Big thanks to ProfessorPolitics for explaining the lag between presidential and state/local elections. Check him out at ua-cam.com/users/professorpolitics And MicahPsych for lending his voice for those (sometimes racist) quotes!
Yeah there was a lag. It was heinous / unthinkable for older generations to identify with the other party. Esp. in the south. They weren't going to call themselves Republicans and register as such no matter how the politics were shifting.
The problem is that if you're for example pro 2nd amendment, you have no choice but to vote for the kind of lukewarm to the 2nd amendment republicans over the democrats who are opposed to it. Or if you're socialist you have to vote for the kind of open to some socialist ideals democrats over the avidly opposed republicans. Most people don't actually align with republican or democrat ideals, they're just closer to one of them.
The confusion can come even when you name them concretely. For example in Portugal the major right-wing party is called Social Democratic Party. It competes with left-wing Socialist party, lefter Left Bloc and leftest Unitary Democratic Coalition
Well even more specifically named ones have this problem. The modern Communist Party of China since Deng Xiaoping is obviously quite different ideologically than it was during Mao Tse-Tung, one could stand to question if the leadership is even communist at all nowadays.
It’s true that some ‘specifically’ named parties have confusing names - Portugal’s conservatives being one of the best examples, as well as how the ‘liberals’ are the right party in Australia, but the left party in Canada - but for the most part it does make things clearer. Sometimes you do need some context, however - e.g. like how in English adding the word ‘people’s’ to a party sounds left-wing, but in most Germanic languages the term ‘volk’ or its equivalents is pretty right-wing
@Ranel Gallardo - *"Journalist quotes him"* - Protip: You can't get out of having your words accurately reported just by saying "don't print this". The person you're talking to has to agree to keep your secret. You request that the interview be "on background" or "off the record". If the reporter agrees you can be as racist as you like an no one will ever know. Now go forth and you use your new knowledge! Cheers!
I think that was dropped after atwood had already passed. Releasing off-the-record statements might as well be career suicide for a journalist. But it is hilarious that he prefaced it with "dont quote me on this"
I don’t understand why you would base your voting decision on what the parties used to be rather than what they are now and what they currently at this moment in time are advocating for.
I think this lag is more of a thing for people who (A) are old enough that the "used to be" in question is still within their personal lived memory and (B) are only _somewhat_ engaged in politics and didn't really keep up with the shifts as they were happening.
@@davidtaylor142 In said quote he goes into a hypothetical that is often clipped from the interview; not just one piece of the quote, but generally they skip over a line that makes it clear he's not even agreeing with the premise: "Here's how I would approach that issue as a statistician or a political scientist. Or as a psychologist, which I'm not, is how abstract you handle the race thing. Now once you start out, and now you don't quote me on this, you start out in 1954 by saying '[n-word], [n-word], [n-word].' By 1968 you can't say '[n-word],' that hurts you, backfires, so you say stuff like ‘forced bussing, states rights’ and all that stuff, and you're getting so abstract. Now you're talking about cutting taxes and all these things. What you’re talking about are totally economic things, and the byproduct often is Blacks get hurt worse than whites." This is usually the first part of the quote, but then these next couple lines are very often skipped over: "And subconsciously maybe that is part of it, I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract and that coded, that we're doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. "Do you follow me?" We can see from these lines that: 1) He's presenting it as a hypothetical that he doesn't even agree with and 2) even if it were true, racism as a whole was becoming less acceptable everywhere, including in the southeast. But those lines are usually cut out and it skips to this next part: "Because obviously sitting around saying, 'we want to cut taxes, we want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the bussing thing, and a hell of lot more abstract than, '[n-word], [n-word].'" This deceptively edited quote is often used as a silver bullet "admission" as proof of a party switch conspiracy theory.
@@MarioFanaticXV the rest of that quote is just admitting that they're trying to remove the mentioning of race while still using it as a polarizing force. It's more admission of dogwhistling
"Now this may come as shock to you, because it certainly did me. Polling data showed that the voting rights act wasn't even in the top 10 concerns for southern whites. It showed that the main concerns among southern whites wasn't race but national defense and economics. So that's what we campaign on." -The exact same interview. The more you know.
