Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

Culture

The Myth Of The Republican/Democrat “Switch” On Civil Rights

In an attempt to break the Democrats’ near monopoly on the black vote, Donald Trump last week visited a black church in Detroit and held a roundtable meeting with black civic leaders in Philadelphia. But it was his remarks in Everett, Washington that really got Democrats’ knickers in a bunch.

Published

on

In an attempt to break the Democrats’ near monopoly on the black vote, Donald Trump last week visited a black church in Detroit and held a roundtable meeting with black civic leaders in Philadelphia. But it was his remarks in Everett, Washington that really got Democrats’ knickers in a bunch. “It is the Democratic Party that is the party of slavery, the party of Jim Crow and the party of opposition,” said Trump.

Democrats can’t deny these historical truths so they try to render them irrelevant by resorting to the Great Switch hypothesis. Yes, they will admit, the Democrats used to be a bunch of racist dirtbags but the parties have “switched,” so please don’t bring it up.

To be sure, there was a “switch” in American politics but it occurred within the Democratic Party. For the great majority of its history, the Democrats were a white grievance party that discriminated against blacks but from the 1960s onward they despised and scapegoated whites instead. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. Today they offer blacks preference—a commodity that Republicans, most of whom still believe that people should be treated without regard to race, can’t compete with. Judging by voting patterns, blacks appear to like preference quite a bit. Whites who don’t like being treated as second class citizens are labeled “racists”and treated as the ideological heirs of Jim Crow.

That’s not of course how Democrats tell the story. According to their childishly simple version, white southerners were, are, and ever shall be racist. If you want to know which party pushes a racist agenda just take note of which party white southerners prefer. The South has traditionally voted as a bloc (the “solid South”) because it has always been animated by racism–or so the legend goes.

The Great Switch supposedly happened sometime in the 1960s when the Democrats repented of their bigoted ways and the Republicans rushed in to woo the racist voters they left behind. The precise moment that the Great Switch took place is hard to pinpoint though 1964 is often cited because it was the year of the Civil Rights Act. Democrats never explain how exactly the Republicans won over the racist South by voting 80% in favor of the Civil Rights Act (a horrible law, by the way), but that’s their story and they’re sticking to it. Another year often cited is 1968 when Richard Nixon employed a so-called “southern strategy”—coded appeals to southerners’ latent racism—to win election.

The South’s messy breakup with the Democratic Party is a lot more complicated than Democrats would have you believe. It involves third parties, double-talking politicians, and divergent party wings. It also involves imprecise definitions of what constitutes the South. For the purposes of this article, I will define the South as the eleven former Confederate States of America: Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia.

A perspective on the South’s political transformation can be found by examining Electoral College returns. Anyone who examines the evidence, I believe, will find that the Democrats’ tidy “switch” hypothesis disintegrates under examination.

The solid South really was solidly Democratic from the end of Reconstruction through 1924. Democratic unity, however, began to exhibit cracks when the party nominated Al Smith for president in 1928. Smith, a Catholic, lost five out of eleven southern states. While anti-Catholic bigotry may have played a role in his disappointing returns, Smith won only one state outside of the South. Southerners were in fact Smith’s biggest supporters.

Franklin Roosevelt was enormously popular in the South, winning every southern state in four consecutive elections. According to today’s liberal Democrats’ logic, I must conclude that Roosevelt was a racist; and as a matter of fact, he kind of was—at least toward Japanese-Americans. Is that why the solid South supported Roosevelt? Well, no. Race isn’t now and wasn’t then the be-all and end-all of southern politics. The South supported FDR because they were blind supporters of the Democratic Party and because the South benefited from the New Deal’s transfer of wealth from rich states to poor states.

In 1948, the South was again fractured with the Democratic incumbent Harry Truman winning seven southern states and losing four to the Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond. In late July of that year Truman had issued an executive order desegregating the armed forces and still he managed to win seven states and a supermajority of their electoral votes. Truman was less popular in the South than Roosevelt but he was still popular. I don’t know how this could possibly have happened unless southern politics was not singularly focused on the issue of race as we have been led to believe.

