing in the South, so blacks should count as 0/0th. But to get the Southern states to sign the Constitution, the 3/5ths was the compromise. Andrew Jackson, the founder of the historical Democratic party, an open conservative and admitted inspiration/favorite president to Donald Trump, in 1820 forced the Native Americans and forced to their relocation to the Oklahoma Territory. This was the Trail of Tears. Before the Civil War, Conservatives where trying to expand their power by expanding slavery into the newly formed states. It's comical when some claim the South was Liberal and today mostly Conservative, thus denying the long past of white southern conservatism. The parties have been steadily switching since the end of the civil war, democrats and republicans, realigning their sectional ideologies with new national parties. Reagan's appeal to racist southerners was just a small part of this.
@@Gvjrapiro what exactly do you think you helped me with? It were you Democrats who fought for slavery, to spread slavery throughout the new territories. It were you Democrats (the Jackass Party of Andrew Jackson) who pushed for the removal of Native Americans from their lands to the Oklahoma Territory with the Trail of Tears. It were you Democrats who supported and pushed for Jim Crow laws in the South. It were you Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act, with your Democrat Senate filibustered the legislation for 75 days. It is you racist Democrats to this very day that force inner city blacks into failed government schools. Nice try blaming conservatives, but fess up about your beloved party you proudly defend!
There weren't Democrats and Republicans at the Constitutional Convention. There weren't even formal parties. Moving past that, the wealthiest Southern planters were often Federalists and Whigs perhaps even more so rather than Jeffersonian Republicans or Jacksonian Democrats. The way the historian Charles Sellers put it was that, "Whigs owned the Slave Power and Democrats rented its labor or served as its overseer." As much as people wish it had been, and for good reason, slavery wasn't a defining wedge issue until the 1850's before which all the major parties housed a wide-range of opinions on the matter. During which time the political coalitions were scrambled across increasingly sectional lines. The Slave Power attempted to consolidate behind the Democrats following the collapse of the Whigs before breaking to run their own candidate in 1860 as the Southern Democratic Party because they found Stephen Douglas and his ilk, who championed popular sovereignty above all else, to be unreliable as allies in the fight for their peculiar institution. The ultimately stuck around as Southern Bourbon Democrats, working with the Republicans was never going to be an option at that point despite efforts by Rutherford B. Hayes to appeal to fellow former Whigs in the region, while their populist rivals who eventually rallied to William Jennings Bryan were inheritors of the Jacksonian spirit, as were their Western counterparts, which arguably didn’t fully reassert itself until the rise of the New Deal Coalition. It ought to be telling that Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis' initial vice presidents, Hannibal Hamlin of Maine and Alexander Stephens of Georgia, started out as a Democrat and a Whig respectively. Hamlin being considerably more radical than Lincoln and Stephens likewise more reactionary than Davis to boot. The dynamics of the general period can't be directly projected onto everything that came before and after as many are want to do in these debates.
@johnweber4577 I also think it's interesting how Andrew Jackson was labeled as the Jack-ass party and they still use the emblem today, 200 years later.
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
I really wonder if Republicans just waste their lives looking up these videos just so they can comment on here,because 90% of these comments are,"THIS IS FALSE!!!!11!!111! REEEE!"
Full Life 3 / Republicans believe in facts & truth. I really wonder if leftists waste their lives drinking Red Bulls in their parent’s basement rather than learning history.
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 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
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
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
@@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.
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.
You can convince me that the political ideologies of both the republican party and the democratic party shifted slightly, the Republicans were economically left wing and the democrats were economically right wing in short big government and small government. The problem arises in social and racial issues the democrats wanted slavery and segregation while the Republicans abolished slavery and wanted civil rights and integration of black people. If these leftists and democratic historians tell me that the parties switched which means that the democratic party in the 1860's and 1960's are like the Republicans of today, then why didn't the Republicans of today made slavery legal again??🤔 why didn't they abolish civil rights 🤔??? They will make definitely make strawman arguments like " the Republicans were conservative " the conservative movement of the 60s were different from the old conservatism this conservatism in 60s wanted to conserve family traditions and Christian values . So this while party switch propaganda bs is just a ploy by the democrats to paint their party as the good guys
Saying that the party which presided over both the Gilded Age and Roaring Twenties during its heyday of power, often held up as two of the periods marked by the worst in excess capitalism, was economically left-wing is an interesting take.
Abraham Lincoln: "Labour is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labour and could never have existed if labour had not first existed. Labour is the superior of capital and deserves the much higher consideration." There's also the fact that Karl Marx was a vocal supporter of Lincoln and the American Civil War. Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus is also enough evidence that he'd be condemned as a communist by the current Republican Party.
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.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
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
@@FilthyTrot 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
Interesting how the video keeps using the term "social justice" and not "civil rights"
Why does it matter?
@@FilthyTrot 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?
@@FilthyTrot 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.
Exactly when did this happen? There were about 3 people that switched parties in the sixties.
Senators switching parties is extremely rare. The one that switched to the Republican Party supported segregation.
@@High_rise12 so did Biden
Redic D no he opposed federally mandated bussing. He still supported integration.
@@High_rise12 “I don’t want my children to grow up in a racial jungle”
The Zhevlakov eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/27/fact-check-post-partly-false-biden-1977-racial-jungle-remark/6045749002/
This comment section didn’t pass the vibe check
We need an internet driving license!
Elaborate, please
Ahh the "party switch"- the myth everybody knows, yet nobody can explain.
can you elaborate ?
Max Jarman Elaborate what?
the “party switch” is a term for how the at the time democrats held the same beliefs as the modern day republicans and vice versa
P Hollywood how it’s a myth. I truly don’t know just trying to figure out how the north and south’s Democrat/republican majorities switched from the civil war era to now.
Sydney Samuels Well, you’ve been lied to. The parties never changed except for the democrats who had to because they lost the war.
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.
The one united cause the republician party had was "That all men are created equal;" which was second on their 1860 party platform only after establishing the perpetuation of the republican party and it's principals. This actually puts the principals with at least as much importance as the party.
First, this meant slavery must be abolished and later that was expanded to slavery must be abolished at all costs. Second was that people needed to be able to do business and move freely in a moral way not overly constricted by other citizens or governments. The republicans were trying to eliminate the control of the individual from other individuals. For this, roads and transportation routes were needed, currency needed to be standardized and slave ownership had to become a federal offense since the southern states weren't doing it on their own. This was never intended to be an unlimited expanding ideology that would control everything. That is evident in the idea republicans didn't want one set of people or society in general to control other people.
