More Racist White Folks in the GOP

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by lustylad

There you go again!

Spewing false liberal revisionist history, intended to salve the deep guilt pangs of the Democratic Party and deflect our attention away from their own long, sordid, racist history.

We've had this convo so many times already that my head hurts. When you keep bringing it up, I can only react with face palms.

Or... let's go the archives! Here is what I posted back on July 25, 2020:

I don't dispute that the dixiecrats were a wing of the Democratic party and did terrible things. Not all democrats were dixiecrats. Not all democrats shared the views and beliefs of the dixiecrats. Example, President Kennedy sent the National Guard Down to the University of Alabama in 1962 so that minority students could register for class. Dixiecrat Gov George Wallace was blocking them from the Registrar's office.


As for Dinesh he talks very briefly about the Southern Strategy around the 37 minute mark. He concludes that it did not work. This is the opposite of what the AI output had in post #17. Post #17, the AI says the southern strategy did work AND there was a realignment of the political parties. Both can't be right. One of them has to be wrong. I don't know about you, I am going with the AI output in post #17.


Go back and read post# 17. Pay attention to
"Party Sorting"
"The Result Today"
"A note on Nuance"


Senator Thurman and David Duke are perfect examples of Dixiecrats/conservative democrats that left the Democratic party for Republican party after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Bill.

[Turner2099]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

the grandchildren of those long dead DEMOCRAT racists are republican because they are ashamed of the Democratic party's long history of racism right up to today.

the Democratic party didn't turn over a new leaf in 1965 they doubled down and found new things to be subtly racist about.

Your grandchildren comment made me think of a different question to ask Claude.AI. Note that I didn't mention the South.

How did voter alignment change after the passage of the Civil Rights Act change?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 triggered one of the most dramatic political realignments in American history, reshaping the two major parties over the following decades.

## The "Solid South" Breaks Apart

Before 1964, the South had voted overwhelmingly Democratic since Reconstruction — a legacy of the Civil War. White Southern Democrats had long been a powerful bloc within the party, but they were deeply hostile to federal civil rights legislation.

When President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, he reportedly told an aide, *"We have lost the South for a generation."* He was right — though it proved to be more permanent than a generation.

## Immediate Shifts

- In the **1964 presidential election**, Barry Goldwater (who voted against the Act) carried only his home state of Arizona and **five Deep South states** — the first Republican to do so since Reconstruction.

- **George Wallace's 1968 third-party run** captured five more Deep South states, further fracturing the old Democratic coalition.

- **Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy"** in 1968 and 1972 explicitly appealed to disaffected white Southern voters using coded racial and cultural messaging, pulling them toward the GOP.

## Long-Term Realignment

**White Southerners** shifted steadily Republican over the next 30 years — not just in presidential races but in congressional and state elections too. By the 1990s and 2000s, the South had become reliably Republican.

**Black voters**, who had begun shifting Democratic during the New Deal, completed that realignment after 1964. African American support for Democratic presidential candidates has consistently been in the **85–95% range** ever since.

## The Broader Coalition Reshaping

The realignment wasn't just geographic — it reshaped *what each party stood for*:

- **Democrats** became more closely associated with civil rights, urban voters, minorities, college-educated professionals, and later social liberals.
- **Republicans** absorbed conservative white Southerners and working-class whites who felt culturally alienated, shifting the party's center of gravity to the right on both racial and social issues.

## How Long Did It Take?

The full realignment was surprisingly gradual. Many Southern whites continued voting for **conservative Democratic candidates at the state and local level** well into the 1980s and even 1990s before the switch to the GOP became complete down the ballot. Scholars like **V.O. Key** and later **Byron Shafer** have written extensively about why the shift took so long at sub-presidential levels.

The Civil Rights Act wasn't the *only* cause — the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the cultural upheavals of the late 1960s, deindustrialization, and the rise of the religious right all contributed — but 1964 is widely considered the **pivotal inflection point** that set the realignment in motion.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Democrats never acknowledge, let alone want to talk about, trends like this one tracking a sea-change in public attitudes over the years:

Of course not. If the Democratic politicians keep their base fired up with false narratives (e.g. Republicans are mostly racists) it works to their advantage.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Democrats never acknowledge, let alone want to talk about, trends like this one tracking a sea-change in public attitudes over the years:

Originally Posted by Tiny

Of course not. If the Democratic politicians keep their base fired up with false narratives (e.g. Republicans are mostly racists) it works to their advantage.