@@saytax the 1950s dems literally filibustered the civil rights act for 24 hours. It seems to me it was something their politicians cared about at least.
@@LisaBeergutHolst I dont know how much validity there is in that statement, but unless you actually listen to the entire interview or read the transcript you won't know what the context is. No, he wasn't bending anything. In this quote, he speaks in hypertheticals, he says, if he was some machiavellian strategist, he'd do what the southern politicians (democrat) did, and that was to be so abstract in the language; state's rights, forced bussing, all that. But then adds in the end of the hypothetical that the campaign didn't have to do that. He says the same thing before the hyperthetical. The campaign went off of polling data. The voting rights act wasn't even in the top 10 concerns of southern whites. What white collar southerners cared about was economics and national defense. "So that's what we campaigned on."
@@saytax That's right. They campaigned on economics knowing that they could use it to appeal to Southern racists: "and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites".
Think through the logistics of what He suggested! How could they create a secret list of words that had hidden meanings, then distribute it through all the southern states, but only to the racists. Without the whole thing getting discovered and exposed on the nightly news? I have been a conservative since the Vietnam war when the news media gave away U.S. battle plans on the nightly news and got many U.S. soldiers killed! Never have I ever seen a secret list of words with hidden meanings being passed around! Being a White Man married to a Black Woman I would have told the distributor of such a list that He was an ignorant bigot!
Teddy cared about the environment because he was worried about not being able to hunt every animal with his bare hands if they died out because they weren't protected. A man after my own heart.
Political compromise in a nutshell: I like the action you are taking but, your motivation is a little suspect. Guy 1: we must end segregation! Guy 2: great! Join us in supporting this equality amend- Guy 1: I'm tired of the owner of the general store fleecing just whites! The blacks and others need to suffer this price gouging too! Guy 2: please just vote for the bill and leave the talking to us, ok?
@@aliway4136 You deadass tryin' to claim Theodore 'fuckin' Roosevelt was not an avid hunter? Why you gotta do the man like that, he loved to show off his trophies and photos!
It always gets me whenever members of certain parties try to own the actions of their party from over a hundred years ago as if the party of then is still the same as the party of today
The political spectrum to be fair has changed so much being a conservative in the 50s is a lot different to being a conservative now. The military is a good example because a good American conservative 90 years ago would have hated the idea of large military because goes against the founding ideals of America but now conservatives are all for it. There has not being ideological consistency for the last two hundred years in America so that should be fairly taken into account.
@Will _ I'm sorry that high school history failed you so spectacularly. Instead of demanding answers in a youtube comments section, you should probably do a bit of research so you can meet the entry level requirement of political discussions in the US.
@Will _ And who was fighting in WW2? Oh yeah, Democrats. And republicans opposed intervention. In WW1, Roosevelt was the only one to want an intervention, and remember he split from the republicans.
Dude, shut up if you knew how difficult multi-party politics would be, you'd prefer a double-party system This message was promoted by the Hispanic gang
@@voxpopuli7910 Dude, you'd prefer a multi-party system if your parties weren't riddled with cartel collusion and corruption. This message was brought to you by Anglo Gang.
Speaking from a Canadian perspective.. it’s great to have a choice in which party to vote, while not choosing the main two may not have as much power, we still can sway our government different ways. In the recent federal election we have a minority government, which forces our House of Commons to really battle out different issues. We’ve seen that having more perspectives can help more citizens. I think it’s great! Two party systems are a way of making division and force choice, if there are more parties, more voices get heard.
Quinn Stilwell We still have shit parties and too few of them. I would like to just have people with their own agendas, and not parties. I want someone who can have some conservative policy and some liberal policy and anything in between.
This video just proves that the party switch idea isn’t simple and is really complicated to prove. It proves that the parties neither 180 swapped nor did they stay the exact same
This is the take I agree with. It was a hard all-encompassing Switch. I’d argue that a part of the problem is that there haven’t only ever been two broader ideological camps but at the very least three and that they’ve mixed and matched in different ways over time.
