With respect, you posit that in 1964 with the Goldwater candidacy that southerners misreading his take on civil rights supported him for his support of states rights. This led to southerners becoming Republican or embracing the GOP, not sure what you said but that was my understanding, I suggest this was not true. In 1983 I turned 18 and went to register to vote. I lived in central Florida in a town on the beach. My Uncle was very active in local politics and he instructed me that although our family were transplants from Pennsylvania who were Republican and I fully supported Ronald Reagan, I had to register as democrat. Why! This was because the Republican party at that time had no presence in the state of Florida meaning that they provided no candidates for local or most state elections to office. You had to register Democrat or you did not get a vote in any city and most state elections, maybe not even the governorship but I don't recall, certainly not congress. Whoever won the Democrat primary won the election as they had no opposition in the general. This was 1983 and Florida by its nature of attracting many northerner transplants and retirees and the Cuban community in Miami that was Republican at that time was far more likely to be open to GOP control than any other southern state. Note Central Florida is not the northern Panhandle or Jacksonville which was far more traditionally "southern" politically and culturally than the rest of the state. For myself I registered REpublican in 1984 because I did not care I wanted to vote for Reagan in the primary. I had many friends who were conservative who switched as well or were Republican because that was what there family was up north. I do not remember Republicans taking over local politics in Florida until around 1988 and 1990. I would challenge the notion that in 1964 racist white southerners were switching form the Democratic party. It did not happen. The switch happened in 1990 and was due to Ronald Reagan for the people I knew.
My dad was a Democrat and Kennedy supporter. A veteran of WWII, he believed in Christianity, gun ownership and slogans like "America: Love It or Leave It" (which I believe was the motto of the Elks club) and was a member of fraternal community support organizations. Today he would be considered "far-Right" by those in charge of defining the narrative.
The left wants to call the right Nazis, but they're the ones literally dressing in black shirts, shouting down free speech and shouting anti-Semitic slogans.
Something tells me your dad would have opposed the attempted coup that the republicans tried on jan 6. So I'm sure he would be still be a democrat today.
It was a consolidation rather than a switch. Liberals and conservatives existed in both parties. The split and then collapse of the Progressive Party in the 1910s and 1920s and their sidelining by the Republican establishment led to them moving to the Democrats largely in the 1930s under FDR. The loss of the Dixiecrats in the 1960s ultimately led to conservative consolidation in the Republican party.
I think this should be pinned because it's completely right. There were social conservatives and economic progressives in the democratic party. Social progressives and economic conservatives in the Republican party, although this has mostly changed for the GOP, if you aren't completely conservative, you are a RINO.
To add to this the adoption of the abortion platform by the Democrat cause many of the Christian base of the democrats to vote Regan in 1980 and never look back.
...and the Dixicrats and other segregationists moved to said Republican party, and that's why black people don't vote Republican. Then those black people who grew up during segregation told their kids (the kids now being aged between late 30s and early 50s) that Republicans are racists through the transitive property of association of segregationist = racists, segregationist = republican. That's it. Not that complicated. Easy. Anyone saying anything else is just giving personal identity protecting rationalization by emotionally fragile Republicans. When you choose short-term political gain you face long-term challenges. As Mr. Z reminds everyone across multiple videos blk people are social conservatives and economic libertarians... that's true despite what the media says (what media do blk/asian/native American people control: none so why believe occidental status quo maintaining main-stream media portrayals?). If the Dixie/segregationists went their own way and were not absorbed ...the conservative wing of today's Republicans would be bolstered by a black voting block (which is actually small, but whatever). No purple Georgia etc.
@@HeydenHarvey And that will lead to the next party split/switch: Party 1 [40-60% of the Congress]: RINOS/DINOS, the corporatist Socially Liberal but Financially Conservative centrists who don't care the race of preference of who gives them money, just that they get it. Party 2 [20-30% of congress]: MAGA/Far Right: They want religion [specifically Christianity] to direct the government, which is only for roads and the military. they also want a militarized border [voter ID, and other things that are decried as fascist by the Far Left. Party 3 [20-30% of Congress]: Progressive/Far Left: They strive for their views of racial justice, environmental protections, strong social nets and other things derided as communism by the right.
Hard disagree on that. The Democrat party has since 2008 moved further and further towards racism. It's a main stream talking point for them to state that non-white members of society need assistance because they're inherently disadvantaged and white inherently advantaged due to race.
@@SerfinBird because white society in fact is and has always been inherently advantaged. Of course the disadvantaged part of society is going to stand up against that. Racism creates racism. Alleged supremacy creates racism.
I mean I see a lot of liberals calling African Americans Uncle Tom when they don’t vote democrat and even using the Hard R thinking just because they are democrat/liberal it puts them above people who don’t vote the same
@@SerfinBirdi was just about to say this. It's all about boxes. The black box, the white box. The woman box. The gay box. The Hispanic box. The disabled box. The evangelical box. Republicans aren't perfect but they deal in ideology without putting people in boxes, assuming a uniform groupthink dynamic. They speak to the individual most of the time.... except with evangelicals it seems.
and those are your more reasonable kind of people. my father voted for Bill Clinton twice and so did my grandfather. they made their switch in 2016 (i like to pride myself in moving that along) as well. I myself voted for the first time in 2016 for the man we all know to enjoy. I myself am considered an extremist because i think we should be in control of our own lives... an idea that was completely middle 20 years ago.
Not quite correct. Hillary Clinton was born in chicago. She eulogized Robert Bird calling him the “soul of america” and other such nonsense. He was a grand exalted cyclops….
All I know is I’m Hispanic and I officially left the democrat party this year my views align with Republican’s plus my finances always seem to be better under republican leadership. To me feeding my family and making sure we’re well is more important than any other issues.
I don’t see with any race being a majority as long as we remember we’re all American 🇺🇸. We’re not in Central or south America nor are we in the middle east or in Asia and were so we shouldn’t put other countries interest ahead of our own. We have to remember why everyone immigrated here and what made America great!
So you're basically a liberal. Do you support Mexico becoming majority Chinese or Argentina becoming majority Indian "as long as they share the same values?" What's the difference between Mexican and American values anyways? The REAL DIFFERENCE is the PEOPLE. If Mexico became majority Indian it would cease to be MEXICO and it would become INDIA 2.0. I bet you're so happy Trump didn't build the wall using your remittances. Any sane President from Washington to Nixon would've sent you back. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million illegals. No wonder Ancient Romans had disdain for actors.
The economy booms under Democratic administrations. That's just a fact. Although the last 2 Democratic administrations have had to clean up after the previous Republican administrations. (Bush presided over the 2008 housing crash and Trump's complete failure handling Covid.) Bush and trump both tanked their respective economies on their way out the door. Trump's 1, of only 2, presidents in American history to leave office with less jobs than they started with. What you're feeling now with the price of gas, groceries, etc, wouldn't have been better under Trump. If anything, his numbers on the way out, prove that he had no clue what to do to fix it. Still doesn't.
@@mattr8090white Americans definitely don’t align with anything European from food to infrastructure. I suspect Hispanics new to America will adapt the same way and adopt the American way of life.
You have to look at presidential platforms of both parties. You'll see that the presidential platforms of the GOP have remained faily consistent since the days of the Whig party. Since losing the Civil War and the slavery question, the Democrat party has morphed several times in attempts to chase new voter bases. After the Civil War, the Democrat party shifted from states rights to class issues, particularly focused on white working class. This shift brought about William Jennings Bryan, a populist focused on class issues. The party moved significantly left under Woodrow Wilson, transitioned to full left wing under FDR and the New Deal. Then under LBJ in the 1960's, the Democrat party shifted it's focus from class issues and began embracing intersectional politics to chase the Black vote. Now the Demcrat platform has almost completely abandoned working class issues, white working class, and blacks, in favor of full blown intersectional politics while chasing what they hope to be new permanent voter bases among women, immigrants, lgbtq, and non-christian groups.
Sounds like the scariest group of people to make up the majority of a country. Also, a failing strategy for a successful nation. There's a reason white Christian countries have the beat success rate. It's because they have a great structure of morals and values and love of God that acts as a biding agent, whether you believe in it or not. Facts!
Senator Strom Thurmond switched from Democrat to Republican in 1964 and endorsed Barry Goldwater because of his opposition to the Civil Rights Act under the guise of "states rights." Five of the six states Goldwater carried in the general election were in the "Solid South," which were reliably Democratic since the end of Reconstruction in 1877 until 1964 (that's 87 years!) Jesse Helms (North Carolina), Mills Godwin (Virginia), Claude Kirk (Florida), Bo Callaway (Georgia), Thad Cochran and Trent Lott (Mississippi), John Connally (Texas), and Richard Shelby (Alabama) followed Strom Thurmond's footsteps. Nixon continued this Southern Strategy in 1968. I'm not a lefty and would've voted for George Wallace myself, but I'm disappointed when normi.e Republicans deny facts. You conveniently leave out that the Democrats under Bill Clinton abandoned the working-class due to the popularity of Reagan. Look up Newt Gingrich's Contract with America and the Republican Revolution of 1994. Reagan and Calvin Coolidge would've not liked Trump's pro-tariffs position, but Teddy Roosevelt, Taft, and McKinley are probably smiling at Trump from Heaven. Everyone despises Bush Jr. I wonder why someone as supposedly smart as you wants to play the, "Modern Democrats are the REAL rac1sts!" game so bad. If they were, I would be voting Democrat lol.
idk about the GOP consistency thing. Theodore Roosevelt was quite the environmentalist and Dwight Eisenhower maintained one of if not THE BIGGEST tax rates on large corporations.
@@ict113090 If you look at those variances across the timeline, they don't deviate far from the mean in comparison to how far the Democrats have deviated.
I wouldnt deny the existence of a political spectrum now. I think most people describe what they aspire to be and not just what they are... Truth be told what you aspire to be and what you happen to be are mostly the same. But whats to say someone may not know themselves all that thoroughly.
So, today? Democrats this year focused heavily on being moderate as possible, even hired traditional liberals like Clinton and conservatives like Dick Cheney. Republicans today are now backed by Tulsi Gabbard who’s a Bernie Supporter and is a heavily environmental activist.
I lived in South Carolina for 5 years. Almost half of my neighbors were black. But ALL of my neighbors were nice. It was a sad day when I had to move to Ohio. Vomit.
@@Lucius_Aurelian_All of us sunshiners know our baketball dudes are chill, it's the ladies you gotta watch out for. It's too damn hot to have beef down here, and we all had too many b friends as kids.
Yes. It was better that way. Though the liberal wings of both parties enabled the passage of the destructive EPA, the emergency highway energy conservation act, CAFE and the Motor Vehicle act.
Nonsense. The Southern Democrats voted for the New Deal. So your theory would mean that Democrats had two wings, in practice both liberal, but one considered "conservative" just because.
@henrystowe6217 Yeah, what exactly was better? You just named the problem. In the mid 1900s, both parties drastically increased the size of the federal government, stripped away personal rights and stripped away states rights. All of the worst aspects of progressivism had bipartisan support
@@henrystowe6217 Well most politicians before Jerry Fallwell's Moral Majority appealed to mainline Protestants. Presidents before Reagan don't fit neatly into liberal or conservative boxes. We had many Presidents that were socially conservative and economically progressive. They didn't have to pander to the unwashed masses. There's a reason the Ancient Romans despised actors. Senator Strom Thurmond switched from Democrat to Republican in 1964 and endorsed Barry Goldwater because of his opposition to the Civil Rights Act under the guise of "states rights." Five of the six states Goldwater carried in the general election were in the "Solid South," which were reliably Democratic since the end of Reconstruction in 1877 until 1964 (that's 87 years!) Jesse Helms (North Carolina), Mills Godwin (Virginia), Claude Kirk (Florida), Bo Callaway (Georgia), Thad Cochran and Trent Lott (Mississippi), John Connally (Texas), and Richard Shelby (Alabama) followed Strom Thurmond's footsteps. Nixon continued this Southern Strategy in 1968. I'm not a lefty and would've voted for George Wallace myself, but I'm disappointed when normi.e Republicans deny facts. I think the Nelson Rockefeller Republicans would be the Liz Cheney/Mitt Romney type of Republicans, basically borderline Democrats.
