267
268

KKK were Democrats, who not only targeted minorities, but republicans. (self.badhistory)

websterandy42Sources? Just prax it out. が 投稿

Link

Liberals have this idea, that Democrats in the past are today's Republicans for only when it suits them.

KKK were Democrats, who not only targeted minorities, but republicans. But in the liberal mind, kkk were Republicans. Lincoln was a Democrat to them. Democrats raising the Confederate flag were really Republicans, but the democrat JFK in office at the same was still a Democrat.

Any prosperity in the past, if it was a Republican president, they were Democrat. Good Democrats were Democrats. Bad Democrats were republicans. It's none stop with the liberals.

He's technically correct but this guy is heavily implying that the Democrats have always been Liberal.

The First wave of the KKK was created by veterans of the Confederate Army in 1865. This was in the midst of reconstruction and the KKK basically was bent on maintaining the current social order and racial hierarchy. So they were Conservative, socially at least.

I guess he's pushing our modern party system into the past and trying to make sense of things? So, I guess I'll argue that Democrats and Republicans were not always left and right wing respectively.....

The Third Party System (1850-90) was marked by broad coalitions that are hard to comprehend for people with an understanding of only European Multi-Party systems and the current American Party system. Interest politics played a much larger role than ideology for example.

Commercial farmers, skilled workers, buisnessmen, and shop owners preferred the Republican Party. Freedmen also drifted towards the Republicans. In turn, pushing pissy white southerners towards the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party was split between Bourbon and Agrarian Democrats. The former supported business interests and disenfranchising African Americans. The latter was a Populist wing which would come to shake up the political system once Bryan was elected. Or, actually, when McKinley beat him later.

The Fourth Party System (1890-1930) saw the Democratic Party split so bad that politics were dominated by the Republican party who now controlled the northeast and Midwest. It also saw the growth of Progressivism within both parties.

The Second Klan was associated with Southern Democrats who maintained a hold on the south by supporting disenfranchisement but the Liberal and Catholic Democrats began attacking the Klan.

The Fifth Party System (1930-70) was brought on by the Great Depression. FDR's election realigned the party system around his New Deal Coalition which was made up of liberal groups, organized labor, southerners, city machines, rural populists, and urban progressives.

During their stint as a minority party, the Republicans were split between a left and right wing but by the late 50's the left leaning elements of the Republican Party had mostly been stamped out. The Democrats were, at this point, mostly left leaning Progressives and American liberals, outside of the "Solid South" which was made up of a Conservative Coalition that was at odds with the rest of the Democratic Party.

Johnson's "Great Society", desegregation, and pressure from the new left caused the New Deal coalition to fall apart in the mid to late 60's. Nixon's campaign used this to their advantage, picking up alienated conservatives in a Coalition that would later be solidified by Reagan, giving us the dual-party system aligned with the left-right spectrum that we have today.

So, the democratic and republican parties were not always liberal and conservative respectively.

Let me know if I messed anything up or if something makes no sense.

全 179 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]SwishBender 135ポイント136ポイント  (4子コメント)

I will repeat a comment I made in a deleted thread the other day.

Some Southern Voters liked the New Deal and they were Democrats. Some Southern Voters didn't and they were Republicans. Not letting African Americans be Southern Voters was one thing they could all agree on.

[–]Sid_Burn 44ポイント45ポイント  (2子コメント)

Well if there is one thing humans can generally agree on, its to be bigoted assholes. It really does break down barriers....and erect a few along the way.

[–]SamskiiMordin Solus did nothing wrong 43ポイント44ポイント  (1子コメント)

Nothing brings people together like hating that other guy.

[–]ciderczarUnrepentant Ouiaboo 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's true.

Feckin Greeks.

[–]LarryMahnken 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

Reminds me of something I saw somewhere a few years ago:

Southern Democrats are only Democrats because Lincoln was a Republican. New England Republicans are only Republicans because Lincoln was a Republican.

[–]c4aInstitutionalized Racism Against Black Gold 192ポイント193ポイント  (63子コメント)

Whenever people say "Lincoln was a republican" or "the KKK were democrats," they say it like that means it excuses any racism from republicans since then.

[–]mudsill 99ポイント100ポイント  (4子コメント)

I've seen many, many people seamlessly transition from "ACTUALLY did you know it was the DemocRAT Party that supported slavery, and not the Republicans?" right into "Lincoln was a tyrant" without their heads rending themselves in two from the deafening cognitive dissonance you'd think would result from that.

[–]graphictruth 22ポイント23ポイント  (3子コメント)

I have personally been accused of being a Commie Fascist - so I don't think there's enough cognition to generate dissonance. But I've read Mencken - so I can't really blame the current state of politics on Fox News, either.

July 14 (the third day) The net effect of Clarence Darrow's great speech yesterday seems to be preciously the same as if he had bawled it up a rainspout in the interior of Afghanistan. That is, locally, upon the process against the infidel Scopes, upon the so-called minds of these fundamentalists of upland Tennessee. You have but a dim notice of it who have only read it. It was not designed for reading, but for hearing. The clangtint of it was as important as the logic. It rose like a wind and ended like a flourish of bugles. The very judge on the bench, toward the end of it, began to look uneasy. But the morons in the audience, when it was over, simply hissed it. During the whole time of its delivery the old mountebank, Bryan, sat tight-lipped and unmoved. There is, of course, no reason why it should have shaken him. He has these hillbillies locked up in his pen and he knows it. His brand is on them. He is at home among them. Since his earliest days, indeed, his chief strength has been among the folk of remote hills and forlorn and lonely farms. Now with his political aspirations all gone to pot, he turns to them for religious consolations. They understand his peculiar imbecilities. His nonsense is their ideal of sense. When he deluges them with his theologic bilge they rejoice like pilgrims disporting in the river Jordan....

[–]whyohwhydoIbother 16ポイント17ポイント  (0子コメント)

so I don't think there's enough cognition to generate dissonance.

Gonna have to pop that one in my phrase book.

[–]gandaf007Literally Chamberlain 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

One of my professors loves going on about how a negative Rate My Professor review accused him of being a commie liberal. He's always been confused about it because, in his words, "If I recall correctly those damn commies and liberals spent a good deal of the twentieth century slaughtering one another."

[–]graphictruth 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

I always laugh, because I know it just means "poopie-head." But they think they sound Very Educated and should be Taken Seriously.

[–]-__-__-o-__-__- 43ポイント44ポイント  (17子コメント)

It's almost like the mass defections under LBJ and Nixon's "Southern Strategy" never happened!

