The Democratic Party Was Not Always This Way
The story Democrats like to tell is that the civil rights era saw a realignment between the two parties. That was when the Democrats became the good guys.
As I’ve noted before, however, Democrats have for most of my life supported policies they now declare to be inhumane, immoral, and even prosecutable.
Let’s look at one of the people deservedly receiving much of their scorn. She is Mississippi Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith. Outlets have unearthed that she “pushed resolution praising Confederate soldier’s effort to ‘defend his homeland.’”
Additionally, she attended a private high school that was founded so that white parents could avoid school integration with black students. Perhaps that is no fault of hers, but she sent her own daughter to a school that was originally established for the same reason. (Both schools continue to be almost exclusively white.)
Additionally, at a public event, she said of her host:
If he invited me to a public hanging, I’d be on the front row
She called any concern about this “ridiculous”:
In a comment on Nov. 2, I referred to accepting an invitation to a speaking engagement. In referencing the one who invited me, I used an exaggerated expression of regard, and any attempt to turn this into a negative connotation is ridiculous.
Additionally, she’s said, also at a public event:
there’s a lot of liberal folks in those other schools who that maybe we don’t want to vote. Maybe we want to make it just a little more difficult. And I think that’s a great idea.
This again, she dismissed as one of her light-hearted hilarious jokes.
Where did this person with such heinous beliefs come from? The answer is the Democratic Party.
A lifelong Democrat, Hyde-Smith served as a state senator from 2000 to 2012. That resolution to praise a Confederate soldier? She was a Democrat when she sponsored it. The Democrat-controlled legislature passed it 52-0 in the Senate and 111-0 in the House.
For those of you who weren’t alive at the time, this may be surprising, but, yes, in 2007. Mississippi had a Democratic legislature.
After years of faithful service to the Democratic Party, Hyde-Smith switched to the Republican Party in 2010. It’s likely the only reason she still has a job.
This is also around when Donald Trump first showed his break with the Democratic Party. He put his considerable weight behind Hillary Clinton’s candidacy in 2008 and donated to her campaign.
But Clinton lost. He changed his registration to Republican in 2009, and he became the most effective spokesman for the birther movement that believed Barack Obama was not born in the United States. (He would have been a natural born citizen of the United States eligible to run for president anyway as his mother was American, but somehow birthers never seemed to mention that.)
2008 also marked a change for me. It was the first time in my lifetime that I realized that I preferred a Democratic presidential candidate to the Republican one. This trend was reflected in Asian votes broadly. During the Bush years, Asian support for Democrats was roughly flat. 2008 marked the start of Asian votes being captives of the Democratic Party.
Ultimately, I don’t think this is about Trump. It’s about Barack Obama completing the realignment Democrats like to pretend was over and done with in the 1960s. Mississippi isn’t going to have a Democratic legislature anytime soon. While she and Trump were happy to be Democrats until 2008 they are definitely not now.
As late as 2008 though, the Democratic Party was willing to accommodate them. The party brass’s preferred candidate, after she beat Obama in Indiana declared:
Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again.
For Democrats today, it’s now considered a laughable factual error to consider white Americans in Indiana to be more American than non-whites living on coasts, but it was Hilary Clinton’s actual message in 2008.
This wasn’t a clumsy one-off by Clinton. Rather, it follows directly from the strategy laid out by Mark Penn, Clinton’s chief strategist and pollster for the 2008 election. In his memo dated March 19, 2007, he said:
Lack of American Roots
All of these articles about his boyhood in Indonesia and his life in Hawaii are geared towards showing his background is diverse, multicultural and putting that in a new light.Save it for 2050.
It also exposes a very strong weakness for him — his roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited. I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values. He told the people of NH yesterday he has a Kansas accent because his mother was from there. His mother lived in many states as far as we can tell — but this is an example of the nonsense he uses to cover this up.
How could we give some life to this contrast without turning negative:
Every speech should contain the line you were born in the middle of America to the middle class in the middle of the last century. And talk about the basic bargain as about the deeply American values you grew up with, learned as a child and that drive you today. Values of fairness, compassion, responsibility, giving back.
