Skip to comments.The Myth of the Republican-Democrat 'Switch'
Posted on 01/03/2020 1:54:26 PM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion
Likewise, throughout the late 1950s and early 1960s, Democratic governors and overwhelmingly Democratic State Legislatures controlled the South, which steadfastly opposed the push for civil rights. In contrast, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, openly praised school desegregation in the Brown v. Board of Education decision and sent federalized Arkansas National Guard troops to Little Rock to protect nine black students after Democratic Governor Orval Faubus threatened to keep them out of a previously all-white high school.
In June of 1964, though, the Civil Rights Act came up again, and it passed...over the strenuous objections of Southern Democrats. 80% of House Republicans voted for the measure, compared with just 61% of Democrats, while 82% of Republicans in the Senate supported it, compared with 69% of Democrats.
Nearly all of the opposition was, naturally, in the South, which was still nearly unanimously Democratic and nearly unanimously resistant to the changing country. One thing that most assuredly didn't change, though, was party affiliation. A total of 21 Democrats in the Senate opposed the Civil Rights Act. Only one of them, "Dixiecrat" Strom Thurmond, ever became a Republican. The rest, including Al Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd--a former Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan--remained Democrats until the day they died.
Moreover, as those 20 lifelong Democrats retired, their Senate seats remained in Democrat hands for several decades afterwards. So too did the overwhelming majority of the House seats in the South until 1994, when a Republican wave election swept the GOP into control of the House for the first time since 1952.
(Excerpt) Read more at newstalk1130.iheart.com ...
Why do people use the word democratic when discussing democrats?
Did Goldwater support the civil Right Act of 1964?
Most of it, there was one plank he was against.
They don’t understand the proper use of adjectives in English.
Don’t forget Bill Clinton’s mentor, William Fulbright.
I always LOL at the dim-Republican switch. If the dims had switched with the Republicans , why was Robert Byrd, former grand kleagle of the KKK, a dimocrat??
Goldwater was a life long supporter of civil rights and desegregation. He voted against the bill because he thought it was unconstitutional and if upheld would be a dramatic and dangerous expansion of Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause.
Goldwater was right as we saw recently with another power grab under the Commerce Clause, Obamacare. But, voting with the Southern Democrat segregationists stained him going into the 1964 election.
This is one of those Mandela Effect issues with me. My entire life I remember reading and hearing Democrat, but the last 2-3 years I keep seeing Democratic to describe the party and the person.
I see what you mean, dunno why.
It's straight forward psychological warfare.
Here's a primer, of sorts...
Psychological warfare and the Trump Impeachment Jack Posobiec Explains | Crossroads
https://youtu.be/3I26oxabQLc (40 minutes)
Psychological warfare and the Trump Impeachment
Jack Posobiec Explains | Crossroads
“Goldwater was right as we saw recently with another power grab under the Commerce Clause, Obamacare.”
Obamacare was NOT ruled constitutional under the commerce clause. Roberts said it was constitutional because the mandate penalty was under the taxing power.
“He voted against the bill because he thought it was unconstitutional and if upheld would be a dramatic and dangerous expansion of Congress’s powers under the Commerce Clause.”
Was it upheld by the Court?
Here we are 55-56 years later and his stance against the Civil Rights Act is still used against Republicans.
Goldwater’s stance my have been principled, but it has not been productive.
Yeah, Roberts pulled the tax dodge. But he might as well have voted for it under the Commerce Clause because that is the effect of his vote. The legislation stands and Congress got away with it.
Interestingly, my liberal constitutional law professor suggested a better constitutional grounding might have been the post-Civil War civil rights amendments. They chose not to go with that theory, however, because there was no case law and they felt they had a better chance under the Commerce Clause.
It greatly distorts the reality of what was going on in the events described.
Not at all. I had to edit like mad to get down to 300 words. I saw no errors in the original.
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.