@Corry Burton I don’t follow or am part of any party first of all.And yes they clearly have changed drastically.For one the Republican Party in 1980 had a conservative revolution with the ousting of the old Rockerfeller Republicans who were moderate or conservative liberals.And of course with the Democratic Party you have the New Deal Coaliation changing them.Clearly you haven’t watched the video since a party switch as I stated does not mean politicians leaving the party as most just retire.
@Corry Burton Also these aren’t ancecdotes you are talking anecdotes saying well only 4 politicians left ,yeah that’s not what people mean by a party switch,it means a change in policies of the parties.
When talking about the "party switch", it's always the south that is brought up, but never the north. I want to know more about the north's evolution in politics
It's mostly because modern Republicans use it in their propaganda to imply "Look how evil the Democrats were _back in the day_ (i.e. pre-party switch)".
It's more correct to say that rather than the parties "switching," the US political parties during the Gilded Age (end of Reconstruction in 1877 until the Great Depression) didn't particularly believe in anything at all.
@@mathewfinch No, Northern Republicans were super into eugenics during that time period. They loved race based immigration quotas and sterilizing disabled people, which were considered progressive at the time. (Later, a failed Austrian painter whose name I don't want to use here was inspired by these policies, and praised American Republicans in his writings and speeches.) A vestige of that was Republicans being the party pushing "family planning" in the 60's and 70's as an alternative to welfare. George HW Bush was on the board of directors of Planned Parenthood before he became Reagan's VP. Reagan, and the emergence of guns and abortion as wedge issues, was really the end of Northern Republicans as a distinct thing. By the time of George W Bush (born and raised in Connecticut, but a master student of Southern Democrat race baiting), there was really only one Republican party.
@Ambrose Burnside But to answer your question-Ronald Reagan was conservative then prior Republican nominees (except Goldwater). , and the moderate wing of the party is now insignificant.
@Ambrose Burnside That's pure conservativism but it's not the real world. Lot of conservatives may want those things-but realize that you can't have everything you want-indeed if you go to far-then the other side takes power-and then you get nothing.
Well done. One thing that folks might find interesting. I always teach to my students that the Civil Rights Movement started during WWII, with African Americans protesting racial segregation in the military, as well as the race riots that broke out in Detroit in 1943.
I think that you're doing it right to make it a long-term view. This sort of stuff is a long-term process that can sometimes be catalyzed by something short-term.
The civil rights movement start during WW2?? I've been reading black newspapers from the post-civil war era to the 30's and I can tell you right now that this is complete BS.
In some ways you could say there was a "Civil Rights Movement" since the founding of the nation, depending on how you want to define it. It just wasn't until the 1930s-60s where blacks started to see significant victories and leaps in social standing.
One of the things that really blew my mind was the fact that during WWII, African American soldiers had to stand in buses in order to let German POIs sit, by virtue of being white. The USA during WWII was so incredibly racist, that actual card holding nazis were considered superior to American soldiers of color.
The earliest broadcasts that started in the early 70’s portrayed them the right way with Republicans as Blue and Democrats as Red. But different networks started doing them inconsistently over time until all of them were using the current color scheme by the Mid-90’s. The two most common explanations you will hear are that they either like the alliteration of Red and Republican or that they simply didn’t want the Democrats associated with the color of Communism.
A lot of single-issue and in-between voters don't pay the color association much time, its really amongst the party members themselves. For instance, at Republican events many women don red dresses. Sometimes politicians also try to cross over, as to not look so allegiant to only one half of the population; at one 2016 debate Trump wore a blue tie, the Democrats' color, and Hillary wore a red dress. The association is a fairly recent development, and the only real reason the binary of red and blue is used before other colors is that they're 2 of our 3 colors. I'm sure the parties would gladly use the nice, pure white only that's the flag of surrender, not to mention it looks like an unshaded map😂
We should’ve listen to Eisenhower because now we live with the military industrial complex and have a huge amount of the tax money siphoned into funding it.
