Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
294,077
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1,723:
Line 1,723: + Line 1,729:
Line 1,730: + − + + + + + + +
User talk:1990'sguy (view source)
Revision as of 19:22, September 21, 2019
, 19:22, September 21, 2019→The Dixiecrat, Conservative Democrat, and Reagan Democrat Pages
Shouldn't it say because he was too conservative on racial issues since it was the '''liberal''' Democrats who were against civil rights?
Shouldn't it say because he was too conservative on racial issues since it was the '''liberal''' Democrats who were against civil rights?
:Truman desegrated the Armed Forces in 1947, so this one appears correct.
Doesn't this:
Doesn't this:
play into the liberal narrative that the racist conservatives switched parties and Dixiecrats were conservatives when in fact they were racist southern liberals?
play into the liberal narrative that the racist conservatives switched parties and Dixiecrats were conservatives when in fact they were racist southern liberals?
:That's a misreading, but one this one needs some touching up. As is, it's a basic restatement of the [[fake news]] media, academia, and DNC false narrative of a Southern Strategy; Dixiecrat was basically a one-hit-wonder in 1948, when Democrats were divided 3 ways, Progressives, Dixiecrats, and Regular Democrats. What page is this on?
On the Reagan Democrats page, this feeds into the narrative that the racists jumped ships:
On the Reagan Democrats page, this feeds into the narrative that the racists jumped ships:
'''"Most were working men and women who had come to feel that the Democratic party was no longer championing them,but favored blacks instead."'''
'''"Most were working men and women who had come to feel that the Democratic party was no longer championing them, but favored blacks instead."'''
:i see nothing wrong with this statement; and it's corroborated by the Stan Greenberg poll cited here just prior to the 1992 election: [https://www.salon.com/2016/01/31/the_clintons_sordid_race_game_no_one_will_say_it_but_the_clintons_rise_was_premised_on_repudiating_black_voters/ The Clintons’ sordid race game: No one will say it, but the Clintons’ rise was premised on repudiating black voters], Corey Robin, ''Salon'', Jan 31, 2016.
On the Conservative Democrats page, it says:
On the Conservative Democrats page, it says:
'''"A few former Dixiecrats, including Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms, were early converts to the Republican Party, foreshadowing a long trend of conservatives leaving the Democrats and joining the Republicans that continued through the 1980s and 1990s."'''
'''"A few former Dixiecrats, including Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms, were early converts to the Republican Party, foreshadowing a long trend of conservatives leaving the Democrats and joining the Republicans that continued through the 1980s and 1990s."'''
:Good point; looks like Prof. Jensen's work; [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiprVX4os2Y Prof. Carol Swain of PragerU] refutes the notion three switched and says only one. And Helms association as a Dixiecrat I'd have to look into. There's much of Prof. Jensen's work I've been meaning to revise, beginning with [[New Deal Coalition]] and [[Conservative Coalition]] which carries a lot of the historical revisionist basis for the alleged GOP Southern Strategy.
I thought only 3 Dixiecrats ever switched. The rest remained Democrats until they died. There was no switch and the Dixiecrats were not conservatives. They were liberals. Can you please explain why these pages insist they were conservatives who were opposed to the liberals when it's us, the conservatives who were for civil rights and the liberals who were against it or clarify the edits on the pages made by DavidB4-bot? And on Joe Biden's page, it says '''a coalition of liberals and George Wallace supporters''' and I thought they were one and the same. --[[User:Classical Liberal|Classical Liberal]] ([[User talk:Classical Liberal|talk]]) 10:10, 21 September 2019 (CDT)
I thought only 3 Dixiecrats ever switched. The rest remained Democrats until they died. There was no switch and the Dixiecrats were not conservatives. They were liberals. Can you please explain why these pages insist they were conservatives who were opposed to the liberals when it's us, the conservatives who were for civil rights and the liberals who were against it or clarify the edits on the pages made by DavidB4-bot? And on Joe Biden's page, it says '''a coalition of liberals and George Wallace supporters''' and I thought they were one and the same. --[[User:Classical Liberal|Classical Liberal]] ([[User talk:Classical Liberal|talk]]) 10:10, 21 September 2019 (CDT)
:Dixiecrats were racist Southern New Dealers; there were both conservatives and liberals among them. Most importantly, they were anti-Republican, a legacy of Reconstruction. And as Prof. Swain says, only one Senator ever switched. Strom Thurmond himself was a liberal.
:To understand the meaning of Dixiecrat, one should read the articles on 1948 and 1964 Democratic conventions, and the 1964 Mississippi Freedom Party. Johnson didn't want a replay of 1948 in 1964. Hubert Humphrey cut his teeth as a civil rights leader in his 1948 speech (as [[David Horowitz]] also was inspired). By 1964, the Dixiecrat movement was dead, and only Strom Thurmond - a Southern New Deal liberal - left the party to join the GOP). [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 15:22, 21 September 2019 (EDT)
:Thanks for letting me know about this. I'll see what we can do to improve CP's coverage on this topic. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:51, 21 September 2019 (EDT)
:Thanks for letting me know about this. I'll see what we can do to improve CP's coverage on this topic. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:51, 21 September 2019 (EDT)