How can progressives buy the myth that the parties "switched platforms"?

[dan]

There is no factual evidence for the so-called switch of the parties. The myth in the Democrat mind is that somehow Republicans... who fought and died to END slavery and legislated AGAINST the demeaning of "non-whites"... now support these historically Democrat platforms.

In fact, the evidence seems uncontroversial that it was the Democrats who never STOPPED desiring a return to slavery in some form and their leadership seems content to CONTINUE to demean minorities and exploit the "poor" for political purpose. The entitlement bribes of LBJ and other National Socialists seemed designed to buy votes and at the same time create government dependence (essentially the serfdom-slavery warned of by classic liberals like Lord Acton, Edmund Burke, and F.A. Hayek).

Where is the evidence of the "switch" that seems only to be a mythological belief without a drop of substance?

Aren't any of you scientific or fact-conscious enough to do the research when you suck this lie down with a straw? Do you simply "trust" the state schools, Nationalist Media, and Democrat Machine that preaches this lie? The same three institutions, I might add, that once openly supported enslavement and making many minorities second-class citizens.

It seems insane not to at least LOOK for the evidence... or would finding an utter lack of it shatter your "faith" in the power of progressive statism?

Follow the money: If America did away with poverty, won the drug "war", and achieved racial and social equality, the Republican platform as it stands today would not change one iota. On the other hand, with these problems solved, many Democrat spokespeople would be completely out of work. Wouldn't it then stand to reason that SOLVING these problems would NOT be in the Democrat leadership's best interest... for sake of (cushy) job-security?

It should at least beg the question if you are a not simply a fanatic for the cause, should it not?
@Owa Tadu Shyam - Thank you. Logical deduction would draw anyone to the same conclusion you have reached. Instead of a "mythical switch" it seems more likely that entitlement or public "assistance" bribes were employed broadly to buy the "poor" vote (many of whom were minorities) from the time of LBJ onward and then this false "southern strategy" narrative was supplemental to the exploitation... utterly ignoring the facts and slowly built up and preached like a man-made religion that extols the supremacy of government through the Democrat agenda.

[Jollydoll368]

They have to come up with some excuse for their party founding the KKK.

[scrawnywool553]

well, if you ignore voting trends, the actual actions of legislators that didn't like segregation and generally don't have your eyes open...

then I guess you could say there is no evidence...

how insane are you not to be able to find any? lool

[Brian B]

Which presidential candidate for office lost because he didn't accept the civil rights act? (Republicans)

In the mid sixties the Republican party embraced the "southern strategy" and they have been bogged down with bigots and religious fanatics ever since.

[Kirchen]

I just don't buy the notion that the Skinheads support Barack Obama. I do not think that Republican, GAY, famous poet abolitionist Walt Whitman was a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICA. He was liberal as they come, boy. . OR that early TREE HUGGER, abolitionist Henry David Thoreau and registered REPUBLICAN was a CONSERVATIVE. I do NOT believe the KKK was founded by LIBERAL democrats. You see it is a truth. It will set you free, lying satanist.

[mom]

Are you saying we need to get rid of the Democrat party and go to a one party system. That would be more like communism or nazi.

All I know for certain is that the slave owners were mostly Confederates who wanted to keep their slaves. Some of them went so far as to move west so they could after the war. Now those same people are mostly Republicans who claim they were against slavery then and now. Go figure.

[MTR 2.0]

I agree with you.

Even if we did use sound policy...republicans would still advocate for rent seeking instead of capitalism.

[Owa Tadu Shyam]

I've never seen this argument made so well. Seriously, well done. I don't know how progressives accept the idea that our parties somehow swapped positions along the way. It makes no sense on any level. in order for that to happen, people within the party would either have to change their minds completely, or there would have to be this drastic changing of the guards that would have surely been noticed if it had happened. But neither of those things happened.

[ceeli]

this is hilarious, you're such an IDIOT republiKUNT you don't even realize what you said. yes, IF we "did away with poverty, won the drug war and achieved racial and social equality" the democratic party would happily be *out of work*!!!!!!!!! since the republiKUNTZ don't stand for or fight for those things, then you're right... nothing would change for them!

the republiKUNT party is the party of the RICH and all of you POOR REPUBLIKUNTZ are so stupid you don't even realize that you're just patsies. wave the flag, scream abortion and here you come, like roaches out of the woodwork, voting against your own interests because you've been brainwashed by RASH LIMPBALLZ. how do you brainwash a republiKUNT? GIVE HIM AN ENEMA!!!!!!

the party switch was when the poor racists fled to the republiKUNT party after the civil rights act was passed, this is a FACT.

[wider scope]

It's true.

It's happened several times in history. Always right before some major faux pas and always with a handshake in the woods just north of Georgetown at midnight on the second Tuesday of the month.

Of course, on the fourth Tuesday of the month, they meet again and change back.