Did the dixiecrats actually switch to the republican party? Or is it a myth that has been perpetuated by post modern “historians”?I find articles on both sides and It just doesn’t make sense to me.
Southerners stopped voting for Democrat presidents as the Democrat party filled with communists. Which is why they'd rather leave the movement ambiguous rather that saying exactly what happened
>>16889338Communism has never had a large following in the US. Or any core Anglo country AFAIK.
>>16889371The entire west coast is filled with communists, most illegal immigrant brown people in the country have an affinity for communism, the entire education system is filled with communists, most cities run by minorities are run like communist enclaves, there's plenty of communists
>>16889324It wasn't a full switch that was rationally done. Overall the parties just became coherent over time. Republicans and Democrats used to both have liberal and conservative wings in balance with one another to some extent. Republicans had muckrackers and socialists and Wall Street merchants. Democrats had plantation gentry, union workers and immigrants. The Dixiecrats ended up voting Republican for the same reason that Californians and those in the PNW started voting Democrat, because the conservative wing of the Democrats and the liberal wing of the Republicans started slowly swapping to the other party. The success of the New Deal Dems really made in-roads towards taking in the liberal Republican wing, while also making the party less appealing to the Capitalist class. As well, they more fully started acting as the champion of social reform, taking in much of the legacy of the abolitionists and suffragettes for themselves. Republicans developed a good focus on representing themselves as the 'heart' of America and associating themselves with patriotism, which appealed well to the conservative core that was feeling underrepresented in the Democrat party. They also began to stabilize on a more non-interventionalist economic policy, that appealed well to the business side of the Democrat party.The Clinton Era was the period of this really being solidified. Where the atmosphere that he brought with him into government acted as a cleaver fully separating the two sides and their new-found positions. While Clinton was a very centrist liberal, the 'ambiance' of the man reinforced the changing images of the parties.
>>16889398>The Dixiecrats ended up voting Republican for the same reason that Californians and those in the PNW started voting Democratcommunism
>>16889398I appreciate the explanation, but isnt it as simple as>lbj desegregates>southern whites say fuck lbj and dems>nigs all vote dem for integration>whites start voting repub thru spite?The commie angle doesnt make sense, voters arent that savvy lol
>>16889423>he thinks it was because of desegregation from like 1968 to 1972 the official position of the democrat party was communism, there's a reason why there were like 2000 bombings a year by communists
>>16889380Hey it's the John Birch boomer
>>16889518Things are much more explicit than they say. Yes most of the democrat platform is based on communist agitation and minorities coping with whites fleeing the cities because they don't feel safe anymoreAsk yourself why san Francisco was the main location of US communism, ask yourself why it was the main location of homosexual and Jewish migrants from the East Coast, ask yourself why it was the origin point of a lot of the LSD and the creation of the hippy movement. Ask yourself why the same village in Manhattan that created modern gay culture was also where bombs were made by communists in the 70's, which is also a historic Jewish neighborhood Things are much more explicit in reality
>>16889539Yeah so explicit you don't need solid evidence to prove it and can just redefine words to fit the claim.
>>16889543Ask yourself why san Francisco invited and hosted the communist Chinese president which was completely memory holed
>>16889548Next you'll be telling us Nixon was a Maoist for visiting communist China
>>16889423You fail to answer the question of, "why did LBJ desegregate?"And the answer is that he was just a part of the general swing that had been going since before his time.
>>16889559Yeah because Nixon invited mao over to DC and flew exclusively communist flagsFaggot commie
>>16889371Unironically if you had studied under any Ivy-Oxbridge Anglo professors you'd know that they're all at least avowed Socialists and most are unironically Marxists to this day. Their teachers were marxists and they taught the 60-70yr old profs of today in the 70s. The teachers of those teachers were people like and often people who had met Adorno, Horkheimer etc. It's an intellectual heritage that persists to this day. Many of those people would've also called themselves communists. The elite certainly embraced this ideology, even if the people did not.
>>16889548San Francisco has one of the largest and oldest Chinese-American communities.
>>16889371>Communism has never had a large following in the US. Or any core Anglo country AFAIK.It was extremely common among the Jewish minorities of those countries in the first half of the 20th century, but had little mainstream appeal.
>>16889814Yes I'm sure it was chinese communists that invited the president of china over to california and kicked all the bums out of the street and made it shine for a week only
