As well as the Hildabeast!
Posted on 07/24/2015 7:42:44 PM PDT by South40
Duke did not change his affiliation until ‘88...when he ran the KKK...he was a solid democrat.
Bingo....”party switch” myth is pushed by Democrats trying to cover their tracks.
And the evidence is Robert Byrd.
BTW...he made over 200 posts as well as 8 blog enteries...but i cant view his posts without being signed up there...perhaps someone else here is a member of that board?
Actually it wasn't until 1989 that David Duke "changed" to using an 'R' next to his name. He was (and is) a member of the DemonRAT organization. The 'R' was just a ruse on his part and is a classic case of RINOism. In short, he wasn't a true Republican in the mold of Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan.
As well as the Hildabeast!
There was a guy at NR who wrote a couple of really good pieces debunking the left’s party switch meme. According to his analysis, the older generation of white Democrats didn’t switch over to the Republicans but basically just died off without switching.
Well I am not going to belabor the point..
I agree fully the you would never see a republican anywhere near the KKK back in the day and all the way up to perhaps the mid to late 60s..
After that the South, largely all Roosevelt democrats at the time, began to shift to the republican party. These same republicans some who were once democrats, were often seen with the KKK. It was a matter of shifting political forces and not that republicans were racists.
As the democrats moved left, even Ronald Reagan left the party but in the south it was more dramatic.
You cannot deny that today, the KKK and republicans share some of the same rhetoric (not regarding race or jews) but more generally speaking small l, libertine and smaller government values.
It fact, most remaining Roosevelt democrats today have no real connection at all to the new democrat party yet they continue to vote for them.
That’s the point I was making...
I was not trying to associate republicans with racism. Those that are racists in the south today, and there are not many left, may vote republican yet do not share the same mindset, just as the old Roosevelt dems still vote democrat.
Politically, the south drives me nuts trying to predict voting patterns. Many conservative voters who receive state or federal aid, often support democrat presidents. (pocketbook self interest voting)
You just cannot pigeon hole people in the south.
Look...He ran very unsuccessfully for president in 88...The vote would have been a write in for most every state but Louisiana.
After that election he then changed affiliations and tried running as a independent. Failed of course.
It was then that he changed to the republican party and ran for something he could actually win, and he did a term in the state house.
Far as I know he is still a repub. He was a young man when he changed to repub, and he has now spent most of his political life as a republican.
The fact is, politicians in Louisiana are some of the most frequent political affiliation changers in the country and maybe the entire western world.
Having said that, you don’t have to worry about Duke and politics because he pled guilty to a felony charge.
I have not read any of those debunking pieces you refer to. I can only speak from observation since I have been in the deep south. I moved here in 1976. When I came and registered, I was told that If I registered as a republican that I would rarely is ever be able to vote in a primary as everyone was democrat.
They were correct.
I have observed the changes first hand..since 1976.
That's the reality as opposed to the DemonRAT myth. But it wasn't always that way as this map so vividly illustrates:
In the South, less than a century ago, what's now the home of the Conservative base repudiated Calvin Coolidge, a Patriot admired by President Reagan, and embraced a leftwing 'RAT, John Davis. The story was the same in 1928 when far-left zealot Al Smith was supported by the Deep South rather than Herbert Hoover (a RINO but still more Conservative than Smith):
That pattern remained in place when FDR swept the South in the next election cycle:
And so the song remained the same for years thereafter with the South being the liberal part of the Republic and, oddly, most of New England being Conservative historically. As you stated, it took the dying of the old guard 'RATs in Dixie to make the transformation to the Conservative bulwark we see today. Conversely up in Yankee-land (notably Coolidge's home state of Vermont, now a socialist cesspool), it was the dying off of traditional Conservatives that led to the regions decline into leftism.
If you're still with me after this lengthy post, my contention is that the parties never switched. The party of Lincoln is the same today (modulo the RINO element) and the 'RAT party of leftwing radical William Jennings Bryan (he the prime force for the unconstitutional income tax) is unaltered from what it was in the 19th Century. Instead, it was the people who switched, through attrition and via migration between the regions. As the modern South emerged, Conservatives from other parts of the country found the climate (both the weather and politically) to their liking and brought their pro-American Patriotism to Dixie! Well, at least that's how I see it.
One element you might be missing.
I first observed it during the Carter and Clinton administrations.