Let’s explicitly own “American” in our programs, the speeches and the values. He doesn’t. Make this a new American Century, the American Strategic Energy fund. Let’s use our logo to make some flags we can give out. Let’s add flag symbols to the backgrounds.
We are never going to say anything about his background — we have to show the value of ours when it comes to making decisions, understanding the needs of most Americans —the invisible Americans.
Except for the part about not saying anything directly negative about Obama’s background, this is the modern Republican playbook.
Hawaii doesn’t really count as America. Obama is thus an American by technicality only. Penn could not imagine electing a someone “who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values.” The basis for thinking Obama was not American in his thinking and values is that he was born in Hawaii and spent time in Indonesia. At least, that’s what the text says.
Clinton’s values of “fairness, compassion, responsibility, giving back” are not ones Obama could have thanks to his “lack of American roots.” American flags must go everywhere on our literature, not because we are particularly American but to ensure everyone is reminded that Obama is not.
“The invisible Americans” is a particularly interesting phrase he used. It’s these invisible Americans that the media has been trodding up and down the country trying to interview. They were the people given the cold shoulder by the Democratic Party in 2008 when it went with the Hawaiian guy.
They are invisible no longer though. They chose the Republican Party’s president.
This is a very interesting point that is largely forgotten, though it wasn’t very long ago at all. Not so much the period Vikram describes in the OP, but more topically the period before that when the modern conservative movement in America gained traction as a significant cultural and political force, say 1955 to 1985.
There’s been a lot of revisionist writing from libs trying to explain the conservative movement of that time (and conservative politics in general) as the as being the vehicle for segregationist sentiment in America, especially in the South. This train of thought has gotten a lot of traction recently in lib and mainstream media, and has contributed a great deal toward the corrosive antagonism among Americans today.
This is inexplicable for me, since it ought to be obvious for anyone alive during that time, which I suspect is most of us, that it was the Democratic Party which represented the segregationist impulse of that time, and often liberal Democrats at that. Conservatives organized themselves on completely different issues, and won elections on those issues. In partisan terms, the conservative movement was a faction of the Republican Party, attached to the civil rights legacy of that party, whereas in historical terms the antagonist to civil rights was always the Democratic Party. Therefore the Civil Rights Era was mostly an intramural war within the Democratic Party.Report
Yes. Until Nixon’s Southern strategy. Things didn’t change instantly after that – the strong tribalism in politics meant even after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, southern ‘yellow dog Democrats’ still couldn’t bring themselves to pull the lever for a Republican for a long time – but it was the beginning of the change the OP shows as largely concluding in 2009, largely because the Democratic party had the audacity to choose a non-white president.Report
Gutting the Voting Rights Act was the crowning achievement of the GOP commitment to civil rights.Report
The only reason conservatives focus so intently on what the parties used to represent – and why they wield that against liberals, who respond by noting the political shifts that occurred – is because modern conservatism is so hopelessly wrapped up in explicit white supremacy.Report
+1Report
Who’s “used to”, kemosabe?
The Republican Party is the concrete representation of legitimate governance in America today. Libs complain if 80 voters are in line at one polling station but could care less that the sine qua non of Dem politics is the corrupt governance of millions of voters all over America. You can vote for whoever you want to, but it doesn’t really count unless you vote for the right guy.Report
Therefore the Civil Rights Era was mostly an intramural war within the Democratic Party.
Yes. An intermural war between the conservative, racist Democrats, and the liberal, not-racist Democrats, with the Republicans generally…well, not ‘staying neutral’, but at least not having a war.
It is entirely reasonable for Republicans to look at the Civil Rights movement and say ‘The Republicans actually did better on this in the 60s than the Democrats’. That’s not really true, but it’s…a passible claim. They can make that claim if they want.
But that’s because both parties had liberal and conservatives at the time. The liberals of both parties were in favor of civil rights (Or at least neutral.), the conservatives of both parties were not. (Or at least neutral.)
But what isn’t reasonable is assuming that the word ‘Republican’ is the same as the word ‘conservative’ and ‘Democrat’ the same as the word ‘liberal’.