[–]R_B_KazenzakisKra! I speak for the Downworlders 41ポイント42ポイント  (16子コメント)

You can't mention that in /r/conservative, that's a bannable offense.

[–]mindbleach 16ポイント17ポイント  (0子コメント)

"We're the Party of Lincoln! ... who was a goddamn traitor and a tyrant."

[–]TaylorS1986Odin Was A Turkish Chieftain 28ポイント29ポイント  (1子コメント)

"We've always been at war with Eastasia."

[–]R_B_KazenzakisKra! I speak for the Downworlders 33ポイント34ポイント  (0子コメント)

"By the way 1984 was a warning about Communism so it's silly to claim conservatives can doublethink."

[–]8BallTigerInvest in confederate Bonds, the South will rise again! 12ポイント13ポイント  (9子コメント)

For serious?

[–]graphictruth 35ポイント36ポイント  (8子コメント)

For serious. Near as I can tell, Free Republic is a pretty good indicator of where the base is. What I used to think of as Conservative - a sort of business-friendly, Main-Street sort of conservatism that emphasized professionalism and due diligence as an alternative to burdensome and picayune regulation has seemingly all but vanished.

Well, I'm sure the people have not - but I'm not sure they have a comfortable home.

On the other hand, reading back, I'm not sure the idea of conservatism that I grew up with was all that real. I think it was more a comforting construct created by Reader's Digest.

[–]TaylorS1986Odin Was A Turkish Chieftain 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Free Republic

Does that site still look like something out of the late 90s?

[–]graphictruth 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Last I looked. And it was an eye-bleeding horror by THOSE standards.

[–]TaylorS1986Odin Was A Turkish Chieftain 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Over on Democratic Underground the assumption is that Free Republic's owner Jim "Rim-Job" Robinson just pockets the donation money and spends just enough to keep the site functioning.

[–]8BallTigerInvest in confederate Bonds, the South will rise again! 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

That first type, the Main Street type, is what I would lean towards more as would my parents. We live in a small town and my dad runs his own firm while my mom worked for a local doctor group. Her father was a small town surgeon after the army so he would be paid in chickens and produce by some people. My fathers grandfather worked in a mill in rural Georgia, and my paternal grandfather was one of the first in his family to go to college I think. So both my parents are all about hard work and small business and less regulation the better. It helps that they were 18ish when Reagan was elected. So they had the golden boy while I got stuck with rick perry

[–]graphictruth 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

And my parents had Eisenhower ... and I got Nixon.

[–]R_B_KazenzakisKra! I speak for the Downworlders 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

Hey now, Nixon is pretty OP. The GOP didn't really go off the rails until Reagan.

[–]malosairesGenghis did nothing wrong! 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

The creation of the modern conservative movement most definitely starts in the late 60s, and Nixon helped define that movement. It's no accident that Reagan and Nixon both rose to power in that period promising "law and order" after the violent period of the civil rights movement started.

[–]graphictruth 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

I have mixed feelings about Nixon - but the southern strategy is on him.

[–]Baffledil 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

Bringing any debate whatsoever is a bannable offense. Then, they hide behind "Well, we'd get swarmed over by all you libruls if we allowed you to debate us."

...isn't that indicating that maybe your position is...I dunno...indefensible?

[–]Hamlet7768Balls-deep in cahoots with fascism 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not necessarily. When you're a minority of political opinion on Reddit, you can get swarmed pretty easily. Not that it justifies them.

[–]AdumbroDeusSaying germs caused historical diseases is presentism! 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, tight moderation is necessary for many minority opinion communities to even exist because they'd simply be swarmed. This is just as true of /r/Feminism as it is of /r/Conservative.

Not to mention communities dedicated to academic responses such as /r/AskHistorians.

[–]Deadpoolsbae 71ポイント72ポイント  (18子コメント)

I've had right-wingers online tell me that this is a "lefty narrative".

I thought that the "reality based community" thing was just a joke...

[–]jbondyoda 12ポイント13ポイント  (17子コメント)

Only because I like to see where the lunacy was going, I listened to Make Levin today. And he basically did the whole "democrats are the real racists because the past." Dude is so out of touch it makes me sad almost.

[–]8BallTigerInvest in confederate Bonds, the South will rise again! 11ポイント12ポイント  (16子コメント)

He's not that bad compared to guys like Rush. Which isn't saying much

[–]HumboldtBlue 9ポイント10ポイント  (2子コメント)

Levine is vile and he's far worse for the environment than Rush. Levine is a hateful and willfully ignorant bigot, Limbaugh is just willfully ignorant for the ratings and the audience, Levine believes and eats his own shit.

[–]8BallTigerInvest in confederate Bonds, the South will rise again! 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I think Rush does too. But I haven't listened in years so I could be wrong

[–]HumboldtBlue 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

There isn't much difference.

[–]jbondyoda 17ポイント18ポイント  (12子コメント)

I can honestly only listen to Rush because he doesn't yell as much as the others. Beck, Hannity and Levin all just yell. I can only listen to Rush though for only a few minutes before I get the gist.

[–]8BallTigerInvest in confederate Bonds, the South will rise again! 9ポイント10ポイント  (11子コメント)

I don't understand why some people are so angry all the time

[–]jbondyoda 5ポイント6ポイント  (6子コメント)

If I had to guess is they see their idea of the country should be run is being taken away from them. On some points they are right on the figures but then the commentary ruins the point. And as someone who identifies as Republican, it's getting real tiring to tell people that these guys don't speak for me in all but the tiniest ways.

[–]8BallTigerInvest in confederate Bonds, the South will rise again! 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

I feel the same way. I'm a bit more moderate than my parents on some issues (maybe the pipeline and the Koch brothers aren't that great) but I would still identify as a republican

[–]jbondyoda 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Same. My mom is more right wing and I used to be that way but being in college and using reddit more and being exposed to more of the other side, I've definitely become more moderate.

[–]8BallTigerInvest in confederate Bonds, the South will rise again! -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

Same here. But I wouldn't classify myself as economically conservative and socially liberal like some younger republicans. It's just on specific issues (environmental stuff, race issues, some economic stuff) I would consider myself more moderate. A lot of it comes through being in a history MA program actually

[–]Sansa_Culotte_ 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

In the case of these radio hosts? It's their job.

In the case of the rest of the population? I would argue that at least one major factor is fear of change.

[–]J_C_A_ 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I would argue that at least one major factor is fear of change.

Which would be literally what the words "conservative" and "liberal" designate.

[–]erniebornheimer 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I came to understand the anger thing much better after reading David Brin's sci-fi novel Existence.

