![Subreddit Icon](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="256" height="256"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
r/conspiracyThe "Party Switch" myth debunked
I've been doing months of research on the history of the political systems in the US. There is one myth that is bigger than all of them and thats the "party switch" myth so I'm going to debunk that myth for everyone here.
The typical argument for this is "The republicans won the south during the 1950's-1970's, so they are the party of racism. The platforms of both parties switched in this time period." They somehow try to ignore the part where the Democrats were the party of slaves and slave owners 100 years before this time period. They ignore the part where Republicans abolished slavery.
The GOP won the south AFTER civil rights. Ending over 100+ years of democrat control which started with slavery and ended due to the civil rights movement. This means that it's impossible for someone to claim the GOP is the party of racism in the south. I already know someone will try to use the typical stereotype argument where they claim "the KKK is votes republican now!!!" which has never even been proven true. It's just a stereotype. Even if they did now in 2019, that doesn't mean the democratic party is automatically forgiven for what it did to blacks and the racism that exists today is nothing close to pre-1965.
Out of 1600 racist Democrats from the Civil War to the year 2000 less than 1% switched parties. Only 2 of the 112 racist Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 actually “switched” to the GOP. John Jarman and Strom Thurmond. All the racist Democrats who had opposed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960’s were the same ones who in the 1970’s supported Roe v. Wade. They went straight from supporting segregation to supporting abortion. There was no switch among politicians. In fact, the GOP didn’t gain a majority of southern seats until 1994, 30 years after the Civil Rights movement.
When you look at the voting record, you will see that the republicans were still more supportive of civil rights than the democrats which is all the proof you need to conclude that the party switch is a myth.
I'll use this source to determine the "important" bills
House vote on Civil Rights Act of 1960
8% of Republicans voted against
29% of the Democrats voted against
Senate vote on Civil Rights Act of 1960
0% of Republicans voted against
28% of the Democrats voted against
House vote on H.R. 7152. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
20% of Republicans voted against
35% of the Democrats voted against
Senate vote on H.R. 7152. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
18% of Republicans voted against
33% of the Democrats voted against
House vote on THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965
16% of Republicans voted against
21% of Democrats voted against
Senate vote on THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965
5.25% of Republicans voted against
25% of Democrats voted against
House vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act)
13% of Republicans voted against
27% of Democrats voted against
Senate vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act)
8% of Republicans voted against
27% of Democrats voted against
Senate vote on the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970
2% of Republicans voted against
19% of Democrats voted against
Fun fact: There was only one single vote against this from the GOP. Guess who it was? Strom Thurmond. One of the 2 southern democrats that switched.
Party switch myth debunked.
· 3 yr. ago · Stickied commentRule 2 does not apply when replying to this stickied comment.
Rule 2 does apply throughout the rest of this thread.
What this means: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain only.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Who cares? Candace Owens has really convinced white Conservatives that this matters and it doesn’t. Minority voters aren’t democrats because of this. I often wonder if Candace Owens is actually trying to sabotage the GOP, or if she’s actually that out of touch with the people she claims to represent. There’s absolutely no point in re-legislating this issue.
Nice rant. I'm not white or a conservative. The last president I voted for was obama. I've actually never heard candace owens talk about this subject and not a single word of my post is from her.
Let me know when you want to address the content of my post.
They somehow try to ignore the part where the Democrats were the party of slaves and slave owners 100 years before this time period. They ignore the part where Republicans abolished slavery.
No that's exactly what they mean by party switch.
Lmao.
The GOP won the south AFTER civil rights.
Correct. Party switch.
This means that it's impossible for someone to claim the GOP is the party of racism in the south.
When referring to the modern era, yes, they can.
which has never even been proven true.
actually it's easily demonstrable
Even if they did now in 2019, that doesn't mean the democratic party is automatically forgiven for what it did to blacks and the racism that exists today is nothing close to pre-1965.
Who made this claim?
Oh that's right, no one.
It's not a party switch, it's a left tilt from the DNC. the GOP platform was more or less the same then as it is now. The only major difference is that the DNC has stopped actively trying to oppress minorities, and instead has created a mass of single parent households with city crime bills affecting pretty much everyone who lives there, then forced these people onto government welfare, and uses them as political pawns to win elections. A welfare class is easy to control. That's what they created.
When referring to the modern era, yes, they can.
Based on what? Assumptions or do you have proof?
Also, there is no comparing any form "modern day" racism to what the Democrats did. Nothing close at all.
What have the dems even done for blacks in the past 50 years? Poverty levels are barely below what they were 50 years ago? Why is that? Its almost like theyre still oppressed by the party that they vote for to this day?
As usual with numerical analysis, the numbers are misleading. Take the most important 1964 Civil Rights Act as an example.
If we want to compare Democrats and Republicans, we need to hold other variables as constant as possible. When we hold the key variable -- region -- still, the truth comes out:
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
As you can see, Republicans were more likely to vote against civil rights than Democrats in both the north and the south.
