When the Parties Switched Platforms

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

There was no switch. Of the senators and congressmen who voted against both civil rights bills, only six changed parties in later years.[/I]

The "legislative history" of "civil rights" is not pretty ... the trade-offs to get the votes demonstrates the reluctance of Congress ... even Kennedy was against it ... for fear of being defeated in a 2nd term run. Johnson's use of Kennedy to push it over the top was deceptive at best ... some of the swing votes got projects in their States in exchange for their votes. The Democrats clothing themselves with "civil rights" is remarkably hypocritical once the surface is peeled back.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

The parties didn't switch platforms, just more DNC revisionist history.

don't know about that.

if the parties ideology changed, it follows that the parts of the platform would change.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

don't know about that.

if the parties ideology changed, it follows that the parts of the platform would change.

That's not "switching" ...

... but I am interested in "ideology change" .... !

The "change" could be coming from the constituency.

[goodman0422]

Originally Posted by JackC866

Can anybody explain how/when the two political parties switched platforms? I've been trying to read about it, seems pretty complicated.

During Reconstruction, Southern Democrats realized that former slaves were overwhelmingly voting for Republicans as they had just freed the slaves. Democrats instituted laws to supress the black vote but quickly realized they would actually need those votes if they wished to remain viable as a political party.

Democrats came up with three strategies to get the black vote.
1. Intimidation. The KKK became the terrorist arm of the Democrat party.
2. Bribery. Black leaders such as ministers were bribed to convince their congregations and followers to vote for Democrats.
E. Trickery. Democrats convinced black Americans that they cared about them and would defend black interests in DC.

It is difficult to find documentation but Democrats distributed flyers during reconstruction outlining these strategies. I saw one once in a museum and I wish I had photographed it.

Intimidation is still used today but it is now used on white conservatives instead of black Republicans.
Bribery is still used but it really isn't necesary. (Al Sharpton, NAACP)
Trickery has proven to be highly effective and very cheap. It is self sustaining in that black Americans actually convince themselves and each other that Democrats actually care about them by throwing a couple tax dollars into the black community but not really doing anything to decrease violence or improve education and human services in black neighborhoods.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by goodman0422

During Reconstruction, Southern Democrats realized that former slaves were overwhelmingly voting for Republicans as they had just freed the slaves.

Actually, the greatest anxiety were the carpetbaggers coming from the North into the Southern (Confederate) States and appointing Black people to offices .... so many (if not all) the State Constitutions were passed to REQUIRE offices, such as judges and county officials, to be elected rather than appointed.

As a consequence when the Civil Rights Act was "negotiated" to get the Southern Democrats on board for the vote it was written into the judicial enforcement provision that State courts had concurrent jurisdiction to accept Civil Rights cases or cases regarding civil rights ... that is the law today ... a civil rights case can be filed in State court.