[–]jabbaciv 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

When you're on top, other groups being brought up to your level looks like you being brought down to their level.

[–]BigKev47 21ポイント22ポイント  (6子コメント)

In defense of some small amount of the rhetoric... as much as "Lincoln and/or TR was a Republican!" Is abused nonsensically by antiprogressive racists... I do think to some Republicans it might still provide a useful clarion call ~"This is what we CAN be." But I'm having trouble citing examples (McCain 2000?), so its probably all academic.

[–]JakiusWilson/Fed 2016 12ポイント13ポイント  (5子コメント)

Chafee was an example of this, but he gave up and jumped ship.

[–]__Archipelago 7ポイント8ポイント  (3子コメント)

Huntsman as well, but I guess he jumped ship as well.

[–]graphictruth 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

"It is so demeaning to be set upon by nit-wits." - Moiarity, in "Without a Clue."

[–]malosairesGenghis did nothing wrong! 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's pretty easy to jump ship when no one cares you're on the ship in the first place.

[–]TaylorS1986Odin Was A Turkish Chieftain 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

And now he's running for president as a Dem.

[–]Post_CapitalistIdi Amin's 1# Online Fanboy 24ポイント25ポイント  (13子コメント)

"The current situation is in contrast to the view that many neo-Confederates held concerning the pre-1960s Republican Party. Conservative columnist Alan Stang, in a Southern Mercury article, "Republican Party: Red From the Start", claims that there was a communist conspiracy in the Republican Party of the mid-19th century. He alleges that the 1848 revolutionaries in Europe were communists and that some of these revolutionaries came to America after the failed 1848 revolution to perpetrate some type of communist agenda in the United States. Stang states:

... Lee and Jackson did not fully comprehend what they were fighting. Had this really been a "Civil" War, rather than a secession, they would and could have easily seized Washington after Manassas and hanged our first Communist President and the other war criminals."

Another quote is:

So, again, the Republican Party did not "go wrong." It was rotten from the start. It has never been anything but red. The characterization of Republican states as "red states" is quite appropriate.[33]

Recently two prominent neo-Confederates Walter Donald Kennedy and Al Benson published the book "Red Republicans and Lincoln's Marxists: Marxism in the Civil War" in which they argue that Lincoln and the Republican Party were influenced by Marxism."

This is what "true" conservatives actually believe.

People on /r/conservative trying to claim Lincoln is just a marketing strategy to associate a beloved figure with their political party. I doubt any of them really like him that much.

[–]Keldon888 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

I always wonder what it takes to go back into the past and try to whitewash all the sins of a political group.

Are these extreme people who joined the banner of conservatism or conservatives that just went off the deep end?

[–]BluegrassGeek 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

Six of one, half-a-dozen of the other. Conspiracists, in my experience, are people who have reached a point of desperation and need someone to blame for what they feel is wrong with society. Once you reach that point, it's easy to latch onto something that relieves you of responsibility.

[–]autowikibotLibrary of Alexandria 2.0 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Section 7. Neo-Confederates and libertarianism of article Neo-Confederate:

Historian Daniel Feller asserts that libertarian authors Thomas DiLorenzo, Charles Adams, and Jeffrey Rogers Hummel have produced a "marriage of neo-Confederates and libertarianism." Despite an apparent disconnect ("How can a lover of liberty defend slavery?"), Feller writes:

What unites the two, aside from their hostility to the liberal academic establishment, is their mutual loathing of big government. Adams, DiLorenzo, and Hummel view the Civil War through the prism of market economics. In their view its main consequence, and even its purpose, was to create a leviathan state that used its powers to suppress the most basic personal freedom, the right to choose. The Civil War thus marks a historic retreat for liberty, not an advance. Adams and DiLorenzo dismiss the slavery issue as a mere pretext for aggrandizing central power. All three authors see federal tyranny as the war's greatest legacy. And they all hate Abraham Lincoln.

Hummel in turn, in a review of libertarian Thomas E. Woods, Jr.'s "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History", refers to the works by DiLorenzo and Adams as "amateurish neo-Confederate books". Of Woods, Hummel states that the two main neo-Confederate aspects of Woods' work are his emphasis on a legal right of secession while ignoring the moral right to secession and his failure to acknowledge the importance of slavery in the Civil War. Hummel writes:

Relevant: James M. McPherson | League of the South | Ulster Third Way | Southern Partisan

Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Call Me

[–]Beansareno1Judeo-bolshevik 5ポイント6ポイント  (5子コメント)

Good god. You really have some loonies. Does anybody take these people serious?

[–]mudsill 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

They are generally ignored by the American public at large, but having grown up in Alabama in the 90s, there sure seemed to be a lot of people with open Confederate sympathies in that part of the country.

[–]FeragornTime Traveling Space Jew 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Those are very fringe views, held by mostly ignored people. The American political climate certainly has its share of weirdos, but they're not nearly that bad

[–]Beansareno1Judeo-bolshevik 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Are they popular with the Tea party and the likes?

[–]FeragornTime Traveling Space Jew 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

I honestly have no clue. I don't pay much attention to neoconfederates, and its very infrequent that they end up in the media for any reason. Since the Charleston shooting there's been more media coverage, but the most relevant thing was a neoconfederates group donating to far-right candidates.

[–]turtleeatingaldermanAcademo-Fascist 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't pay much attention to neoconfederates

That is the healthier option.

[–]Master-Thiefwears pajamas and is therefore a fascist 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ironically, the shit that the Confederacy pulled should horrify any actual libertarian.

[–]crazyeddie123 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

ad this really been a "Civil" War, rather than a secession, they would and could have easily seized Washington after Manassas and hanged our first Communist President and the other war criminals.

The fact that it was a secession rather than a "Civil" war did nothing to prevent at least two separate attempts to capture Washington. I have no doubt that Lee and Jackson would have continued on to Washington after Manassas if they thought they had a good chance of seizing it then.

[–]mindbleach 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

God damn. That sounds like an amazing premise for a trashy alt-history novel. As an attempt at actual historical analysis it's just galling.

[–]8BallTigerInvest in confederate Bonds, the South will rise again! 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I guess Lincoln and the Economics of the American Dream is all a bunch of nonsense then or the antebellum south being a proto-socialist society in some regards

[–]SnapshillBot 23ポイント24ポイント  (4子コメント)

We must secure the existence of this bad history and a future for bad historians.

Snapshots:

  1. This Post - 1, 2, 3

  2. Link - 1, 2, 3

I am a bot. (Info / Contact)

[–]basilect( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ╯╲___🔥🔥🔥🔥 JUST WALKING MY LIBRARY OF ALEXANDRIA 18ポイント19ポイント  (1子コメント)

oh my god

[–]TheAlmightySnarkFoodtrucks are like Caligula, only then with less fornication 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Love your flair, well done!