So nothing switched.
@@TheChosenOnes_482 you must be a Democrat and you need to learn some history. The Republican party was the party of abolition. This meant the Republicans had no slaves. And many black men were Democrats which were owners of slaves. Hundreds of thousands of Republicans died so that everyone could be free. Hundreds of thousands of Democrats died trying to keep slavery. Democrats have been trying to control people for a very very long time. That hasn't changed one bit since they lost the civil war.
Joseph Rainey was seated to the House of Representatives in 1870 and he was a Republican. So republicans killed people that fought to keep slavery and voted a former slave in as a congressman.
@@TheChosenOnes_482 You do understand that Lincoln was a Republican right? Democrats fought hard to keep and expand westward with slavery. Do some research man. Gun control was about keeping former slaves seeking justice from owning firearms.
Abraham Lincoln: "Labour is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labour and could never have existed if labour had not first existed. Labour is the superior of capital and deserves the much higher consideration."
There's also the fact that Karl Marx was a vocal supporter of Lincoln and the American Civil War. Isn't Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus is also enough evidence that he'd be condemned as a communist by the current Republican Party?
@@jaredh9463 Yeah, sure. The parties must not have changed at all since the 1800s. That explains why the Democratic Party made Barack Obama its nominee, and why Donald Trump who's essentially become the Republican Party empathizes with and is as popular as he is among white supremacists.
"ALL MEN CREATED EQUAL" it should have read "ALL WHITE MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. If you put things into context then you would realize that the founding fathers werent Referring to anyone but Whites. No one wants to admit that. Anyone can be racist but this country has institutionalized racism in every system because the foundation of America was built of of white superiority off the killing of the Indians and off of free labor of the blacks. You guys always say "Heritage not Hate" Well your heritag is an evil one and nothing to be proud of.
Best answer? They didn't
prove it, come on. if the parties never switched, you must support socialists because the old republicans did too, right?
I mean, if you look at electoral maps in the 60s, you will say other wise
@@existing3628 yeah because the beliefs of the south and north have changed.
Mostly due to the north having big cities, therefore they are mostly liberal
Then how come the KKK doesn't support the Democratic party anymore?
@@SwooopieShark bro what kKK? like what a fucking weak boogie man. What are they even 3000 deep? If the parties switched explain Carter...explain Clinton
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
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
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.
Lifelong Democrat Exalted Cyclops Senator Byrd never got the “switch” memo...soooo
You may be stupid, but that's ok. You might want to know two things about him. One, he was in office before the switch. It just made political sense to retain his role. And second, he was the most conservative dem *ever* to take his position.
@Aidan Barton You may be a gullible ignoramus but that’s not okay. Exalted Cyclops Democrat Senator Byrd was a lifelong racist...so thanks for agreeing there was no party switch. It was fun watching you try to justify your racial hatred and support of the party that started KKK.
@@billydee4272 I'm not a dem, child. But it's funny to watch people like you try to deflect from your own racism. Byrd left and revoked the klan nearly a century ago... but was always conservative. In fact, he openly admitted that was the only reason he joined the KKK, they were conservative. So thanks for admitting that the party switch happened, and it's fun to watch you try to justify your racial hatred and support of the ideology that started KKK.
@Aidan Barton I’m not a rep, princess. But it’s funny to watch racist, intellectual midgets like you try to justify Democrat’s well-documented history of racial violence & national division while excusing the hero worship of a KKK Exalted Cyclops. Byrd didn’t “switch” because there was no “switch” and historical revisionists depend on the naïveté & gullibility of slow-witted simpletons like yourself to parrot ludicrous stupidity that’s rejected by history itself. Run along now, you imbecilic moron...as I’ve little patience for racists who’re too stupid to even realize they’re racists pissants. Reject this... Robert Byrd
ruclips.net/video/PRMp4U1dCUM/видео.html
@@billydee4272 Oh suuure, you're not a republican. You just swallow their fascistic racist lies day in and day out, and spend hours a day online defending them. Trump isn't going to sleep with you, sweetie. But it's ok, we all know how much you love to justify (and continue) the right's long history of of racial violence & national division while making up whatever excuses possible. I hate to break it to you, but Byrd was the most conservative dem in his position, and in the party. The "left" only liked him even a small bit because unlike other conservatives (most of whom are now in the republican party), he actually grew out of the KKK and rejected it. It's funny, you don't see the KKK endorsing Byrd for his elections. Who did they endorse again? Oh right, Trump. The parties switched, and idiots like you can never escape that fact. Don't worry, even us removed from the partisan bullshit know it. You can try to justify your petty historical revisionism and blatant denialism all you want, but it doesn't change the facts. I know how much you guys love to discount and silence minorities, but you aren't shutting me up or making me run away that easily. Perhaps you should learn your history and stop supporting one of the most racist ideologies to ever exist, conservatism.
Let's ask a question - are you in favor of Affirmative Action?
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.
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
Hello from England.
I still cannot get my head around the fact that the south was once democrat and supported slavery and how it all completely reversed after the civil war. Mind boggling. What a strange country the USA is.
@@johnweber4577 Gulp! Did you write all that especially for me or was it a cut and paste?
If you wrote it all for me then I am honoured indeed.
I will have to find 1/2 hr to read it, and I will... but not tonight as it is 12:46 am so going to bed.
@@darthbuzz1 it’s my standard reply on the topic to be honest. Lol. I hope it doesn’t come off as aggressive. I apologize about the length but it does seem that on highly contentious topics like this if you don’t make a full case you often get accused of cherry picking so I just try to avoid that. Haha. I also hope you find it interesting. I’d also like to keep the record straight that I am as of now a Libertarian leaning independent as opposed to a partisan GOP apologist. I just think it’s better to accept both have had their better and worse moments and are going to consistently evolve over time as opposed to there having always been two teams of straightforward heroes and villains throughout all of time with the one caveat being a name swap. I just feel like political conversation would be so much more productive if we could get past trying to spin the other team as the perpetual Legion of Doom. Lol
@@johnweber4577 Well, that was very interesting and a whole lot more complicated than I thought. I now know much more about American politics than British. I think Bernie Sanders is my favorite US politician and would have preferred him for president over any of the others. I consider myself to be a leftist liberal animal rights activist and liked Tony Blair the most out of recent leaders. Politics these days is all about greed and wealth and the poor continue to get poorer and the rich get richer while the Earth is being raped of is few remaining resources and the last remnants of wildlife. GoVegan!