The racist side back then was indisputably conservative. The pro-civil-rights side back then was indisputably liberal.
The conservatives and liberals mostly fighting were in the Democratic party, ripping the party to pieces. Some conservatives and liberals joined in from the Republican party also. But the war, regardless of the fact it was mostly fought on Democratic turf, was a liberal vs. conservative war, and the conservatives were on the wrong side of it.
it was the Democratic Party which represented the segregationist impulse of that time,
_Some_ of the Democratic party did. They had a war over it. You might remember talking about it in the very post you just made.
and often liberal Democrats at that.
Please name a _single_ liberal Democrat who actively supported segregation. I’m not saying there couldn’t have been any, but I’d like to see a name.
Let’s look at George Wallace, the most obvious example of the ‘segregationist impulse of that time’. Was George Wallace a Democrat? Yes. Was he a liberal? Let’s check a quote of his: The liberal left-wingers have passed it. Now let them employ some pinknik social engineers in Washington, D.C., to figure out what to do with it.
Well, he’s not a liberal, obviously. Is he a conservative? Yes. When he made his third-party run for President, he ran under the American Independent Party, founded in 1967 to nominate him specifically. As no one has heard of them, let me quote their 1967 declaration of principle: “A new party is urgently needed today because the leaders of the two existing parties, Democratic and Republican, have deserted the principles and traditions of our nation’s founding fathers. Both of the existing parties have become the proponents of big government, crushing taxation, dictatorial federal power, waste and fiscal irresponsibility, unwholesome and disastrous internationalism, compromise with our nation’s enemies, and authoritarian regimentation of the citizens of this Republic. Control of the government, under the domination of these two existing parties, has left the hands of the people our government was created to serve.”
That is a statement of principles that would fit seamlessly into conservativism.
There’s been a lot of revisionist writing from libs trying to explain the conservative movement of that time (and conservative politics in general) as the as being the vehicle for segregationist sentiment in America, especially in the South.
Because it was. Segregationist sentiment wasn’t _Republican_ until the 80s or so. Segregationist sentiment, however, was _conservative_ from the very start.
There is indeed a massive rewriting of history by Democrats, everyone is 100% correct. The Democratic party likes to present the realignment happened magically one day in the 60s, when the Democratic party just decided to not be racist and kicked all the racists out.
That is a complete lie, and not what happened at all. What happened is that conservatives took over the Republican party in the 70s, and then the conservative Democratic slowly started moved to the Republican party (Some very recently in state parties.), while the liberal Republicans slowly moved to Democrat, and they mostly fully switched parties by the 90s when right-wing media started yelling about RINOs and didn’t let them be Republicans anymore.
This doesn’t change the fact that asserting that liberal Democrats were in favor of segregation is utter nonsense. Conservative Democrats were in favor of segregation.Report
I know that we have had to repeat this ad nauseum, but attitudes on race and economic views aren’t connected in any way.
Not in the “All racists are capitalists” way, and not in the “All socialists are tolerant” way.
Its more like a Chinese menu, where you can choose some from column A and some from column B. You can have your racism with socialism, or not.Report
I think a better way to think about it is this–which party has been clearly better on issues of race and civil rights? The Dems definitely supported some bad things, but if you were a voter who prioritized these issues, the Dems have been better than the GOP since at least the 1970s (similar to how Dems in the ’90s didn’t support gay marriage, and were even willing to stomach things like DOMA, but were clearly the best choice of the two parties for gay rights).
Generally, the rule for activists is to find the party that’s closer to you on the issue you care about–even if neither is great–and push from within to make them better. Primary bad incumbents and reward good ones; become a recognized and valuable part of the party’s coalition; and as you reinforce that status, make moral claims and push the party in your preferred direction. And by that standard, the Dems have been the party of civil rights since the ’60s/’70s at least, even if they weren’t always as good as they should have been.Report
Right. In particular, the Civil Rights realignment was a process that took something like 60 years if you use the election of Obama [1] as its conclusion. But after 1964 or so, things were on track with really no reversal, and few attempts to reverse things.
