Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Your first sentence demonstrates a lack of original thought. But mimicry is a form of flattery, I guess.
As for the rest of your drivel....just more absurd revisionist clap trap from a 3rd rate David Duke wanna be (FYI: The Louisiana Democrats kicked him to the curb 30 years ago. He's been a card carrying GOPer ever since).
And for the objective reader, here's what this pathetic goose steeping propagandist ignored for his:
Ever the opportunist, Richard Nixon saw this leftward shift of the Democratic party as a golden chance to break up the Democratic Solid South by appealing to racist whites. His campaign strategist, self-taught “ethnologist” Kevin Philips described this chance in his now-infamous “Southern Strategy” quote in an interview with the New York Times:
“All the talk about Republicans making inroads into the Negro vote is persiflage. Even ‘Jake the Snake’ [Senator Jacob K. Javits] only gets 20 per cent. From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that . . . but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.”
Now watch Dach's try to move the goalpost of the discussion, ignore/deny valid, documented facts in favor of his racist revisionism. This lame, tired ploy by attention seeking goose steppers (accuse others of what they accuse you of) only works for like minded cretins like Dach. Small wonder they're just losing their minds as the majority of America is growing to ignore and ostracize them. Now, lets watch Dach just blow more smoke, make more absurd accusations and spin tales of a different reality.
Oh dear me ! I think I've put a bee - in the bonnet of Taichi ! Ha, Ha ! Ha !
He appears to have become over-excited about former Republican President Richard Nixon's so-called "Southern Strategy". I think that Taichiliberal wants me to make a response to his claim that the wicked Richard Nixon formulated this nefarious, racist, scheme. Well, I'm happy to do that. Here's what I think...
The idea that Richard Nixon used a rascist "Southern Strategy" is a phoney old myth. It is still pulled out, on the odd occasion, by
Leftist nit-wits ( "spotty Herberts" like Taichiliberal whose Woke, Marxist college Professor told him it was true) in the context of debates about the politics of race in America in the 20th century.
So folks, I guess I'll have to re-educate the poor, little, socialist blighter, and we'll need to start at the very beginning (a very good place to start). So here we go (try to pay close attention Taichi !). Here's the story.
ONCE UPON A TIME...
Once upon a time, the Democratic Party was the Party of Jim Crow, and the Republican Party was the Party of emancipation and racial integration. Democrats were the Confederacy and Republicans were the Union. Jim Crow Democrats were dominant in the South and socially tolerant Republicans were dominant in the North. Right Taichi ?
But then in the 1960's and 1970's everything supposedly "flipped". Suddenly, the Republicans became racists and the Democrats became the champions of Civil Rights
.
Why did this happen ?
The story - which was fabricated by left-leaning academic elites and journalists - went like this...Republicans could not win in a national election by appealing to the better nature of the country, they could only win by appealing to the worst. The leftist media pinned this plot on their all - purpose "bad guy" the villainous, Republican President Richard Nixon, and it came to be known as
"The Southern Strategy".
The "Southern Strategy" was very simple. Here was its rationale...
(1) WIN ELECTIONS BY WINNING THE SOUTH.
(2) TO WIN THE SOUTH APPEAL TO RACISTS.
(3) SO THE REPUBLICANS, THE PARTY OF FREEDOM, WERE NOW TO BE LABELLED THE PARTY OF "RED-NECKS."
[SIZE=4]BUT THE STORY OF THE TWO - PARTIES SWITCHING IDENTITIES IS A MYTH[./SIZE]
Actually, it's THREE MYTHS rolled into ONE BIG FALSE NARRATIVE.
MYTH (1).... In order to be competitive in the South Republicans started to pander to White racists in the 1960's.
[B]THE FACTs[B]...Republicans actually became competitive in the South as early as 1928 when Republican Herbert Hoover won over 47% of the South's popular vote against Democrat , Al Smith. Then in 1952 Republican President Dwight Eisenhower won the Southern States of: Texas; Florida and Virginia. In 1956, he picked up: Louisana; Kentucky and West Virginia too. And this was
after he supported the Supreme Court decision in "BROWN vs BOARD of EDUCATION" that desegregated public schools. It was also after he sent the 101 st Airbourne to
Little Rock Central High School to enforce racial segregation.
MYTH (2)....Southern Democrats angry with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 swithched Parties.
THE FACTS....Of the 21 Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act, just
ONE became a Republican. The other 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by other Democrats. On average, these 20 seats didn't go Republican for another 25 years.
MYTH (3)... Since the implementation of the "Southern Strategy", the Republicans have dominated the South.
