So how had the Democrat and Republican parties effectively switch places on the political spectrum between the Civil...

Yes, but why did the Democrats completely blow off their traditional support base and support civil rights?

At their core, they've always essentially been:

Democrats = "We speak for you, the little man!"
Republicans = "Let's do business"

Everything else is window dressing.

Doesn't seem like a conscious, party-wide decision. It just so happened that the majority of democratic politicians supported civil rights at that time. Why Johnson chose to support the passing of the civil rights act is questionable, he could have just been a woflish politician aiming for a new demographic, and it's not like he didn't sweep the election.

My personal opinion is that the democratic party was becoming more urban and educated with the views of the party shifting slowly over time along with that. The southern democrats were an old guard that were holding back the party as a whole which is why Johnson took the, at the time, risky move of leaving them behind. Whether or not Johnson or any of the democratic politicians involved actually cared about black people is up for debate I guess.

Even after Johnson passed civil rights the South didn't leave the party.

Jimmy Carter won the '76 election with the support of practically the entire south. It was Reagan who really flipped dixie into the republican fold.

>>republicans now
>Fuck niggers, spics and homos!

If you honestly think this is their platform you're an idiot who buys into tumblr politics.

Republicans don't wan't to give benefits to minorities because they don't want to give benefits to anyone. They (rightly) believe that a small government is a good government and programs like social welfare stifle economic growth and the well being of minority communities. Democrats have been putting affirmative action into effect for decades now and Black communities are worse off than they've ever been.

Wanting people to be independent and self-sufficient isn't hatred or bigotry. It takes trust and respect to expect your neighbor to be capable of supporting himself. Giving him shiny trinkets in return for his votes is exploitation, not support.

Niggers and southerners are just identity politics retards, republicans were always pro northern industry

Lol wut.

Then explain Donald Trump. He's basically everything negative the democrats have ever accused the republicans of being, and I say that as someone who has voted republican my whole life

In case you haven't noticed Trump rose to his nomination in spite of resistance from the Republican establishment. He's only in the position he's in because of mass democratic support.

Also, are you insinuating Trump is somehow anti-black? If so you've bought into the Huffington Post meme. If you disagree I invite you to show me something racist he has said or done.

>If you honestly think this is their platform you're an idiot who buys into tumblr politics.
And this is where I stopped taking you seriously. A lot of Republicans, hell I'd argue MOST Republicans, are very open about being racist. This isn't about the tumblr boogeyman, it's just a fact.

>turns on tv to rnc
They're not even trying to hide it anymore

What is exactly that negative? He doesn't like illegal immigrants and Muslims? He's against the Iraq war, he's not a warmongering cunt, he wants to make his allies pull their weight and wants US soldiers back home

Prove it.

>Democrats
>pro-black

AHAHAHAHAH, pic related redditor

Benefits for single mothers and poor urban blacks are just designed to subsidize poverty in black communities. Democrats view blacks as voter livestock, nothing more.

>this isnt a tumblr boogeyman

>unproven claims from a disgruntled staffer, decades after the fact
>boogyman

As far as I understand it, it's a bad case of betraying your own ideals just to not be like the other side, instead of keeping true to your own ideals even if you would have them in common with your opponents. That is to get another battlefield, more friction, another topic to argue about and gain voters.

Presumably, one side started to shift their stance on one topic, so that the other party had to take the opposite stance to keep their credibility. Otherwise you would have that edgy teenage stance of "lol theyre all the same" as a mainstream opinion, which is happening anyway, but slower, I guess.

There is probably a technical term for this shifting phenomenon in power politics.

If you have any interest beyond historical American politics, check out Germany's two (classical) liberal parties. The Free Democratic Party (FDP, since 1948) and the Alternative for Germany (AfD, since 2013) who are more conservative.

Basically, the Free Democrats sometimes throw out their liberal ideals of civil rights, less taxes/government/regulations, freedom of speech and democracy just to not be like those Alternatives, who are considered "radical".

Their last official party congress had several keynote speeches. I think, every single one had the vibe of "we are not like the Alternatives, because..." instead of "we have been standing for liberty since 1948 and promote it for instance in..."

This modern German case is in so far different, though, because they both try to fish in a similar voter pool. And it might be irregular, too, since the FDP did not get into federal parliament last election. So, they are put on the spot at the moment.

>t. Ronald Reagan

Lmao your pretending to be retarded right.