The joke about Mississippi way back in 2007 is funny, but there are Democrats entering Congress who weren’t even old enough to vote back then, and if you look at the generational split between the parties, Barack Obama was the first Presidential candidate of any sort who many Democrats voted for.
[1] And the repudiation of the Clinton campaign’s appeals to “hard working Americans, white Americans”.Report
It’s the effortless “we’ve always been like this” that takes my breath away. I used to complain that, say what you will about the Marxists, they had a reading list that you could actually read. The new version of whatever doesn’t seem to have a reading list.
I used to see this as a weakness. Now I see it as an amazing strength. What happened yesterday? Who cares? Here is what we have always believed.
There is no God but Mani is His prophet.Report
But the people saying that always have been like that.Report
Who are these people?Report
Basically people who are young enough to not have any real connection to the pre-Obama era, who are substantially over-represented in the Democratic Party.Report
Eh, I’d caution against assuming ignorance on the part of the young. An illustrative example of why I’m skeptical thinking around this is as wooden as assumed is that we’ve seen this tested firsthand when Rand Paul went to Howard University. I think this is a good synopsis on why thinking around this should be assumed to be more nuanced than currently considered.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/04/the-journey-to-mecca/274980/Report
It’s not ignorance. It’s the difference between an intellectual understanding of a transition that one’s political party or coalition went through, and an experiential (and perhaps visceral) understanding of that transition, one which might have paralleled a personal change in views.Report
It’s the effortless “we’ve always been like this” that takes my breath away.
I was sad to learn that we were at war with Eastasia. I was more sad to learn that we’d always been at war with Eastasia.Report
I kind of wonder how much of this isn’t a media, particularly of the social variety, phenomenon. It definitely exists, and I see lots of people I know posting things from that perspective, and come across it plenty in OpEds, even in major publications. Where I almost never encounter it is in my day to day, offline life.
Lots of people used to say they were the victims of Satanic abuse, or had multiple personalities. Plenty of people have always believed in any number of conspiracies or ideas that, while not totally implausible in the sense that they could not possibly be true, lacked critical perspective.
I struggle to decide if it’s anything new or if it’s just a result of handing out lots and lots of megaphones in an environment where consequences are at best inconsistent.Report
“Ultimately, I don’t think this is about Trump. It’s about Barack Obama completing the realignment Democrats like to pretend was over and done with in the 1960s.”
I really don’t think that it is a widely held belief that the political realignment ended in the ’60s. This would cut off things like Reagan’s “welfare queens” and campaign stops in Philadelphia, Miss. touting local control, it would leave out Willie Horton. People understand the realignment took time, but the dynamic that drove the realignment was also apparent, one party was better on issues concerning race, while highly imperfect. Even today the Democratic Party has people willing to provide funding for a border wall. Still, the Republican Party is demonstrably worse and so a coalition that prioritizes antiracism supports the party closer to their position.Report
Social and political changes take a lot longer than most people imagine. Europe didn’t become entirely Christian when Constantine converted. It took centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire for Europe to be entirely Christian. The Lithuanians remained stubbornly pagan until their Grand Duke had them convert so he could be King of Poland. Christians remained the majority population in the Middle East until some time after the Crusades.
Likewise, the political realignment took a long time too. It started on the federal level. LBJ was the last American President to win the majority of white votes. Southerners started voting for Republicans in the federal elections first. Then then slowly went for state and local elections. The entire process took decades.Report
Precisely. People who are not born in the ‘easiest player setting’ learn pretty early not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
It would be easy to find any number of Democrats, as well as self-styled progressives, who are sexist AF. However, they are (a) greatly out numbered by examples on the other side, and (b) not representative of the party/movement’s direction. Therefore, as a woman who prefers equality [*], I am far more likely to support Democrats.
[*] quite a number of non-college educated women seem to prefer the old patriarchal status quo and consider women who work outside the home by choice to be cultural enemiesReport
I really don’t think that it is a widely held belief that the political realignment ended in the ’60s
Report
It may not be a widely held belief but it is a shorthand belief. the 1960s is roughly when the process started.* I think Vikram does a pretty good job of reminding us that the process may have been slower than many of us think.