[–]ComicCon 16ポイント17ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, never would have guessed Shillbot was a neonazi. You learn something new everyday.

[–]spacemarine42Proto-Dene-Austro-Euro-Nyungans spoke Sanskrit 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Come on, that's fifteen words!

[–]Conny_and_TheoXwedodah Missionary 27ポイント28ポイント  (11子コメント)

It's interesting to see how the parties were seemingly more mixed up back then. For instance, could imagine that there were plenty of folks going around using Christian, "moral" arguments to argue in favor of policies that some today would decry as Fascistic socialism?

That said even today to a good extent the parties in the U.S. are more like broad coalitions rather than truly pure ideological left and right.

[–]Beansareno1Judeo-bolshevik 22ポイント23ポイント  (2子コメント)

In the 60ies (even today, but not as popular) you had Christian priests in South America going underground and fighting regimes because they thought that the paradise wasn't meant for live after death only, but that we have to build it on Earth.

Most large ideologies are what you make out of them.

[–]grapesieSubotai Ba'atur is my waifu 14ポイント15ポイント  (1子コメント)

This is known as Liberation Theology for anyone interested

[–]autowikibotLibrary of Alexandria 2.0 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Liberation theology:

Liberation theology has been described as "an interpretation of Christian faith out of the experience of the poor… an attempt to read the Bible and key Christian doctrines with the eyes of the poor", or "the message of the gospels", restored from "the first three centuries [of Christianity in which] it was...a pacifist...religion of the poor." Detractors have called it Christianized Marxism.

The best known form of liberation theology is that which developed in Latin America in the 1950s, however various other forms of liberation theology have since developed, including Asian, Black, and Palestinian liberation theologies, among others. [citation needed]

Although liberation theology has grown into an international and inter-denominational movement, it began as a movement within the Catholic Church in Latin America in the 1950s–1960s. Liberation theology arose principally as a moral reaction to the poverty seen [according to whom?] as having been caused by social injustice in that region. The term was coined in 1971 by the Peruvian priest Gustavo Gutiérrez, who wrote one of the movement's most famous books, A Theology of Liberation. Other noted exponents are Leonardo Boff of Brazil, Jon Sobrino of Spain, and Juan Luis Segundo of Uruguay.

Latin American liberation theology met opposition from power [clarification needed] in the US, who accused it of using "Marxist concepts", and lead to admonishment by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in 1984 and 1986. The Vatican disliked certain forms of Latin American liberation theology for focusing on institutionalized or systemic sin; and for identifying Catholic Church hierarchy in South America as members of the same privileged class that had long been oppressing indigenous populations from the arrival of Pizarro onward.

Relevant: Black liberation theology | Orbis Books | José Cardoso Sobrinho | Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center

Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Call Me

[–]SamskiiMordin Solus did nothing wrong 6ポイント7ポイント  (5子コメント)

I feel like there are plenty of Christian "moral" arguments to be made for a lot of "Liberal" planks, things that are not at all in keeping with this "Religious Right" that so many people belong to yet I rarely meet...

[–]SwishBender 6ポイント7ポイント  (4子コメント)

"Religious Right" that so many people belong to yet I rarely meet...

So which coastal city do you live in?

[–]SamskiiMordin Solus did nothing wrong 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Ha! I actually live in Kansas, but even the most conservative people I meet have at least one major divergence from the national party line, which is what I meant by that. Clarity and staying up are not complementary concepts.

[–]SwishBender 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Haha. I was being facetious anyway, although you probably live in that Godless new age Sodom called Lawrence.

Clarity and staying up are not complementary concepts.

I think insomnia is like 90% of the reason I have reddited so much in the last 6 months or so.

[–]CaptainScuttlebottom 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

"Lawrence", don't you mean Obamaville?

http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/town_talk/2015/may/11/a-prominent-goodbye-sign-from-defunct-pa/

[–]SamskiiMordin Solus did nothing wrong 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I lived in that den of iniquity, but I'm currently in a more...traditionally-minded space.

[–]CinderSkyeRussia is literally Sri Lanka. 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

In addition to liberation theology, look up the social gospel in the late 19th to early 20th century.

[–]Iwillworkforfood 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not really history related, but it's worth looking into Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig's work. She's actually somewhat continuing that style of argument.

[–]frezikLincoln is literally the guy who killed Hitler 39ポイント40ポイント  (4子コメント)

This sort of thing conflates ideology with the modern symbols of that ideology. The liberal goal is not to promote the Democratic party; on the contrary, liberals complain about the Democratic party all the time.

In so far as Lincoln promoted progressive reforms for his time period, then he is the ancestor to the modern progressive movement--Democrat or Republican doesn't really matter. It's usually a whole new mistake to try to claim a historical figure for your side, though. Lincoln was a product of his time, and harboured many views that would be considered unacceptably racist today, especially on the Left.

But if the Right really wants to claim Lincoln, then point out that Marx personally wrote a letter of congratulations to Lincoln, and drop the mic.

[–]hborrgg 30ポイント31ポイント  (0子コメント)

Even trying to compare the ideology of modern progressives to 19th century abolitionists is pretty iffy.

[–]xaxers 11ポイント12ポイント  (1子コメント)

; on the contrary, liberals complain about the Democratic party all the time.

Democrats complain about the party all the time. At least, the members of my local party do when we talk about internal politics.

[–]LordofDork54 19ポイント20ポイント  (0子コメント)

All of it has to do with the neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party becoming the dominant one at a national level, while more progressive ones still hold sway in local politics, especially in New England.

[–]Deadpoolsbae 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

The right can't claim Lincoln, he was in favor of big government bullying the state's rights crowd that did nothing wrong but keep a few black people in chains. For life. With little hope of freedom.

[–]ManicMarineSemper Hindustan Super Omnes 70ポイント71ポイント  (19子コメント)

Everybody knows the party swap don't real. Because clearly this can become this without any change in party ideology.

[–]SwishBender 78ポイント79ポイント  (9子コメント)

We had drama on this awhile back. r/ Conservative, where this is coming from, also bans acknowledging the Southern Strategy because it is a left-wing lie. There are whole books written about how Southerners became Republicans because of economic policy and how race had nothing to do with it.

[–]graphictruth 12ポイント13ポイント  (2子コメント)

http://np.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/2ypllz/the_southern_strategy_myth/ - I had to see for myself.