FACTS Richard Nixon, the man who is typically credited with creating "The Southern Strategy" lost the deep South in 1968. In contrast, Democrat Jimmy Carter nearly swept the region in 1976, nearly 12 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Then in 1992, over 28 years later, Democrat, Bill Clinton, won: Georgia; Louisana; Arkansas; Tennessee, Kentucky and West Virginia.
The truth is Republicans didn't hold a majority of Southern Congressional seats until 1994, 30 years after the Civil Rights Act.
In short, if the Southern "Red-Necks ditch the Democrats because of the Civil Rights Law passed in 1964, then its kinda strage that they waited intil the late 1980's and early 1990's to do so?
ISN'T IT TAICHILIBERAL ? I hear that things move slower in the South, but not that slow !
SO WHAT HAPPENED ? WHY DOES THE SOUTH NOW VOTE OVERWHELMINGLY RUPUBLICA ? The reason is because the South itself has changed. Its VALUES have changed. The racism that once defined it does not define it any more. Today its values are CONCERVATIVE: pro-life; pro-guns and pro-small government. Southern Whites are more likely to vote for a Black Conservative like Senator Tim Scott of Soutth Carolina , than a White Liberal.
In sum, history has moved on Taichiliberal. Like other regions of America, the South increasingly votes VALUE and not skin colour. The myth of a "Southern Strategy" cooked up by that Devil incarnate, Richard Milhous Nixon, is just an excuse the Democrats have made up for losing the South and a means to smear the Republican Party with baseless allegations of racism. My advice to a young "Spotty Herbert" like you, Taichi, is not to believe the lies that your Marxist Professors tell you at college, or the lies that you read about American politics in the modern leftist literature. Go with the FACTS not THE BULLSHIT. The FACTS are being increasingly difficult to find , however, because your Fascist comrades in the media and "Big Tech" are erasing them, just like the Nazi's burned books. As well as this, the lunatic, Woke left are publishing revisionist, politicized historiographies, like "The 1619 Project" by Nikole Hannah - Jones, in an attempt delegitimize works that are true evidence - based, objective histories of the United States. Then there are that cluster of influential, authors including : IBram X Kendi; Robin D'Angelo; Ta - Nehisi Coates; Kimberle Crenshaw and Brene Brown who have written "Number One" American best-sellers (Ta-Nehisi Coates for example), or works that have had a strong influence in the academy (Kimberle Crenshaw Intersectionality and CRT, etc) If you read these books critically, you will see that that they spew utter hatred for America and ALL traditional American values; at the same time they incite dangerous, racial animosity and division. Furthermore they based on irrational premises and pure falsehoods (like the meme "2 +2 =5", which is intended to be "a spit in the face" of Western Enlightenment reason). The problem is that individuals like Ta -Nahehisi Coates
are, in fact, extremely gifted writers there's no denying it. Coates is a very talented wordsmith, so good that his writing can dazzle the reader. This is why his latest book will is, or will be,a US "Number One" bestseller. But when what you are reading evokes a sense of wonder, it simultaneously blunts your critical rational faculties, and in Coates case, many readers are therefore unable apply a critical lens to the subject matter and identify the vile moral values and degenerate political philosophy that he is pedalling. My point is that you need to be careful when you are reading popular, political works today. My advice would be if a best-selling book that deals with a political/s issue is on the market and the author is a leftist, don't read it.
The good news is that if you're are interested in a certain general, political issue ,"X",you
can still find the (objective) facts of the matter for yourself , but it's not easy and you'll need to be prepared to put in a fair bit of time and effort. BTW, If you want to find out the facts regarding what made America the greatest civilization in the 1000-year history of the West, just read John Locke. He was the brains behind it all and his books are free online. They explain the ideas that made America the most prosperous and powerful nation in the world. It's all there, dude, the "whole box and dice".But John Locke was writing in the later part of the 17th century and he was English, so that makes him a DEAD, WHITE, MALE, and you guys are not allowed to read DWMs. Right Taichiliberal ?
Dachshund
Ahh, I see you've tired of typing a regurgitation of moot points coupled with your revisionist bent. Let me just remind the objective reader of the following:
Reply With QuoteOriginally Posted by Dachshund
Thank you for highlighting the racist roots of the US Democratic Party, Legion, with your excellent series of photographs and quotations above. I think Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, was definitinely the most vehemently racist President the United States has ever elected. Liberal-left leaning Americans condemn Trump as a racist; maybe they should check out some of the stuff Wilson wrote about Blacks in his "History of the American"- it's right up there with "Mein Kampf."
Bookmarks