No one with a brain can deny that civil rights have improved since the sixties. But the Republican party and the MAGA base are claiming that racism no longer exists and that their party doesn’t embrace it.

The entire anti DEI movement is based upon the belief that white people are actively being discriminated against them by the social justice movement.

The truth is that minorities are still not equal to whites in this country and every single study shows that. Denying inequality is nothing more than a type of self deluding camouflage that is designed to shield whites from the reality of the institutional racism that still exists in our society.


https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/...dr-kings-death

How black Americans' lives have--and haven't--changed since Dr. King's death

In some ways, we've barely budged as a people. Poverty is still too common in the U.S. In 1968, 25 million Americans — roughly 13 percent of the population — lived below poverty level. In 2016, 43.1 million – or more than 12.7% – did.

Today's black poverty rate of 21% is almost three times that of whites. Compared to the 1968 rate of 32%, there's not been a huge improvement.

Financial security, too, still differs dramatically by race. In 2018 black households earned $57.30 for every $100 in income earned by white families. And for every $100 in white family wealth, black families held just $5.04.

Another troubling aspect about black social progress – or the lack thereof – is how many black families are headed by single women. In the 1960s, unmarried women were the main breadwinners for 20% of households. In recent years, the percentage has risen as high as 72%.

This is important, but not because of some outmoded sexist ideal of the family. In the U.S., as across the Americas, there's a powerful connection between poverty and female-headed households.

Black Americans today are also more dependent on government aid than they were in 1968. About 40% of African-Americans are poor enough to qualify for welfare, housing assistance and other government programs that offer modest support to families living under the poverty line.

That's higher than any other U.S. racial group. Just 21% of Latinos, 18% Asian-Americans and 17% of whites are on welfare.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

No one with a brain can deny that civil rights have improved since the sixties. But the Republican party and the MAGA base are claiming that racism no longer exists and that their party doesn’t embrace it.

The entire anti DEI movement is based upon the belief that white people are actively being discriminated against them by the social justice movement.

The truth is that minorities are still not equal to whites in this country and every single study shows that. Denying inequality is nothing more than a type of self deluding camouflage that is designed to shield whites from the reality of the institutional racism that still exists in our society.


https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/...dr-kings-death

How black Americans' lives have--and haven't--changed since Dr. King's death

In some ways, we've barely budged as a people. Poverty is still too common in the U.S. In 1968, 25 million Americans — roughly 13 percent of the population — lived below poverty level. In 2016, 43.1 million – or more than 12.7% – did.

Today's black poverty rate of 21% is almost three times that of whites. Compared to the 1968 rate of 32%, there's not been a huge improvement.

Financial security, too, still differs dramatically by race. In 2018 black households earned $57.30 for every $100 in income earned by white families. And for every $100 in white family wealth, black families held just $5.04.

Another troubling aspect about black social progress – or the lack thereof – is how many black families are headed by single women. In the 1960s, unmarried women were the main breadwinners for 20% of households. In recent years, the percentage has risen as high as 72%.

This is important, but not because of some outmoded sexist ideal of the family. In the U.S., as across the Americas, there's a powerful connection between poverty and female-headed households.

Black Americans today are also more dependent on government aid than they were in 1968. About 40% of African-Americans are poor enough to qualify for welfare, housing assistance and other government programs that offer modest support to families living under the poverty line.

That's higher than any other U.S. racial group. Just 21% of Latinos, 18% Asian-Americans and 17% of whites are on welfare.

Poverty and, as Captain Salvajo pointed out, homicides are much more common among black Americans. How could we turn that around? I’ve been intending to write a post on that.

In the meantime, for starters, blue cities and states should scrap the progressive Democratic leadership. And elect enlightened Republicans, independents and Democrats like Charlie Baker, Gary Johnson, Michael Bloomberg, Richard Riordan and Bill Clinton.

The problem isn’t racism any more. It’s bad leadership, all the way down to the school boards, and bad ideas.

[Turner2099]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Poverty and, as Captain Salvajo pointed out, homicides are much more common among black Americans. How could we turn that around? I’ve been intending to write a post on that.

Would you include discussion of systemic racism and by extension Critical Race Theory (CRT)?