@@sivad1025 Are you a Zoomer? Aren't you familiar with Newt Gingrich, the Contract with America, and the Revolution of '94? Most modern Democrats despise Clinton because was economically like Reagan and socially like Obama. "Socially liberal, fiscally conservative." This is thanks to pressure from Gingrich and the Republicans throughout the 90s. Personally I think the Republicans went downhill since Reagan, although given your personal politics, I'd say Bush Jr. I say Reagan because libertarianism is a losing ideology, but we didn't achieve maximum loserdom until Bush Jr. Trump has brought us back to the Nixon era where the President can be pragmatic.
It’s telling that clear liberals like FDR and even Harry Truman didn’t see it this way at all … because this myth (and that’s what it is) relies on two ideas for simpletons: 1. The fact that Southern Whites and Blacks switched allegiances MUST mean the parties just did a 180° on ideology. 2. Support for slavery or segregation are inherently conservative; they’re just simply not. An 1860s Republican who opposes slavery because it’s economically unfair for Wall Street or due to religious fanaticism isn’t a “progressive” just because they support change.
Conservative means opposing change, conservatives opposed desegregation, liberals want change, and wanted desegregation. This came to a head over civil rights where the national dnc was more in favor of desegregation than the national RNC. It was even put in the 1948 dnc platform and Truman ordered the desegregation of the military while JFK and LBJ both fought for civil rights
Both conservatives could support or oppose slavery, most at the time opposed it due to the fact that it was interfering with the market if they had rights. Which is currently happening with anti union politicians.
@@nhjhbmkuy7173Then why was the 1964 Civil Rights bill mostly voted for by Republicans while opposed by Democrats, especially in the Senate? 27 Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act while only 6 opposed it. Meanwhile, a third of Democrats in the Senate, 21 of the 65 in total, voted against the Civil Rights Act.
@@ericharrison7518 many of those who voted against it would later leave the Democratic Party like Strom Thrudond, the party switch truly lasted until the mid 70s. Remember the southern strategy of the RNC only began in 1968 with Goldwater and his defense of states rights to segregation.
The political left often promotes FDR as a beacon of liberalism and Democratic policies, however if the parties flipped platforms, then that would make FDR a modern Republican.
@@HeydenHarvey not really, his watergate scandal cost the republicans in 1976, and republicans today really hate all federal bureaucracy that limits big corporations, like the EPA
I would like to point out that in the declarative articles when the Republican party was first established, they specifically state that one of the fundamental ideology of the newly forming Republican party is to reduce the reach of the federal government.
Another thing people often forget to mention in these conversations is that there has always been a different culture in the south between rich southerns and poor whites. This was the subject of many different stories from the south (Dukes of Hazzard, Huckleberry Finn, Adventures of Tom Sawyer, ect). Poor whites of the south were genuinely against slavery as an institution but believed in states rights, and later were genuinely against racial abuse but believed forced integration would destroy communities.
@@badart3204 Source: you just made it up. Even in books taught today as "anti-southern" like Uncle Tom's cabin agree slavery was extremely unpopular. It was like pharmacuetical companies are today. Nobody defended slavery but some felt radical bans would lead to a future where the constitution didn't matter at all anymore (and all the protected rights in the constitution with it).
@@badart3204 Ah yes, I own a shack, a pile of dirt, and a bucket. I can't wait to go fight for filthy rich slave owners, because the only thing that truly matters is making sure slavery continues to keep the South poor and keep the rich man rich! Multiple prominent Southern Generals fought for their states, not slavery, and I'd say most southern soldiers were young boys and men going out 'on an adventure', wanting to claim their manhood and honor, while also patriotically fighting for their states, families, and people. Yes, some southerners did fight for slavery, yes plenty of southerners felt as though Slavery was a traditional and social system that was okay and in need of no change, but you're giving them far too much credit if you really think a 15 year old white boy from some random southern village is willing to die on a battlefield hundreds almost a thousand miles away all so a Rich plantation owner can stay rich and powerful.
@edgaraf9411 It's amazing how Democrat arguments are basically 5th grade logic. "How do we make billionaires less influential in elections? We add more non-billionaire votes!" Of course, there is zero evidence that this is how the world actually works. If more low information voters are going to the ballot box, you create a greater advantage for the side with the best _marketing._ And billionaires are the ones funding these ad campaigns The wealth gap has drastically increased as voting had expanded. And that's because the average voter is low information and won't oust politicians who are self interested
@@Meirsteinwell they weren't talking about 1992 or 96, a decade before i was born and im old enough to drink. they're talking about today, where yes the Democrats are the main establishment party.
@@danf7411 Almost every mega-corporation is owned by its shareholders, the shareholders nearly entirely the direction of the company. It is the shareholders, the company isn't some self thinking being. (completely disregarding the fact that a lot of the corporations shareholders and workers donations are also pretty close to even for democratic and republicans)
There are 4 things the parties can agree on: 1) war 2) more foreign aid 3) Liberalism (the ideology) 4) refusing to deliver for the Americans I’m voting GOP this year but the lack of alternatives really annoys me.
@@Ctrooper2011 You can thank Democrats for The Trail of Tears, The Civil War, The Klan, Jim Crow, Asian Internment. Do tell what exactly Republicans have done that compares to these ills??
The Republican Party's ideology, has largely maintained a focus on freedom, individualism, and limited government since its founding, aligning with what was known as classical liberalism in the 19th century. This ideology, is now regarded as modern conservatism. In contrast, the Democratic Party has shifted from supporting agrarianism and control-oriented policies like slavery to modern liberalism, which still emphasizes government intervention, though with different goals.
The Republican party were originally the federalists. The republican party was known for big government projects. The democratic party used to be libertarian with the exception of slavery until 1890. Where are you getting your facts?
The whole thing is what we put into the term conservative and liberal. 100 years ago, a conservative was most likely someone who espoused the values of the aristocracy, the upper class, and keeping the "rabble" out of power. The classical liberals of that time have little in common with the liberals of today. Those were in favor of a minimal government, while today's think we need a "just" government that will distribute everything "right." So in this sense, the Democrats and Republicans have not changed places. Democrats still defend the values of the establishment, the oligarchs and the lower proletariat (from the point of view of “we'll give you crumbs from the royal table”). And Republicans still stand for the values of classical liberalism, minimal government, and free markets just the same. So no, the party hasn't switched places, we just have switched definitions.
Of course, Republicans didn't used to stand for free markets. But they eventually switched their position. It looks like they may be about to switch back, though.
I will say this. All the farmers that wee Democrats in the 89's and 90's are now conservative Republicans along with their sons with pretty much the same beliefs.
I find it fascinating how there are socially conservative parts of the Northwest and Midwest that had consistently supported the Republicans since the 19th century. That is what led me to independently conclude that there's something that the party switch narrative isn't telling us.
Right. But this is easily explained by the fact that voters are not rational Part of the issue at play is that at the start of the 1900s, we essentially introduced populism through universal suffrage. The founders rightly criticized populism because most people are not politically informed which turns elections into competitions of personalities and feats of marketing. Populist groups vote based off marketing and social trends, not policy. The reality is, the GOP today argues for a platform very similar to Calvin Coolidge's. Restricting immigration, less foreign intervention, lower taxes, less government spending. The Democrat platform is identical to Wilson's and FDR's. Strong bureaucratic state, nationalized welfare, top-down social policy. Coolidge won the vast majority of black voters with a policy platform that's very similar to Trump's. But black voters flipped parties because of a perception of racism associated with each side even though the policies have remained stable
This is a great introduction to your channel for me. Just showed up in my recommendations and I just really love how well you explain things throughout. Really great video!
So, did all of the "democrats" move to what are now considered blue cities and ditch their southern accents? Visa versa for Republicans? If what you're saying is indeed true. That would have to be the case. It's not. That's ridiculous.
How did you focus in on the Republican strategy in the late 20th century, skipping over the Democratic party's affiliation with the kkk and their open campaigning with the confederate battle flag?
Biden was in caucuses with racists and segregationists southern democrats for years after the civil rights act was passed. Let’s not ignore the fact these people are STILL in the party.
Exactly failing to admit that because of Johnson’s policies in the 1964 election is the first time blacks voted democrat when previously they were republicans. And the kkk of the south loved Goldwater’s policies so much and was also against the civil rights act that they actually voted republican for the first time when they were known Dixiecrats. So I would say the different groups of people switched parties but that’s just me.
I would also argue that another reason for the South switching to the Republican party was the ongoing disillusionment with the existing Dixiecrats and also a byproduct of the ongoing cultural and political revolution that had been ongoing since the end of the Second World War; as the South begin to industrialize and economically improve for the first time since the Civil War. Many forget that there was a the large contingent of white Southerners who aided and helped the Civil Rights movement. In addition, LBJ was a New Dealer, but he was also born in rural Texas; and ended up being the president to sign the Civil Rights bill and had a long history of supporting civil rights legislation. The south and it's people had far larger role in Civil Rights outside of being the bad guys then is acknowledged in the mainstream narrative.
I would argue it was Dixie assimilating to broader US Anglo culture. It didn't fully assimilate until around the 70s. Before that they were kinda a distinct nation, as unassimilated as any minority group like Italians or Irish once were.
I think the only issue the parties switched on is states rights. During Lincoln's time the Republicans stood for the Union while Democrats advocated for states rights, while today Republicans advocate for states right and Democrats for the concentration of power in the hands of the federal government. In all other issues the parties have stayed essentially the same, or if the issue morphed then they'll still be on the same side as before, just over a different issue.
Greetings from Mississippi! Yes, that Mississippi. I was born in 1957 and everyone around me was a Democrat. I'm talking everyone. Police, judges, governor, attorney General, congressmen, senators, circuit clerks, dog catcher, on and on and on. When I became a teenager I shocked my family by announcing that I was a Republican. Yes, like, coming out as being gay. Ha ha! What really surprised me was, even black people voted for democrats. The very people who were oppressing them. Why? Lyndon Johnson, Franklin Roosevelt, Martin Luther king. If you think I'm making it up, Google voter registration in any southern state from the 1800's to 1985. The democrats were the party of the Klan. They say politics makes strange bedfellows. Now, you have all these leftists associating with Islam. I wonder how that's going to turn out? You think these Islamist groups are going to support gay marriage? Hmmmmm? I found out one thing. People are gullible all the time.
Another thing to note. The modern definition of American conservatism would of been considered progressive or liberalism during the founding period. Because progressive is changing the status quo, and at that time, the status quo was supporting the monarchy. A conservative during the time of the founding would of been a Tory, and a liberal would of been a Federalist.
@@za-ir5ni Absolutely not, the human tariffing at the borders conducted by the Uni-party Democrats & the welfare state are direct evidence. Now we see the democrats are tired of the old slave races in America. So now they are importing the 3rd world as the new undocumented non-citizen unprotected by the Constitution salve races via broken immigration policy. Leaving all the Native Foundational and Immigrant poor born citizen people behind. Get Real!
@@za-ir5nihow so? The democratic party was built on expanding voting rights, which is consistent with today's beliefs, larger government intervention, which we still see today, anti big business, which we still see today. The republican party was also built on economic protectionism, which we still see today, less government interference, which we still see today, and free-soil (anti slavery) which is more or less irrelevant today regardless of party
The US has two conservative parties with different traditions. Within the two parties, there have been multiple distinct liberal factions competing for dominance with other non-liberal factions.
Caveat on the South being more small government, they were quite insistent on federal power requiring that anti-slavery states return escaped slaves to their owners in slave states.
The old Southern conception of states’ rights is rather distinct from contemporary notions of limited government in how it was based on the premise that the federal government could actually do big sweeping things when the states agree to it and can be nullified if they do not. It ought to be kept in mind that the South also showed some of the most consistent support for William Jennings Bryan’s populist platform, Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal programs and even Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty initiatives provided they were not directly tied with civil rights. Modern small-government conservatives and libertarians are much more weary of the government taking any such action on principle as infringing upon personal freedom and responsibility.
