GOP and Democrats switched roles?

[stratego]

(History/Government related) If someone can explain the following for me I would appreciate it. This is one aspect of US History I never really understood.

-------
After Lincoln (Republican) freed the slaves there was a period of Reconstruction. During that period the Republicans were fighting for more black equality while Democrats were resisting it. In fact a good portion of the KKK was in the Democratic party.

However, during the Civil Rights Movement, the Democrats were the ones fighting fiercely for Equality for everyone.
-------
-------
The Civil War started because the South (mostly Democrats) wanted more state sovereignty, while Lincoln wanted more of a unified nation.

Nowadays Republican are more associated with wanting state sovereignty while Democrats want a more centralized nation
-------

So when did this two parties make the switch in attitude? or am I completely mistaken with my facts?

 

[SoCalian]

Interesting points you have there stratego.

 

[Yago]

The switch occured in the time about 1930-1960. Started with FDR and was completed with LBJ, I think one might say. For example, Ronald Regean (sp ? godddam) changed from Democrat to Republican. A lot of "dixiecrats" joined the Republicans, as it was indeed the democratic party, which changed it's view after internal struggle on various things.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

I'd say you can trace it even further, to 1912.

With the rise of Teddy Roosevelt, "Progressivism" had taken over the Republican party, but not entirely. In 1912, conservative Republicans and Progressive Republicans split (Taft and Roosevelt were both nominated by each faction) and a progressive Democrat, Wilson, was elected. I think he's the first modern Democrat to rule in a way that we would expect today's Democrats to rule.

FDR was, of course, the next Democrat to be elected President, and he continued this and forged the political coalition that kept Democrats largely in power until 1994.

 

[cgannon64]

They did switch, and they do often in American politics, IIRC. Both parties and changed and evolved over time...

EDIT: SeleceusNicator: Ironic that Roosevelt, a Republican, was one of the first enviromentalists. Look at his party now.

 

[Free Enterprise]

That would place the Republicans as similar to the Democratic-Republicans who supported states' rights and the Democrats as similar the Federalists as pro-national government.

In general, the Republicans did not oppose the Civil Rights legislation during the Civil Rights movements of.

It is true, the Republican party however was once protectionistic (during the Civil War it passed a huge tariff).

 

[amadeus]

The Republicans did not oppose Civil Rights legislation. In fact, it was the Democrats that did.

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.

 

[Zarn]

Not all Republicans support states rights, but you are right that most due (mostly the ones in the South support it). You would see that Republicans probally couldn't care less about states rights in the north. At least that is the way it is with the Republicans in my area. Maybe it's really a north/ south thing.

 

[Mr. Cackle]

rmsharpe --

The fact still remains that the majority of the Republican party is made up of rich, white, southerners. Plus, I can name plenty of Republicans who lived in the past decade who were notoriously racist/segregationist (Strom Thurmond and Trent Lott, specifically)

 

[Free Enterprise]

Plenty of Dems fit that description too. The Democrats are the ones most often backing racism in the form of "affirmative action".

Rich does not in any way equate with racism and/or segregationism. Most of the Dems in Congress are rich too.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by Mr. Cackle
rmsharpe --

The fact still remains that the majority of the Republican party is made up of rich, white, southerners.

Where is this "fact" from?

 

[Mr. Cackle]

Err, Free Enterprise, racism = hate based on someone's race. Affirmative action, however outdated, is not "hateful" but merely trying to level the playing field.

Rich may not equate racism, but racists are generally rich, white southerners.

Edit> rmsharpe, the "fact" is that look at any election in the past 10 years and the Republicans have almost completely controlled the Southeast.

 

[Free Enterprise]

I consider affirmative action racist because it bestows an advantage to someone based on very insignificant traits, like skin color. A person that should have gotten the job can be denied the job due to consideration of traits that are supposed to not be cruical in this society. The quantity of melanin that is not inhibited by a person's body should not influence the process of hiring people. Meritocracy should be the rule rather than various other types. The real solution is to end all forms of discrimination ASAP rather than perpuate or reinvent new types. Two wrongs don't make a right.

A second generation descedant of European immigrants from a poor country could be discriminated against because they do not fit the "race" need to fill a quota.

Race is a fallicious notion as it (the tri-racial theory which is one of the most common) merely denotes a certain combinaton of traits (which are actual quite rare). Most people have mixture of traits that are associated with another "race", hence it is merely a combination of traits.

On topic, controlling the South East doesn't mean being controlled by it (though they can exert large amounts of influence). You can't be elected President or to Congress just by winning the South East (not enough electoral votes or Congressional seats).

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by Mr. Cackle
Rich may not equate racism, but racists are generally rich, white southerners.

Again, where is this from?

Edit> rmsharpe, the "fact" is that look at any election in the past 10 years and the Republicans have almost completely controlled the Southeast.

I did not realize you entered your income and race on the voting ballots. Can you show me one of them?

 

[Mr. Cackle]

Ahh, but the supporters of segregationist policies were very rich, very white, and very southern.

True, controlling the Southeast doesn't mean being controlled by it, but in the case of the Republicans, the South is their only voter base they can depend on to vote for them, so they must therefore try to please the Southerners as much as possible.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by Mr. Cackle
Ahh, but the supporters of segregationist policies were very rich, very white, and very southern.

Then they must have been voting for the Democrats, since they were the ones that overwhelmingly opposed civil rights legislation.

True, controlling the Southeast doesn't mean being controlled by it, but in the case of the Republicans, the South is their only voter base they can depend on to vote for them, so they must therefore try to please the Southerners as much as possible.

Right. It's not as if Republicans could ever win elections in states like California, New York, or Massachusettes!

 

[Smidlee]

Originally posted by Mr. Cackle
rmsharpe --

The fact still remains that the majority of the Republican party is made up of rich, white, southerners.

Republican = yeap
southerner= yeap
white= yeap
rich= oh man! I was lefted out of the best part. I guess this makes me a nobody.

 

[Mr. Cackle]

rmsharpe --

You are looking at history that is 70+ years old. I am looking at history that is 30- years old. Policies change over time. Democrats obviously are not racist if they promote things like affirmative action.

Also, my point was that the south was the only dependable base for Republicans. The rest of the nation can sway either way. You don't see Republicans assuming that New England will vote for them easily, whereas it is not very hard for a person like Bush to get support in the South.

Edit> Midlee, perhaps I phrased my statement incorrectly. I meant that the majority of the Republican candidates and high-ranking party officials were rich, white, southerners. Also, a majority of the rich, white, southerners ARE republicans, so it kind of has a double meaning.

 

[Smidlee]

Originally posted by Mr. Cackle
.
Rich may not equate racism, but racists are generally rich, white southerners.

this statement sounds very prejudice itself

 

[Smaasnekje]

Originally posted by Smidlee

Republican = yeap
southerner= yeap
white= yeap
rich= oh man! I was lefted out of the best part. I guess this makes me a nobody.

No, that makes you a redneck
Or white trash

Or just an average person in the South states.. well that's a nobody.. Oh, crap..

dont take this post seriously..