The solid South once again failed to live up to its name in the 1950s. In the first of two matchups between Dwight Eisenhower and the liberal Democrat Adlai Stevenson, the South was divided with Stevenson winning seven states and Eisenhower winning four. Four years later, Eisenhower fared slightly better in the South. In both elections, Stevenson was trounced almost everywhere outside of the South.

The 1960 election is problematic for the proponents of the Great Switch hypothesis because their darling John F. Kennedy was the racist party’s candidate—this being still four or eight years before the supposed switch took place. The electoral map that year was a patchwork—six southern states plus five faithless electors going to Kennedy, three states going to Nixon, and two states—Mississippi and Alabama—going to Virginia Senator Harry F. Byrd, who wasn’t actually a declared candidate. Who was the racist candidate in this election? This being pre-switch, I guess it would have to be Kennedy. How else could he have won a majority of southern states and a supermajority of southern electoral votes?

In 1964 the South was again split, with six states going to Johnson (who was pretty racist, by the way) and five going to Barry Goldwater. Goldwater had voted against the Civil Rights Act though his party didn’t. Johnson, on the other hand, had a long history of segregationist sympathies and he belonged to the party that filibustered the bill, though he signed it into law. Who’s the racist here? We can’t tell simply by looking at which candidate southerners preferred because they were divided. Also, was this election pre-switch or post-switch? That depends on whom you ask.

Dixieland was once again divided in 1968 when one state voted for Humphrey, five for Nixon and five for the independent George Wallace, a former Democrat who would later return to his party. Nixon crushed Humphrey across the map.

If Nixon had courted racist southerners in 1968, he burned them by introducing minority hiring quotas in his first term. I don’t mean to imply that Nixon’s support for discriminatory hiring practices (against whites) is in any way laudable but it does seem an odd way to win the redneck vote. And yet the South voted overwhelmingly for Nixon in 1972—just like the rest of America. That’s right, every southern state broke for the guy most responsible for minority hiring quotas. Southerners gave him more support than they had four years earlier. What happened?

Things got really weird in 1976 when the South was once again solid and blue. Four years after all eleven southern states voted for the Republican Nixon, ten switched back and voted for the Democrat Carter. As a southerner himself, Jimmy Carter knew how to talk to southern audiences but he was no conservative and certainly not a a crypto-segregationist. How could this have happened post-switch? Either the Democrats became racist again for one election cycle or the South stopped being racist for one election cycle.

The South turned on Carter in 1980 much like the rest of America though his home state of Georgia stuck by him. Southern support for the Democrats would continue to plummet through the elections of 1984 and 1988 but would resurge again with the candidacy of another liberal southern governor, Bill Clinton.

The theory that the perpetually racist South suddenly changed party allegiance because of “civil rights” reforms is simply not supported by the facts. A more plausible explanation is that racial issues were never the sole driver, or even the primary driver, of southern voting trends. Southerners did begin to leave the party in the 1960s and 1970s, though mostly because the Democrats were well on their way to becoming the anti-Christian party, the job-killing party, and the blame-America-first party. But here’s another idea—is it possible that white southerners began to leave the Democratic Party because they found that the party had already rejected them? It’s a theory worth exploring.

Culture

Hrs After NFL Commissioner Makes NASTY Kneeling Decision, Look What TRUMP Just Did To Make Him Pay

Published

on

The President of the United States has many jobs and none of them are easy. In the case of President Trump, his workload doubled when those who supported his opponent decided that they could disown and work against him. But despite all the cries of “not my President,” he still is our President, and no matter how many people kneel during the National Anthem, he will still be the President.

Contrary to what the media would have you believe, the President is working very hard to unify the country, but he’s only looking to do it under the banner of the red white and blue. That’s what we are all supposed to pledge our allegiance to, and it’s what the President is sworn to protect.