@@johnweber4577 Now that I think about it, this is just sad. Southerners stopped supporting populist policies when they realized that they might help black people also. FDR had to make sure he was being super rac1st so he could get away with reorganizing the economy like that.
@@plugshirt1762 I mean trump has been the better candidate since he came onto the scene, he's the only non politician down to earth candidate in a while IMO
@@tru6992 And yet he's a pathological liar, has done nothing for the working class as opposed to any of his contemporaries (his administration oversaw a higher unemployment rate each year of his tenure than the Biden Administration, and before you say "covid" covid only affected one year of his presidency for 2/3rds of the year). And his aggressive trade policy is and has very likely been a net negative for lowering the federal deficit and increasing inflation (which the Biden Administration has been actively combating through the FED as best it can) Vote who you want, but I don't see how Trump has been a "better candidate" especially compared to Harris or Biden. Trump is a very competent public speaker, but his lies and economic ideas are grotesque.
@@tru6992he’s fucking insane wdym??? 34 goddamn felonies in just one of his cases. I don’t love Kamala Harris- her prosecutorial history is kind of gross. But at least she didn’t visit epstein island and try to stage a coup… he’s promised to be “a dictator on day one”. how can you say he’s the better option??
@@tru6992that’s biased.. he has no government experience. And his character is greatly flawed. And yea ik we’re not perfect but if you’re running for president, that matters. There are many fit candidates, democratic and republican. But Trump honestly doesn’t know what he’s doing. He keeps inheriting good economies and takes all the credit. And people believe ANYTHING he says which is just crazy to me. And other countries think it’s absurd too.
@@MonsieurDean Seriously though. Any other explanation I’ve heard is usually just to throw shade at the Republicans or the Republicans distancing themselves from Dixie policy. This gets into the nitty gritty and explains it in a way that really rings true to American politics.
Republican party remains mostly as founded which in their time was very liberal. They have however embraced the Christianity. The Democrats have always wandered from on idea and extreme to another. While there have been authoritarians in both , Teddy, they are more common among the Democrats.
This might be the closest to true. I think too much is lost to history or is distorted by those who tell the story of the past to really know what's FULLY true, but when trying to be as objective as I can be, this lines up with how I see it. And it makes sense. When the Republican party started of course they would be liberal or progressive, as all new ideas should be, but overtime they became the old ideas and thus conservative. There was never any swap, and the perceived "change" is as you've said; the Democrats just changing constantly. The one part of the story I never see anyone mention is that the Democrat party (the Elites/politicians, NOT the actual people) is simply the party of manipulation. There's a reason they like the phrase "Never waste a good crisis." Once you realize this, it all makes sense.
There’s been liberals and conservatives on both parties..nowadays, the parties revolve around having predominant liberal or very conservative audience, leaving us people in the middle in the trenches.
Not true, classical liberals and democrats that supported JFK are now considered "far-right" according to the left It's the left that became radicalized. In their POV, everyone to the right of them is a far right radical. Why do you think democrats like Joe Rogan, RFK Jr, Tulsi Gabbard, Musk etc are all considered by the left radical right wingers now?
Meirstein wrote that "It was a consolidation rather than a switch. Liberals and conservatives existed in both parties. The split and then collapse of the Progressive Party in the 1910s and 1920s and their sidelining by the Republican establishment led to them moving to the Democrats largely in the 1930s under FDR. The loss of the Dixiecrats in the 1960s ultimately led to conservative consolidation in the Republican party." Not true. Yes, there were liberals and conservatives in both parties, but it implies that only progressives were in the Progressive Party. Calvin Coolidge was a conservative Republican, but he was succeeded by Herbert Hoover, a liberal and progressive who believed in big government. When FDR ran against him, he actually ran to the political right of Hoover. Meanwhile, the Progressive Party (the former Bull Moose Party) dissolved in 1920. FDR's first year enacted multiple relief programs, but it was a relatively modest first year. Many disaffected progressives did come over with the 1934 congressional election which allowed FDR to enact more radical policies. Not all of his radical reforms were progressive in the modern sense. The Federal Housing Authority basically created the racist policy of redlining, for example. FDR also maintained Woodrow Wilson's racist policies, including a racially segregated military. It was the future Republican President, General Dwight Eisenhower, who pushed for a racially integrated military. In Arizona, the head of the National Guard, Barry Goldwater, personally desegregated the military and founded a chapter of the NAACP. It was FDR's more conservative successor, Harry S. Truman, who finally ordered the desegregation of the entire military. FDR only picked Truman because his then-VP Henry Wallace was considered too radical. Wallace was given a demotion as a cabinet secretary, until Truman fired him in 1946 for being too friendly to the USSR. Wallace then created a new Progressive Party - until he split after it became too radical for him. The Dixiecrats - officially the States' Rights Party - was founded in opposition to Truman's racial reforms in 1948. It was also dissolved in 1948. Except for its founder, Strom Thurmond, every senator and governor who joined the States' Rights Party returned and remained Democrats until the day they died. They did not switch over the the Republican Party. So there was no "loss of the Dixiecrats in the 1960s" since all but one remained Democrats. In the 1968 presidential election that Richard Nixon won as a Republican, the Deep South went to independent candidate/Democrat George Wallace. Wallace, who had been a Democrat, moderated his racial views in the 1970s and ran as a Democrat in 1972 and 1976. In 1976, several conservatives ran in the Democratic primaries, including Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson and George Wallace. Even Jimmy Carter, who won, ran as a fairly conservative candidate. Both Carter and Wallace claimed to be born-again Christians. Jimmy Carter won all of the South - not just the Deep South - in 1976. So this just reiterates that the Democrat-created claim of the big 1968 party switch is a myth. The only group that switched parties en masse was black voters in the 1932 election: they switched from the GOP to the Democratic Party. The truth of the party switch is a lot more complicated.
The Democrats started pushing the "party switch" narrative to deflect from the slow and sure shifting they have went towards socialism. Just like how Clinton called Gabbard a "Russian asset", to deflect from the actually valid concerns Gabbard wanted addressed(which was why she resigned as DNC vice chair, and backed Sanders).
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.
This is quite literally the best, obviously I've studied up and knew this stuff, but of all the videos attempting to explaining it, this is absolutely the best version I've seen. Good fricken frackin job! 🎉
exactly. the republicans were quite liberal until the civil rights act as it was necessary. all the big social battles most people could agree on ended with the passing of said act. with that, republicans became more conservative to "protect progress" for lack of a better term. the democrats had been so badly beaten (party of slavery/oppression since their beginning) that they eventually "overcorrected" to compensate. like giving all of your money to that one (literally) poor bastard who just ruined your reputation after what you did to him. and now our nation is suffering big time from the social justice crap.
So there was no switch? David Duke, Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, Rick Perry, Buddy Roemer, Mitch McConnell, Fob James, Jesse Helms, Asa Hutchinson, Walter jones, Mike pence, Frank white, phil Gramm, Sonny Callahan, Roy Moore, Richard Shelby, Mike foster, George Wallace jr, sonny Perdue, Kay Ivey, Nathan deal and countless other representatives and bureaucrats…and this is just the South. Frank Rizzo also made the switch from Democrat to GOP.
@@AustrianPainter14 You tell racists that party A is the racist party long enough, they'll vote for party A. Even if the party isn't racist. Racists don't tend to do research.
@@AustrianPainter14 Did the Republican Party adopt the segregationist and Jim Crow platform and policies of the Democrats? No. So there was no "switch".
@@clintonbreeden6970 Hate is a strong word. Nonetheless, he criticized the Diddycrats far more often, compared to the GOP, even going as far to state the Diddycrats are the most dangerous thing in the entire western hemisphere.
@@Nigerian-born_American The reason he criticized Liberals was because he thought they were the same as Conservatives, just that they pretended they were better. He compared Conservatives to wolves, and Liberals to foxes, in the sense that they were both racist, but Conservatives didn’t pretend, and Liberals do.
There was no switch. We believe most of the same things today we believed during the civil war. Slavery is not “small government.” It requires big government to impose.
Yes it, was that was literally the point of the war, and yes there was a switch. Tell me if you're a Republican from Georgia, and have a confederate flag, and have a great great grandpapi that fight under that flag as a Democrat and was buried in a confederate soldier graveyard..again as a Democrat....how tf are you gonna tell me there was no switch? How does *that* work? Why would you be waving the flag you went to war with? Make that make sense.
@@AnthonyBlamthonyBecause the voters switched, not the ideologies. You presuppose that voters are rational and have intergenerational continuity. But that's clearly not true. There was a president who dramatically reduced immigration, was isolationist, was socially conservative, reduced taxes on the rich and reduced the size of the federal government. That could be Trump's platform and yet I'm describing Calvin Coolidge who handily won a majority of the black vote. The reality is, perceived voting blocks flip policies all the time because elections in a populist system are competitions of marketing and personality. Very few people have coherent political theory at the ballot box
@@AnthonyBlamthony A "switch" implies a sudden change. You can't point to that sudden change, and so therefore, the burden of proof lies on those claiming a switch. Also, using extreme examples doesn't support your argument. Do not do that in the future.
@@AnthonyBlamthony that's like saying Japanese navy flag today means they are still imperialist because they also wave and still use the same sunrise flag during ww2 The southern flag existed before the south fought to keep slavery. It represents southern pride and culture
the two parties will always be opposite of each other for no reason except to oppose each other in hope of winning, after 4 to 8 years of getting nothing they promised done we will always vote in the other party. At the end of the day who you vote for doesn't matter what values you vote in does and if they want to steal votes they should switch. Ultimately no laws matter because they don't deter illegal activity , we will never be in a society of only good or only evil, the concepts them selves subjective.
The thing to note is that the Republican Party hasn't changed all that much. It certainly has not gone farther to the Right. Rather the Democratic Party has shifted dramatically to the Left as have the international Centre. When the Centre moves farther to the Left, everything will seem more Right-wing by contrast.
Party switch myth is easy to shatter as the basis makes the assumption that everybody in both parties simultaneously dropped every single other social, governance, or economic values to 'flip' over a single issue. That single issue being views on race because democrats post cultural revolution are not happy with their history. Most people who voted democrat or republican died doing the same in the 20th century. The geographical switched happened due to migration patterns as many others have pointed out. 1930 Democrats believed in high taxation, welfare, unions, direct democracy, expanding voting rights, state education, monopoly busting, modernism, and... prohibition and eugenics (abortion entered the political fray out of eugenics funny enough). Eugenics after WW2 was a sour position to maintain for obvious reasons, so this was abandoned. The purity chase of eugenics was dropped for the values of the cultural revolution which has evolved into the anti natalism that we know today. That said, you'd be hard press to NOT see the core ideas of the democrats in the 30's as matching a good chunk of democrat values now that do not match republican values/positions. 1920-30's cemented a lot of the Dem/Rep divide, mainly with the Dems defining what they are and Reps building themselves as the opposition. Democrats would do another major political reform in the 60's/70's with Reps still being the opposition party but the Reps build a cohesive ideology for the opposition as oppose to just being a collection. To anyone who says the switch is real, I say what switched? And what sounds more reasonable to you? Explanation A) That everybody did a perfect 180 in both parties over a single issue Explanation B) WW2 info drops caused Democrats to sour on Eugenic based ideas
There's always been a libertarian wing in the Republican party, even since it's inception. If the parties really switched, there would be overwhelming historical electoral evidence. But there isn't. My county, Butler County, PA, has voted Republican in nearly every election since the Civil War, with rare exceptions.
You skipped over the progressivism of Woodrow Wilson and 1920's democrats, and how they embraced racial eugenics, that Hitler later quoted as some of his inspiration.
Also a reminder that the the Democratic Party’s tight hold on the House of Representatives from the New Deal to the Contract with America was because of the seats it held in the South.
Something that i think you missed in this video was the effect of industrialization had on the south and what mattered to them. Its also worth mentioning that the notion of the party switch is largely pushed by Democrats to distance themselves from their slavery and racist past. Even Johnson, who signed the civil rights act, was a racist. His motivations allegedly were just to secure the black vote for the party, and it worked. While i dont believe the majority of the democrat voter base to be racist i do believe racism never left the party, it just got smarter. Ask any liberal how they feel about cracking down on illegal immigrantion and their answer will almost always "who will do [insert low paying low skill job]?" Because the party itself still sees minorites as lower class cheap labor it seeps into the overall message the party promotes and the voters perpetuate it without giving a second thought to the implactions of the talking point.