And….perhaps Vikram’s post serves as a reminder that today’s friends may be tomorrow’s villains. That may not have been what Vikram was aiming for, but it’s a lesson I take from the process he’s describing.
*We’d do well to consider that survey courses in US history, if they talk about realignment at all, are likely to portray it as “Civil Rights, then 1960s, then Nixon…..then realignment.” It’s simplistic, but I’d wager that’s how many people learn such things. That’s how I learn things that aren’t in my area of expertise: it’s good enough to convey the basic idea and it’s generally true, but it doesn’t convey all the messiness of which experts are aware.Report
Chad, LeeEsq., you can’t be spoiling the kids’ fun by bringing up old stuff like that.Report
She’s a charter member of the Palin party.Report
“Hawaii doesn’t really count as America.”
It’s worth noting that, for the conservative movement now, the only thing that counts as America and/or American is believing deeply in the conservative movement. Anybody else who believes anything else is considered both less than and insufficiently American to meaningfully matter. This attitude underpins the entirety of the conservative movement as represented by Trump’s election and its whole-hearted embrace of him and his preferred policies.Report
You can tell that this is true because the conservative movement has embraced a New Yorker for president. It’s not about “the heartland”, it’s about racism.Report
It is amusing that the most elite of coastal elites has managed to bullshit his way to being a heartland kind of guy. But W did it first.Report
It helps to sound dumb. Obama could never overcome sounding intelligent and well-educated.Report
One difference is that Donald doesn’t even bother with fake signals of “heartland” membership in any way I can think of besides all the bigotry. He retains his thick New York accent, happily flaunts his wealth (such as that is), doesn’t talk Jesus, doesn’t hunt or otherwise use guns, and doesn’t scrub brush. Dubya actually filled the checklist, even if about half the checkmarks were counterfeit.
It makes me wonder which things are the core values and what is the proxy. Like, is Trump’s racism considered an equally valid membership signal as all that heartland stuff — or was it “the main thing” all along, and the myriad things Bush did were understood as indicators for “one of us” where us = white identitarian?
I lean toward the latter, but I’m not certain — the evangelical love of Bush seemed more sincere than that of Trump, yet simultaneously less intense. Like the difference between certain types of healthy and unhealthy relationship, come to think of it — in the latter, you’re rationalizing the whole way, but damn if you don’t get these highs that the better-for-you person wouldn’t deliver.Report
Conservatives love Trump the way a spree killer loves his AR-15. They may be doomed but at least they’ll get to hurt the people they hate first. Or, as Matt Taibbi put, better than I could:
Report
So being a son of Louisiana in the 1970’s and 1980’s – I left for College in 1988 -who now resides in coastal Mississippi I have had a front row seat to all this my whole life. Its one of the many reasons I get bristly about a lot of topics – when I was in college David Duke lost the governorship of Louisiana on a rainy Tuesday by something like 5000 votes. And yes, the rain likely had something to do with it.
Schools in Baton Rouge were desegregated by court order in 1980. I remember it well because two things happened immediately – my school teacher mother and history professor father kept my brother and me in public school (though graduation) and White Flight sent many of my friends to private “Christian” schools that sprang up overnight around the Parish (which were the 1980’s version of segregation academies). Some I managed to keep up with. Many I never saw again. That White Flight is still playing out in the misguided attempts to form a new city in East Baton Rouge Parish whose boundaries coincidentally take in the gated, nearly lily white communities of south Baton Rouge while forcing the remaining mixed race Mid Town and largely Black North Baton Rouge to fend for themselves. All so black children’s public education won’t be funded by white parents in my generation.
So the history of Democrats who became Republicans and remained racists is a part of who I am. Being a university faculty brat I reached a different conclusion about that history then most of my contemporaries and school mates ( who include a former governor, a Federal Judge nominated by Trump, and a current Congressman).
The evolution of the parties is still on-going down south and will likely take at least another generation. Its also why the President’s immigration policies are so wildly popular there – faced with the continued presence of African Americans (many of whom now hold Parish or County level political offices), whites in these states see a real threat to their political and economic power in immigrants, especially of Hispanic origin.Report