Try telling that to Republicans though. It's funny too because today they are racist as fuck and against big government so it makes perfect since that the parties switched, but that's inconvenient for Republicans
Because there was no party switch. A couple (like 2?)democrats switched sides
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 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?
Hint: they didn’t
Patrick Kenny Actually they did.
Yes they did. The electoral map alone proves that.
Democrats bribed black people to switch.
Yeezys’ R’Gay How do bribe a whole demographic?
h Republican states use more social programs.
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?
@@FilthyTrot 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.
They never switched platforms!
Then why did the southern and northern American states switch from Democrat to Republican?
@@FilthyTrot the original post is referring to the senate and house of representatives. 1 from the senate and 1 from the house, the rest remained democRats! You my friend are referring to when Nixon broke the blue wall in the south. Learn your history!
@Dead Eyes89 yea right, all democRats are about is splitting up this country by race! They are the ones who are pushing the entire idea of separating us by race and pandering for minority votes and doing nothing to help us!
@@edwardgonzales73 What do you mean? Democrats have overwhelmingly more support than Republicans from minorities and nominated the first African American US President.
@@FilthyTrot you really need to read up on the democRats party! They are the party of the KKK and fought against the Civil right movement! All their programs that they claim help minorities actually hurt minority people! SMFH, read a book already!
Lol. Seeking “Expansion of federal power” was enlisting federal law, by majority vote btw, to force the end of slavery.
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
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😂
Ah yes, the good old party switch of the 1960s, because all of the old democrats like FDR and Wilson were totally conservatives and the old republicans like Harding and Coolidge were totally liberals. This definitely isn’t a myth or anything thats just brought up in discussions about Lincoln
LOL
they didn't.
stop lying.
Im an independant and its insane the things i see and hear on both parties. Even at me when i admit the pros and cons of both. and they swear I side or vote with one side only. People ask or say the parties have switched and no longer the same as back then. Well for starters of course its not the same because times have changed and theres different issues to tackle so the parties adapt and fight for and against causes. But what remains the same of both parties are the fundamental values and what they stand for as far as politics and the county. All the new things they "say" they stand for is bullshit or new to appeal to people. Like the democrats saying they fight for tolerance and ration equality! Bullshit! They dont! They care for that vote because without they are nothing. The republicans have been the party of racial equality and freedom for all and rights for everyone. The thing is those progressives that vote democrat yelling they want racial justice is actually a republican attitude! But they have been sucked into and manipulated by the left to feel its the Democrats because of the new use of the racial equality banner! They have not done ONE THING to help different races and its communities! Prove me wrong! The welfare program? That helps them? maybe for that fast money but it keeps you under government control, dependant and seen as the bottom of the contributions to society and for yourself. The welfare program hurts you ini the long run, You will NEVER get out of it and realize your potential. It keeps you with the vicitim mentality. Look at where we are now. So upset and people who are not on the bottom and are thriving that they want to tear them down and blame them for their misfortune and poorness. The moment they accept this and say victim no more and take initiative to thrive or be amongst other like minded people then they will leave poverty behind. Sadly many wont because they are to proud to admit this, or too brainwashed by the left or dont know where to begin, or dependant on that next welfare check. The only thing Republicans are wrong and guilty of is not fighting back and harder to gain the peoples trust and votes back.They lost those votes to the Left. They are too conservative and soft and rather not fight. They do hope people can open their eyes and do research in fact they dont even say vote for us or give you incentives or lies to do so. They want you to be free thinkers, independent thinkers and educate yourself. They fight for your freedom, and independence and freedom of speech! They will welcome all no matter what race as long as you want to be a happy and a contributor and not a menace to society. Another thing republicans look bad which is not their fault is as a collective there's many whites. This turns off blacks and minorities but the obvious answer is many blacks stand together and ignorantly choose and are persuaded to stand with the democrats. The Dems have successfully manipulated them to feel they need to and depend on them by appealing to them by using welfare and preaching racial equality. But thats a pretty slogan for we want government to control people and be more in their lives and to equally have them at their use (a precursor for socialism). Also many blacks also vote democratic because they dont want their family and race to call them a sellout. What makes the Republicans look bad is the few that are highly religious that turn off many liberals but thats not all republicans faults. And the ignorant white supremacists that are not even a significant large percentage in the nation vote red. They dont speak for the Republicans in fact the Republicans denounce them and dont stand by them. The white supremacists vote red because red is the more patriotic party, The one that stands for America and its history and values and they resonate with that. Thats not a conservatives/republicans fault! There are many white supremacists and nationalists and KKK admirers and racists in the democratic party as well. Most of these people are ignorant and live in rural areas that dont know any better. The fact people fight and argue and call people on the right racist because they vote for Trump is insane and ignorant and racist in itself. The democrats are the party that preach tolerance and denounce fascism yet have been violent, intolerable and bullying people to side with them or else and have been practicing fascist tactics! No one is the same! No one should vote for a president for single issues and the character of one does not reflect someone elses if they have some things in common. We all should agree to disagree without facing persecution and hate. Not everyone that votes for Trump thinks the same nor has the same ideals for what policy they voted for or dislike or want for the country. Thats as ignorant as saying all democrats vote for Biden because they want communism or want the economy to fail or like touching and smelling women and children, or must admire corruption and political fascism. Would democrats like to be labeled that for voting for Biden? Then they should not ignorantly say those who vote Trump hate blacks or hispanics. It just makes them look stupid with no good argument but more intolerance and names thrown to offend as they usually do cause all they do is act out on emotion not intelligence or something simple as facts. All people need is to do research and educate themselves before jumping on the bandwagon of a party affiliation and attacking the other!
Alex - You have used many words to say a lot of dumbass, bullshit propaganda.
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".