I completely agree on your diss of American Liberalism, the Democratic party is a failure in almost all sense, the only reason people vote Dem is because the Reps are worse - Socialist
A solid analysis, I would say everyone needs to watch this, but I think for the idealists on both extremes, it's just easier to peddle hate/fear and continue to loudly proclaim: "My side good, your side evil, so because you're evil, I don't have to listen to you, and I don't have to treat you with any sort of civility."
Before I even watch the video let me say, in my opinion, *no, the parties did not switch!* To examine the _"parties switched"_ argument, let's look at the state of Kansas. The state of Kansas voted republican in 33 out of the 40 presidential elections that have occurred since the creation of the state. That's a good indicator it's predominately a republican state. Additionally, the state of Kansas was one of the leaders of desegregation, with the Brown vs Board of Education in 1951-1954 and the successful Dockum Drug Store sit-in of 1958, which resulted in the desegregation of other drug stores in Wichita, Kansas. In short, Kansas led the nation on desegregation and did it all without much violence and did it all as republicans. That begs the question, if parties switched, why isn't Kansas now a democrat state? Did all the republicans in Kansas from the 1950s switch to democrats? If so, why does the state of Kansas still lean heavily republican, both before and after Civil Rights? Based on my life experiences, being a resident of Kansas, what I've seen occur is that Republicans remained true to their values. Republicans respect freedom of association and individual liberty, even for racist and bigots. Thus, while Republicans weren't in favor of government mandated segregation, they respected the individual. If an individual business owner's decision was to only serve select clientele, Republicans weren't going to use the power of the state to deny that individual liberty. Democrats frame that as _"the parties switch"_ but the reality is it's just Republicans remaining true to their philosophy of respect for the Bill of Rights and limited government
People who claim that the Republicans and Democrats switched believe that because they're tunnel visioned on the deep south and northern cities without taking middle America into consideration.
@@jamiemer1109 Um, _"the parties switched"_ argument has nothing to do with the Civil War. It has everything to do with the notion that between the 1950s and the 1970s the Democrats switched with Republicans on race. Well, Kansas was a Republican start well before the 1950s and still is a Republican state today, and not one Kansas ever said themselves, "Well, I guess it's time to start hating black people, because of democrats."
@@jamiemer1109 He brought up Kansas to demonstrate that a significant portion of America that votes Republican today has always voted that way, refuting the notion that supporting the GOP is motivated by a Neoconfederate ideology or out of contempt for black people.
You guilt-ridden GOPers cope so hard. So why did the Democrats have a complete monopoly on the South from judges, sheriffs, congressmen to senators and presidents? And now it is entirely the GOP? This is where your fairytale falls short.
It's a matter of pragmatic passion and empathy for me. I believe in banning asylum until legal applications already pending are processed because i know first hand how painful it was for my wife and i to be together waiting 5 years to process her residency case only being able to afford plane trips to see each other during the Christmas holidays because the immigration office repeatedly said they were backlogged with cases from the texas center. I personally know nearly a half dozen other people who have went through the same deal because preference is given to people who either walk through or knock on the front door instead of people who have been waiting in their home countries for years
Short answer: yes (kind of) Long answer: It was more like an evolution of the parties due to various factions within it gaining power and control over the two parties, causing them to shift ideologically
The Republican platform is the same today as when Abraham Lincoln was the president. The reason people don’t think so is because conservative ideas are more complicated and hard to understand. segregation laws and affirmative action were/are both opposed by conservatives: because they are based on race, but “liberals” would think these 2 things are opposed to each other when in reality they are the same because they are both race-based quotas/obstructions.
That is the most false statement I ever heard. The Western left see things through class and the western right see things through race and social issues. Western left that we see in Western Europe, and most of the Americas proves you wrong if you were to actually listen to their platforms
Actually the left sees the world through both a class and race lens… just look at how the Marxist idea of oppressor vs oppressed applies not only to the socialist/communist classiest ideology but also for racist and xenophobic movements like the N@zis and North Korean and Mao China and the modern BLM movement which teach the EXACT same principle only through a radical lens instead of a classiest one. 🤥
@michaelhentz1356 when I look at the west's politics as a non-westerner, the left always seems to focus so much on your racial, gender and education status, while the right focuses more on your class background (how you rose up to produce wealth) and your ethics behind it.
Yeah for the most part. It has been mud slinging about “who is racist” or “where did slavery come from.” Southern Americans are politically conservative and they do not want a bunch of government intervention. People talk about gender politics and identity but most southerners want to get to the book and not the cover.
From what I understand before watching the video is that both parties switched their views on government power and overreach in the aftermath of the civil war
Of course the parties changed over time. Its just a gross oversimplification to say they diametically 1 to 1 flipped. Calvin Coolidge would not be a Democrat today. FDR would not be a Republican.
@@AustrianPainter14 do you NOT know about the civil rights act?!?! equality was achieved and the south in time became far less racist. the republican values of equality gained a foothold in the south.
Appreciate this kind of overview. I wish it had been available when I took Civics in high school in the '80s. This is much better presented, and more coherent, than the textbooks were.
Oxymoron, di in dictator literally means one, and a parliamentary democracy has the legislature choose the executive like with British Prime Ministers, the US is a presidential democracy since it’s a popular election that chooses the executive
@@ラーメンのボス true, it’s the electoral college who vote based on the popular electoral result in their state or congressional district , thus still not a parliamentary democracy
The European multiparty parliaments are similarly dictatorial and ideologically incoherent it often feels like the governments of Britain, France, and Germany want a new mustache man to overthrow them
I don't think we should bring back Jim Crow law, there are southern blacks that hold conservative values, like Byron Donalds and Tim Scott, and we need to move on from this.
exactly. we shouldn't bring back jim crow law as the democrats are trying to do. we need to learn from the wisdom of black conservatives to move forward.
my answer is, it doesn't matter. this is usually only brought up in conversations and debates of racial lines. and the fact is, the republican party has never supported slavery, or been anti black. regardless of a flip or not. in both cases, this still holds true.
🔶Patreon www.patreon.com/monsieurz/membership
🔴Merch us-of-z-shop.creator-spring.com/
🔶Reddit www.reddit.com/r/MrZ_Official/
Mister Zed plid remake staet bordurrz
@@MonsieurDean Will you remake your what if video on a President Ted Kaczynski?
With respect, you posit that in 1964 with the Goldwater candidacy that southerners misreading his take on civil rights supported him for his support of states rights. This led to southerners becoming Republican or embracing the GOP, not sure what you said but that was my understanding, I suggest this was not true.
In 1983 I turned 18 and went to register to vote. I lived in central Florida in a town on the beach. My Uncle was very active in local politics and he instructed me that although our family were transplants from Pennsylvania who were Republican and I fully supported Ronald Reagan, I had to register as democrat. Why! This was because the Republican party at that time had no presence in the state of Florida meaning that they provided no candidates for local or most state elections to office. You had to register Democrat or you did not get a vote in any city and most state elections, maybe not even the governorship but I don't recall, certainly not congress. Whoever won the Democrat primary won the election as they had no opposition in the general.
This was 1983 and Florida by its nature of attracting many northerner transplants and retirees and the Cuban community in Miami that was Republican at that time was far more likely to be open to GOP control than any other southern state. Note Central Florida is not the northern Panhandle or Jacksonville which was far more traditionally "southern" politically and culturally than the rest of the state.
For myself I registered REpublican in 1984 because I did not care I wanted to vote for Reagan in the primary. I had many friends who were conservative who switched as well or were Republican because that was what there family was up north. I do not remember Republicans taking over local politics in Florida until around 1988 and 1990.
I would challenge the notion that in 1964 racist white southerners were switching form the Democratic party. It did not happen. The switch happened in 1990 and was due to Ronald Reagan for the people I knew.
My dad was a Democrat and Kennedy supporter. A veteran of WWII, he believed in Christianity, gun ownership and slogans like "America: Love It or Leave It" (which I believe was the motto of the Elks club) and was a member of fraternal community support organizations. Today he would be considered "far-Right" by those in charge of defining the narrative.
A lot of people considered left-wing 10 years ago are being called far-right today. Like "r@cism" that term has lost all meaning.
@@theguybehindyou4762 Correct, according to the modern left, evertything to the right of Marx is far-right.
@@TheRush05 Way to push everyone to the opposition's side.
The left wants to call the right Nazis, but they're the ones literally dressing in black shirts, shouting down free speech and shouting anti-Semitic slogans.
Something tells me your dad would have opposed the attempted coup that the republicans tried on jan 6. So I'm sure he would be still be a democrat today.
It was a consolidation rather than a switch. Liberals and conservatives existed in both parties. The split and then collapse of the Progressive Party in the 1910s and 1920s and their sidelining by the Republican establishment led to them moving to the Democrats largely in the 1930s under FDR. The loss of the Dixiecrats in the 1960s ultimately led to conservative consolidation in the Republican party.
I think this should be pinned because it's completely right. There were social conservatives and economic progressives in the democratic party. Social progressives and economic conservatives in the Republican party, although this has mostly changed for the GOP, if you aren't completely conservative, you are a RINO.
To add to this the adoption of the abortion platform by the Democrat cause many of the Christian base of the democrats to vote Regan in 1980 and never look back.
...and the Dixicrats and other segregationists moved to said Republican party, and that's why black people don't vote Republican. Then those black people who grew up during segregation told their kids (the kids now being aged between late 30s and early 50s) that Republicans are racists through the transitive property of association of segregationist = racists, segregationist = republican. That's it. Not that complicated. Easy. Anyone saying anything else is just giving personal identity protecting rationalization by emotionally fragile Republicans. When you choose short-term political gain you face long-term challenges. As Mr. Z reminds everyone across multiple videos blk people are social conservatives and economic libertarians... that's true despite what the media says (what media do blk/asian/native American people control: none so why believe occidental status quo maintaining main-stream media portrayals?). If the Dixie/segregationists went their own way and were not absorbed ...the conservative wing of today's Republicans would be bolstered by a black voting block (which is actually small, but whatever). No purple Georgia etc.
@@HeydenHarveyand there still is people like that in both parties. As a lifelong Democrat myself I can confirm
@@HeydenHarvey And that will lead to the next party split/switch:
Party 1 [40-60% of the Congress]: RINOS/DINOS, the corporatist Socially Liberal but Financially Conservative centrists who don't care the race of preference of who gives them money, just that they get it.
Party 2 [20-30% of congress]: MAGA/Far Right: They want religion [specifically Christianity] to direct the government, which is only for roads and the military. they also want a militarized border [voter ID, and other things that are decried as fascist by the Far Left.
Party 3 [20-30% of Congress]: Progressive/Far Left: They strive for their views of racial justice, environmental protections, strong social nets and other things derided as communism by the right.
How many ways can this man pronounce Appalachia?
Is that a challenge?
@@MonsieurDeanApa-LATCH-uh
Appal-uh-chia
Appa-lay-shah
Aes-splashuh
Both parties are less racist today than they were in the past. All regions of the USA Today are less racist now then in the past.
Especially the Democrats, they are alot less racist now.
Hard disagree on that. The Democrat party has since 2008 moved further and further towards racism. It's a main stream talking point for them to state that non-white members of society need assistance because they're inherently disadvantaged and white inherently advantaged due to race.
@@SerfinBird because white society in fact is and has always been inherently advantaged. Of course the disadvantaged part of society is going to stand up against that. Racism creates racism. Alleged supremacy creates racism.
I mean I see a lot of liberals calling African Americans Uncle Tom when they don’t vote democrat and even using the Hard R thinking just because they are democrat/liberal it puts them above people who don’t vote the same
@@SerfinBirdi was just about to say this. It's all about boxes. The black box, the white box. The woman box. The gay box. The Hispanic box. The disabled box. The evangelical box. Republicans aren't perfect but they deal in ideology without putting people in boxes, assuming a uniform groupthink dynamic. They speak to the individual most of the time.... except with evangelicals it seems.