Here are decent definitions and the relationship between both from Claude.AI as a place to start.

These are two related but distinct concepts worth unpacking carefully.

**Systemic Racism**

Systemic racism (also called structural or institutional racism) refers to the idea that racial inequality can be embedded in laws, institutions, policies, and social norms — producing racially disparate outcomes even without requiring individual racist intent. The argument is that systems can perpetuate disadvantage for certain racial groups through their ordinary operation.

Examples commonly cited include:

- **Criminal justice:** Disparities in sentencing, policing patterns, and incarceration rates across racial lines
- **Housing:** Historical redlining policies that excluded Black Americans from wealth-building homeownership, with lasting neighborhood-level effects
- **Wealth gap:** The compounding effects of historically discriminatory policies (exclusion from the GI Bill, discriminatory lending) on intergenerational wealth
- **Healthcare:** Documented disparities in pain treatment, maternal mortality, and access to care

The concept doesn't require claiming that specific individuals are racist — rather, that outcomes can reflect historical and ongoing structural disadvantage regardless of individual intent.

**Critical Race Theory (CRT)**

CRT is an academic and legal framework that originated in American law schools in the late 1970s and 1980s, associated with scholars like Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Crenshaw, and Richard Delgado. Its core tenets include:

- Racism is ordinary and embedded in legal and social systems, not merely an aberration
- Race is a social construct rather than a biological reality
- "Interest convergence" — the idea that racial progress for minorities tends to occur when it also serves the interests of the white majority
- Dominant narratives about race and meritocracy serve to legitimize existing hierarchies
- Lived experience and personal narrative are valid forms of legal and social analysis

**So is systemic racism part of CRT?**

Yes — systemic or structural racism is a foundational premise of CRT, but the relationship is one-directional. CRT *incorporates* the concept of systemic racism as a core building block, but systemic racism as a concept is broader and predates CRT. You can accept the existence of systemic racism without subscribing to CRT as a full theoretical framework, and many mainstream sociologists, historians, and policy analysts do exactly that.

Think of it this way: systemic racism is an *observation or claim about how society works*, while CRT is a fuller *theoretical and interpretive framework* built partly on that claim, along with additional philosophical and legal arguments.

**A note on the current debate**

The public debate about CRT — particularly in the context of K-12 education — has become somewhat divorced from the academic meaning of the term. Critics use "CRT" loosely to describe any teaching that emphasizes racial history or systemic inequality. Proponents argue true CRT is a graduate-level legal framework rarely taught in schools. This definitional disagreement is itself a major source of confusion in the public conversation.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

No one with a brain can deny that civil rights have improved since the sixties. But the Republican party and the MAGA base are claiming that racism no longer exists and that their party doesn’t embrace it.

Where do you come up with this nonsense? Show me where the Republican Party claimed "racism no longer exists". Was it enshrined in the 2024 RNC platform? Gee, I must have missed that. I also missed all of those instances where the party "embraced racism". When did that happen? Got a link?

This is pure projection. Democrats are just trying to salve their own deep guilt and deflect everyone's attention away from their party's long, sordid and undeniable history of embracing not only racism, but all of its ugly constructs - slavery, KKK, Jim Crow, segregation, et al. So they point fingers at Republicans and say - "It wasn't me! It was that other guy over there!" even though the "other guy" is the one who freed the slaves and worked to abolish all of those institutional trappings of racism that Democrats created and defended for so many years.

The whole thing would be comical, if not for the tragic way it perpetuates a culture of victimization & grievance. Democrats have become very adept at exploiting this victimhood mentality to justify an endless expansion of the welfare state, designed to keep our minority citizens forever entrapped on their party's plantation. This won't last. Too many have figured it out, left the plantation, and achieved notable success. They are showing others how empowering it can be to pursue your dreams - once you abandon the negative, self-defeating grievance mentality preached by Democrats.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

The entire anti DEI movement is based upon the belief that white people are actively being discriminated against them by the social justice movement.

More nonsense. It would be much more accurate to say the entire anti-DEI movement is based upon the belief in colorblindness - consistent with MLK's precept that we should judge each other by the content of our character rather than the color of our skin.

As our SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts once famously wrote: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." I concur. Don't you? Doesn't everyone?