To that end, President Trump has been putting pressure on every single person who wants to disrespect that flag by trying to make sure that their employers don’t tolerate it in their place of work. But despite his best efforts, the NFL teams are still going to allow their unpatriotic players to put on a racist and anti-American show before every game.

Because of their lack of patriotism, the President has approved a petition and according to the Daily Wire, he’s asking each of us to sign it if will be standing for the National Anthem:

“On Thursday, President Trump, vitally concerned with the disrespect shown toward the National Anthem that was triggered by former San Francisco 49er quarterback Colin Kaepernick, and later spread across the NFL, fired a warning shot across the bow, approving a petition addressed to the American people asking who will stand for the National Anthem.

The petition can be found on the GOP website. It reads: ‘The President has asked for a list of supporters who stand for the National Anthem. Add your name below to show your patriotism and support.’ According to the website, the petition is ‘Paid for by the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, a joint fundraising committee authorized by and composed of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. and the Republican National Committee.'”

It’s sad that this even needs to be a petition and it makes one wonder what happened to get us to a place where we’re differentiating ourselves by who will stand and who will sit. It used to be a given that you’d show respect, but now it’s somehow a political statement.

Since the left has made it unacceptable for their minions to have even a  modicum of respect for our country, the President is looking to help those who still know what it means to love their country rally together. There’s something very powerful to be able to know exactly how many people there are who still support the same values that you do. Unfortunately, many that run the NFL aren’t in that group.

“On Tuesday, 13 players, owners of 11 teams, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, vice president of football operations Troy Vincent, NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith, as well as assorted other people, met in a conference room inside NFL headquarters to discuss the controversy regarding the National Anthem protests and to decide how to move forward.

On Wednesday, Trump had resumed his attack on those who would disrespect the National Anthem, tweeting:

In mid-September, Trump had triggered a firestorm when he stated at a rally in Alabama, “Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, ‘Get that son of a b**** off the field right now. Out. He’s fired! He’s fired!’ … You know, some owner is going to do that. He’s going to say, ‘That guy that disrespects our flag, he’s fired.’ And that owner, they don’t know it [but] they’ll be the most popular person in this country.’ Trump added that the NFL protests during the National Anthem had exhibited a ‘total disrespect of our heritage’ and ‘everything that we stand for.’

Trump reiterated a few days later, ‘This has to do with respect for our country, and respect for our flag.'”

There are those who say that the anthem protest isn’t what we think it is, and that it’s just their own way of making a statement. Even if that were the case in the first place, the President made it clear what disrespecting the National Anthem says to the world. If they had even stopped at that point, it would have shown that they still loved the USA. But of course, that only added fuel to their alt left agenda.

Thankfully, the President isn’t one to back down from a fight, and he has just upped the ante with this petition. The country and the world are going to know just how many hard working Americans still love this country.

[H/T: Daily Wire]

Share if you’re glad the President is making a stand against the anti-American NFL! 

Continue Reading

Culture

Melania Just Shocked Everyone With Where She Suddenly Showed Up Right After Being Brutally Attacked

Published

on

Liberals constantly disappoint with their ongoing attacks targeted at our incredible first lady who they love to hate. She doesn’t give them a reason to come after her but they work tirelessly to create problems where there aren’t any by making sick and completely untrue claims about this classy woman. The onslaught of insults was initially sad, but now it’s getting downright pathetic, especially after what they just decided to accuse her of.

The leftist mental disorder just reached a whole new level of derangement. While unhinged liberals were busy attacking her over what they perceived about the attire she had on, our beloved first lady was busy spreading compassion and kindness to kids of all races and creeds, despite the constant criticism that the Trumps are racist.

Melania has decided to use her platform to make a difference for the sick, broken-hearted, and young ones in need of extra love. No matter how busy she is as the first lady, she always finds time for compassionate day trips, seeking out every opportunity to spend with the people her predecessor forgot. Melania is a sharp contrast to Michelle Obama who prioritized rappers over downtrodden children, which is perhaps why these now neglected-feeling rappers are spitting hate towards the Trumps in onstage performances.