@@rb032682 How ironic, you replied with so many words to say a lot of dumbass, bullshit propaganda too. You have soo much leverage now, hope you enjoy yourself lol. I really dont care what ignorant people think, it doesnt matter thats why they are deemed ignorant. I just gave my two cents if anyone cared to read at that moment and since you started off disrespectfully and insanely ignorant with your false history on "conservatives" (which I expressed that times have changed and I'm independent and not choosing sides but clearly you showed you are partisan and anti conservatives) I couldnt care to continue reading after your second sentence.
@@rb032682 Let us guess, you have not one bad thing to say about non-conservatives? lol The problem here is you are generalizing now. So you lose your point casting all as a collective evil but the other half as the greater good when history has proven to be otherwise. Let me remind you we werent even around in those times and you are beating a dead horse. From what I glanced at your posting, it seems you desperately want to cast conservatives negatively or responsible for American embarrassments yet many of those the Democratic party was responsible for and you either ignorantly or intentionally mislabeled it as conservative doings. Nice try but made the whole argument with you trivial. Even if what you said were true, you admitted that conservatives "changed" and ''attempted" to "fix and do right". When will Democrats do good and right their wrongs?
@@dimelo8826
Dude, it isn't a "mislabeling" just because you don't like the truth.
No, child. I'm sorry you seem to think that your biased, partisan nonsense is accurate, but let me correct you, in a more concise way than you conservatives seem capable of.
- What remains of both parties are not the same fundamental values, since said values have shifted throughout history, even being traded between parties.
- Democrats, by definition, are currently the party fighting for tolerance and racial equality.
- The republicans stopped caring about racial equality and freedom the second they embraced conservatism.
- the republicans are not the party of racial equality and freedom for all and rights for everyone, given their open opposition to all of those things.
- progressive politics aren't a "republican attitude," you just want to deny the past of conservatism.
- You have already been proven wrong on this point, the democratic party has objectively done more to help minority groups than the republican party.
- American welfare exists with the explicit and obvious goal of bringing people back into the workforce, the opposite of "dependent," and there is no evidence to suggest that "you never get out of it."
- the idea of a "victim mentality" for minority groups is an explicitly conservative notion.
- The majority of people who "tear down the thriving" do so because the "thriving" forced them into said position and advocate for systems that lock them in said position, and they like you are unwilling to take responsibility for their actions. Ignoring the reality of your life will not stop your poverty.
- Republicans are wrong and guilty of many things, but not hating minority groups enough isn't one of them.
- Republicans despise academia and free press, they openly advocate for you to not be free or independent figures.
- The conspiracy theory that "blacks" have been manipulated into voting progressive is literally from the KKK.
- You evidently have no idea what socialism is, nor what the democratic party is.
- You have no evidence for these claims.
- Republicans continually fail to denounce white supremacist figures and ideas, and even when they do, their actions tell a very different story.
- There are, objectively, not many white supremacists/nationalists or KKK members in the democratic party.
- There's nothing racist about calling out a racist.
- No, child, the democrats have not been "practicing fascist tactics."
- Not tolerating the intolerant is a capstone policy of democracy.
- The reason you can lump all republicans together on most issues is because they follow their leaders without thinking.
- Pointing out Trump's long history of racism isn't ignorant.
- Pointing out intolerance and racism isn't "stupid," nor is it "intolerant." It's a statement based in fact.
- You, evidently, have not educated yourself on a single one of these matters, hence falling in line with conservative and republican ideology 100%, without a single critical thought.
- The history regarding conservatism, the ideology of the confederacy, is far from "false."
- you're attempting to deflect from the long history of conservatism's crime by saying that many happened under democrats, ignoring that the democratic party used to be a white, southern, religious, conservative party.
- To point out those facts is purposeful, not done out of ignorance or as a mistake.
- Conservatives have hardly changed at all since their segregationist days, minus not being allowed to be openly racist and complaining about it.
- the democrats not only have fixed their own wrongs, as in, the wrongs of liberals, but have to work extra hard to fix the wrongs of conservatives, from slavery to jim crow, while conservatives just step back and deny the whole thing.
- Despite claiming to be independent, you seem unable to meaningfully distance yourself in any way from conservatism.
Hope that helped, conservative denialist?
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
The sides never switched
Please feel free to explain why conservative black republicans would leave the party in droves all at the same time
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.
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.
The switch never happened
ok boomer
@@robertmedina929 im still trying to find a reputable source with the correct answer on this topic
@@promethean44 It happened, and i would love to provide citation if you would like me to
prove it. You can't. 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.
As confounding as it might sound from a modern perspective, the historical Democratic ethos can basically be boiled down to “egalitarianism with hierarchical characteristics” while that of the old Republicans and their Whig predecessors was a “hierarchy with egalitarian characteristics”. Or at least those were consensus positions they could accept. This is what makes these debates tricky.
Yeah they flipped platforms, and we all know how Democrats love small government, low taxes, and Ronald Reagan. Woodrow Wilson is just such a hero to todays Republican party.
The switch would be before that, during civil rights. Learn history
@@robem9432 civil rights was before Woodrow Wilson and the income tax? You're telling me to learn history?
@@williampennjr.4448 how ignorant are you? The democratic party literally used to be the party of "small government." One of the most racist presidents in our history, Andrew Jackson, was Trump's favorite, his hero.
dummy when did I say civil rights was before Wilson? The Topic is about the alleged party flip which I debunked sarcastically using Wilson.as an example.
@@williampennjr.4448
But you didn't debunk anything, you ran away from facts you didn't like and used an example that was itself easy to debunk. You really aren't that good at this, are you? Sorry you got proven wrong.
This misconstrued so many ideas and represented them so broadly it's almost funny.
@thefobbie So youre saying the south used to be liberal? And the north conservative?
@thefobbie what's your point?
@thefobbie Yes i actually did and whats your point about the civil rights acts and segregation? I guess elaborating is too difficult?
@thefobbie Thats all i wanted. Just was a little confused on what were you trying to say.
@thefobbie The dates you gave are literally all pre-swap. You even said yourself that the swap happened around 1964, which is the end date for the examples you provided. I don't give a flying fuck who made the civil rights movement. Kudos to the Republican party, they did something very right there. I care about where it's going. And frankly, the Democratic party is a lot more promising in the modern era.
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
@@FilthyTrot 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...
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
The parties never switched.
You are absolutely 100 % right
I'm sorry you're inbred and history illiterate.
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.