As usual with numerical analysis, you have to take into account sample size so you dont produce misleading results. A very small sample size is not statistically significant to accurately draw conclusions about anything.
10 Republicans vs. 94 Democrats.
1 Republican vs. 21 Democrats.
As you can see, this very small sample size is not representative of the entire Republican party as a whole. Beginners in statistics often make this mistake. It takes some experience to understand why you cant draw conclusions from small sample sizes.
If you have any other doubts about the views of the party, check the other 5 bills that I provided data for :)
All you have to do is literally look at a map of the early 1900s and now, and anyone who isn’t colorblind will see that it’s been mostly flipped.
https://www.270towin.com/1924_Election/
That’s 1924 where New York and California and almost every northern state is red. The entire south is blue. It is literally the opposite now. I’m not sure why this is so hard for people to literally just look at.
Thats great man. Were talking about those on the left that believe an ideology switch occured.
Don't bother this guy doesn't accept facts or reality as well... Real.
The US's modern two-party system (the only one relevant to this conversation) began in the mid-1800s. This is a strawman argument if I've ever seen one.
This post isn't about the early 1800's. That's a completely different discussion. If your going to comment, please address the actual argument of the post.
Republicans defend those statues because it's national history, whether good or bad. Republicans understand that history is meant to serve as a lesson to those in the present. All those statues are lessons of bad things that happened. We want those statues to remain so that people can remember what Democrats did and stood for during the Civil War era. Democrats want them removed because they don't want people to know what they've historically stood for (racism and slavery).
Not a single person has proven anything I said wrong lmao and your too random talking points prove nothing either. Sorry bud
Lbj, who was in the kkk, passed welfare that destroyed black families in order to "get them ni**ers to vote Democrat the next 100 years"
Today's lefties dumb their language down when talking to blacks and think they're to helpless to get an id. It shows the true reason behind their activism. They truly feel poc are inferior and need whiteys help to function. While calling everyone else racists none stop.
Yet both parties always come together to raise taxes, make govt larger, and screw the voters.
2 sides of the same warped coin.
Yeah, that's a dumb lie. You didn't read anything OP wrote. Historical records corroborate OP. Grow the F up.
A deeply simplistic contrarian arguent. These data points, such as they are, are based on the idea that the transition is supposed to have happened mostly in the 1960s, which is inaccurate. It also fails to mention Pres. Nixon's well-known Southern Strategy which didn't invent the general trend of Southern and Northern racist or racist-friendly conservatives working together across party lines but which capitalized on it to help Nixon achieve his political goals.
As every student of American history should know, the northern industrially based Democratic party and the southern Democratic Party had split over the issue of slavery as far back as 1860 though, of course, there were all kinds of exceptions and politicians, then and now, always try to have things both ways on the most controversial issues or are honestly walking contradictions. For example, Woodrow Wilson, elected in 1912, is now infamous for his racism and his praise of the deeply offensive "Birth of a Nation" -- but he was also a part of the progressive movement as well as being a Democrat from Virginia -- and, as founder of the League of Nations an early internationalist (or, I suppose, proof that not all "globalists" are Jewish.) Today, Wilson is thought by many liberals/progressives as well as many conservatives, to be one of our worst presidents, though for different reasons.
The real transition point, though, was the election of FDR. His New Deal policies made him hugely popular with African-Americans. It's true that you can find numerous counter-examples of viciously racist mid-century Democrats outside of the south post FDR -- Mayor Rizzo in Philly, Mayor Daley in Chicago, and (my personal bete noire as a newly liberal 12-year old), Mayor Yorty in LA. In other words, it was a confusing mishmash, which makes it easy to come up with poorly thought out, or outright bad faith, arguments contradicting the obvious trends.
About Community
Members
Online
Similar to this post
- r/conspiracy
Gaslighting 2.092%4894d - r/conspiracy
Ladies and gentlemen, the staged "arrest" of Greta...66%1.9k6d - r/conspiracy
Elon called out the WEF today.77%8895d - r/conspiracy
Who the F*** is with me? Am I gonna be the only one here...91%5645d - r/conspiracy
Imagine believing that cow farts cause the planet to heat...85%8414d - r/conspiracy
Another narrative bites the dust83%4561d - r/conspiracy
They override "sensitive subjects" with human-decided...80%6675d - r/conspiracy
Children of men vibes81%8872d - r/conspiracy
These old leather bags are evil. Why do we young people...93%3244d - r/conspiracy
Elon Musk admits to having vaccine side effects on Twitter74%9283d - r/conspiracy
They must think their readers are dumb.88%25413h - r/conspiracy
Smile for The Camera Greta, Make it Look Good74%1.1k6d - r/conspiracy
Privilege, C'mon Home Depot83%9971d - r/conspiracy
Utah doctor allegedly destroyed COVID vaccines, gave fake...93%4784d - r/conspiracy
Fauci's wife ? Say it ain't so.76%3601d