My father was a JFK supporter, vietnam veteran, Gun owner (like 20 guns), and christian. He has voted democrat until 2016. He is now called far right.
Yup. I'm a far- right liberal myself.
and those are your more reasonable kind of people. my father voted for Bill Clinton twice and so did my grandfather. they made their switch in 2016 (i like to pride myself in moving that along) as well. I myself voted for the first time in 2016 for the man we all know to enjoy. I myself am considered an extremist because i think we should be in control of our own lives... an idea that was completely middle 20 years ago.
Hmmm, something about these comments feel suspicious, don't ya think Scoop?
He voted for Obama who had gun control as a major factor of his agenda?
@@DJTwasRight my favorite quote on TH-cam ever is “alt-right tech always works, because it helps our most oppressed group, conservatives!”
Who filibustered the civil rights act? Who eulogized Senator Robert Bird? Who promoted the mass abortion of blacks?
Republicans. Or so the Democrats would have you believe.
Southerners.
Not quite correct. Hillary Clinton was born in chicago. She eulogized Robert Bird calling him the “soul of america” and other such nonsense. He was a grand exalted cyclops….
Biden
@@MonsieurDean Democrats.
All I know is I’m Hispanic and I officially left the democrat party this year my views align with Republican’s plus my finances always seem to be better under republican leadership. To me feeding my family and making sure we’re well is more important than any other issues.
Do you support America becoming majority Hispanic?
I don’t see with any race being a majority as long as we remember we’re all American 🇺🇸. We’re not in Central or south America nor are we in the middle east or in Asia and were so we shouldn’t put other countries interest ahead of our own. We have to remember why everyone immigrated here and what made America great!
So you're basically a liberal. Do you support Mexico becoming majority Chinese or Argentina becoming majority Indian "as long as they share the same values?" What's the difference between Mexican and American values anyways? The REAL DIFFERENCE is the PEOPLE. If Mexico became majority Indian it would cease to be MEXICO and it would become INDIA 2.0. I bet you're so happy Trump didn't build the wall using your remittances. Any sane President from Washington to Nixon would've sent you back. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million illegals. No wonder Ancient Romans had disdain for actors.
The economy booms under Democratic administrations. That's just a fact. Although the last 2 Democratic administrations have had to clean up after the previous Republican administrations. (Bush presided over the 2008 housing crash and Trump's complete failure handling Covid.) Bush and trump both tanked their respective economies on their way out the door. Trump's 1, of only 2, presidents in American history to leave office with less jobs than they started with. What you're feeling now with the price of gas, groceries, etc, wouldn't have been better under Trump. If anything, his numbers on the way out, prove that he had no clue what to do to fix it. Still doesn't.
@@mattr8090white Americans definitely don’t align with anything European from food to infrastructure. I suspect Hispanics new to America will adapt the same way and adopt the American way of life.
You have to look at presidential platforms of both parties. You'll see that the presidential platforms of the GOP have remained faily consistent since the days of the Whig party. Since losing the Civil War and the slavery question, the Democrat party has morphed several times in attempts to chase new voter bases. After the Civil War, the Democrat party shifted from states rights to class issues, particularly focused on white working class. This shift brought about William Jennings Bryan, a populist focused on class issues. The party moved significantly left under Woodrow Wilson, transitioned to full left wing under FDR and the New Deal. Then under LBJ in the 1960's, the Democrat party shifted it's focus from class issues and began embracing intersectional politics to chase the Black vote. Now the Demcrat platform has almost completely abandoned working class issues, white working class, and blacks, in favor of full blown intersectional politics while chasing what they hope to be new permanent voter bases among women, immigrants, lgbtq, and non-christian groups.
Sounds like the scariest group of people to make up the majority of a country. Also, a failing strategy for a successful nation. There's a reason white Christian countries have the beat success rate. It's because they have a great structure of morals and values and love of God that acts as a biding agent, whether you believe in it or not.
Facts!
And you didn't need 18 minutes nor did you waffle on about factions. Congratulations 👏🎉
Senator Strom Thurmond switched from Democrat to Republican in 1964 and endorsed Barry Goldwater because of his opposition to the Civil Rights Act under the guise of "states rights." Five of the six states Goldwater carried in the general election were in the "Solid South," which were reliably Democratic since the end of Reconstruction in 1877 until 1964 (that's 87 years!) Jesse Helms (North Carolina), Mills Godwin (Virginia), Claude Kirk (Florida), Bo Callaway (Georgia), Thad Cochran and Trent Lott (Mississippi), John Connally (Texas), and Richard Shelby (Alabama) followed Strom Thurmond's footsteps. Nixon continued this Southern Strategy in 1968. I'm not a lefty and would've voted for George Wallace myself, but I'm disappointed when normi.e Republicans deny facts.
You conveniently leave out that the Democrats under Bill Clinton abandoned the working-class due to the popularity of Reagan. Look up Newt Gingrich's Contract with America and the Republican Revolution of 1994. Reagan and Calvin Coolidge would've not liked Trump's pro-tariffs position, but Teddy Roosevelt, Taft, and McKinley are probably smiling at Trump from Heaven. Everyone despises Bush Jr. I wonder why someone as supposedly smart as you wants to play the, "Modern Democrats are the REAL rac1sts!" game so bad. If they were, I would be voting Democrat lol.
idk about the GOP consistency thing. Theodore Roosevelt was quite the environmentalist and Dwight Eisenhower maintained one of if not THE BIGGEST tax rates on large corporations.
@@ict113090 If you look at those variances across the timeline, they don't deviate far from the mean in comparison to how far the Democrats have deviated.
There was a time where both parties had liberals, conservatives, and moderates
I wouldnt deny the existence of a political spectrum now. I think most people describe what they aspire to be and not just what they are...
Truth be told what you aspire to be and what you happen to be are mostly the same. But whats to say someone may not know themselves all that thoroughly.
So, today? Democrats this year focused heavily on being moderate as possible, even hired traditional liberals like Clinton and conservatives like Dick Cheney. Republicans today are now backed by Tulsi Gabbard who’s a Bernie Supporter and is a heavily environmental activist.
Moderates dont win elections anymore unfortunately
Both parties would think you have cold feet
I lived in South Carolina for 5 years. Almost half of my neighbors were black. But ALL of my neighbors were nice. It was a sad day when I had to move to Ohio. Vomit.
There's no place like home, wherever that might be.
brooo im from ohio you didnt have to do us like that😭😭
Ohio? My gen z senses are tingling.
Florida takes another W as usual
@@Lucius_Aurelian_All of us sunshiners know our baketball dudes are chill, it's the ladies you gotta watch out for.
It's too damn hot to have beef down here, and we all had too many b friends as kids.
They switched genders
Only one of those parties is into that foolishness.
"I was pro lgbtq until they added the +"
I was pro Disney until they added the +
Adding a + seems to be following a trend lately.
🤣
@@MonsieurDean I was never pro lgbtq, even if it has a -
Both parties had conservative and progressive wings from the 1880s through the 1970s
Yes. It was better that way. Though the liberal wings of both parties enabled the passage of the destructive EPA, the emergency highway energy conservation act, CAFE and the Motor Vehicle act.
Nonsense. The Southern Democrats voted for the New Deal. So your theory would mean that Democrats had two wings, in practice both liberal, but one considered "conservative" just because.
@henrystowe6217 Yeah, what exactly was better? You just named the problem. In the mid 1900s, both parties drastically increased the size of the federal government, stripped away personal rights and stripped away states rights. All of the worst aspects of progressivism had bipartisan support
@@henrystowe6217 Well most politicians before Jerry Fallwell's Moral Majority appealed to mainline Protestants. Presidents before Reagan don't fit neatly into liberal or conservative boxes. We had many Presidents that were socially conservative and economically progressive. They didn't have to pander to the unwashed masses. There's a reason the Ancient Romans despised actors. Senator Strom Thurmond switched from Democrat to Republican in 1964 and endorsed Barry Goldwater because of his opposition to the Civil Rights Act under the guise of "states rights." Five of the six states Goldwater carried in the general election were in the "Solid South," which were reliably Democratic since the end of Reconstruction in 1877 until 1964 (that's 87 years!) Jesse Helms (North Carolina), Mills Godwin (Virginia), Claude Kirk (Florida), Bo Callaway (Georgia), Thad Cochran and Trent Lott (Mississippi), John Connally (Texas), and Richard Shelby (Alabama) followed Strom Thurmond's footsteps. Nixon continued this Southern Strategy in 1968. I'm not a lefty and would've voted for George Wallace myself, but I'm disappointed when normi.e Republicans deny facts. I think the Nelson Rockefeller Republicans would be the Liz Cheney/Mitt Romney type of Republicans, basically borderline Democrats.
@@sivad1025 Are you a Zoomer? Aren't you familiar with Newt Gingrich, the Contract with America, and the Revolution of '94? Most modern Democrats despise Clinton because was economically like Reagan and socially like Obama. "Socially liberal, fiscally conservative." This is thanks to pressure from Gingrich and the Republicans throughout the 90s. Personally I think the Republicans went downhill since Reagan, although given your personal politics, I'd say Bush Jr. I say Reagan because libertarianism is a losing ideology, but we didn't achieve maximum loserdom until Bush Jr. Trump has brought us back to the Nixon era where the President can be pragmatic.
The switch discourse relies on a lot of false equivalency
Cope
@@AustrianPainter14burden of proof cannot be proven . Cap
@@AustrianPainter14😂You believe fake history but he should cope?
I WISH we had a two party system. We don’t. We have a uniparty.
You do realize party means nothing, only individual policy matters. Vote for whose policy you agree with regardless of the letter next to their name.
Technically, yeah.
The country feels like an oligarchy that's cosplaying as a democracy/republic
@@theforcedmemehow very Roman!
@@Vamooso Roman fan boy
It’s telling that clear liberals like FDR and even Harry Truman didn’t see it this way at all … because this myth (and that’s what it is) relies on two ideas for simpletons:
1. The fact that Southern Whites and Blacks switched allegiances MUST mean the parties just did a 180° on ideology.
2. Support for slavery or segregation are inherently conservative; they’re just simply not. An 1860s Republican who opposes slavery because it’s economically unfair for Wall Street or due to religious fanaticism isn’t a “progressive” just because they support change.
Conservative means opposing change, conservatives opposed desegregation, liberals want change, and wanted desegregation. This came to a head over civil rights where the national dnc was more in favor of desegregation than the national RNC. It was even put in the 1948 dnc platform and Truman ordered the desegregation of the military while JFK and LBJ both fought for civil rights
Both conservatives could support or oppose slavery, most at the time opposed it due to the fact that it was interfering with the market if they had rights. Which is currently happening with anti union politicians.
@@nhjhbmkuy7173Then why was the 1964 Civil Rights bill mostly voted for by Republicans while opposed by Democrats, especially in the Senate? 27 Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act while only 6 opposed it. Meanwhile, a third of Democrats in the Senate, 21 of the 65 in total, voted against the Civil Rights Act.
@@ericharrison7518 many of those who voted against it would later leave the Democratic Party like Strom Thrudond, the party switch truly lasted until the mid 70s. Remember the southern strategy of the RNC only began in 1968 with Goldwater and his defense of states rights to segregation.
@@nhjhbmkuy7173if by many you mean just the one or two then yeah
The political left often promotes FDR as a beacon of liberalism and Democratic policies, however if the parties flipped platforms, then that would make FDR a modern Republican.
How so? Would Nixon be a modern democrat because of the price controls he implemented?
@@HeydenHarveyand Nixon formed the epa which modern Republicans hate
@@nhjhbmkuy7173 the majority of Republicans love him anyways
@@HeydenHarvey not really, his watergate scandal cost the republicans in 1976, and republicans today really hate all federal bureaucracy that limits big corporations, like the EPA
FDR at least only believed in two genders. I’ll give him credit for that much.
Are you trying to pronounce Appalachia in all ways it can be possibly pronounced?
Yes.
@MonsieurDean Based.
@@calinnilie last video was Gabbard, this video was Appalachia
Its obviously to generate engagement. Nobody on Earth pronounces it "Appalucia" unless they can't read or something.