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
its very simple, Ask yourself which party supported the new deal, the income tax and Roosevelt, and which party does now. That will tell you if the party switch happened or not.
What side was Woodrow Wilson on?
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.
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
WHAT THE HELL
THE PARTIES ARE STILL THE SAME DAM THING
Then why did the north and south switch parties?
@@FilthyTrot 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.
Or a third option, they've neither switched nor stayed the same.
The parties each had sizable liberal and conservative wings and werent very polarized until the Democrats decided to add civil rights to their platform in 1948 and the parties slowly began sorting on idealogical lines from there. The one party south occasionally started supporting various third party tickets and eventually Republicans starting in 1964 (Ike was personality and doesn't count) and as social conservatives began to leave the Democratic party, the GOP was waiting with open arms. The problem for the Democrats for a solid 24 years was that white social conservatives (regardless of fiscal preference) were a substantial majority of the general electorate at that time.
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.
Someone should have notified Robert Byrd. 😂😂😂 Democrat Senator/KKK Grand Wizard. 👌🏻
Also Bull Connor, AKA Martin Luther King Jr.'s worst enemy, never switched sides either. Most Dixiecrats refused to become Republicans simply based off southern history.
Correct, Robert Byrd was a DemoKKKrat when elected in the 1950's. He made the decision to change his racist past and stick with the DemoKKKrat party. Robert Byrd was a RW'r.
He was not a Grand Wizard. He was barely an initiate and called it his greatest mistake. David Duke however, was a Grand Wizard, and was a Republican SR. He stated that he was running "to defend the rights of European Americans". He claimed that his platform has become the Republican mainstream and added, "I'm overjoyed to see Donald Trump and most Americans embrace most of the issues that I've championed for years."
The DemoKKKrat party back in the 1950's was going through a transition. The conservative base of the DemoKKKrat party wasn't happy about the DemoKKKratic party changing it's platform to support rights for black people. Around that time period, most conservatives moved over to the republican party because they were using the 'southern strategy' to pull in the racist voters of the DemoKKKrat party. Robert Byrd decided to not move to the republican party but stay in the democratic party.
You're in denial. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United_States_politics
This is basically a list of democrats.
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.
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.
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)
The parties never freaking switched. Oh my God, this isn't what my parents were taught in school.
yes they are teaching this at (high) school
it should have been, as this is the truth
But they did. Just because you're unwilling to critically engage with the past doesn't mean the past didn't happen.
@@Gvjrapiro no, it isn’t. The democrats then AND now, were the party of the slaves… deal with it or switch sides.
@@HeadgeHunter
Why would I switch to the proud slave owning conservative side, who then and now argues for racism and defends slavery?
@@HeadgeHunter
I'm sorry, bud, this is false. The southern conservatives were the party of slaves, jim crow, segregation, in both parties. It's the left, the progressives, the liberals, who freed them, which is why you despise them. The conservatives are the ideology of slavery. How dare you suggest black people are happy with their own enslavement? Stop telling people to switch to your pro-slavery side.
My main question for anyone in favor of a big government: Why do you trust our government enough to give them absolute power? I can't think of any time in history our government showed us we can trust them. Everyone loves the "hope and change" bit, but has government actually changed? Why do people keep falling for it?
@Andre Calvit Dude, what?? The government are the tyrants. You're blind as a bat.
@Andre Calvit Keep believing the government wants what's best for you. I don't give a shit.
@Andre Calvit Nope. I'm comprehending. I choose not to engage with someone who's willing to justify the overt powergrab that we all see with the current administration. I'm just biding my time before I leave this shithole country that was once the best nation in the world. Now, we have critical race theory making white people the scapegoat for everything bad, we have a government more engaged in the interest of China than protecting its own citizens, we had 6 months of nationwide riots torching up cities without impunity and no one cared, but goddamn, you have one day where the right to a cue card from the left and stormed the capital , and that's all we hear about. I'm tired of this country being thrown away, so good riddance.
@Andre Calvit The government serves themselves. We are just the pawns in their game.
@Andre Calvit Dude, we can go back and forth on all these talking points, but it's a lost cause. I really don't feel the need to argue with a stranger on RUclips where this requires a lot of nuisance. As I said before, keep believing your government has your best interest in mind. Keep buying into thinking the serve you and not themselves. I don't give a shit and I'll certainly won't change your mind. It's a fruitless endeavor to be having the conversation. So, go ahead and pigeonhole me. I don't give a shit. And yes, I really do hate what America has become. Bye now.
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
Funny how people in the comments think that parties stay the same. The Republicans of the 1860s to the early 20th century were big government and progressive. The Democrats were the small government and conservative party. Republicans had a big presence in the North while the Republicans had a big presence in the South. Also progressive ideologies are more prevalent in the cities while conservative ones are more prevalent in the rural areas. In present day, Democrats are the ones supporting big government and progressive agendas while Republicans are small government (states rights) and are conservative. The South of the United States is well known to be a Republican stronghold. The south was the region that seceded from the United States and formed the confederacy. There are pockets of more liberal areas in the South but they are in the cities. From this evidence it is easy to see that Republicans and Democrats switched party platforms and the regions of their concentration swapped. The individuals that would likely have become Democrats switched to the Republican Party and the individuals that would likely have become Republicans became Democrats.
Present day confirms this. The Democratic Party were the first ones to elect a African American president. 80-90 percent of African Americans vote Democratic in the presidential elections. In the late 19th century it was the opposite. The majority of African Americans voted Republican.
I used to be Republican myself. Republicans that disliked this video are upset that they being exposed as something different from what they think they are. They want to be the Party that gave us great presidents as Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and want to be associated with the party that was against slavery because it puts them in the right when it comes to history. It makes them feel good. Sad thing is that the Republican Party of today is the Democratic Party of the 1860s to early 20th century.
Part I:
The first thing to get out of the way that any political party in America or otherwise has been an absolute monolith is of course and oversimplification. But talking about the record of the foundational Republican and Democratic Parties do think the is indeed an underlying dynamic that never changed in spite of some evolution in their policy positions and shifts in their constituencies. For the most part I won’t be talking about “Dixiecrat” politicians who very much acted like their own force even back to the Founding. Though the voting blocks they had influence over did have some considerable overlap with support for the platform of the Democratic Party proper, particularly early on. And even into the 20th Century they were able to garner support from several Southern segregationists for Left-wing economic projects like the New Deal and the War on Poverty. It’s when socially progressive initiatives became more prevalent that the coalition became more irreconcilable and industry coming to the South made the pro-business party all the more alluring. And somewhat problematically the South does wind up taking up a lot of the conversation for whatever party they’ve sided with given how the electoral college is set up.