Until we cement a new alliance passing on NATO , it is good to have a large standing army. The only threat I feel worried about is either China or Russia
@@christopherrivera9827 Russia doesn't need that much containment - for now, at least. It's broke, relies on extraction industries, has a falling population, will lose much of its southern land mass and will probably be surpassed by India in the coming century. The development of India is more relevant to long-term US interests - where for eg, is US going to get its PhDs from? Reforming the school system in US and crushing the Democrat colonization of education looks impossible. US looks set to still require 50% of its PhDs in future - unless those who 'benefit' from the Dems wise up and burn the party down and crush 'democratic' control of education. This is relevant in both lower case and upper case 'd'. Parents, families and individuals should be able to balance the power of the community, in relation to education. Nato is useless as 'containment'- Nato needs a replacement - by something like the Three Seas initiative. This is all a long way from denying the obvious fact that the Democrats are the party of plantation, slavery, Jim Crow, mass incarceration and the prison industrial complex, welfare slavery and black genocide by planned parenthood.
@@christopherrivera9827 funny I find the greatest immediate threat to be politicians in Europe and America in the pockets of third world dictators. Big Oil money controls politicians and the American defence forces.
@Kerbal Miles oh no bc u belive democrats are racist for foudning the kkk and bc u cant deny parties didnt switch bc of this video u say we agree when no republican agrees
@Kerbal Miles at the time sure i can say maybe it wasn’t racist but now yea i belive the flag is racist bc what did the confederets fight for and why would people now support that
Saying Teddy Roosevelt was "anti big business" is a bit of an overstatement. he believed there were good trusts and bad trusts, not some kind of demonic portrayal of business. In fact, he broke with Taft partially because Taft had become indiscriminate in trust busting - Taft busted more than Teddy did.
@@alexanderf8451 nah, he was crony capitalist. Maybe it wasn't based on whether the trust supported the right politician, but I'm gonna assume it was until proof otherwise supplied.
Note: Liberalism and conservatism are in no way opposites of each other. They're merely the focal points of the only 2 political parties in the US. One can be a liberal conservative or vise versa, depending on the emphasis you want.
@@maximilianjack1764 *liberalism* noun [ U ] uk /ˈlɪb.ər.əl.ɪ.zəm/ us /ˈlɪb.ər.əl.ɪ.zəm/ 1. _an attitude of respecting and allowing many different types of beliefs or behaviour_ 2. _the political belief that there should be free trade, that people should be allowed more personal freedom, and that changes in society should not be made in an extreme way_ *authoritarianism* /ɔːˌθɒrɪˈtɛːrɪənɪz(ə)m/ noun _the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom_ *conservatism* /kənˈsəːvətɪz(ə)m/ noun 1. _commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation._ 2. _the holding of political views that favour free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas._ *progressivism* /prəˈɡrɛsɪvɪz(ə)m/ noun _support for or advocacy of social reform_
Note the term "Social Conservative" and "Social Liberal" That's what the video was about, used initially and later used the short form. Social conservatives and social liberals are opposites. Economically liberalism and conservatism isn't that far apart.
I tried explaining to a conservative friend that over the years, the parties did in fact have major belief changes over the years which is evident on how various parts of the country started voting. He dismissed it as fake news.
I'm thinking of ditching mine. He admitted behind my back that "I don't call my liberal friend an idiot, but I do think that!" I never have had that mindset towards him but, ya know, he's into that anti leftoid liberal agenda or whatever the bravados called.
The BIG mistake liberals and the media make is painting the Civil Rights Movement as the "moment of the flip". Immediately conservatives can point to the electoral maps of Eisenhower and Reagan (along with Nixon in 1972) and show all or much of the South voting with the rest of the country. The economic voting patterns are too often completely ignored. Eisenhower and Theodore Roosevelt would have found themselves at odds in MULTIPLE areas, notably labor unions, the economy and stuff like religion in government. Eisenhower if honestly studied is much more along the lines of Reagan than many earlier Republicans in several ways. This is why I laugh when Eisenhower is painted as a liberal, he literally threw a lot of FDR and Truman's policies in the trash after taking office (including the Economic Bill of Rights).
Every time I am presented with the ship of Theseus, I reaffirm my answer of "it is always the ship of Theseus". The ship is it's charter, not its material parts.
It would appear that every time you're presented with the ship of Theseus you are consistently unable to understand the concept. Frankly, I don't think you're trying very hard. I don't think you're trying at all. Either that or you're catastrophically unintelligent. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with "not trying very hard". Actually, your answer makes as much sense as Southern Republicans of today claiming to represent the party of Lincoln, and that Democrats are the party of the KKK. 😂. That's "Prager University" level stupid.