[–]BigSnackintosh 23ポイント24ポイント  (1子コメント)

I guess they ignore the fact that in 2005 the chairman of the RNC apologized to the NAACP for Republicans, in his own words, "trying to benefit politically from racial polarization", admitting to the racially-influenced nature of the Southern Strategy.

[–]graphictruth 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's just "race baiting." /s

(I've recognized the phrase as a cognate of the old "uppity.")

[–]BackOff_ImAScientistI swear, if you say Hitler one more time I'm giving you a two. 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ha, they even apologized for the Southern strategy in the 90s.

[–]jgrey12 41ポイント42ポイント  (3子コメント)

I do think that people simplify the "party swap" far too much. It's not as simple as saying Democrats became Republicans and vice versa. There were complex changes in both parties that really created new parties in a lot of ways. Neither modern party is exactly the same as they were one hundred years ago. Parts of both parties (and plenty of new ideas and ideologies) were switched around and combined in new ways. There are certainly elements of both parties that have remained consistent, but both parties have changed.

I think it's just as incorrect when people say that Republicans were good until the 1960s and then all the good Republicans left their party to become Democrats and all the evil racist Democrats left the party and became Republicans.

And I'm sure some people think that's a strawman but I see that all the time on the internet.

Edit: and I think it is especially bad history to use it in its most common form: "all the racist Democrats became Republicans ergo all Republicans are racist now."

[–]avfc41 18ポイント19ポイント  (2子コメント)

Yeah, it's a little disheartening to see your parent comment upvoted so high - the idea of a complete party swap is just as bad history as the idea that they didn't. There were deep divisions in the Republican Party in 1908 (the image linked) between the Progressives and the mainline pro-business faction, and at that point, despite TR, the latter was still pretty dominant within the party. Hell, Taft himself (the 1908 winner) broke conservative business Republican. The Cannon revolt was just around the corner in 1910, and that was just the minority of Progressive Republicans teaming up with the Democrats to oust the Republican establishment's stranglehold in the House.

You can even point to measures that are standard in congressional studies on liberalism versus conservatism within the parties post-Reconstruction, and they show that Republicans have always been the more conservative party. Granted, once you dig into their measures more, you see that the picture gets complicated (Progressive/not-Progressive Republicans, North/South Democrats).

[–]ManicMarineSemper Hindustan Super Omnes 15ポイント16ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, it's a little disheartening to see your parent comment upvoted so high - the idea of a complete party swap is just as bad history as the idea that they didn't.

I didn't say anything of the sort. I merely ridiculed the idea that almost every non-swing state could have changed party allegiance without any significant corresponding change in ideology, which is the position I've seen asserted on places like /r/conservative.

[–]SwishBender 14ポイント15ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think in the context of our discussion here ManicMarine was mostly referring to geographic breakdowns. The process of that geographic swap basically defines American Presidential elections from JFK until the rule 2 deadline. It wasn't an accident that it coincides with Civil Rights, which was is what the good people making the claims that the OP is referring too very much believe.

I believe that Civil Rights Policy are the defining characteristic of the last 50 years of our national politics. Were the old money Republicans more conservative than the more Populist Democrats throughout most of US history? Yes they were. However reactionaries are so named for a reason (see Helms, Jessie).

On top of that New England and the South may as well have been full of one party states for the better part of 100 years. There was a reason more variation was seen intra-party in these places.

Political habits die hard though, and only recently (can't detail R2) have we resettled. There is a reason Reagan's electoral map looked like this. It's the same reason that Arkansas, West Virginia, and the US House stayed Democrat for so long after Civil Rights. People cling and political tradition is no joke, even if the average Arkansas Democrat held views a New England Republican might find conservative.

[–]BigKev47 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

LBJ must be so relieved.

[–]Litmus2336Hitler was a sensitive man 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

Well isn't the fact that we're talking about William Jennings Bryan a bit different just because of how "out there" he was for his time? If anything he represents a transition period from the reconstruction southern democrats to the populist democrats.

[–]ManicMarineSemper Hindustan Super Omnes 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

This is a fair point; it's also true that I've cherry picked two electoral maps that display my point most clearly. However it is a fact that at the beginning of the 20th century the southern states were solidly Democratic; now they're solidly Republican.

[–]Litmus2336Hitler was a sensitive man 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, the point is correct even if the images aren't perfect representations.

[–]Post_CapitalistIdi Amin's 1# Online Fanboy 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

Modern conservatives weren't Lincoln's only fans

[–]DocMarlowe 9ポイント10ポイント  (3子コメント)

Someone posted an article on Facebook recently, and it was a Klan leader trying to boost recruitment. Was he said went like this. "We do not hate people based on race because we are a Christian organization... It's not a hateful thing to want to maintain white supremacy."

It should also be mentioned that this guy mentioned that Klan membership tripled since 2008 (I wonder why?). I doubt that the Klan today is voting democrat.

[–]strategolegendsStarted an empire in Afghanistan 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I've heard from some places that the Klan does vote Democratic, but I can't imagine why, and I'm almost convinced that it's just propaganda. While an organization founded on the belief in the tradition that blacks should be lower-class citizens than whites might hold onto other traditions (like voting patterns and party affiliation), I can't imagine the Klan identifying with many of the views present-day Democrats hold.

[–]atsinged 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I have no trouble believing it, the Klan is not famous for being informed, up to date voters or being a particularly dynamic organization with an inflow of young people, or fresh genes.

The old south was solidly Democrat for a long time for myriad reasons and a lot of the older folks would never vote for a Republican. My grandpa was one of them (Democrat, not KKK of course) he would lean heavily to the right by modern standards but would have never voted R.

It is really not hard to see old Klansmen, say the ones 60+ voting Democrat simply because they always have, their parents did, and Lincoln.

[–]jabbaciv 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nobody wants to believe in their head that they're the bad guy.

[–]_watchingLincoln only fought the Civil War to free the Irish 3ポイント4ポイント  (20子コメント)

Are there any good books I can read on the various "party systems"?

[–]Chocolate_Cookie 14ポイント15ポイント  (15子コメント)

Be aware before you start reading full monographs on this subject that sometimes competing, often incompatible models of American political systems exist. All of them divide American history into cycles or eras. How those cycles or eras are delineated and defined is often the main source of contention.

In other words, this is not a simple subject with a broad consensus that covers all the major angles.

Also be aware that there's some New Age-ish hokum out there about this.

All that said, I'll mention two books, each of which describes different models in different ways. Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems by political scientist Thomas Ferguson attempts to define and then defend a quantifiable theory regarding the trite "common sense" "follow the money" understanding about American political systems. IIRC, he divides American political history up through Clinton's first term (during which the book was published) into five (maybe six) eras of alignment. The eras are distinct based on the monied interests that supported the parties and how they shifted support among them over time.

