iang
Lib Dem
Posts: 1,815
|
Post by iang on Jul 12, 2022 7:37:04 GMT
it is sometimes debatable whether the Democrats should always have been classed as 'the left' and the Republicans as 'the right') when did the Democrats switch from being supporters of segregation to supporters of black rights? There were long elements of both - very broadly speaking, it was for quite a time in effect two parties, the liberal party of the north eg JFK, and the "yellow dog" Democrats of the south. I'd guess the turning point was 1968, when as a result of LBJ's legislation the number of black voters in the south had started to grow significantly which forced a change on the Democrats, and George Wallace ran as a southern splinter from the Democrats and carried five southern states. From that point I think the Democrats became identified with civil rights and the end to Jim Crow & segregation |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 12, 2022 9:02:28 GMT
when did the Democrats switch from being supporters of segregation to supporters of black rights? There were long elements of both - very broadly speaking, it was for quite a time in effect two parties, the liberal party of the north eg JFK, and the "yellow dog" Democrats of the south. I'd guess the turning point was 1968, when as a result of LBJ's legislation the number of black voters in the south had started to grow significantly which forced a change on the Democrats, and George Wallace ran as a southern splinter from the Democrats and carried five southern states. From that point I think the Democrats became identified with civil rights and the end to Jim Crow & segregation Well, there's a big gap between ceasing to support segregation and starting to support black rights.
What happened after about 1970 was that overt racism dropped out of mainstream politics and retreated to the fringe. The southern Democrats abandoned it, and the Republicans were never going to engage in it. (This is the party of Lincoln, after all.) So the comedy racist sheriff in Bond films of the early 1970s, explicitly identified as a Democrat incidentally, was a dying breed by that time.
This isn't to say that racist attitudes have disappeared, of course not, and politicians still find ways of pandering to them, but it has to be done in an indirect, coded manner alongside more formal and direct statements of support for race equality.
On the other hand, it is now possible for black candidates to win statewide elections even in the Deep South, witness Tim Scott in S Carolina and Raphael Warnock in Georgia, so it's progress of a sort I suppose.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jul 12, 2022 9:24:28 GMT
There were long elements of both - very broadly speaking, it was for quite a time in effect two parties, the liberal party of the north eg JFK, and the "yellow dog" Democrats of the south. I'd guess the turning point was 1968, when as a result of LBJ's legislation the number of black voters in the south had started to grow significantly which forced a change on the Democrats, and George Wallace ran as a southern splinter from the Democrats and carried five southern states. From that point I think the Democrats became identified with civil rights and the end to Jim Crow & segregation Well, there's a big gap between ceasing to support segregation and starting to support black rights. What happened after about 1970 was that overt racism dropped out of mainstream politics and retreated to the fringe. The southern Democrats abandoned it, and the Republicans were never going to engage in it. (This is the party of Lincoln, after all.) So the comedy racist sheriff in Bond films of the early 1970s, explicitly identified as a Democrat incidentally, was a dying breed by that time. This isn't to say that racist attitudes have disappeared, of course not, and politicians still find ways of pandering to them, but it has to be done in an indirect, coded manner alongside more formal and direct statements of support for race equality. On the other hand, it is now possible for black candidates to win statewide elections even in the Deep South, witness Tim Scott in S Carolina and Raphael Warnock in Georgia, so it's progress of a sort I suppose.
Yes. Voting preferences in the South are certainly racialised. There are black Republicans, but most black voters opt for the Democrats in the South, so they are limited in number. Also, in, say, Texas, the Democrats are less conservative than might be assumed - largely because the Republicans have sewn up that voting group so it doesn't really benefit them, in terms of picking up people who have moved to Texas from other states. There seems to be more volatility there than in some other Southern states, partially because of the diversity of the racial make-up in comparison to say, somewhere like Mississippi. |
|
iang
Lib Dem
Posts: 1,815
|
Post by iang on Jul 12, 2022 10:27:41 GMT
There were long elements of both - very broadly speaking, it was for quite a time in effect two parties, the liberal party of the north eg JFK, and the "yellow dog" Democrats of the south. I'd guess the turning point was 1968, when as a result of LBJ's legislation the number of black voters in the south had started to grow significantly which forced a change on the Democrats, and George Wallace ran as a southern splinter from the Democrats and carried five southern states. From that point I think the Democrats became identified with civil rights and the end to Jim Crow & segregation Well, there's a big gap between ceasing to support segregation and starting to support black rights.