Then check out Huggbees How It's Actually Made for a major butchering of Worcestershire sauce
I would like to point out that in the declarative articles when the Republican party was first established, they specifically state that one of the fundamental ideology of the newly forming Republican party is to reduce the reach of the federal government.
And that hasn't changed
Idk about a party switch i just dont want whatever the f has the democratic party evolved into in power
Kamala Party of Laughter
@@geigertec5921 Lmfao
And I miss the old GOP now that it it has been turned into the MAGA party😔
Damn straight.
@@mrbio6833old GOP was just as worse as Democrats.
Another thing people often forget to mention in these conversations is that there has always been a different culture in the south between rich southerns and poor whites. This was the subject of many different stories from the south (Dukes of Hazzard, Huckleberry Finn, Adventures of Tom Sawyer, ect).
Poor whites of the south were genuinely against slavery as an institution but believed in states rights, and later were genuinely against racial abuse but believed forced integration would destroy communities.
Lynching was very unpopular in the South by the late 1940s, even among Dixiecrats.
That’s the most sanitized belief ever lol. Owning slaves was their American dream. Taking that away is why they fought so hard. OG aristocrat simps
@@badart3204 Source: you just made it up. Even in books taught today as "anti-southern" like Uncle Tom's cabin agree slavery was extremely unpopular. It was like pharmacuetical companies are today. Nobody defended slavery but some felt radical bans would lead to a future where the constitution didn't matter at all anymore (and all the protected rights in the constitution with it).
@@badart3204 Ah yes, I own a shack, a pile of dirt, and a bucket. I can't wait to go fight for filthy rich slave owners, because the only thing that truly matters is making sure slavery continues to keep the South poor and keep the rich man rich!
Multiple prominent Southern Generals fought for their states, not slavery, and I'd say most southern soldiers were young boys and men going out 'on an adventure', wanting to claim their manhood and honor, while also patriotically fighting for their states, families, and people. Yes, some southerners did fight for slavery, yes plenty of southerners felt as though Slavery was a traditional and social system that was okay and in need of no change, but you're giving them far too much credit if you really think a 15 year old white boy from some random southern village is willing to die on a battlefield hundreds almost a thousand miles away all so a Rich plantation owner can stay rich and powerful.
Cornbread is not better than pizza
You got to remember that you had to own land and pay taxes to vote, once that changed it caused most significant shift of demographics in the parties.
Yes. Universal suffrage has been a blight on our country. Property ownership should have been a constitutional prerequisite to voting
@@sivad1025no you goof. They would just vote for things that benefit THEM. "Let corporations and billionsires get most votes"
@edgaraf9411 It's amazing how Democrat arguments are basically 5th grade logic. "How do we make billionaires less influential in elections? We add more non-billionaire votes!"
Of course, there is zero evidence that this is how the world actually works. If more low information voters are going to the ballot box, you create a greater advantage for the side with the best _marketing._ And billionaires are the ones funding these ad campaigns
The wealth gap has drastically increased as voting had expanded. And that's because the average voter is low information and won't oust politicians who are self interested
@@sivad1025 least obvious fed
That's not true since the Republican party didn't even exist when the last states removed property requirements before the civil war.
12 of the last 16 years POTUS has been blue, the establishment is blue.
And Anti-White
@@Giuseppe_1994 Cherrypicking. If you made that statement in 1992 or 1996, it would have been red.
@@Meirsteinwell they weren't talking about 1992 or 96, a decade before i was born and im old enough to drink. they're talking about today, where yes the Democrats are the main establishment party.
@@zacharyreynolds4303also the entirely of our mega corporations fuck with one side
@@danf7411 Almost every mega-corporation is owned by its shareholders, the shareholders nearly entirely the direction of the company. It is the shareholders, the company isn't some self thinking being. (completely disregarding the fact that a lot of the corporations shareholders and workers donations are also pretty close to even for democratic and republicans)
I like how you can admit to your conservative tendencies but also make something so objective and researched.
There are 4 things the parties can agree on: 1) war 2) more foreign aid 3) Liberalism (the ideology) 4) refusing to deliver for the Americans
I’m voting GOP this year but the lack of alternatives really annoys me.
GOP: We need to STOP sending money to Ukraine, it should stay in America!
GOP: Israel needs more money guys, they need more!
I would have voted for RFK, but he dropped out and the other third parties are worse than the main ones
So elections aren’t rigged anymore?
You forgot worshipping Moloch
@bayern1445 That too. They can’t help but feed him through abortion and war.
People are complex and viewpoints can evolve over time. Assigning blame to a political party is exactly the wrong direction to take.
But the bad was created by someone
@1stwonder788
And the root of that creation exists in all of us.
@@Ctrooper2011 You can thank Democrats for The Trail of Tears, The Civil War, The Klan, Jim Crow, Asian Internment.
Do tell what exactly Republicans have done that compares to these ills??
The Republican Party's ideology, has largely maintained a focus on freedom, individualism, and limited government since its founding, aligning with what was known as classical liberalism in the 19th century. This ideology, is now regarded as modern conservatism.
In contrast, the Democratic Party has shifted from supporting agrarianism and control-oriented policies like slavery to modern liberalism, which still emphasizes government intervention, though with different goals.
LOL the GOP is not a small government party.
@@HeydenHarvey it is in a lot of ways
@@HeydenHarveysmaller than the democrats
He still believes in elections
Cute
The Republican party were originally the federalists. The republican party was known for big government projects. The democratic party used to be libertarian with the exception of slavery until 1890. Where are you getting your facts?
The whole thing is what we put into the term conservative and liberal. 100 years ago, a conservative was most likely someone who espoused the values of the aristocracy, the upper class, and keeping the "rabble" out of power. The classical liberals of that time have little in common with the liberals of today. Those were in favor of a minimal government, while today's think we need a "just" government that will distribute everything "right." So in this sense, the Democrats and Republicans have not changed places. Democrats still defend the values of the establishment, the oligarchs and the lower proletariat (from the point of view of “we'll give you crumbs from the royal table”). And Republicans still stand for the values of classical liberalism, minimal government, and free markets just the same. So no, the party hasn't switched places, we just have switched definitions.
Of course, Republicans didn't used to stand for free markets. But they eventually switched their position. It looks like they may be about to switch back, though.
I will say this. All the farmers that wee Democrats in the 89's and 90's are now conservative Republicans along with their sons with pretty much the same beliefs.
I find it fascinating how there are socially conservative parts of the Northwest and Midwest that had consistently supported the Republicans since the 19th century. That is what led me to independently conclude that there's something that the party switch narrative isn't telling us.
@@johnnyjohn-johnson7738the truth is that the left has just moved farther left making people who were liberal in the 80s conservatives today
Yeah because the Democratic party has moved so far left that it isn't a stretch to call them communist anymore.
That's because the Democratic party has gone so far to the left that it would not be a stretch to call them Marxists.
Right. But this is easily explained by the fact that voters are not rational
Part of the issue at play is that at the start of the 1900s, we essentially introduced populism through universal suffrage. The founders rightly criticized populism because most people are not politically informed which turns elections into competitions of personalities and feats of marketing. Populist groups vote based off marketing and social trends, not policy.
The reality is, the GOP today argues for a platform very similar to Calvin Coolidge's. Restricting immigration, less foreign intervention, lower taxes, less government spending. The Democrat platform is identical to Wilson's and FDR's. Strong bureaucratic state, nationalized welfare, top-down social policy.
Coolidge won the vast majority of black voters with a policy platform that's very similar to Trump's. But black voters flipped parties because of a perception of racism associated with each side even though the policies have remained stable
This is a great introduction to your channel for me. Just showed up in my recommendations and I just really love how well you explain things throughout. Really great video!
Short answer, no.
Long answer, nooooooooooo
So, did all of the "democrats" move to what are now considered blue cities and ditch their southern accents? Visa versa for Republicans? If what you're saying is indeed true. That would have to be the case. It's not. That's ridiculous.
@@everettst.claire870If you didn't know, party affiliation isn't genetic.
@@everettst.claire870black people stated voting blue in the 60s. Southern white people stated voting red in the 80s. 25 year difference bud.
@@billbrennan2347blacks weren’t allowed to vote blue, so the developed the Republican Party which then caused the far left to create the KKK
The two parties did switch cultural values.
How did you focus in on the Republican strategy in the late 20th century, skipping over the Democratic party's affiliation with the kkk and their open campaigning with the confederate battle flag?
my thoughts exactly.
Biden was in caucuses with racists and segregationists southern democrats for years after the civil rights act was passed. Let’s not ignore the fact these people are STILL in the party.
Which side flies the Confederate flag now?
Exactly failing to admit that because of Johnson’s policies in the 1964 election is the first time blacks voted democrat when previously they were republicans. And the kkk of the south loved Goldwater’s policies so much and was also against the civil rights act that they actually voted republican for the first time when they were known Dixiecrats. So I would say the different groups of people switched parties but that’s just me.
No the first was in 1932
Finally, someone who doesn’t lie about history.
I would also argue that another reason for the South switching to the Republican party was the ongoing disillusionment with the existing Dixiecrats and also a byproduct of the ongoing cultural and political revolution that had been ongoing since the end of the Second World War; as the South begin to industrialize and economically improve for the first time since the Civil War. Many forget that there was a the large contingent of white Southerners who aided and helped the Civil Rights movement. In addition, LBJ was a New Dealer, but he was also born in rural Texas; and ended up being the president to sign the Civil Rights bill and had a long history of supporting civil rights legislation. The south and it's people had far larger role in Civil Rights outside of being the bad guys then is acknowledged in the mainstream narrative.
I would argue it was Dixie assimilating to broader US Anglo culture.
It didn't fully assimilate until around the 70s.
Before that they were kinda a distinct nation, as unassimilated as any minority group like Italians or Irish once were.
Ive always hated how people say this, thanks for making a video on it
I think the only issue the parties switched on is states rights. During Lincoln's time the Republicans stood for the Union while Democrats advocated for states rights, while today Republicans advocate for states right and Democrats for the concentration of power in the hands of the federal government.
In all other issues the parties have stayed essentially the same, or if the issue morphed then they'll still be on the same side as before, just over a different issue.
Greetings from Mississippi! Yes, that Mississippi.
I was born in 1957 and everyone around me was a Democrat. I'm talking everyone. Police, judges, governor, attorney General, congressmen, senators, circuit clerks, dog catcher, on and on and on.
When I became a teenager I shocked my family by announcing that I was a Republican. Yes, like, coming out as being gay. Ha ha! What really surprised me was, even black people voted for democrats. The very people who were oppressing them.
Why? Lyndon Johnson, Franklin Roosevelt, Martin Luther king.
If you think I'm making it up, Google voter registration in any southern state from the 1800's to 1985.
The democrats were the party of the Klan.
They say politics makes strange bedfellows.
Now, you have all these leftists associating with Islam. I wonder how that's going to turn out? You think these Islamist groups are going to support gay marriage?
Hmmmmm?
I found out one thing. People are gullible all the time.
Finally an honest replay. So many southerners are dishonest with themselves.
Video idea: George Patton doesn't die in 1945 and runs for President in the 1950s with Joe McCarthy as a VP
Speaking of generals and elections, do you know who ran as the VP for Wallace? Curtis LeMay
Another thing to note. The modern definition of American conservatism would of been considered progressive or liberalism during the founding period. Because progressive is changing the status quo, and at that time, the status quo was supporting the monarchy. A conservative during the time of the founding would of been a Tory, and a liberal would of been a Federalist.
The party's never switched.
They literally did
@@za-ir5ni Absolutely not, the human tariffing at the borders conducted by the Uni-party Democrats & the welfare state are direct evidence. Now we see the democrats are tired of the old slave races in America. So now they are importing the 3rd world as the new undocumented non-citizen unprotected by the Constitution salve races via broken immigration policy. Leaving all the Native Foundational and Immigrant poor born citizen people behind. Get Real!
@@za-ir5nihow so? The democratic party was built on expanding voting rights, which is consistent with today's beliefs, larger government intervention, which we still see today, anti big business, which we still see today.