The Republicans, as well as their precursors among the Federalists and the Whigs, historically tended to be the business friendly party that promoted character building while the Democrats, as well as their predecessors among the Anti-Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans, have historically claimed to be the party that spoke for the common man and led the charge against economic elites on their behalf.
You just need to look at major conflicts that were framed as being “The Elites versus The People” during each party system even before the 20th Century. Prominent examples including Alexander Hamilton versus Thomas Jefferson on the issue of the Revolutionary War debt speculators, Henry Clay versus Andrew Jackson on the issue of the National Bank and William McKinley versus William Jennings Bryan on the issue of the Free Silver movement. It was the Republican forerunners Hamilton, Clay and McKinley who defended the interests of economic elites including speculators, bankers and industrialists while it was the Democratic forerunners Jefferson, Jackson and Bryan who claimed the mantle of sticking up for the exploited common American.
Class angst has always been a driving force for the Democratic Tradition. Back at the time of the Founding before the establishment of sizable minority communities, the full development of urban centers and the sharp decline in the agricultural population it was poor often rural whites who were portrayed as the oppressed underclass in in a system rigged to the benefit of more well off city folk and wealthy business moguls in the Northeast. The kind of rhetoric they employ now is similar but with the lines delineating the systemically oppressed and covert oppressors being redrawn over time as the party and their constituency evolved. Republicans for the most part while fighting oppression rarely blamed the American system of give at large or called it rather than some misguided laws as oppressive.
Men like Alexander Hamilton, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley and Calvin Coolidge operated within the tradition of the American School of economics. Adopting mostly from Classical economics supplemented by some not socialist but critically applied mercantilist policy meant to bolster and protect the national economy. So that the country would not become dependent on its foreign rivals for manufacturered goods and incentivize a more industrious society. All in all, creating a thriving modern economy. That is why business owners large and small supported them and their interventionist policies like tariffs and infrastructure. It should also be stressed that during the 19th Century, those kinds of policies were commonly supported by conservative parties. Unless one wants to do something like argue that Benjamin Disraeli’s Tories were to the Left of William Gladstone’s Liberal Party in England. Which would be quite a contested take. It should be noted that they also tended to promote self-improvement, discipline, personal responsibility and lawfulness as virtues in what have some come to refer to as the “Whig Ethic”.
The Democrats historically have tended to exhibit unease if not disdain towards the modern industrial capitalist economy as something that allows for the oppression of corporations to be inflicted on the common person. That is why early in America’s history you had men like Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson romanticized the agrarian lifestyle. They believed that it was easier to maintain relative equality in a world of yeoman farmers held to a particular plot of land rather than one filled with corporations that could transcend state if not national lines. They also saw urbanization as an alienating and corruptive force. And that the people without such influences would exhibit their natural goodness. Ultimately, the innovation of an industrialized society was not worth the more complex social hierarchies that would emerge. Therefore, they opposed the interventionist policies their rivals were championing. Claiming that they were more to the benefit of big business than the people.
It would be true to argue that there were socialistic people who supported Lincoln and the Republicans. But they were about as relevant as the white nationalists who by default support Republicans today. They aligned on certain issues but a fringe that in each case is often exaggerated nowadays order to slant the narrative about what the Party was then and is now.
And now for a long discursion on the turn of the 20th Century as it’s a key but often foggy subject that is often used to make certain points. A major being two key figures often being removed from context. Them being Grover Cleveland and Theodore Roosevelt. Meant to create the image that the Democrats were at the time the party of big business and that it was the Republicans who took a stand against them. Which for starters ignores everything I’ve brought up previously. Cleveland is often used as the face of the Gilded Age when it was already under way during a time of largely Republican controlled federal government following the Civil War including four presidents between Andrew Johnson and Cleveland. Even most of the oft-derided robber barons were Republicans. Arguably, Cleveland and the “Bourbon Democrats” were the forerunners to Bill Clinton and the third way “New Democrats”. An adjustment in the Democratic Party to the Gilded Age as the latter seemed to be to the Reagan Revolution. Both veering into Classical Liberalism and making inroads with big business. Much to the chagrin of radicals in the party. Another interesting parallel tough is that out of each movement you got a scholarly politician, Woodrow Wilson from the Bourbon Democrats and Barack Obama from the New Democrats, who would win the presidency and actually become one of the most Progressive presidents if not the most up until that point when economic tensions started running high. Taking a more deliberate approach in implementing the kinds of ideas the radicals wanted.
Which brings us to TR. The most glaring omission in the narrative most often surrounding him is the populist movement spearheaded by radicals like the aforementioned William Jennings Bryan and Tom Watson in retaliation to the Gilded Age. The populists came to the conclusion that I’m an industrialized America an expansion of federal power was needed to curb corporate power and became a dominant force within the Democratic Party by the end of the 19th Century. Teddy became concerned that the unrest in the country could lead to the populists being elected and throwing the system out of balance if not start a full scale revolution.
@@johnweber4577 Well, isn't Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus in the American Civil War enough evidence that he'd be condemned as a communist by the current Republican Party? I mean, even the likes of Nixon and Reagan look like Democrats compared to the current Republican Party.
Yup. Well said. But we have a slew of retards who can’t see the light. They just deny, deny, deny.
"Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms?" Why ask a question when it never happened? This is like asking "Why did JFK become a woman?"
Because it did happen, like it or not. Why else would the socialists now support the dems, and not the republicans?
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
_"Why do most black Americans vote Democratic?"_ *Here's an idea. Think of each political party (Democratic/ Republican) as a house. Now think of a political ideology (Liberal/Conservative) as the people who live in these two houses.*
> Let's start around the Civil War era (1860's) and say most of the people who hated and despised you lived in one of those houses. *Let's say the blue Democratic house.*
>And most of the people who treated you decently lived in the other house. *Let's say, the red Republican house.*
>And for decades, the majority of people who hated and despised you lived in that blue Democratic house. ___ So naturally, you wanted nothing to do with that blue house. You preferred the people in that red house who were more inclined to treat you decently.