Many Roosevelt dems switched to independent. Mostly the younger ones. While I have never seen much in the way of independent candidates, this switch allowed them to more easily vote republican in the general, and they did.
Not sure when, (it was gradual) but I began to see more registered republicans. The makeup of the city I live in has not changed much at all over the last two decades, so the die off theory is valid to a degree, but it does not explain the doubling, then tripling and so forth of the registered republican count.
In my view, it is the democrat party leftward move that caused the party to leave them as opposed to them leaving the party.
I get all that...the point remains...when Duke was running the KKK...He did so as a DEMOCRAT.
The myth of the southern strategy:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html?_r=0
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/2787426/posts
I’ll see if I can find those pieces. I found them surprisingly persuasive. They made me rethink the conventional wisdom of the party switch. I’ve lived in the South my whole life and what I find is that the Republican party down here is Reaganesque, not Rooseveltian, which constitutes an ideological break with the political thinking of earlier white Democrats. Also, Republicans here are not racist, although they understand that cultural problems exist that correlate to some degree with race. If you want to find a real racist, go find an old yellow dog Democrat who votes Democrat because his daddy and granddaddy and great granddaddy voted Democrat. Those guys have mostly died off at this point but a few linger in pockets here and there.
Yeah.....I’ll accept that.
I should have been more specific. I was trying to tie Duke’s obviously more conservative philosophy into the political mix with the KKK as it is today.
Here is another anecdote just for the heck of it.
This weekend...tomorrow in fact, there is a KKK gathering about 3 miles from me. I pretty much know who the individual is that has offered their property for this meet. I doubt there will be many people there but it has caused quite a stir locally.
These folks out there are your typical nativist purest prepper types, in fact the subject of my writings tonight.They are not libs.
They could be registered dems, but I don’t think I can find out for sure, but I do know due to past issues with these folks that they are God-Guns and glory types..
I think what I am trying to put across here is that we really don’t have evidence to be arguing that the Lafayette shooter is a lib.
I just don’t like to stick my foot in my mouth if I can help it.
yeah...I agree with that...Most have indeed died or are in nursing homes driving the staff crazy..I have witnessed it.
Although we have out points where we don't see exactly eye-ti-eye, I think we're having a good, adult discussion free of personal attacks and invective.
If you will, take a look at the maps and admittedly longish commentary in my post #90 since I value your opinion about the "party switch" which Yardstick points out was a leftist lie. As to the 'RAT party moving leftward, my point is that it's been hardcore liberal since at least the latter 19th Century. Consider William Jennings Bryan as one metric to back my assertion. The so-called "Great Commoner" was a radical progressive -- advocating government regulation of private enterprise, favoring Big Labor thugs, fathering the income tax, abolition of the gold standard, direct election of senators and so on.
It was Jennings who influenced Woodrow Wilson (once somewhat of a moderate) to veer hard left. In fact the outright Socialism of Franklin Roosevelt and his handmaiden Frances Perkins (author of the Ponzi scheme now called Social "Security" and the mother of the minimum wage) traces it roots to Bryan. And of course, the policies of hussein descend from those of FDR, and, in turn are those of Bryan.
Maybe the one thing I disagree with President Reagan on is "the democratic party left me". No, the 'RAT party has a long history of championing leftist causes. IMHO, it was a glib campaign slogan to attract the "Reagan Democrats" but didn't reflect the intrinsic anti-American leftism that defines the 'RAT party.
Here, much of the cities population who are still diehard dem voters are not actually liberal, but their families have always voted dem because of Roosevelt so that is why I call them that.
However, It has changed to the point that there are now republicans running in local elections and that was not the case 10 years ago. Some of these republicans would have been too young to vote for Reagan.
It's my hope that the youth we have now are not lost causes to socialism. I try to talk to them when I get the opportunity.
I can’t argue with your historical references as they are as I know them to be.
I think perhaps the democrat party as a whole has exhibited a sharp leftward turn due largely to the fact they purged their moderates. The counter balance is gone.
This should have moved the Republicans to the right, but we have not purged our moderates as they did.
Does that make sense?
I believe that since the democrat rarely lets anyone know in his voter base what he/she actually thinks and believes because if they did they may not get that vote, that this move left has exposed their flanks.
I think the democrat voters, mostly the males, have taken note of this and these are the ones who are shifting gradually to the republicans or independents, particularly in the south.
The females are another story.
Great discussion. I have a lot to say but my old bones are complaining about this chair and I need my beauty sleep..:-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.