>Texan in the 60s who named his dick "Jumbo"

Do you honestly think he didn't talk like that?

I wouldn't doubt he said nigger, but those exact quotes are very poorly sourced.

Not only did he say but he meant it too.

Is it really so shocking for you to believe that he saw blacks as dumb niggers and that he'd do what was necessary to ensure they voted Democrat.

As far as I know the Democrats have always been the party of populists. The Republicans, when they have existed, the party of urban elites.

In the old days that means the Democrats were on the side of agrarian interests vs cities and decentralized smaller states vs federal government. Because they loved farmers and states so much they naturally fell in line with the slave owning plantations of the South, which made them naturally conservative.

In modern times where Jefferson's ideal world no longer even vaguely exists populism has translated into valuing civil rights and anti-poverty welfare measures over over status quo business interests.

when you expand the definition of racist to be so broad and vague, alot of people will fall under that category

Whether or not it would be within his character we could debate all day. It's just that there's very little confirmation that he actually said that shit.

Is Veeky Forums liberal solely to be contrarian to /pol/? Because this thread would make a lot more sense if so

Carter was a Southerner running when the Republican brand was poisoned by Watergate. While I agree that the switch didn't happen as quickly as a lot of people assume (There were Democrats in Congress well into the 80s and 90s who had at one point been segregationist), the electoral map was pretty warped by the specter of Nixon in 1976.

Veeky Forums is classical John Locke liberal

>Black people are lazy by nature I don't want them counting my money, the only people I want counting my money count it in shekels
-Trump

Not an argument

That's called hear-say. For instance, my name field is, "OP", a.k.a. "Original Poster". I am claiming to enjoy sucking cock. Do you now believe that I actually am OP, and that OP loves to suck cock?

Man, imagine a world where any state was effectively up for grabs every election like it used to be instead of this bullshit we have now where only like 5 states are truly purple and Ohio and Florida decide every election.

You realize the Republicans in 1860 were, by modern standards, massive SJWs? They wanted to use state power to promote the rights of black people and women, and even had reservations about capitalism.

Read point 12 of the 1860 platform.

>We commend that policy of national exchanges, which secures to the workingmen liberal wages, to agriculture remunerative prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill, labor, and enterprise,

presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29620

Fake quote, next

Republicans have absolutely no reservations giving benefits to our disproportionately white upper class and the businesses they operate

When Kennedy ran he pretended to have the black vote through manufactured consent (basically even cast votes for recently deceased blacks). It was shady as fuck, cost Nixon the election and created the mythology of the democratic party being THE party of blacks and other minority racial groups

Johnson probably said nigger from tine to time, but was absolutely dedicated to fighting both racism and poverty. He pushed for recognition of the issues facing the black community even beyond the point of political expediency, such as when he asked Americans to ask why the '68 rioters were rooting, instead of broadly condemning all black persons.

Speak for yourself, it seems to be a three way split between rightists, libertarians, and commies

God damn this thread is so lowbrow.

Baba is a hero

>>republicans now
>Fuck niggers, spics and homos!
lmao, you're fucking retarded. but to answer your question
see

They didn't, republicans have always been pro business and upper middle class while Democrats have always been working class. The reason they seem to have switched is that they picked up differing social issues during the 80s. The southern strategy is a leftist meme, it was only used during Nixon's campaign to win the disillusioned Wallace voter. People ignore that the democrats were essentially doing the same thing.

Thank you. This clears a lot up for me.

Egalitarian =/=sjws

this

you bought into the racist boogyman

lol neither do democrats they may be ideologically separated at face value but they are pretty similar excluding outliers.

how do you buy in to mainstream narratives this hard.

I was going to laugh, but I realized this isn't bait.

If you lived in the 19th century, you'd likely be a white moderate who supported the Union but thought abolishing slavery was too radical.

The Republican platform in 1860 was pretty radical for the time, comparatively much more left wing than what the Democrats offer today.

Right, but that window dressing is pretty important if you're a minority or just poor. Without Democratic opposition, the US government would have probably abolished all social services.

Wow! mini-abu!

SJWs are about privilege though, they don't really believe in equality, freedom, justice or anything like that.
It's like saying the Nazis were just reformists.

>racist boogyman

they worship ronald ragan a man who sold drugs in black neighborhoods to fund south american contras

New England WASP types - always eager to appear enlightened and liberal - left their traditional base in the Republican Party for the Democrats in the middle of the century. Union allignment to the Democratic Party around the same time contributed too