Fun fact of the day.

No, put that somewhere on Trump Wall, and that’d be lit!

or a liberal republican.

or that the ideologies of both parties have experienced sharp,multiple changes over their history.

political parties,taken at face value,are opportunists first and foremost.they will always lean towards whatever will butter their bread.octavia is correct in the sense that the republican/democratic parties of history would be damn near unrecognizable by todays standards.

"octavia is correct in the sense that the republican/democratic parties of history would be damn near unrecognizable by todays standards.

I don't like to make assumptions around your arguments, so I will ask. Are you referring to, as I suspect Octavia is as well, the supposed "party switching" in the South during the 1960's-70's.

there were multiple shifts in ideologies over the years.

Octavia was speaking to one particular shift: The Southern Strategy. That is a myth.

Great...lets have a look at this "actual party switching" shall we? And lets see what actually holds up to critical analysis.

The story is based on three claims: 1. The Republican were weak in the South and to become competitive, began to appeal to racist (aka The Southern Strategy). 2. Southern Democrats switched parties after the 1964 Civil Rights Act. and 3. Since the "switching" the Republicans became the dominant party in the South.

The first claim (like the all three claims, is a myth) is incredibly ignorant. The Republican Party was competitive in the South going back to the 1920's. Hoover (Republican) dominated the South in the election against Democrat Al Smith, Hoover took 47% of the Southern Popular Vote. In the 1950's, Eisenhower was incredibly popular in the South, winning the states of TN, FL and VA in 1952 and LA and KY in 1956. That came after Ike supported Brown vs The Board of Education and his sending of the army to Little Rock to desegregate the local high school.

As we can see, the claim that Republicans were not competitive until "pandering to racists" in the 1960's is historically inaccurate.

The second claim, and the key argument, is that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 caused a major shift in the parties, with elected Democrats moving to the Republican Party. Does this hold up? NOPE. There were 21 Democrat Senator's who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. How many switched parties in the 1960's after that? Well that would be the overwhelming number of ONE!!! One person, and the remaining seats continued under Democrat control for next 20-30 years.

If there was such a major "switch" of voters supporting racist Democrats to racist Republicans, its odd they waited until the late 1980's into the 1990's to finally set control of the South with the Republican Party.

Claim 3, since the Southern Strategy, Republicans (aka racists) have dominated the South. Again, history is not kind to false claims. Dick Nixon, who is credited by Democrats as the creator of the Southern Strategy, LOST THE SOUTH in 1968 (fours years after the Civil Rights Act) and Carter all but swept the region in 1976 (Twelve years after the supposed racist in the Republican Party became dominant). And in 1992, Bill Clinton won six Southern States. Then, the so-called solidified racism in the South, went on to elect black man Senator Tim Scott in 2013.

Yes, I know, history books tell you these claims are true, and we have never seen bias in education.

Between the 1880s and the 1960s, the issues were more bipartisan, so Democrats & Republicans didn’t actually mean anything. Southerners were never racist, either. Abraham Lincoln only freed the slaves to devastate the southern economy, and he was in favor of segregation. Robert E Lee, on the other hand, was a Confederate abolitionist.

They are arguments that are routinely made, I never said you made all of them.

The story of "party switching" in the 1960's, which you did make, is not accurate. As we can see in the paragraph related to the second myth, which if you hadn't noticed says "key argument" so as to point out that I was addressing your claim.

So as we are not talking past one another, I would need more clarity around what you mean or how you are defining liberal and conservative.

I am glad I asked for that clarification. We would have been talking past one another in a fruitless exchange.

If thats how you see the two groups, then I am not sure I can provide an answer to your question that you would find palatable.

The Democratic Confederates were fighting against the communist Republicans, not because the southerners wanted to keep slavery. Not only was Abraham Lincoln pen pals with Karl Marx, but Lincoln also favored Jim Crow laws, while General Lee on the Confederate side was an abolitionist. In fact, the only reason why Lincoln freed the slaves was to devastate the southern economy. Any modern-day Republican who uses the strawman that the Republicans freed the slaves is a cuckservative.

"but Lincoln also favored Jim Crow laws,"

How could Lincoln favor laws that came 100 years AFTER Lincoln's presidency and DEATH?

They creator was an a believer in manifest destiny and choose based off that belief.

2utp0c.jpg (click to show) 3041g0.jpg (click to show) You really need to educate yourself about the civil war. Real right-wingers know that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery!

God bless the Confederacy, amiright
or amiright? Just like I tell the AfD Sieg and they say Heil

The Confederacy, unlike the NSDAP, wanted freedom. If the south woulda won, America would be a capitalist economy.

Sure