The Myth of the Southern Strategy Part II

We left off with me being accused of willful ignorance because I said this about a posters link:

Yes, I did read it where I picked up lies like this:

Which is a complete contradiction of the evidence that I presented of Nixon desegregating the schools in my previous thread of the same title:

The Myth of the Southern Strategy

 

Just want to cross reference some more of my work here on this subject:

Republican Platforms Support Civil Rights

Debunking the "Parties Switched" Myth

GOP's Record on Race

Democrat Party's Record on Race

Democrat Party's Record on Race Part II

 

There are those that are out to revise whatever parts of history that suit them.

Well before this era of internet political fora, I learned about "Dixiecrats" and the "Southern Strategy".

I sum it up by pointing out that a LOT of racist politicians (mostly conservatives) moved into the Republican Party in the latter part of the 20th century. That has affected politics to this very day.

 

There was no geographical shift of allegiance, or moves as though we had some kind of cross-country revolution or something. What happened, was a shift in priority. The North needs a high tax base to maintain its(failed) welfare programs, vast drug crimes, policing, etc. Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, etc to name some of the very few. Meanwhile, the South has used low taxes to appeal for argiculture and building(The South is far more wide-spaced than the North and particularly the Mid-Atlantic Strip.)

The double-edge whammy for the South/Mid-West is that without that big city infrastructure, sporting events, etc. Only so many people would want to live on the country side. Not due to race, or racism. But out of sheer freaking boredom. Yet many of these things require the high taxes that the South simply couldn't afford.

Which is why I want a massive production uptick. Chris Christie has said MANY dumb things, but the one thing he said that was very bright(and I don't expect him to be capable of it) is that he wants a 4% increase in production. And believe it or not, many in the US were dumbfounded calling it "impossible" since we hadn't achieved it since Eisenhower's term.

Impossible, really? Have you looked at our roads and bridges? It's TIME America. 4% is a pittance(though a welcomed pittance), I want to increase production by at a minimum of 35%.

Those are some REAL goals.

 

Cute.

When Republicans honestly begin to reach out to people that do not look like them or worship as they do, then they won't get the flack that they do.

 

I posted quite a few facts demonstrating that the republican party and President Richard Nixon accomplished much more than democrats in regards to Civil Rights for blacks. What facts do you think are inaccurate?

What racist democrats switched to the GOP and when?

 

What do republicans look like? Do republicans go to different churches, synagogues, temples or mosques? Do you think the republicans are only whites? Isn't that a racist assumption on your part? I myself am Hispanic. Many of my family are republicans. Many of the people who go to my church are democrats. We worship the same way.

What do you think republicans did with regard to the "Southern Strategy" that made black people not like the republican party? What about blacks that are republican?

[video=youtube;n_YQ8560E1w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_YQ8560E1w[/video]

If it weren't for democrats and their extremely successful campaign of black voter suppression, then more blacks would vote republican. It's because of lies that the republicans are racists and Nixon's imaginary "Southern Strategy" that suppresses the blacks to vote republican.

 

I have never heard the phrase "southern strategy." What is the contemporary strategy and who is behind/leading the cause?
Anyone else commenting on this thread an American southeasterner?

 

Melman is a homosexual who is now a democrat I believe. Like we need him to apologize for the GOP. That article gives credit to the democrats for desegregation when in fact Eisenhower and Nixon did that in the military and the schools. The democrats stood in the way in the 60's and 70's. But hey, if I'm wrong, you are welcome to show me who desegregated the military, and the schools. Then have a look at the first post of this thread and find out the truth. Tell me where I'm wrong.

 

Well that is part of my challenge. The Southern Strategy is nothing more of an attempt to re-write history by the democrats. They claim that republicans became the racist party and switched on the issue with the democrats. They say the GOP was trying to appeal to white Southern racist voters. However, no one yet has shown me one iota of evidence that this is true while at the same time I have demonstrated with many examples and proofs that the republicans have a great civil rights record, including Nixon. They have not shown one speech, one work document, one policy or any evidence whatsoever that Nixon was trying to appeal to racists. If he was, he was sure going about it in a weird way.

In his acceptance speech he speaks about building bridges between black America and white America, and providing jobs for blacks, not welfare, poverty and dependency.

[video=youtube;Km1Ylrjog74]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km1Ylrjog74[/video]

 

There is no such thing as Nixon's "Southern Strategy".

That has been debunked many times.

The Myth of the Southern Strategy

The Myth of the Southern Strategy Part II

 

Here is the actual transcript from his acceptance speech with some of the Civil Rights and racial issues that Nixon addressed. I've just edited the parts of his speech to show the parts where he talks about racism and civil rights. Notice that he speaks of justice and racial harmony and ending racism. Hardly codewords for white racists in the South to move to the GOP. If you look at what he actually says, the entire idea of a Southern Strategy becomes ridiculous.

 

The OP seems to forget Nixons Supreme Court nominees. White supremacists haynesworth and carswell.

 

The southern strategy thing is BS.

Just ignore anybody that tries bringing it up. Imbeciles aren't worth bothering with.

 

Citing your own writing as supporting evidence for your own writing is dishonest self serving. "It must be true because I said it" is not a winning argument, unless you're a legend in your own mind.

 

What sentence in my first edition was false?

What about this is untrue?