What happened after about 1970 was that overt racism dropped out of mainstream politics and retreated to the fringe. The southern Democrats abandoned it, and the Republicans were never going to engage in it. (This is the party of Lincoln, after all.) So the comedy racist sheriff in Bond films of the early 1970s, explicitly identified as a Democrat incidentally, was a dying breed by that time.
This isn't to say that racist attitudes have disappeared, of course not, and politicians still find ways of pandering to them, but it has to be done in an indirect, coded manner alongside more formal and direct statements of support for race equality.
On the other hand, it is now possible for black candidates to win statewide elections even in the Deep South, witness Tim Scott in S Carolina and Raphael Warnock in Georgia, so it's progress of a sort I suppose.
Yes, would agree - I said 68 was a turning point, not a St Paul on the road to Damascus style conversion. And the argument of the Kennedys in the early 60s was that voting rights was the key to progress - once you got substantial numbers of black voters across the south, then politics would have to change, for electoral reasons |
|
|
|
Post by aargauer on Jul 12, 2022 11:26:47 GMT
Well, there's a big gap between ceasing to support segregation and starting to support black rights. What happened after about 1970 was that overt racism dropped out of mainstream politics and retreated to the fringe. The southern Democrats abandoned it, and the Republicans were never going to engage in it. (This is the party of Lincoln, after all.) So the comedy racist sheriff in Bond films of the early 1970s, explicitly identified as a Democrat incidentally, was a dying breed by that time. This isn't to say that racist attitudes have disappeared, of course not, and politicians still find ways of pandering to them, but it has to be done in an indirect, coded manner alongside more formal and direct statements of support for race equality. On the other hand, it is now possible for black candidates to win statewide elections even in the Deep South, witness Tim Scott in S Carolina and Raphael Warnock in Georgia, so it's progress of a sort I suppose.
Yes. Voting preferences in the South are certainly racialised. There are black Republicans, but most black voters opt for the Democrats in the South, so they are limited in number. Also, in, say, Texas, the Democrats are less conservative than might be assumed - largely because the Republicans have sewn up that voting group so it doesn't really benefit them, in terms of picking up people who have moved to Texas from other states. There seems to be more volatility there than in some other Southern states, partially because of the diversity of the racial make-up in comparison to say, somewhere like Mississippi. It would be interesting to know what % of white voters in Mississippi vote democrat. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,931
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 12, 2022 12:03:37 GMT
Its only about 10% or so, similar in South Carolina IIRC - in most other Southern states its a bit higher but still at historically low levels.
And yes, the big switch of Democrats from segregationism to civil rights was a process not a single event - it actually started under FDR and only ended pretty recently.
|
|
|
|
Post by batman on Jul 12, 2022 13:31:23 GMT
think it's a little higher in South Carolina, but not that much, and comparable in Alabama.
|
|
|
|
Post by aargauer on Jul 12, 2022 13:58:15 GMT
think it's a little higher in South Carolina, but not that much, and comparable in Alabama. Biden's share of the vote in Alabama (36.6%), was quite a lot higher than the % of the black population (27.8%), whereas in Mississippi those figures were much closer (41.1% and 37.8% respectively). That was what led me to guess that white Mississippians are the most conservative of any state's white population. I appreciate obviously that the world is not divided into just whites and blacks, the turnouts of whites relative to blacks will vary state to state, and the black republican % will vary a bit state to state, but its a starting point. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 12, 2022 15:12:37 GMT
think it's a little higher in South Carolina, but not that much, and comparable in Alabama. Biden's share of the vote in Alabama (36.6%), was quite a lot higher than the % of the black population (27.8%), whereas in Mississippi those figures were much closer (41.1% and 37.8% respectively). That was what led me to guess that white Mississippians are the most conservative of any state's white population. I appreciate obviously that the world is not divided into just whites and blacks, the turnouts of whites relative to blacks will vary state to state, and the black republican % will vary a bit state to state, but its a starting point. There is another factor to consider: a significant proportion of African Americans in the USA cannot vote due to unfair "felony disenfranchisement" laws, which unlike in the UK also apply to ex-prisoners on parole and sometimes after that, barring intervention from the state's governor and/or Board of Pardons & Paroles. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2022 15:27:26 GMT
it is sometimes debatable whether the Democrats should always have been classed as 'the left' and the Republicans as 'the right') when did the Democrats switch from being supporters of segregation to supporters of black rights? The switchover between Democrats and Republicans on the issue of race, identity and Southern culture is fascinating. It reminds me to an extent of the switch between the Tories and Labour rover Europe. |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,311 
|
Post by maxque on Jul 12, 2022 22:55:10 GMT
Well, there's a big gap between ceasing to support segregation and starting to support black rights. What happened after about 1970 was that overt racism dropped out of mainstream politics and retreated to the fringe. The southern Democrats abandoned it, and the Republicans were never going to engage in it. (This is the party of Lincoln, after all.) So the comedy racist sheriff in Bond films of the early 1970s, explicitly identified as a Democrat incidentally, was a dying breed by that time. This isn't to say that racist attitudes have disappeared, of course not, and politicians still find ways of pandering to them, but it has to be done in an indirect, coded manner alongside more formal and direct statements of support for race equality. On the other hand, it is now possible for black candidates to win statewide elections even in the Deep South, witness Tim Scott in S Carolina and Raphael Warnock in Georgia, so it's progress of a sort I suppose.