The other, Cycles of American History by Arthur J. Schlesigner, is a more traditional historian's view that describes, via a series of essays with an overall synthesizing piece, political systems that alternate roughly every generation (20 - 30 years) between competing assumptions about what the United States and its attempt at the creation of a lasting democratic republic are and should be. This is the swinging of the political pendulum a lot of people refer to. This is not really left vs. right (certainly not Democrat vs. Republican) but rather Calvinist destiny vs. pragmatic experimentation.

If you only want to read one, broad overview, go with Schlesinger.

Ferguson's book is very interesting but heavily based in quantifiable data that he is more inclined to present via tables than a coherent narrative and thus sometimes very hard to read. (He's also a bad writer in general.) One of the "chapters" (these are really essays as well, but they are organized as chapters) is essentially a long series of equations and arguments about why they are valid. But I like to include it when this question is asked because it does provide an alternative view to Schlesinger’s arguments, and the first couple of essays are rather good and explain the theory using historical examples fairly convincingly. Said theory runs into trouble, in my view, past the New Deal era, however.

Sorry for the length.

tl;dr:

These are Amazon links.

Arthur J. Schlesinger's Cyles of American History

and

Thomas Ferguson's Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems

[–]websterandy42Sources? Just prax it out.[S] 9ポイント10ポイント  (7子コメント)

New Age-ish hokum

Yea. Everytime someone tells me that they are reading a book on political science I cringe, expecting one of the many that "prove" both parties are the same or something.

[–]_watchingLincoln only fought the Civil War to free the Irish 5ポイント6ポイント  (6子コメント)

As someone who likes reading actual polisci books, and so hasn't developed a semi-cynical cringe instinct about this yet, this always sucks - convos go from, "Oh, really? Tell me about it :D" to "Oh... really... please... stop :("

[–]pasunthrowaway 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

Why, what horrors do they say ?

[–]_watchingLincoln only fought the Civil War to free the Irish 6ポイント7ポイント  (4子コメント)

It runs the whole spectrum of weird shit. The most benign badreply I get when I say I'm majoring in PS is just "oh man you must really like House of Cards, [insert populist whining about Washington]" which is either followed by uncomfortable silence on my part or an uncomfortable explanation of "well actually Washington isn't actually as exciting as House of Cards..."

Book-wise, the next level of recommendation is basically people going "Oh have you read [insert book by pundit defending a personal viewpoint]" - usually O'Reilly, Maher, someone similar. I tend to group Chomsky recommendations in here because most people who recommend him to me are.. not really educated on current affairs beyond reading a couple of Chomsky books. These are also uncomfortable conversations.

I've yet to have a book rec that transcends to the next level of uncomfort, but the worst reactions I've gotten so far are basically "oh man you must be aware of why [gov't/UN/(party i don't like) is evil/ [I'm right about some pet issue] / [I'm right about some conspiracy theory]" or "but PS must be so depressing because everything is bad" because these conversations are really good at getting me very involved in lengthy counter-explanations that just make everything hyper awkward.

Actually, the worst reaction I get is "why are you majoring in PS" or "what do you want to do with that" because then I just feel awkward and scurry away lol

[–]jabbaciv 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

The Blowback series by Chalmers Johnson?

[–]_watchingLincoln only fought the Civil War to free the Irish 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

So I was reading the summary on wikipedia since I never heard of it, and I was like "Sounds reasonable, if a bit hyperbolic... yeah..

Specifically, I believe that to maintain our empire abroad requires resources and commitments that will inevitably undercut our domestic democracy and in the end produce a military dictatorship or its civilian equivalent.

...oh. ok."

[–]jabbaciv 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm still a fan of it because there are a lot of points he makes that other people don't make, but it's like Chomsky, take with a grain or two of salt.

[–]_watchingLincoln only fought the Civil War to free the Irish 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, as I semi-implied, a lot of the wiki summary seems reasonable, since the tl;dr seems basically to be "military adventurism breeds discontent," which is... y'know, yeah, it does.

[–]_watchingLincoln only fought the Civil War to free the Irish 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

Nah, thanks for the detailed response. I'll add both of those to my reading list.

be aware that there's some New Age-ish hokum

Oh man, I am well aware of this phenomenon, thanks. I'm actually more immersed in PS than in history in my studies in college, so I've developed a rudimentary sense for sniffing BS out in this area.

I've also developed a taste for not-great authors rambling about tables :p These both look great, thanks! Esp. for giving some alternate views to consider.

Just realized/remembered I'm taking a "parties and elections" course next quarter, so hopefully my professor will have more info as well.

[–]Chocolate_Cookie 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Good deal. Your professor will almost certainly refer to Schlesinger at some point. Ferguson is a more personal recommendation. I like it precisely because it contains data, and the first essay at least has some interesting analysis. Even if you don't buy his theory completely (and I don't) the overall model is illuminating, I think.

But I like to warn people so they don't cuss me too much later. It is very dense, and his writing style is just really not good. I'm far too wordy and get carried away with parenthetical remarks, but that guy ... There's a sentence in the first chapter that contains over a hundred words and has four nested parentheticals between the subject and verb. (I remember this because I actually counted for a review I wrote.) Maddening.

[–]_watchingLincoln only fought the Civil War to free the Irish 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hahaha that's excellent. I look forward to this insanity. Luckily, I'm into related subjects enough to be intrigued by this sort of "so this is probably not really good and probably inaccurate but it's interesting if you're into it" suggestion, lol. I'll let you know what I think of it when I (very eventually) get into it. I promise not to cuss you out if I remember lol

[–]TaylorS1986Odin Was A Turkish Chieftain 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Have some examples of the New Age Hokum so I know what to avoid?

[–]Chocolate_Cookie 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

It's funny. I added that comment because when I put in search terms to find a link to Schlesinger's book, the result had William Strauss's The Fourth Turning in it as well. (Both define cycles.) I started to name it but was trying to avoid a discussion of Strauss at the moment because I just do not have the energy.

So, that's an example, but more generically I'm mostly referring to what are essentially self-ordained prophets. They find a pattern, develop a model based on that pattern, find the evidence that fits the model while suppressing everything else (not necessarily consciously), and finally create a theory that, to be blunt, sells well. Think clickbait.