You falsely accuse me of cherry picking facts, strategic omissions, false claims and outright lies, but fail to point to a single one. I think you should put up or just be quiet. I have presented documented facts, not rewritten history.

As far as Nixon goes, of course he had a life long history of civil rights support, but you failed to point out one instance of his "pandering to bigots".

George Wallace was a bigot, with that I agree. He was a life long democrat who nearly became president. He was a segregationist and a racist. Did I mention he was a life long democrat? The democratic party has a long history of racism. Wallace was a liberal.

I don't know what your problem is but every post I present facts and sources. I'm sorry you have a problem with the truth.

 

Maybe I'm reading it wrong but I think citing that is to move the conversation along, so we don't end up posting the same arguments and same counterarguments over and over.

 

First of all, it's no myth. It's documented fact.

Second, Nixon is not the specific target of any particular myth making.

He would have been drummed out of the Gingrich/DeLay era GOP, and he would have been reviled by the sort of people who think Trump and Sarah Palin are anything other than shallow narcissitic con artists.

- - - Updated - - -

No, he was referring to his own words as if they were documentation of claims he was making here.

 

No...the links led to forum posts and blogs at this site where a discussion was held about those issues.

 

As I said, you cherry pick your facts, and you're pretty slim on sources.

Your narrative regarding the Civil Rights Act if 1957 rather obviously and deliberately omits the events of late 1956 and early 1957, when students tried to integrate the public high school in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Television audiences all over the nation saw white racists attacking black school children for weeks. Eisenhower dithered for weeks before finally ordering the National Guard in.

It was a political disaster for the Eisenhower Adminstration and made them look weak.

The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was concieved as a way to get them in front of the issue. Eisenhower assigned the task to Nixon, who would bear the political fallout of it failed.

The Act had no real teeth in it, nor was it intended to.

Even as it was weakend by Southern segragationists and ambitious politicians like Kennedy, it would still be the subject of the longest filibuster in Senate history, staged by Strom Thurmond, who would later become a Republican.

Of course, none of that fits the myth you're trying to construct, so you deliberately left it out.

 

And I ask for that documentation. If it's not a myth, show me once piece of evidence, that Nixon ever said, ever had it as a strategy, one piece of paper where the "Southern Strategy" was outlined or even mention by name for that matter. It doesn't exist.

I like that democrats want to tell us what politicians would have been drummed out of our party. Nixon, Reagan ect. Well the fact is, they were in our party, they were elected presidents. Kennedy cut taxes. But he did fight against civil rights so I guess the democrats will keep him. But I haven't seen one iota of evidence that Nixon did harm to blacks, or pandered to whites racist Southerners or racist Northerners. Nixon desegregated the schools in his first term. That's a fact. Kennedy and Johnson did nothing.

Right. It's just reference materials to related subject matters.

 

Notice who { Chris Matthews } loves to propagate and rehash this myth
every few years.How coincidental it happens in summer of general election
years.Just like the popular leftist driven bilge that Republicans want to take
food away from Kids in Public school and toss grandma off a cliff in her
wheelchair.The GOP prefers dirty air and water.
These dopey little contrivances like some " southern strategy " is kinda like
Cicada and their emergence every 13-17 years.
Same loud noise and peskiness { like to be seen and heard }.

- - - Updated - - -

If it hasn't sunk in by now that the democrat party is basically comprised
of Liars,Cheats and Smear Agents.As if them Clintons are prime example
enough.

 

Conservatives have PROVEN that it is all the Democrats. When Hillary and Bill said that Obama would be getting our coffee, that was all the racism, sexism and homophobia all wrapped up in one.

The Dem Plantation is a FACT.

The Dems in helping folks, is really only putting them in slavery, Just like Jesus Christ. The Dems took their slavedriving cues From Jesus.

When they help with suffering, and health issues, they are only enslaving. So, us conservatives who are trying to cull the weak, are really just BULLISH on the poor and ill doing just fine, if made to sink or swim.

WE are the benefactors of MLKing. The ONLY thing keeping racism, sexism and homophobia alive is the Dems paying attention to these factors to milk illegitimate votes.

 

Sure, you keep saying that. Give me an example of what you are talking about. I have cited proof and links to everything I am saying. You aren't.

No, I didn't but you are welcome to add to, to contribute to the narrative. The courts ordered the integration of the schools, the racist democrat Arkansas politicians stopped it.

Eisenhower had to let the local authorities handle it until it was clear the local authorities were defying the courts.

I would say the opposite. It showed that Ike was willing to use federal power to enforce the ruling of the court if the local authorities ignored the courts. How is that weak? Was it also weak when President Kennedy did the same thing?

The 1957 and 1960 CRA's were introduced by Republicans as were every one of the dozens of other Civil Rights Acts in the previous 100 years. None were introduced by Democrats. As I have demonstrated in the OP of the first "Myth of the Southern Strategy", it was JFK and LBJ who fought to weaken them and take out the "teeth" of the Acts such as trial by jury and other enforcement mechanisms.

Right, that is thanks to JFK and LBJ as stated earlier.

Okay, I think that was the 1964 CRA but okay? I don't know what that has to do with anything. Strom Thurmond was a Democrat.

Okay, so he "later became a republican". So what? He was a democrat at the time and change to a Republican only after he changed his mind on Civil Rights issues, right?