Posted on 06/27/2003 2:04:53 PM PDT by AveMaria
The late Strom Thurmond left the Democratic Party in 1964, and joined the Republican Party, bringing a part of the Dixiecrat worldview with him.
The Republicans were always been the party of Capitalism and equal rights before 1964. During the Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt years, the GOP opposed the Democratic party's socialist policies, and in addition, they were supportive of black Civil Rights. Before 1964, Republicans had proven that there was no contradiction between supporting capitalism, and supporting civil rights. And during the era of Dwight and Mamie Eisenhower, the Republican Party came to be identified as the party of family values and traditional morality, as well as the party of Civil Rights. In those years, the Republicans proudly identified with Abraham Lincoln and the anti-slavery heritage of the party, and no Republican ever felt obligated to defend the Confederate Flag.
Today, blacks and other racial minorities regard Republicans as racists. Many modern Republicans feel obligated to defend the Confederate Flag and the Confederacy, which are part of the heritage of Democrats of the Old South, and not part of the Republican party's proud abolitionist and pro-Union heritage. And, sadly, Bush had to issue a statement agreeing with the Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action, as the only way he could prove to blacks that he is not prejudiced.
In 1956, Eisenhower received about 50 percent of the black vote, and in 1960, Nixon received 35 percent of the black vote. In 1932, Herbert Hoover received 67 percent of the black vote, during the Great Depression. Did the Republican Party pay too high a moral price for Strom Thurmond's support, when he joined the party in 1964?
I believe that, even without the Southern strategy of Goldwater and Nixon, and even without embracing the Dixiecrat worldview, Southerners would still have joined the GOP, because they share the Republican Party's values on traditional morality, gun rights, patriotism, low taxes, limited government, anti-abortion views, etc. Only that it would have taken 10 to 15 years extra, for the majority of Southerners to vote for the GOP.
More significantly, if the blacks had stuck with the GOP in those years, they would not have been corrupted by the moral relativism of the Democrats, and they would have the strong families that they had in the Eisenhower era, when 78 percent of black babies were born to married parents.
And the Bush administration would have filed an Amicus brief, supporting the right of Texas to keep sodomy laws in its books.
And most importantly, blacks would not have the mistrust of the Republican Party that they have today, and they would not have felt they needed affirmative action, because they could trust the Party of Lincoln to guarantee them equal opportunity and equal rights.
And blacks would not automatically assume that a white person is racist, simply because he is a Republican, as is the case today.
"Many"?? How "many". That's a very general statement on your part unsupported by anything factual. I can play the same game: Many blacks in America don't have a clue who Strum Thurmund is!"
Hey! That's fun! Just saying things like they are fact.
Short answer: No.
Longer version: Thurmond's switch, combined with the election of John Tower in 1961, marked a key point in the Republican party's history by signifying the switch of conservative southerners into the R column as the last remnants of the conservative D's dissappeared. At present the conservative south makes up the foundation of the Republican Party's electoral support and will continue to for the foreseable future. We could not win a national election without it. By contrast the blacks make up a significantly smaller portion of the electorate - some 10-12% at most. While it would be nice to have their votes and I encourage any of them to join us, this is currently unfeasible and will be until the culture of race baiting dissappears. The race baiting that has landed the blacks firmly in the D column is not something new to recent decades either. It has much less to do with anything the Republican Party ever did in the 60's than it does with factors that were present for decades prior to that. Specifically it traces to a split in the civil rights movement around the turn of the last century between the conservative individual liberty and responsibility minded branch of that movement led by Booker T. Washington and a hideous left wing marxist beast of race hustling led by WEB DuBois. Washington's legacy is better known today but his movement has dwindled to a trickle, encompassing a small number of conservative blacks. DuBois' exploded into what we have today with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton being his direct philosophical heirs.
Strom Thurmond not only brought over enough Southern Democrats to begin to change the ratios, in doing so, he more than almost any other man, pushed the Republican Party enough to the right to make it clearly the more Conservative Party. The election of Ronald Reagan, and of both Bushes, were made possible, because of formerly Democratic voters, realigned as a result of forces that Thurmond set in motion.
Thurmond was, moreover, the man most responsible for moving the Supreme Court at least somewhat to the Right of where it had been during the long Earl Warren nightmare. It was the one condition he extracted for supporting Nixon in 1968, that Nixon appoint more Conservative Justices than had been the wont. It was a major point with Thurmond ever since.
As for your equating the Republican Party with Lyndon Johnson's "Civil Rights Bills" in 1964 & 1965? You will look in vain for any more Socialistic Legislation, in our history. The Republican Conservatives, Goldwater, etc., opposed the bills. The Republicans who voted for them, were the "me-to" Republicans, who before Thurmond, managed to thwart all efforts to make the Republican Party a more Conservative party.
Finally, although it is not the subject of this thread, let me pay a well deserved tribute to one of that small band--that very, very small band--of decent and honorable men, who held political office in America in the 20th Century. It was not, by and large, a time for statesmanship. Most of our public office holders were a sorry lot, fluttering in the wind, without embarrassment, and with few principles that they would not abandon for a perceived advantage. In that sorry state of affairs, Strom Thurmond stood out as lighthouse in the storm: A man of principle in an age of the vilest trimming and subterfuge.
May he rest in Peace! May God comfort his family and fellow South Carolinians in their loss.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Actually, the second most. The strongest critic was Virginia's Senator, Harry Flood Byrd. But, they were frequent allies, so that point is not important, here.
But what is to the point, is that Taft opposed the F.E.PC. bill--which was the core of Truman Civil Rights program--which was, in turn, the basic source of Johnson's Civil Rights bills of 1964 & 1965. So don't imply that had he lived, he would not have been delighted with Strom Thurmond's switching parties. He worked very closely with the Southern Democrats, throughout Truman's Presidency.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Anyway, fact is Dems made a big deal out of civil rights and Reps didn't. So those interested in civil rights would not be attracted to Reps, even at this late date. In reality, there is no difference between Dems and Reps at this time, a natural consequence of a nearly even split in numbers. However, there is no Rep Left and no Dem Right but they both have large Moderate membership, so we can look at the wings and pretend they represent the difference between the parties even though they don't make much difference in sheer numbers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.