[–]TaylorS1986Odin Was A Turkish Chieftain 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Oh shit, I'm a member of The Fourth Turning message board, I guess I'm the idiot, now. :-/

To be fair, though, the general consensus on that message board is that the cycle described in the book exists, but that Bill Stauss and Neil Howe projected far too much of their socially conservative populism and rose-colored views of the WW2 Generation into it. They also completely misanalysed the generations of the Civil War cycle because of those biases.

[–]Chocolate_Cookie 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that even Dr. Strauss is an idiot and certainly not anyone interested in the subject or the book. Really smart guy. Actually this kind of stuff tends to come from really smart people.

It's not like I think it's garbage. It just isn't at all what I would recommend to someone just entering the subject who isn't aware of it already.

I agree with your assessment of it though. Certainly there is the pattern, but patterns can be easy to find. It's the meaning that is difficult, and I think he went overboard on that part of it.

[–]websterandy42Sources? Just prax it out.[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Sorry, but I honestly haven't read up on it outside of my text book.

[–]_watchingLincoln only fought the Civil War to free the Irish 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'll just have to continue my search!

[–]timnuoa 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

I just finished an excellent book called Rule and Ruin, which focuses specifically on the rise of the conservative movement within the Republican Party from the 1950s to the 1980s, and the resulting realignment of the two parties along ideological lines. It's written by a journalist rather than an academic, and is coming from an explicit position of mourning the ideological alignment of the parties, but it is a fascinating and very well-written narrative history of the various political battles and shenanigans within the party. Highly recommend it.

[–]_watchingLincoln only fought the Civil War to free the Irish 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sounds interesting, will look into it and add to reading list. Thanks for the recommendation (and disclaimers)!

[–]Surreals 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atLzHai_ZpY

[–]TurtanicThe Bible is wrong, oodles of archelogic evidence don't real 5ポイント6ポイント  (4子コメント)

Technically true, yes.

Just like how Hitler helped rebuild the German infrastructure.

And the British built Indian infrastructure.

And the Spartans had a strong and loyal citizenry.

And Stalin unified the Russian Communist party.

Everything I've said is right. But it's all dramatically missing the point.

[–]DisproSTOVEPIPE HATS FOR THE STOVEPIPE HAT GOD 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

I know the other three, but what's the problem with the Spartans? Do you just mean how brutal they were to the kids raised under their system? Ancient Greek history isn't something I know very much about.

[–]TurtanicThe Bible is wrong, oodles of archelogic evidence don't real 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

That, and the practice of pederasty.

[–]Arby82 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

The Spartans were led by a military government. The average citizen were slaves and could be killed at any time for any reason. Also the Spartans believed in raping their own wives. A common practice was to sneak into their own homes and savagely rape their wives. That was seen as romantic and the way a warrior was to behave.

[–]DisproSTOVEPIPE HATS FOR THE STOVEPIPE HAT GOD 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

WTF. That's madness!

[–]Deadpoolsbae 12ポイント13ポイント  (2子コメント)

I just point out the existence of Strom Thurmond and the roots of the modern GOP.

[–]SwishBender 13ポイント14ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you're on the internet you will probably get "so what if one senator switched sides". To which you can tell them to look into how Trent Lott and Jesse Helms got their start in politics.

[–]buckyVanBuren 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Just spent the weekend with one of Strom's niece's by marriage. She likes to tell about the time she slept at the Governor's Mansion back when Strom was Governor. She slept with a door chair under the doorknob.

[–]usabfb 6ポイント7ポイント  (14子コメント)

This gives me an opportunity to ask a question I've wanted answered for a while: I heard that Nathan Bedford Forrest left the KKK because it was becoming more and more racially motivated. Is this true? I can't remember where I heard it first and I've never seen it repeated since then.

[–]irritatingrobotBen Franklin was actually the Egyptian god Horus. 38ポイント39ポイント  (3子コメント)

I've heard this "boyscout in the whorehouse" story about Forrest's involvement in the KKK from confederate apologists in the past, and it's worth noting that you'll hear the same thing about his involvement in the Fort Pillow Massacre. I'm not any kind of expert on Nathan Bedford Forrest but it seems a little incredible that he just sort of stumbled into this situation where he was in command of the unit that commited the worst racial atrocity of the civil war totally blamelessly and then a couple years later was totally blamelessly involved in the founding of the KKK.

I'd certainly also like to hear more about this from an expert though.

[–]Thexare 21ポイント22ポイント  (2子コメント)

I had to look that up, I was certain you were bullshitting me about a massacre at "Fort Pillow".

Turns out it was just the least threatening fortification name ever.

[–]Virginianus_sumThe SJW(inners) write the history! 14ポイント15ポイント  (0子コメント)

"'Fort Huggy Bunny'? How cute!"

"Yes, it was a former Native American settlement that was turned into a plantation. During the Civil War it was a brutal POW camp for Union troops. In the 1940s it was a Japanese internment camp, then it was used in the Tuskegee Experiment, and we believe it's now a CIA black site."

"...o-oh."

[–]Disgruntled_Old_TrotMorale Officer, Burpleson Air Force Base 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Fort Pillow was originally a Confederate fortification named after General Gideon Pillow, one of the least effective generals of the Civil War.

You can still the visit the site, it's a state park north of Memphis.

[–]OMGSPACERUSSIA 21ポイント22ポイント  (1子コメント)

One of my great-great grandfather was a grand wizard in the KKK, or so family legend tells. Apparently he left in the 60s after the 16th street bombing because, despite being a white supremacist, he didn't believe in blowing up children.

On the other hand, he was a grand wizard of the KKK. So my opinion of his character generally goes unsaid at family gatherings.

[–]Virginianus_sumThe SJW(inners) write the history! 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

My Dad said that's what kept him from joining in the 1960s. He only told me that once, I haven't asked about it since, I can't imagine he's told either of my other siblings that story, and truth be told I think he was making it up.

Growing up, he didn't hide his racism from us at all. But I can't help but think he'd pull a story like that out of his ass just to make it sound like his racism had "respectable limits." If (as I hypothesize) he said it to try and impress me, well...he should probably work on more flattering lies.

[–]mudsill 6ポイント7ポイント  (7子コメント)

Everything I've heard about "Forrest didn't commit atrocities at Ft. Pillow/tried to reign in the Klan" seems like it's projecting modern racial sensibilities onto the Reconstruction-era South.

There's still some debate about what, exactly, happened at Fort Pillow, but I don't take seriously anybody that tows the "Forrest did nothing wrong" line. It was common practice for Confederate troops to kill United States Colored Troops outright rather than taking them prisoner, whether they had surrendered or not. And eyewitness testimony from Union survivors suggests that's exactly what happened to many black troops at Ft. Pillow..