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Where do you come up with this nonsense? Show me where the Republican Party claimed "racism no longer exists". Was it enshrined in the 2024 RNC platform? Gee, I must have missed that. I also missed all of those instances where the party "embraced racism". When did that happen? Got a link?

It’s implicit in the right wing conservative movement to mischaracterize CRT, it’s banning of DEI and its white washing of racism in our country’s history.


Anti-DEI Lies and the Truths That Debunk Them
https://urbanandracialequity.org/ant...t-debunk-them/

Despite its clear purpose, DEI is under attack: facing a barrage of misinformation. By undermining the merits of DEI and misrepresenting its intentions, these falsehoods only preserve existing disparities. Below, we debunk five common myths with evidence-based insights on why DEI remains essential for moving the country forward toward opportunity, belonging, and justice for all.

Lie 1: DEI is “Reverse Discrimination” – Critics argue that DEI policies unfairly disadvantage white people. In reality, DEI corrects systemic disparities already in existence, to ensure equitable access to opportunity across the board.

Lie 2: DEI Only Benefits Black People – Detractors frame DEI as a range of racial preference programs that benefit Black people at the expense of others. In truth, DEI policies create a more equitable playing field by addressing the barriers experienced by demographics that have historically been overlooked, i.e., people with disabilities, LGBTQ+ people, women, and other marginalized groups.

Lie 3: DEI Initiatives Are Unnecessary and Outdated – Some claim that DEI is no longer needed because America has achieved racial equality. Yet, the persistent socioeconomic disparities that exist along racial lines prove otherwise.

Lie 4: DEI Promotes Anti-White Sentiment – The idea that DEI promotes anti-white sentiment is a myth rooted in racial anxiety and fear of social change. DEI is about correction and not retaliation; it is about inclusion, not exclusion.

Lie 5: Merit, Excellence, and Intelligence (MEI) Can Replace DEI – Proponents of MEI argue that merit-based hiring and promotion can replace DEI. However, research shows that claims of meritocracy often work to maintain the status quo, preventing the creation of truly inclusive environments where the full range of human potential is acknowleged and valued.

The illusion that we live in a merit-based society is incredibly alluring. In choosing to believe the world is not broken, we relieve ourselves of the responsibility to help fix it. But, in doing this, we deny reality and empower many lies that do much damage. By facing the facts and confronting the myths, we reveal the truth: DEI is not about creating winners and losers but ensuring that opportunities are accessible to all no matter our race, gender, or ZIP code.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Turner2099

Would you include discussion of systemic racism and by extension Critical Race Theory (CRT)?

No. ChatGPT puts "labor-market discrimination / systemic racism" a distant 5th from the top on a list of determinants of the black-white income gap. And notes the effect is "persistent but difficult to measure precisely."

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

It’s implicit in the right wing conservative movement to mischaracterize CRT, its banning of DEI and its white washing of racism in our country’s history.

More nonsense! Now you're deflecting to CRT in order to avoid answering my questions. I guess that means you are admitting that your clumsy attempts to slander all Republicans as racists have failed.

As for CRT, the idea that white people are congenitally disabled by virtue of being born white and must receive therapy by learning tenets of critical race theory is in itself a racist and preposterous belief.

Again, it would be comical if it wasn’t so dangerous - especially with the bigotry of low expectations implicit in the theory’s teaching that absent the scaffold of white self-abasement, blacks and other minorities cannot achieve their full potential.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

No one with a brain can deny that civil rights have improved since the sixties.

Hey texdot, we agree on this one, right? Here's the paradox.... why are Democrats relentlessly promoting their CRT poison and grossly exaggerating the white-supremacist threat in the face of all the obvious improvements we have seen in civil rights and progress toward greater racial harmony since the Sixties? Care to explain?


Here is a quote from Barton Swaim writing in the WSJ nearly 3 years ago:

The preoccupation with white supremacy in progressive media - an outgrowth of claims about “systemic racism,” “white privilege” and “implicit bias” - has the advantage of unfalsifiability. As observable racism has been pushed to the margins of American society, progressive assertions of its dominance have become confusing and tendentious. Racism is everywhere and infects everything, only you can’t see it because you’re part of the problem. As George Orwell remarked about leftist delusions of the 1940s, “one has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.” The plain reality is that racism, except in its progressive “antiracist” varieties, has no purchase in American life. Tilting at the windmill of white supremacy is evidence of delusion.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-amer...k-ban-842c0d65