The republican party was also built on economic protectionism, which we still see today, less government interference, which we still see today, and free-soil (anti slavery) which is more or less irrelevant today regardless of party
@@stuntgimp849 but yet desantis want to put in the slavery was a good thing.
The US has two conservative parties with different traditions. Within the two parties, there have been multiple distinct liberal factions competing for dominance with other non-liberal factions.
Caveat on the South being more small government, they were quite insistent on federal power requiring that anti-slavery states return escaped slaves to their owners in slave states.
There was also a segment of the South that wanted to use the power of the state government to ban white employers from hiring black people.
The old Southern conception of states’ rights is rather distinct from contemporary notions of limited government in how it was based on the premise that the federal government could actually do big sweeping things when the states agree to it and can be nullified if they do not. It ought to be kept in mind that the South also showed some of the most consistent support for William Jennings Bryan’s populist platform, Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal programs and even Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty initiatives provided they were not directly tied with civil rights. Modern small-government conservatives and libertarians are much more weary of the government taking any such action on principle as infringing upon personal freedom and responsibility.
@@johnweber4577 Now that I think about it, this is just sad. Southerners stopped supporting populist policies when they realized that they might help black people also. FDR had to make sure he was being super rac1st so he could get away with reorganizing the economy like that.
I just wish people would vote for the better candidate, not just whoever they are told to vote for.
I mean there really hasn't been a good candidate for a while lmao
@@plugshirt1762 I mean trump has been the better candidate since he came onto the scene, he's the only non politician down to earth candidate in a while IMO
@@tru6992 And yet he's a pathological liar, has done nothing for the working class as opposed to any of his contemporaries (his administration oversaw a higher unemployment rate each year of his tenure than the Biden Administration, and before you say "covid" covid only affected one year of his presidency for 2/3rds of the year). And his aggressive trade policy is and has very likely been a net negative for lowering the federal deficit and increasing inflation (which the Biden Administration has been actively combating through the FED as best it can)
Vote who you want, but I don't see how Trump has been a "better candidate" especially compared to Harris or Biden. Trump is a very competent public speaker, but his lies and economic ideas are grotesque.
@@tru6992he’s fucking insane wdym??? 34 goddamn felonies in just one of his cases. I don’t love Kamala Harris- her prosecutorial history is kind of gross. But at least she didn’t visit epstein island and try to stage a coup… he’s promised to be “a dictator on day one”. how can you say he’s the better option??
@@tru6992that’s biased.. he has no government experience. And his character is greatly flawed. And yea ik we’re not perfect but if you’re running for president, that matters. There are many fit candidates, democratic and republican. But Trump honestly doesn’t know what he’s doing. He keeps inheriting good economies and takes all the credit. And people believe ANYTHING he says which is just crazy to me. And other countries think it’s absurd too.
I am trying to count how many different ways you pronounced Appalachia in this video. Haha. Good video
Best explanation I’ve heard of this so far.
🫡
@@MonsieurDean Seriously though. Any other explanation I’ve heard is usually just to throw shade at the Republicans or the Republicans distancing themselves from Dixie policy. This gets into the nitty gritty and explains it in a way that really rings true to American politics.
Well I'm happy to bring some clarity to this!
Having an entrenched two party system makes realignments inevitable, as both parties compete to put together majorities.
Republican party remains mostly as founded which in their time was very liberal. They have however embraced the Christianity. The Democrats have always wandered from on idea and extreme to another. While there have been authoritarians in both , Teddy, they are more common among the Democrats.
This might be the closest to true. I think too much is lost to history or is distorted by those who tell the story of the past to really know what's FULLY true, but when trying to be as objective as I can be, this lines up with how I see it. And it makes sense. When the Republican party started of course they would be liberal or progressive, as all new ideas should be, but overtime they became the old ideas and thus conservative. There was never any swap, and the perceived "change" is as you've said; the Democrats just changing constantly. The one part of the story I never see anyone mention is that the Democrat party (the Elites/politicians, NOT the actual people) is simply the party of manipulation. There's a reason they like the phrase "Never waste a good crisis." Once you realize this, it all makes sense.
Awesome video. You never dissapoint! 😎👍
🫡
There’s been liberals and conservatives on both parties..nowadays, the parties revolve around having predominant liberal or very conservative audience, leaving us people in the middle in the trenches.
Not true, classical liberals and democrats that supported JFK are now considered "far-right" according to the left
It's the left that became radicalized. In their POV, everyone to the right of them is a far right radical.
Why do you think democrats like Joe Rogan, RFK Jr, Tulsi Gabbard, Musk etc are all considered by the left radical right wingers now?
Meirstein wrote that "It was a consolidation rather than a switch. Liberals and conservatives existed in both parties. The split and then collapse of the Progressive Party in the 1910s and 1920s and their sidelining by the Republican establishment led to them moving to the Democrats largely in the 1930s under FDR. The loss of the Dixiecrats in the 1960s ultimately led to conservative consolidation in the Republican party." Not true.
Yes, there were liberals and conservatives in both parties, but it implies that only progressives were in the Progressive Party. Calvin Coolidge was a conservative Republican, but he was succeeded by Herbert Hoover, a liberal and progressive who believed in big government. When FDR ran against him, he actually ran to the political right of Hoover. Meanwhile, the Progressive Party (the former Bull Moose Party) dissolved in 1920. FDR's first year enacted multiple relief programs, but it was a relatively modest first year. Many disaffected progressives did come over with the 1934 congressional election which allowed FDR to enact more radical policies. Not all of his radical reforms were progressive in the modern sense. The Federal Housing Authority basically created the racist policy of redlining, for example. FDR also maintained Woodrow Wilson's racist policies, including a racially segregated military. It was the future Republican President, General Dwight Eisenhower, who pushed for a racially integrated military. In Arizona, the head of the National Guard, Barry Goldwater, personally desegregated the military and founded a chapter of the NAACP. It was FDR's more conservative successor, Harry S. Truman, who finally ordered the desegregation of the entire military. FDR only picked Truman because his then-VP Henry Wallace was considered too radical. Wallace was given a demotion as a cabinet secretary, until Truman fired him in 1946 for being too friendly to the USSR. Wallace then created a new Progressive Party - until he split after it became too radical for him.
The Dixiecrats - officially the States' Rights Party - was founded in opposition to Truman's racial reforms in 1948. It was also dissolved in 1948. Except for its founder, Strom Thurmond, every senator and governor who joined the States' Rights Party returned and remained Democrats until the day they died. They did not switch over the the Republican Party. So there was no "loss of the Dixiecrats in the 1960s" since all but one remained Democrats. In the 1968 presidential election that Richard Nixon won as a Republican, the Deep South went to independent candidate/Democrat George Wallace. Wallace, who had been a Democrat, moderated his racial views in the 1970s and ran as a Democrat in 1972 and 1976. In 1976, several conservatives ran in the Democratic primaries, including Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson and George Wallace. Even Jimmy Carter, who won, ran as a fairly conservative candidate. Both Carter and Wallace claimed to be born-again Christians. Jimmy Carter won all of the South - not just the Deep South - in 1976.
So this just reiterates that the Democrat-created claim of the big 1968 party switch is a myth. The only group that switched parties en masse was black voters in the 1932 election: they switched from the GOP to the Democratic Party. The truth of the party switch is a lot more complicated.
The Democrats started pushing the "party switch" narrative to deflect from the slow and sure shifting they have went towards socialism.
Just like how Clinton called Gabbard a "Russian asset", to deflect from the actually valid concerns Gabbard wanted addressed(which was why she resigned as DNC vice chair, and backed Sanders).
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.
Video starts at 0:01
True.
incorrect, for the video starts at 0:69 and 4:20 respectively
@@MonsieurDeanI'd argue that the video starts at 00:00. 😂
Well, whatever the case, it ends at 17:42.
@@DoomsdayMachine_888Yeah but it's ended at 17:43
This is quite literally the best, obviously I've studied up and knew this stuff, but of all the videos attempting to explaining it, this is absolutely the best version I've seen.
Good fricken frackin job! 🎉
No they never switched. It’s simply that if u wait long enough what’s considered progressive because conservative
exactly. the republicans were quite liberal until the civil rights act as it was necessary. all the big social battles most people could agree on ended with the passing of said act. with that, republicans became more conservative to "protect progress" for lack of a better term. the democrats had been so badly beaten (party of slavery/oppression since their beginning) that they eventually "overcorrected" to compensate. like giving all of your money to that one (literally) poor bastard who just ruined your reputation after what you did to him. and now our nation is suffering big time from the social justice crap.
So there was no switch?
David Duke, Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, Rick Perry, Buddy Roemer, Mitch McConnell, Fob James, Jesse Helms, Asa Hutchinson, Walter jones, Mike pence, Frank white, phil Gramm, Sonny Callahan, Roy Moore, Richard Shelby, Mike foster, George Wallace jr, sonny Perdue, Kay Ivey, Nathan deal and countless other representatives and bureaucrats…and this is just the South.
Frank Rizzo also made the switch from Democrat to GOP.
@@AustrianPainter14 You tell racists that party A is the racist party long enough, they'll vote for party A. Even if the party isn't racist. Racists don't tend to do research.
alexkay6676
‘Racism’ is an anti-whyte slur. I bet you wouldn’t call al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson that.
@@AustrianPainter14 Did the Republican Party adopt the segregationist and Jim Crow platform and policies of the Democrats? No. So there was no "switch".
They didn’t switch… They cross-pollinated.
Thanks For this! Always keeping US informed🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
Was party switch a myth? Yes.
Cope
The south was magically Republican from the 1960s on huh?
There was no party switch. The late/great Malcolm already told us that.
Malcolm X hated Conservatives and Liberals
@@clintonbreeden6970 Hate is a strong word. Nonetheless, he criticized the Diddycrats far more often, compared to the GOP, even going as far to state the Diddycrats are the most dangerous thing in the entire western hemisphere.
@@Nigerian-born_American The reason he criticized Liberals was because he thought they were the same as Conservatives, just that they pretended they were better. He compared Conservatives to wolves, and Liberals to foxes, in the sense that they were both racist, but Conservatives didn’t pretend, and Liberals do.
“Honest recognition of the past.” That’s a tall order, Z.😬
Yeah...
That's kinda sad.
OKay, the 900 different pronunciations of Appalachia is golden *chefs kiss*
There was no switch. We believe most of the same things today we believed during the civil war. Slavery is not “small government.” It requires big government to impose.
Yes it, was that was literally the point of the war, and yes there was a switch. Tell me if you're a Republican from Georgia, and have a confederate flag, and have a great great grandpapi that fight under that flag as a Democrat and was buried in a confederate soldier graveyard..again as a Democrat....how tf are you gonna tell me there was no switch? How does *that* work? Why would you be waving the flag you went to war with? Make that make sense.
Cope
@@AnthonyBlamthonyBecause the voters switched, not the ideologies.
You presuppose that voters are rational and have intergenerational continuity. But that's clearly not true.
There was a president who dramatically reduced immigration, was isolationist, was socially conservative, reduced taxes on the rich and reduced the size of the federal government. That could be Trump's platform and yet I'm describing Calvin Coolidge who handily won a majority of the black vote.
The reality is, perceived voting blocks flip policies all the time because elections in a populist system are competitions of marketing and personality. Very few people have coherent political theory at the ballot box
@@AnthonyBlamthony A "switch" implies a sudden change. You can't point to that sudden change, and so therefore, the burden of proof lies on those claiming a switch.
Also, using extreme examples doesn't support your argument. Do not do that in the future.
@@AnthonyBlamthony that's like saying Japanese navy flag today means they are still imperialist because they also wave and still use the same sunrise flag during ww2
The southern flag existed before the south fought to keep slavery. It represents southern pride and culture
the two parties will always be opposite of each other for no reason except to oppose each other in hope of winning, after 4 to 8 years of getting nothing they promised done we will always vote in the other party. At the end of the day who you vote for doesn't matter what values you vote in does and if they want to steal votes they should switch. Ultimately no laws matter because they don't deter illegal activity , we will never be in a society of only good or only evil, the concepts them selves subjective.