After the war, Forrest was one of the first prominent members of the Klan. I think, like a lot of ex-Confederates, he'd resigned himself to the idea that slavery wasn't coming back, but he was very interested in restricting the political and economic power of the freedmen as much as he could. As he put it: "I am not an enemy of the negro. We want him here among us; he is the only laboring class we have."

From the start, the Klan was engaged in terrorizing freedmen in one form or another. There's no evidence that I've seen that would suggest Forrest was opposed to violence against blacks in the Reconstruction era. Rather, his reason for leaving the Klan seems to be because he couldn't organize it and control it. Later in life, he seems to have cooled down his rhetoric on racial issues, but I don't think that's a good representation of how he carried himself through most of his military and post-war career.

[–]buckyVanBuren -4ポイント-3ポイント  (6子コメント)

However, according to the early bylaws, it was a temperance organization.

[–]mudsill 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

Not trying to sound hostile, but where are you getting this? I'm asking because every credible source I've seen acknowledges that the klan was interested in keeping down black political action in one way or the other from the very beginning. The temperance society claim is a new one to me, honestly.

[–]buckyVanBuren -4ポイント-3ポイント  (4子コメント)

Um... The Bylaws, Article 10, section 3? Ku Klux Klan Constitution and Bylaws – 1870. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00085716/00001/24x

And they were very public about it later, associating the Anti-Saloon League during the run up to Prohibition. Just a few links http://listverse.com/2014/01/05/10-outrageous-claims-made-by-the-temperance-movement/ http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition/roots-of-prohibition/ http://www.oysterbayhistorical.org/uploads/4/9/5/1/4951065/kkk_in_syosset.pdf

Edit: I also wanted to add that the Temperance movement played right into the anti-immigration sentiment that was so popular at the time.

[–]mudsill 6ポイント7ポイント  (3子コメント)

I knew about their assisting anti-alcohol societies during prohibition, that played in pretty well with their anti-catholic bias in the Klan's second incarnation.

But this is just a couple internal rules about preventing their own members from drinking. Most of the rules are actually about ensuring secrecy. Do you seriously believe that the primary focus of the first KKK was enforcing temperance?

I mean, by your logic here, any organization that establishes any anti-alcohol policy at any point is automatically a "temperance organization", no matter what the obvious ultimate political end of their group may be.

[–]taylororo 7ポイント8ポイント  (5子コメント)

I'm not sure that the OP was making the claim you are claiming he is claiming. He seems complaining about how modern liberals use the historical for their own purposes. I won't get into the validity of that idea because that discussion is located in the beating heart of R2.

I get how sometimes history of the Klan is used to nonsensically cudgel modern democrats as the real racists or whatever, but that's not happening here. It's close for sure, but it's not actually what he's saying. His only historical claim - "KKK were Democrats, who not only targeted minorities, but republicans" - is correct.

This whole comment section seems to trying make the connection between olden days dem's/bad people and the modern conservative movement, which R2.

[–]websterandy42Sources? Just prax it out.[S] 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

Liberals have this idea, that Democrats in the past are today's Republicans for only when it suits them.

His vocabulary is lacking, but what he's trying to say is pretty clear.

[–]chocolatepotChanel was the woooorst 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

That is pretty clear, but my interpretation doesn't match up with yours. He's not saying the modern party system should be pushed into the past. He's saying that when Democrats talk about how the parties shifted, he's confused because he thinks it should be a strict "all Republicans count as Democrats, all Democrats count as Republicans" discussion, without bringing actual political positions into it. It's the "only when it suits them" that he's complaining about. He also doesn't understand that the Southern Democrats weren't the only Democrats of the era.

[–]The_Town_ -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

This was basically what I got out of it.

OP was correct in pointing out that the Klan voted Democrat and went after Republicans as well as minorities (since both would vote for more progressive reforms when it came to race issues).

At least for myself, I hate it when people with left-wing views paint Republicans as somehow always being the party of White Supremacists and anti-Civil Rights (no major party ever was), so in that sense, I'm fine with dispelling this falsehood that Republicans have been historically racist.

[–]taylororo 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I hate it when people with left-wing views paint Republicans as somehow always being the party of White Supremacists and anti-Civil Rights (no major party ever was), so in that sense, I'm fine with dispelling this falsehood that Republicans have been historically racist

Let's not get crazy now. Republicans have been historically super racist. Antebellum Republican's position can be described as "Sure, we want to set them free, but that doesn't mean we want them to marry our daughters." And while they were the better home for "radicals"(read: not racists), racism was still a guiding principle. If any party wanted political power at any time in American history, they had to be racist. That's how the system works. It's better talk about in what way and for what ends they were being racist at the time.

[–]The_Town_ -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Let's not get crazy now. Republicans have been historically super racist.

I'm not intending to deny the huge racism that was endemic in American politics, but perhaps, to phrase it better, I'm just annoyed at the "Republicans have always been racist" narrative without any sort of additional comments like, "But in their defense, almost everybody, including Democrats, was for the past 200 years."

[–]shackra 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

After reading the title, For an instant, I thought I was on /r/magicskyfairy

[–]Expiscor 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

A really good book on this is "Without Grease" by Frank Kent. It's all about the great depression and FDRs policies. He talks a lot about how FDR forced the Republicans and Democrats change policies.

[–]Borkton -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Kevin Williamson had an interesting take on realignment a couple of years ago in National Review.

[–]taylororo 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

That article is . . . ok. I think their might be some truth in the rising of the post-war middle class leading to more republicans is probably a good one. However, no account of that rise can be understood without the very, very racialized way that it was created. While that was a bipartisan agreement to ignore the obvious, it does cloudy his idea that the Republican party couldnt act as a home for white racial interests. The article has other major problems. One being that he thinks the 1960s division on civil rights is best understood along party lines, instead of regional lines. Take this quote:

If the parties had in some meaningful way flipped on civil rights, one would expect that to show up in the electoral results in the years following the Democrats’ 1964 about-face on the issue. Nothing of the sort happened: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats.

Of course, segregationis communities (ie most of the white south) didnt through out there pro-segregationist congressmen. They were satisfied with who they had. 

Secondly, he acts as if racism evaporated from the minds of white voters post-1964. Thats ridiculous. Even Jimmy Carter used racially tinged campaigning to defeat his opponent for governor. The same year, however, a strom thurmond endorsed Republican ran for governor on a racially charged platform, only to lose (thanks to the black vote) to a cool dude democrat.  

Anyways, as i said above, i think this most of these threads stinks of poorly argued political partisanship, but williamson stink too because of his belief in the magically disappearance of racism. Also, he's dumb.