*RESULT- For decades, (late 1800's- early 1900's), black Americans were loyal to the red Republican house. (Where Lincoln and the Abolitionists had resided.)*
>Then as years passed, an interesting thing happened. You began to notice it was becoming harder to know which house to avoid. Gradually, some of those people who hated and despised you began showing up in the red "R" house. At the same time, more of those people who treated you decently began to show up in the blue "D" house. After a while, each house had some people who hated you and some people who treated you fairly. It was no longer so easy to know which house you should avoid as it had been in decades past.
*RESULT- By the mid 1900's, (Civil Rights Movement) noting a definite trend, many black Americans left the red (R) house for the blue (D) house. But a minority still remained In the red (R) house.*
>Then after a few more decades, it became clear that neither house had as many people who hated and despised you as they had in decades past. In both houses, the majority of the people in them now treated you decently and fairly. But what you DID notice, is as the trend continued, that the vast majority of those people who DID still hate and despise you NOW lived in the red "R" house.
*RESULT- A notable majority of black Americans favor the blue "D" house even though it's not quite as clear-cut because the hateful people have less power and influence than they once did. (Unfortunately, their influence has still not been completely erased and is beginning to trend upward.)*
*QUESTION: SHOULD BLACK AMERICANS AVOID THE BLUE HOUSE BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO HATED AND DESPISED THEM **_,_** OR AVOID THE RED HOUSE WHERE MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO HATE AND DESPISE THEM **_?_** ...think about it.*
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).
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
Arguments like this is why I like to stay in the middle
Observing both sides and then throughly thinking my opinion
There is no more middle. Dems ran on being a moderate and won passing the most radical federal power grab in US history.
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".
@@Noobish_Camper55 - ¿huh? "Power grab"? WTF are you talking about? You seem confused.
@@rb032682 Massive reform on how voting works at the last second, proposing court packing w/ 15 Justices to only have liberal judges in a non partisan body of government, gun registry pushed, defunding local police to be replaced by federal policing, and attempting to increase covid lockdown/spending when the virus is at an all time low with a returning economy to name a few. Pointless garbage that just gives more to the federal, less to the state, and keeps the dems in power as long as possible.
@@rb032682 WTF are you ranting about you idiot? Are you trying to argue that the democrat South is equal to the modern Republican? Let us remember that Lincoln, a republican, wanted to conserve the union and the founding words in the constitution. "We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." Doesn't seem very similar to any modern liberal thought that I know of. Tear down the system and the lessons learned through our history is the modern liberal mantra.
They didn’t switch
im confused on how your going to argue with a fact? Does it not add up to you that democrats back in the 19th Century wanted lower tax's, reduced/no tariffs , and the the republicans wanted higher tax's, were industrial, and did not think that slavery was right? Republicans were mostly found in the north where agriculture was not a profound as in the south, leading to the want of slaves. Republicans back then were into industry, another reason they supported high protective tariffs. this is the total opposite of today, its alright to accept that a party has its flaws just like every party. Washington was correct when saying that the creation of parties will bring a divide in the the nation.
Squeecy it’s propaganda
Squeecy after all the republicans, Lincoln did they needed another way ..
Okay, bub. 🤣
prove it, come on. if the parties never switched, you must support socialists because the old republicans did too, right?
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 only switch I am aware of is when the Communists bought out the democrat party, when they were going under.
This is like Reefer Madness for politics
it's true tho
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..
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.
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.
I don't bother watching the video. I learn the truth from the comment section.
Yeah, right and Republicans love representing the Dixiecrat flag in the south because they loved those old school Democrats... you're full of shit
@@LifeWithRilla I didn’t ask for your life story but thanks anyway
@@cj07722 idgaf what you adked for. You're stupid if you believe what you say... low iq'd simp
@@LifeWithRilla Tell your mom to stop calling me
I think I can solve the Pan-Pam dilemma
Pand. There's a, "d" on the end.
They didn’t
If the parties didn't switch, why did the southern and northern American states switch from Democrat to Republican?
Earnest Scribbler , after the war the wealthy republicans bought large pieces of land in the south and democrats financially decimated by the war moved north looking for manufacturing jobs. Does it really make sense that anti slavery people would leave the Republican Party which was created based on the idea of anti slavery to join the democrat party which was known as the party of slavery? That’s like BLM and the KKK agreeing to swap names.
@@Snafu1911 Point still stands. The Republican Party now has far more support than Democrats from the southern American states in which segregation and the activities of the KKK have consistently been far more popular than in the north throughout history and the KKK overwhelmingly supports the Republican Party. It also now tends to be Republicans who brandish Confederate flags and protest removing Confederate statues. I mean, Donald vocally opposed the movement to ban Confederate flags:
ruclips.net/video/xhP7V1An3SY/видео.html.
Now are you still gonna deny that the parties switched? 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).
During the Constitutional Convention in Philly, for the Southern Democrats, they wanted black slaves, who were not allowed to vote, to count as 5/5ths, for Congressional count for representation in Washington, or establishing the number of Congressional members of a state.
The Republicans argued that blacks have no representing in the South, so blacks should count as 0/0th. But to get the Southern states to sign the Constitution, the 3/5ths was the compromise.
Andrew Jackson, the founder of the current Democrat party, in 1820 forced the Native Americans and forced to their relocation to the Oklahoma Territory. This was the Trail of Tears.
Before the Civil War, Democrats where trying to expand their power by expanding slavery into the newly formed states.
It's comical when some claim the South was Democrat and today mostly Republican, thus assuming the parties switched. Many Democrats switched during the 60s, including Ronald Reagan in '62. Very few Republicans switched.
When Reagan was elected, many more Democrats switched.
Let me help you here, bring you to reality.
During the Constitutional Convention in Philly, for the Southern Conservatives, they wanted black slaves, who were not allowed to vote, to count as 5/5ths, for Congressional count for representation in Washington, or establishing the number of Congressional members of a state.
The Liberals argued that blacks have no representing in the South, so blacks should count as 0/0th. But to get the Southern states to sign the Constitution, the 3/5ths was the compromise.
Andrew Jackson, the founder of the historical Democratic party, an open conservative and admitted inspiration/favorite president to Donald Trump, in 1820 forced the Native Americans and forced to their relocation to the Oklahoma Territory. This was the Trail of Tears.