You never dissapoint z! You're the Best! Hearth please ❤❤❤❤❤
I personally always saw the evolution of the political parties as a fight between Jacksonianism and Anti-Jacksonianism personally.
The thing to note is that the Republican Party hasn't changed all that much. It certainly has not gone farther to the Right. Rather the Democratic Party has shifted dramatically to the Left as have the international Centre. When the Centre moves farther to the Left, everything will seem more Right-wing by contrast.
Thank you for this video. It explains this question well.
Party switch myth is easy to shatter as the basis makes the assumption that everybody in both parties simultaneously dropped every single other social, governance, or economic values to 'flip' over a single issue. That single issue being views on race because democrats post cultural revolution are not happy with their history. Most people who voted democrat or republican died doing the same in the 20th century. The geographical switched happened due to migration patterns as many others have pointed out.
1930 Democrats believed in high taxation, welfare, unions, direct democracy, expanding voting rights, state education, monopoly busting, modernism, and... prohibition and eugenics (abortion entered the political fray out of eugenics funny enough). Eugenics after WW2 was a sour position to maintain for obvious reasons, so this was abandoned. The purity chase of eugenics was dropped for the values of the cultural revolution which has evolved into the anti natalism that we know today. That said, you'd be hard press to NOT see the core ideas of the democrats in the 30's as matching a good chunk of democrat values now that do not match republican values/positions. 1920-30's cemented a lot of the Dem/Rep divide, mainly with the Dems defining what they are and Reps building themselves as the opposition. Democrats would do another major political reform in the 60's/70's with Reps still being the opposition party but the Reps build a cohesive ideology for the opposition as oppose to just being a collection.
To anyone who says the switch is real, I say what switched? And what sounds more reasonable to you?
Explanation A) That everybody did a perfect 180 in both parties over a single issue
Explanation B) WW2 info drops caused Democrats to sour on Eugenic based ideas
As a gen z gay liberal i want to say thank you. i found this video awesome and thank you for answering a question i had for a long time.
🫡
There's always been a libertarian wing in the Republican party, even since it's inception. If the parties really switched, there would be overwhelming historical electoral evidence. But there isn't. My county, Butler County, PA, has voted Republican in nearly every election since the Civil War, with rare exceptions.
First time watching, beautifully explained in context to each era pulled from. Instant Subscription
You skipped over the progressivism of Woodrow Wilson and 1920's democrats, and how they embraced racial eugenics, that Hitler later quoted as some of his inspiration.
Which empire is your favourite?
personally I am a fan of the McDonalds global empire
McDonalds is not an empire, it is a religious movement.
China is also an empire, a large one. There are many nations in that thing we call the PROC.
I’m a fan of the Finnish Empire. They were so powerful and valiant in the Finno-Korean Hyperwar.
Achaemenid Empire.
Claiming that they switched is awfully convenient for Democrats
And ignoring that racist, southerners didn't change at all, but chose a different party is very convenient for republicans.
You say that as if half you party isn't southerns waving confederate flags and defending traitors statues with the excuse of "ITS *OUR* HERITAGE".
Not all southerners are racist @cablefeed3738
@@cablefeed3738Racist Southerners stayed in the Democrat Party.
@@DarthVaderTheSithLord As someone who lives in the south No, it's a bunch of disgusting old racist republicans. I see them every day.
If the parties switched, why is Biden still a Democrat? 🤔
I'm glad you made this, as this tends to happen a lot around the world
I like this explanation. Good job
Also a reminder that the the Democratic Party’s tight hold on the House of Representatives from the New Deal to the Contract with America was because of the seats it held in the South.
Something that i think you missed in this video was the effect of industrialization had on the south and what mattered to them.
Its also worth mentioning that the notion of the party switch is largely pushed by Democrats to distance themselves from their slavery and racist past. Even Johnson, who signed the civil rights act, was a racist. His motivations allegedly were just to secure the black vote for the party, and it worked. While i dont believe the majority of the democrat voter base to be racist i do believe racism never left the party, it just got smarter. Ask any liberal how they feel about cracking down on illegal immigrantion and their answer will almost always "who will do [insert low paying low skill job]?" Because the party itself still sees minorites as lower class cheap labor it seeps into the overall message the party promotes and the voters perpetuate it without giving a second thought to the implactions of the talking point.
I completely agree on your diss of American Liberalism, the Democratic party is a failure in almost all sense, the only reason people vote Dem is because the Reps are worse
- Socialist
But yeah industrialization was a quite important factor in the party switch
A solid analysis, I would say everyone needs to watch this, but I think for the idealists on both extremes, it's just easier to peddle hate/fear and continue to loudly proclaim: "My side good, your side evil, so because you're evil, I don't have to listen to you, and I don't have to treat you with any sort of civility."
Can’t negotiate with communists.
This is one of your best videos. Very well argued!
good video, learned some stuff i didnt know and will be showing this to others.
Before I even watch the video let me say, in my opinion, *no, the parties did not switch!*
To examine the _"parties switched"_ argument, let's look at the state of Kansas.
The state of Kansas voted republican in 33 out of the 40 presidential elections that have occurred since the creation of the state. That's a good indicator it's predominately a republican state. Additionally, the state of Kansas was one of the leaders of desegregation, with the Brown vs Board of Education in 1951-1954 and the successful Dockum Drug Store sit-in of 1958, which resulted in the desegregation of other drug stores in Wichita, Kansas.
In short, Kansas led the nation on desegregation and did it all without much violence and did it all as republicans.
That begs the question, if parties switched, why isn't Kansas now a democrat state?
Did all the republicans in Kansas from the 1950s switch to democrats?
If so, why does the state of Kansas still lean heavily republican, both before and after Civil Rights?
Based on my life experiences, being a resident of Kansas, what I've seen occur is that Republicans remained true to their values. Republicans respect freedom of association and individual liberty, even for racist and bigots. Thus, while Republicans weren't in favor of government mandated segregation, they respected the individual. If an individual business owner's decision was to only serve select clientele, Republicans weren't going to use the power of the state to deny that individual liberty.
Democrats frame that as _"the parties switch"_ but the reality is it's just Republicans remaining true to their philosophy of respect for the Bill of Rights and limited government
People who claim that the Republicans and Democrats switched believe that because they're tunnel visioned on the deep south and northern cities without taking middle America into consideration.
Dude, Kansas wasn't even one of the Confederate States. Why are you making your argument based on Kansas?
@@jamiemer1109 Um, _"the parties switched"_ argument has nothing to do with the Civil War. It has everything to do with the notion that between the 1950s and the 1970s the Democrats switched with Republicans on race.
Well, Kansas was a Republican start well before the 1950s and still is a Republican state today, and not one Kansas ever said themselves, "Well, I guess it's time to start hating black people, because of democrats."
@@jamiemer1109 He brought up Kansas to demonstrate that a significant portion of America that votes Republican today has always voted that way, refuting the notion that supporting the GOP is motivated by a Neoconfederate ideology or out of contempt for black people.
You guilt-ridden GOPers cope so hard. So why did the Democrats have a complete monopoly on the South from judges, sheriffs, congressmen to senators and presidents? And now it is entirely the GOP?
This is where your fairytale falls short.
They didn’t switch. The Democrat party is still very much the same now as it was then.
Anti American socialists?
So where is the klan? Where is my whyte privilege? Do you baby boomers ever think this logic through?
Objectively not true but you're too dumb to not know that. The Democratic Party aren't southern conservatives now like they were before lol
Is it just me or did he pronounce Appalachia a different way every time he said it?
Ap pol lash uh
It’s a good trick to make sure you’re paying attention
It's a matter of pragmatic passion and empathy for me. I believe in banning asylum until legal applications already pending are processed because i know first hand how painful it was for my wife and i to be together waiting 5 years to process her residency case only being able to afford plane trips to see each other during the Christmas holidays because the immigration office repeatedly said they were backlogged with cases from the texas center. I personally know nearly a half dozen other people who have went through the same deal because preference is given to people who either walk through or knock on the front door instead of people who have been waiting in their home countries for years
Short answer: yes (kind of)
Long answer: It was more like an evolution of the parties due to various factions within it gaining power and control over the two parties, causing them to shift ideologically
Republicans haven’t really changed that much tbh
I will say the Republicans are leaving their neoliberal phase faster than the democrats are, but that’s really about it.
The Republican platform is the same today as when Abraham Lincoln was the president. The reason people don’t think so is because conservative ideas are more complicated and hard to understand. segregation laws and affirmative action were/are both opposed by conservatives: because they are based on race, but “liberals” would think these 2 things are opposed to each other when in reality they are the same because they are both race-based quotas/obstructions.
No "1st", no "2nd"? Commentators fell off ffs.
1st
1st to comment 1st
606!
The comment section has fallen, it's so over.
Western left sees the world thru race and the right thru class
That is the most false statement I ever heard. The Western left see things through class and the western right see things through race and social issues. Western left that we see in Western Europe, and most of the Americas proves you wrong if you were to actually listen to their platforms
Are you saying that the Right sees the world through class or that the Left sees the Right through class?
Actually the left sees the world through both a class and race lens… just look at how the Marxist idea of oppressor vs oppressed applies not only to the socialist/communist classiest ideology but also for racist and xenophobic movements like the N@zis and North Korean and Mao China and the modern BLM movement which teach the EXACT same principle only through a radical lens instead of a classiest one. 🤥
@michaelhentz1356 when I look at the west's politics as a non-westerner, the left always seems to focus so much on your racial, gender and education status, while the right focuses more on your class background (how you rose up to produce wealth) and your ethics behind it.
The right then, prefer social mobility.
Yeah for the most part. It has been mud slinging about “who is racist” or “where did slavery come from.” Southern Americans are politically conservative and they do not want a bunch of government intervention. People talk about gender politics and identity but most southerners want to get to the book and not the cover.
From what I understand before watching the video is that both parties switched their views on government power and overreach in the aftermath of the civil war
Bro says Appalachia differently every time he says it
It was a myth the parties didn't change
Let's go!!!! I got five likes
Ten likes
So how did the GOP gain a monopoly in the south?
Of course the parties changed over time.
Its just a gross oversimplification to say they diametically 1 to 1 flipped.
Calvin Coolidge would not be a Democrat today. FDR would not be a Republican.
@@AustrianPainter14 do you NOT know about the civil rights act?!?! equality was achieved and the south in time became far less racist. the republican values of equality gained a foothold in the south.
Anyone else catch the 20 different pronunciations of Appalachia
One party switched the other moved on from the topic
Appreciate this kind of overview. I wish it had been available when I took Civics in high school in the '80s. This is much better presented, and more coherent, than the textbooks were.
Switch? They're the same. We're in a one party corporate owned system.
True and not in a based Corporatist way, but in the cronyism way. And no, Corporatism is not cronyism.
That's true to an extent.
crony capitalism... not based free market capitalization
Muh populism
The US is a two-party dictatorship trying to be a multiparty parliamentary democracy.
This has led to ideological incoherence in both parties.
Oxymoron, di in dictator literally means one, and a parliamentary democracy has the legislature choose the executive like with British Prime Ministers, the US is a presidential democracy since it’s a popular election that chooses the executive
@@nhjhbmkuy7173 what are you talking about? Dictator comes from dictate, a latin verb meaning to... dictate, from dico (speak).
@@nhjhbmkuy7173the popular vote itself doesn’t decide the election.
@@ラーメンのボス true, it’s the electoral college who vote based on the popular electoral result in their state or congressional district , thus still not a parliamentary democracy
The European multiparty parliaments are similarly dictatorial and ideologically incoherent it often feels like the governments of Britain, France, and Germany want a new mustache man to overthrow them
I don't think we should bring back Jim Crow law, there are southern blacks that hold conservative values, like Byron Donalds and Tim Scott, and we need to move on from this.
Would you let them date your daughter?
exactly. we shouldn't bring back jim crow law as the democrats are trying to do. we need to learn from the wisdom of black conservatives to move forward.
@@AustrianPainter14 What exactly are you going to do to stop them? Nothing.
my answer is, it doesn't matter. this is usually only brought up in conversations and debates of racial lines. and the fact is, the republican party has never supported slavery, or been anti black. regardless of a flip or not. in both cases, this still holds true.