Is there a good book on the topic of whether or not the Republicans and Democrats switched sides in the 20th century...

Is there a good book on the topic of whether or not the Republicans and Democrats switched sides in the 20th century? The Democrat view seems to be that they switched sides while the Republican view seems to be that they didn't switch sides.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=IJCVVbDlYhQ
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

American political parties don't have sides, just shifting coalitions that at times become powerful enough to change the platform and chase off some old groups in favor of new ones. This wasn't just a one time thing with the rise of the Black electorate, but it happened with trade unions, Evangelical Christians, Catholics, and nowadays Muslims and the working class.

Are you talking about the whole Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and issued the emancipation proclamation and freed the slaves' and old democrats like Andrew Jackson being a warmongering psychopath?

I said 20th century.
So you think both of the views I expressed above are wrong, as in the official story of both parties is wrong?

They are after all stories told by each party to project their narrative to voters.

>So you think both of the views I expressed above are wrong
Not him, but Dinesh D'souza has a good video about this actually. Neither Democrats or Republicans switched sides, but both parties have changed since the beginning of the 20th century.

youtube.com/watch?v=IJCVVbDlYhQ

That's simply the Republican view the OP brought up already, which isn't surprising given that D'souza is a Republican.

I made this thread because someone I watched that video earlier when it was linked before. Also this is why I wanted to look for a book on the topic.

Except if you watch the video D'souza comes from an objective point of view and cites actual statistics which can't be refuted. Also D'souza is not a Republican.

>because someone I
because I*

They didn't "switch". The Democratic and Republican parties are grab-bag coalitions of groups that would be in different parties in a multiparty democracy, and between 1952 and 2000 the white South trended Republican to negate the Democrats' gains in the North from Catholics and unions. Now the Atlantic South is trending Democratic due to growing metro areas, while the Upper South is only growing more Republican.

Of course it cites data and statistics. He's not a theologian. But all (sane) political narratives are delivered this way to appeal to educated voters. And he's overtly sympathetic to American conservatism and has a long history of working with state and federal Republican administrations.

And most PhDs are overtly sympathetic to American progressivism and have a long history of working with state and federal Democrat administrations. That does not make them Democrats.

It does make them liberal and raises questions about objectivity.

>It does make them liberal
Not necessarily. There are quite a few non-partisan technocrats in academia.

...

I said liberal, not Democratic. I don't think anyone would believe D'Souza is not an American conservative, and it's a moot point to make about whether or not he's a registered Republican when his entire professional and academic career has been centered on American conservatism, criticism of American liberalism, and working with and supporting Republican campaigns and administrations.

As other people, they didn't so much switch sides, just changed. Nixonland by Rick Perlstein is pretty good.
>in b4 (((Perlstein))))

American liberalism is a partisan issue in the U.S. so your attempted refutation with that is moot. A person who agrees with liberals on x subject does not make them liberal necessarily so your other point is again, moot. Your entire argument has been one whole non-argument thus far.

Switched sides is a gross simplification, but Lincoln fought a literal war against states rights. His party was completely alien to the republican party of the last 50 years.

Pre-FDR Dems were the party of the religious south and all that that brings.
Post-FDR Dems are moderate conservatives.

There was no argument to make. I'm just baffled at you trying to make one out of nothing. Dinesh D'Souza may or may not be a Republican, but he is certainly no non-partisan and objective source on which political narrative is more truthful.

>There was no argument to make
You claimed D'souza was Republican and threw a shitfit when it got countered.

>Also D'souza is not a Republican.

Sure, he just works for republicans, contributes to republican think tanks, and got caught trying to launder campaign contributions to a republican, all while writing books and movies about the apocalypse that would be Hillary's America if she was president.

Totally objective source on which side is right.

I made a passing comment about D'Souza that had nothing to do with my original point that the 'sides' debate is just the double narrative of two political parties trying to present themselves or their opponents however they want. Him being 'technically' not a registered Republican (which, I can find no evidence of one way or another) changes nothing. He's very clearly sympathetic to the Republican platform and is very much an American conservative thinker.

>threw a shitfit
This never happened.

This. Since we only have two major parties, they both engage in big tent politics.

The race question along party lines goes as follows:

Republicans: We hate niggers but atleast we're honest, isn't it more racist to not hate niggers?

Democrats:African Americans owe us their vote because why wouldn't they
Welcome to American politics, Where everyone is liberals, but liberals are communists.

> (OP)
>American political parties don't have sides, just shifting coalitions that at times become powerful enough to change the platform and chase off some old groups in favor of new ones. This wasn't just a one time thing with the rise of the Black electorate, but it happened with trade unions, Evangelical Christians, Catholics, and nowadays Muslims and the working class.
>>nowadays Muslim
What? Weren't they always Democrat voters?

Well they basically didn't exist in this country until the 70's

Wilson started it, FDR finished it, Kennedy tried to reverse it.

Wilson started the "muh equality" bullshit, FDR started the "muh big government that needs to regulate how many times you fuck your wife in a week" bullshit. Kennedy agreed with the former but disagreed with latter and got his head blown off by the government as a result.

In fact, up until 2004, Muslim Americans were overwhelmingly Republican voters. Something like 70-80% went to Reagan and 1st term Bush Jr.

9/11, the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, and the targeting of large Muslim-American political groups quickly chased them off, and the rise of the anti-Islam movement at the same time took their place.

More like

>Republicans: We think everyone is equal and that no one should get special benefits over the other.

>Democrats: Vote for us because we gave you all that free shit, nigger.

>Republicans: We think everyone is equal
What about Women's access to healthcare and contraception?
What about Gay Marriage

>What about Women's access to healthcare and contraception
Women can purchase healthcare the same as men. Women can also go down to their local health office and pick up a handful of condoms for the low price of on the house.

>Gay marriage
Marriage is not a right and Republicans were happy to give Gays access to the same rights of married couples and call it civil unions in the Bush administration. Gays weren't happy with that and Democrats blocked the shit out of it so it never went through.

>give Gays access to the same rights of married couples

Objectively false btw

also not history

He was an extension of the latter and got killed because he wanted the CIA to stop doing shady shit behind his back and without his consent.