Before the Civil War, Conservatives where trying to expand their power by expanding slavery into the newly formed states.
It's comical when some claim the South was Liberal and today mostly Conservative, thus denying the long past of white southern conservatism. The parties have been steadily switching since the end of the civil war, democrats and republicans, realigning their sectional ideologies with new national parties.
Reagan's appeal to racist southerners was just a small part of this.
@@Gvjrapiro what exactly do you think you helped me with?
It were you Democrats who fought for slavery, to spread slavery throughout the new territories.
It were you Democrats (the Jackass Party of Andrew Jackson) who pushed for the removal of Native Americans from their lands to the Oklahoma Territory with the Trail of Tears.
It were you Democrats who supported and pushed for Jim Crow laws in the South.
It were you Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act, with your Democrat Senate filibustered the legislation for 75 days.
It is you racist Democrats to this very day that force inner city blacks into failed government schools.
Nice try blaming conservatives, but fess up about your beloved party you proudly defend!
There weren't Democrats and Republicans at the Constitutional Convention. There weren't even formal parties. Moving past that, the wealthiest Southern planters were often Federalists and Whigs perhaps even more so rather than Jeffersonian Republicans or Jacksonian Democrats. The way the historian Charles Sellers put it was that, "Whigs owned the Slave Power and Democrats rented its labor or served as its overseer." As much as people wish it had been, and for good reason, slavery wasn't a defining wedge issue until the 1850's before which all the major parties housed a wide-range of opinions on the matter. During which time the political coalitions were scrambled across increasingly sectional lines. The Slave Power attempted to consolidate behind the Democrats following the collapse of the Whigs before breaking to run their own candidate in 1860 as the Southern Democratic Party because they found Stephen Douglas and his ilk, who championed popular sovereignty above all else, to be unreliable as allies in the fight for their peculiar institution. The ultimately stuck around as Southern Bourbon Democrats, working with the Republicans was never going to be an option at that point despite efforts by Rutherford B. Hayes to appeal to fellow former Whigs in the region, while their populist rivals who eventually rallied to William Jennings Bryan were inheritors of the Jacksonian spirit, as were their Western counterparts, which arguably didn’t fully reassert itself until the rise of the New Deal Coalition. It ought to be telling that Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis' initial vice presidents, Hannibal Hamlin of Maine and Alexander Stephens of Georgia, started out as a Democrat and a Whig respectively. Hamlin being considerably more radical than Lincoln and Stephens likewise more reactionary than Davis to boot. The dynamics of the general period can't be directly projected onto everything that came before and after as many are want to do in these debates.
@johnweber4577 you are explaining way above the modern day uneducated layman. So I kept it simple.
@johnweber4577 I also think it's interesting how Andrew Jackson was labeled as the Jack-ass party and they still use the emblem today, 200 years later.
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.
I really wonder if Republicans just waste their lives looking up these videos just so they can comment on here,because 90% of these comments are,"THIS IS FALSE!!!!11!!111! REEEE!"
Full Life 3 / Republicans believe in facts & truth. I really wonder if leftists waste their lives drinking Red Bulls in their parent’s basement rather than learning history.
@@factpolice1865 i just- you just- proved their point
@@toastcatproductions6133 ikr this is great.
@@factpolice1865 prove it, come on. if the parties never switched, you must support socialists because the old republicans did too, right?
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.
They never switched
ORYIN which ones and how many?
prove it, bud
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?🤔
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.
Racism.
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.
Yeah blacks have been voting Democrat for 50 years. Let me know how that's turned out. Facts are facts.
they have been voting dem a lot longer than that.they started to vote for dems back in the 30's. dems were gaining blacks way before civil rights
@shutupsucka Something about Democracy, you can vote all you want, that doesn't guarantee dictatorship privileges. Trump might change that though.
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
You can convince me that the political ideologies of both the republican party and the democratic party shifted slightly, the Republicans were economically left wing and the democrats were economically right wing in short big government and small government. The problem arises in social and racial issues the democrats wanted slavery and segregation while the Republicans abolished slavery and wanted civil rights and integration of black people. If these leftists and democratic historians tell me that the parties switched which means that the democratic party in the 1860's and 1960's are like the Republicans of today, then why didn't the Republicans of today made slavery legal again??🤔 why didn't they abolish civil rights 🤔??? They will make definitely make strawman arguments like " the Republicans were conservative " the conservative movement of the 60s were different from the old conservatism this conservatism in 60s wanted to conserve family traditions and Christian values . So this while party switch propaganda bs is just a ploy by the democrats to paint their party as the good guys
Dude, republicans of today are literally trying to do those things.
The party switch is reality. Cope.
Saying that the party which presided over both the Gilded Age and Roaring Twenties during its heyday of power, often held up as two of the periods marked by the worst in excess capitalism, was economically left-wing is an interesting take.
@rajeshwariable Try again in outline format. Then try to correct your conflicting statements.
They switched platforms because they didn’t. Fake news. Moving on.
prove it
I'll take the like to dislike ratio as my fact-check.
honestly. this video couldn't be more incorrect, historically speaking.
They never switched, only one republican went democrat
@bqueen2771
i didnt come to youtube to read.......
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/
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?
Pretty interesting how people will denounce something as a big conspiracy when it doesn't fit their view.
conservatives are notorious for this
What’s big and small government mean?
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
This bull must have been constipated for quite a while because this is one massive pile of
prove it, come on. if the parties never switched, you must support socialists because the old republicans did too, right?
The parties never switched. This is total BS
The kkk supported Democrats 60 years ago and now the kkk supports Republicans....
dont be a dumb fuck
Abraham Lincoln: "Labour is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labour and could never have existed if labour had not first existed. Labour is the superior of capital and deserves the much higher consideration."
There's also the fact that Karl Marx was a vocal supporter of Lincoln and the American Civil War. Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus is also enough evidence that he'd be condemned as a communist by the current Republican Party.
prove it, come on. if the parties never switched, you must support socialists because the old republicans did too, right?
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.
so there was no party switch what happened was they readjusted views
About absolute power
What a Joke!
prove it, come on. if the parties never switched, you must support socialists because the old republicans did too, right?
The big lie!!! Lol
prove it, come on. if the parties never switched, you must support socialists because the old republicans did too, right?