I'm familiar with this theory and on some issues maybe it's relevant but what I'm referring to here is that Democrats today still seem to be in agreement with Democrats of old on the topic of whether the founders meant to abolish slavery.
Republicans say they absolutely did, just as they always have.
Democrats say they absolutely didn't, just as they always have.
I would argue that realignment occurred geographically, not on the basis of morality. Under slavery, the southern states were rich and mostly Democrats, now the northern states are more largely rich and leaning Democrat. That's to be expected, I think, where the wealthy wouldn't enjoy the new found poverty of the southern states as they rebuilt after the war, and would take their ideals with them. But that's just my guess, I don't have any research to substantiate that. Maybe it's an interesting topic for research.
Similarly, the stance on issues of whether people are naturally born inferior and deserving of special treatment, good or bad, remains a largely Democrat ideology, just as it always has.
Republicans on the other hand argue that all man is created equal not equitable, and they used that rhetoric to free slaves, stop Jim Crow era horrors, etc. And they continue to use it to argue against race based government aid.
So on these specific topics, I don't see any realignment as objectively observed.
All of this was and is documented in many SCOTUS cases, old and new.
Are you claiming that the party alignment hasn't switched over time?
I expect that everyone would agree Alabama is a very conservative state. It was voted solid Democrat until the late 80s, at which point the state went republican along with any elected politicians that stayed in office.
If I'm not mistaken, Richard Shelby was elected as a democrat in the early or mid 80s before being the last elected official to switch to the republican party. He stayed in office for decades and had state university buildings named after him.
The voting opinions largely didn't change over that time, only the party name they were voting for.
On these two items mentioned, yes. Read carefully.
1. Whether or not race objectively determines inferiority.
2. Whether or not this country always supported slavery.
On these two items, opinions remain true to the original parties' opinions regardless of whether or not they swapped.
I'm not going to debate whether or not they swapped overall because that's entirely subjective regarding what constitutes a swap officially. That would be a waste of time. I'm a scientist, not a cheerleader. I frankly don't care outside of the two items relevant to the discussion. And in these two items they didn't swap.
Then why in 1896 did the Supreme Court uphold “Separate But Equal”?
The Republican President just said that Hatians are eating pets and starting a civil war in MN to get rid of brown people.
Not to mention how he is inviting White people only from South Africa to come over.
Lyndon Johnson - a Republican - said after the Civil Rights Act that “the Republicans have lost the South for two generations”.
But Southern Democrats were literally “Democrats in name only” with Zell Miller the current governor of GA at the time a Democrat speaking at and supporting the Republican President’s nominating convention
I don't see how any of these relate to what I was saying.
On the topics of race based inferiority as a biological construct, and on whether slavery was ever legal, the party alignment has never changed.
Democrats still argue that black people are inferior. What's changed is that now they want to help them because they are inferior whereas before they wanted to exclude them because they are inferior.
Republicans continue to argue that black people don't deserve any reparations or special treatment because they are not inferior.
The above take is based solely on what these people argue in court.
You don’t think that Republicans outright celebrating and defending Nazis and what Kirk said - and praised by Republicans is considering a race inferior?
I vehemently oppose Nazi anything. Also I think you've subscribed to a very biased view of Republicans that doesn't describe anyone I know. That said I'm not politically aligned with either she so my take shouldn't serve as a defense for anyone's view. But from outside the fishbowl I can't say I subscribe to this description.
It’s hard to believe that when you are repeating very common MAGA/republican talking points and digging in your heels calling into question political party realignment, a very established concept, to claim democrats are a pro-slavery party. That is a very striking claim from someone “outside the fishbowl.”
I didn't claim Democrats are pro slavery today. In the past they were. I gave very little opinion on the matter. I'm just pointing out that these talking points for both parties haven't changed.
So this doesn’t describe “anyone you know”, yet the official “Young Republicans” association is bragging about their support for Nazis with the Republican Vice President dismissing it and Republicans across the country deifying a dead racist podcaster? And the elected Republican President accused a whole group of people of “eating pets” - and Republicans still overwhelming support this. Yet “no one you know” is like this?
I don't see your point. I think you're trying to say you don't like Republicans, and I'm okay with that. Again, I don't have a horse in the race. I'm just pointing out some facts that disagree with the revisionist's history. It seems I may have upset you. I will disengage here.
It is a theory in the same way gravity is. Both parties have experienced both gradual and sudden, major shifts and realignments throughout history. Most of the dispute is where and when these changes occurred and what constitutes them exactly. The changes clearly occur, usually over several decades but sometimes more quickly.
I’m still curious what your response is to my Strom Thurman question. It illustrates the entire point and marks one of the most recent major party realignments in the US.
The same as gravity? I wouldn't go that far. Gravity can be measured repeatedly and no objections have even been made to its effect. The theory is sound because it accurately makes predictions about the universe.
Theory is just an explanation for what we observe and I think this theory explains some things better than others. The two items I listed are are clear contrast to the theory.
Let's say it's not a unified theory of American politics, at the least.
I'll edit here for Thurman, I have to go read... Back soon to update.
Edit: I wasn't and still am not familiar with Storm Thurman. From a brief skim of the Wikipedia page, I gather he was a political "spy" of sorts, working from the inside to further the opposing party's goals.
You may need to elaborate a bit for me to see the tie in.
This is going to sound harsh. But you really don’t have much understanding of American history either race. My still living parents grew up in the segregationist south. This isn’t ancient history.
I believe you, and that doesn't change my stance. The segregationist South doesn't represent this country. It represented the remains of a racist Confederacy that was destroyed, save for the ideology that persists in the hearts of those that choose to continue to deny what this country has always been about.
Do we include you in support of that ideology? I worry that you might be missing the irony of your argument.
> I gather he was a political "spy" of sorts, working from the inside to further the opposing party's goals.
Strom Thurmond was a Democrat who changed parties - swapped to a Republican - when democrats supported and pushed integration. It is surprising to see you repeating a fringe conspiracy explaining his racism having never heard of him only minutes prior. This is the man who yelled, “segregation now, segregation forever” on the senate floor during a 24hr+ filibuster attempting to thwart reintegration. There’s no secret here, he wasn’t a spy. He swapped to the party that cultivated “the southern strategy” on the heels of ending Jim Crow: the Republican Party. Any claim to “the party of Lincoln” was forfeited by that time.
You’ll never hear me call the Democrats “saints” but they were on the right side of history with that one and I hope we both can agree on that.
It's an interesting take. But as I keep pointing out in other comments, one example doesn't make for an argument against the trend.
If it did then this example would be all I need to make my point. Is it?
House of Representatives vote on civil rights act: Approximately 63% of Democrats (153 yes out of 244 total Democrat votes cast) and 80% of Republicans (136 yes out of 171 total Republican votes cast).
Senate: Approximately 69% of Democrats (46 yes out of 67 total Democrat votes cast) and 82% of Republicans (27 yes out of 33 total Republican votes cast).
Here again it appears that Republicans as a larger majority remained true to the traditional Republican push for equality (not equity).
Let me ask you this: what party did Strom Thurman swap to and why?