Proving that no good deed goes unpunished is what liberals accused Melania of after she left Lily’s Place in West Virginia, which is a safe place for infants suffering the after-effects of drug addiction.

According to Independent Journal Review :

First Lady Melania Trump traveled without her president husband to Huntington, West Virginia, on Tuesday to bring attention to an issue that is close to her heart. She visited Lily’s Place, a medical facility that provides treatment to infants suffering from neonatal abstinence syndrome resulting from parental drug use. The facility also offers support and treatment to drug-addicted parents.

“I want to be here to support you and give a voice to Lily’s Place and also for the opioid epidemic,” Melania Trump said to the staff. “We need to open the conversation to children and young mothers how it’s dangerous to use drugs and get addicted to it.”

The first lady also visited with parents and infants at Lily’s Place. She later shared the heartwarming photos on social media.

“Today’s visit to @LilysPlaceWV was incredibly special. Let us all find ways to help children grow into happy, healthy adults,” the first lady wrote on Twitter. Speaking in private with families receiving treatment at Lily’s Place, the first lady voiced her support for the model that the facility can be across the country.

“It is my hope that we can find ways to create more of the opportunities afforded by places like Lily’s Place,” she said. “So that we can continue to help infants and children grow into happy, healthy adults.”

Melania couldn’t have been more thrilled about her afternoon with these special children born into challenges that break her heart. She smiled happily as held the addicted infants. The love she had for them was palpable in the pictures. All in all, it was a beautiful sight with a first lady who’s not only beautiful on the outside but also on the inside.

However, despite the incredible show of genuine compassion and attention she gave to these babies, the liberal media chose to report on something else. They had the opportunity to bring attention to this opioid epidemic but instead of reporting on her outreach, they accused her of copying Hillary Clinton’s outfit – of all people.

TwentyTwoWords asked the assinine question in their article if Melania was trying to look like Hillary:

She was wearing – you guessed it, a charcoal grey pinstriped Ralph Lauren pantsuit complete with rakishly untied tie and accentuated by flowing hair kissed with the finest ombre color money can buy.

Mrs. Trump looked like a million bucks. She also looked like yet ANOTHER First Lady.

We would say welcome to pantsuit nation, Mrs. Trump, but it seems this isn’t her first pantsuit!

There’s certainly no comparison in style between Hillary and Melania nor is there a battle of who wore the pantsuit better, because the answer is clear on that one. But it’s more ridiculous to assert that she was taking style notes from Hillary who has never looked fashionable a day in her life. Melania, is the polar opposite, so much so that she has singlehandedly brought the pantsuit back into style. We saw her debut a power suit at the United Nations General Assembly and turn heads in a way Hillary only dreamed of.

Melania didn’t steal Hillary’s look and to suggest such a thing is to take attention off what really matters and that’s her compassion for people who can do nothing for her, but she can and wants to do something for them. Michelle never did this and neither did Hillary when she was first lady.

 

Continue Reading

Culture

Michelle LOSES IT After What Barack Gave ‘White Woman’ He Slept With Suddenly Surfaces

Published

on

Nobody likes to hear about their spouse’s former love affairs. However, even if you’ve successfully put it behind you, when you put yourself in the public eye, you won’t be able to ignore it for long. In the case of the highest job in the land, any exes will be dug up and interrogated by the media relentlessly.

We’ve witnessed an example of this recently with the President Trump’s ex-wives and even ex-girlfriends being trotted out and examined for some thread of evidence that can be used against him. While President Trump has been pretty upfront about his life up to this point, the ever-mysterious Barry Obama was a little less forthcoming.

Even if we skip over the issue of his birth, we come to another sticking point when the issue of his personal life. The former President and First Lady made a huge show of having the perfect marriage. They had their whispering and giggling making them look like glorified school children on some days. And while that might be believable to some, the exes have another story to tell.