Yes. Voting preferences in the South are certainly racialised. There are black Republicans, but most black voters opt for the Democrats in the South, so they are limited in number. Also, in, say, Texas, the Democrats are less conservative than might be assumed - largely because the Republicans have sewn up that voting group so it doesn't really benefit them, in terms of picking up people who have moved to Texas from other states. There seems to be more volatility there than in some other Southern states, partially because of the diversity of the racial make-up in comparison to say, somewhere like Mississippi. Texas is also a bit wierd as a big part of the state is not culturally Southern. |
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Jul 13, 2022 15:24:25 GMT
when did the Democrats switch from being supporters of segregation to supporters of black rights? The switchover between Democrats and Republicans on the issue of race, identity and Southern culture is fascinating. It reminds me to an extent of the switch between the Tories and Labour rover Europe.
Someone with greater knowledge of US politics will know... I believe there was an ex-KKK wizard (or somesuch senior role) who was a serving Democrat Senator until relatively recently, like the early 2010s?
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jul 13, 2022 15:33:37 GMT
The switchover between Democrats and Republicans on the issue of race, identity and Southern culture is fascinating. It reminds me to an extent of the switch between the Tories and Labour rover Europe. Someone with greater knowledge of US politics will know... I believe there was an ex-KKK wizard (or somesuch senior role) who was a serving Democrat Senator until relatively recently, like the early 2010s?
Robert Byrd of West Virginia. Not a Grand Wizard but led a local chapter. However he entirely changed his view and by the end of his career had a 100% approval record from the NAACP in terms of his voting. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,790
|
Post by john07 on Jul 13, 2022 15:36:41 GMT
The switchover between Democrats and Republicans on the issue of race, identity and Southern culture is fascinating. It reminds me to an extent of the switch between the Tories and Labour rover Europe. Someone with greater knowledge of US politics will know... I believe there was an ex-KKK wizard (or somesuch senior role) who was a serving Democrat Senator until relatively recently, like the early 2010s?
Robert Byrd of West Virgina was a one time member of the KKK in the 1940s but admitted it was the biggest mistake of his life. |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jul 13, 2022 15:39:57 GMT
There is also David Duke, who was a former Grand Wizard who was a perennial candidate in Louisiana. His best results were 43% in the 1990 US Senate election, and 39% in the 1991 Louisiana Governor race.
|
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Jul 13, 2022 21:34:23 GMT
Unlikely that Braverman and Mordaunt are the final two, but I was wondering, has there ever been a leadership election with candidates from neighbouring seats before?
Did Heseltine and Hurd's seats share a border at the time they contested the leadership?
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jul 13, 2022 22:18:09 GMT
In 2019 Gove and Hunt were neighbours. Raab wasn't too far away either.
|
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Jul 13, 2022 23:34:20 GMT
In 2019 Gove and Hunt were neighbours. Raab wasn't too far away either.
I'm quite surprised there is a border between Surrey Heath and Surrey SW, but, yes, apparently there is.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,311
|
Post by maxque on Jul 14, 2022 0:04:45 GMT
In 2019 Gove and Hunt were neighbours. Raab wasn't too far away either.
I'm quite surprised there is a border between Surrey Heath and Surrey SW, but, yes, apparently there is.
Surrey Heath has a wierd tail covering the Ash area. Unsurprisingly, it's going away in the proposed boundaries, with Ash going in a new constituency called Godalming and Ash, which also includes most of rural areas currently in Guildford. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jul 14, 2022 7:56:18 GMT
In 2019 Gove and Hunt were neighbours. Raab wasn't too far away either. Neighbourhood Watch meetings must have been fun. |
|