Love letters: The letters by a young Barack Obama, pictured, in the 80s are to his first serious girlfriend Alexandra McNear

Just a few months ago we heard from one ex-girlfriend who wrote a book about her time dating the former POTUS, and now according to the Daily Mail another has turned over some letters that were written to her by good old Barry:

“The nine letters, sent by Obama to his college girlfriend Alexandra McNear were unveiled by Emory University today where they will be placed in an archive. 

Written in the 1980s, the future president tells McNear about his feelings on making love, racial issues, money struggles and his plans for a political future. 

The pair broke up in the mid-80s and McNear went on to work in green energy and marry a Serbian boxer. Obama moved on to his second love Genevieve Cook before marrying Michelle.  

In one of the letters – from September 1982 – he writes: ‘I trust you know that I miss you, that my concern for you is as wide as the air, my confidence in you as deep as the sea, my love rich and plentiful,’ before signing it ‘Love, Barack.'”

The nine letters, sent by Obama to his college girlfriend Alexandra McNear, are being made public to researchers through Emory University's Stuart A. Rose Manuscript, Archives and Rare Book Library

 You might be wondering where you can read more about these letters between the former President and his first real live girlfriend (though I don’t know why you would) or why these are being brought up now. Apparently, there are people in this world who want this to be put into book form. At least one person thinks that, because Professor Andra Gillispie is writing a book about Obama and including this love affair in her work.

 Emory University professor Andra Gillispie, director of Emory’s James Weldon Johnson Institute for the Study of Race and Difference, is using the letters in an upcoming book about Obama. She said they span the end of the pair’s relationship.

‘I think of you often, though I stay confused about my feelings,’ Obama wrote to McNear in 1983. ‘It seems we will ever want what we cannot have; that’s what binds us; that’s what keeps us apart.’

The letters provide a fascinating insight into Obama’s relationship with McNear, who is now a mother-of-one last known to be running a green energy company and living in a $2million mansion in Sag Harbor, New York. “

There you have it, folks.  The world is about to be treated to a look at the inner workings of the mind of Barrack Obama. If Michelle thinks she loves these letters being out now, just wait till all the loyal Obama fans snatch this book up and keep it on their nightstand, treasuring every juicy detail.

[H/T: Daily Mail]

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Culture33 mins ago

Hrs After NFL Commissioner Makes NASTY Kneeling Decision, Look What TRUMP Just Did To Make Him Pay

The President of the United States has many jobs and none of them are easy. In the case of President...

Culture34 mins ago

Melania Just Shocked Everyone With Where She Suddenly Showed Up Right After Being Brutally Attacked

Liberals constantly disappoint with their ongoing attacks targeted at our incredible first lady who they love to hate. She doesn’t...

Featured1 hour ago

BREAKING: Trump Just ENDED It For Every NASTY Liberal Who Crossed Him In One INCREDIBLE Call

Liberals’ latest attack on President Donald Trump in a desperate effort to take him down was to claim that he...

Featured3 hours ago

NASTY Congresswoman’s DIRTY Secret Out About What SHE Did To Dead Soldiers After Slamming Trump For It

The barrage of vicious attacks against our President never cease. Now bored with accusing President Trump of “colluding with the...

Sports4 hours ago

Racist NFL Player Just Denounced The U.S. After Devastating Blow, Now Look Where He’s Headed

One of the two players leading the charge and subsequent demise of the 2017-18 NFL season this year was Seattle...

Culture17 hours ago

Michelle LOSES IT After What Barack Gave ‘White Woman’ He Slept With Suddenly Surfaces

Nobody likes to hear about their spouse’s former love affairs. However, even if you’ve successfully put it behind you, when...

Politics19 hours ago

Americans SICK After Finding Out What Costco Has Been Sneaking Into Every Purchase For Months

Every day across the country, millions of Americans shop for groceries to feed their families. There are hundreds of stores...

Trending