@@ayczbx4652you’d have to throw the entire book, not just a page. A single page is more akin to a plank. Unless you’re going to write “this is the ship of Theseus” on the page.
Yeah, but democrats like Knowing Better really want to add in racism as one of the factors that made the south turn Republican so they can pawn off the horrible racism from democrats pre-1960s onto republicans. Clearly what happened was a generational shift and the change of what social conservatism was. It’s why you see the south still vote for Carter and Bill Clinton because they showed themselves off as conservative Democrats at the time. Part of that comes from the misunderstanding of the Republican Party. The Republican Party were conservatives, they just weren’t racial segregationists. They were still pro gun, anti abortion, and anti communist. Republicans were not liberal. JFK was a liberal while LBJ was a conservative. Democrats were both the liberals, left wing radicals, and the ultra conservatives all within a single party while the republicans were always unified under social and economic conservatism. This wasn’t Republican vs democrats. It was Southern Dixiecrats vs everyone else. He isn’t wrong, but he leaves out so much and really wants to see racism where there is none. Lee Atwater was outcasted from the Republican Party. The State who voted Strom Thurman, voted in a black republican into the senate. Republicans didn’t just win the south, they won rural areas all over. Democrats have always been the party of big cities. It’s just that pre-1960 they managed to be big city liberals and rural southerners. Part of the party Switch myth is why the democrats won northern states, and those had nothing to do with racism. It had to do with big cities growing vastly and those areas becoming more liberal. Democrats like pretend like there was no racism against the Irish, Polish, Jewish, and Italians in New York because they know they can’t pawn it off to the republicans.
@@kylevernon I don't think we should leave out racism. When Democrats became anti-segregationist it ultimately doomed them in the south. They managed to be both liberal and conservative beforehand but would no longer forgive liberalness after the civil rights era. As the last Segregationist democrats lost or died, they turned red. While Republicans didn't necessarily become pro-segregation, they did decide to exploit the the dividing democratic party and embrace cultural conservatism. For some people in the south, it was also revenge for a perceived abandoning during the civil rights era.
TheAmazingDolphin As I said before, yes democrats lost the south in the 1962 election, but that’s it. LBJ was hated by the south, but not the Democratic Party as a whole. Carter and Clinton only managed to win because of the south.
It wasn't really a flip, however. From Reconstruction to 1924, elections were North vs South From 2004 onwards elections are urban vs rural. It was more of a gradual shift, one that's still ongoing. Every election cycle, urban areas get more Democrat, and rural areas go more Republican, and if there's a place that doesn't align with that, it will rapidly trend to where it needs to.
Though the Rust-Belt is bucking that trend to an extent since the Trump administration seems to be backing industrial concerns, it'll be interesting to see if the Republicans stay on that or not going forward.
That's not exactly true. There are a number of urban areas like Boise, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Cincinnati and Southwest Florida that are more Republican, and rural areas like Western Wisconsin, Southern Texas, Eastern Iowa, Western Massachusetts, most of Vermont, and the Black Belt tend to be more Democratic. The "urban archipelago" narrative may have been compelling to explain Kerry's loss, but it was never all that accurate. Journalist Colin Woodard's research into this, while somewhat flawed in some points, indicates regional culture has a more significant role to play.
KnuxMaster 368 it’s always been urban vs rural. That’s literally the federalists vs the anti federalists. The first major political split. Based around what system our country should model. Rural family owned farms or urban mercantile industry. This divide has always been there. You must realize that.
For clarification, the Voting Rights Act of 1960 was used to rid poll tax by first having the records be kept to prove racially based discrimination, which it did.
Fuck both, we need a new teddy. He was a gigachad in all ways: -War vet -Helped the little man by busting monopolies -He created competition in the free market -Literal progressive Who wants to dispute?
I think it makes sense here since he is taking about parties in a binary system as opposed to ideologies. I don't know if you can stick democrat or republican on an x/y axis.
He literally separated economic politics from social politics. Even so, the political compass is BS. The libertarian/authoritarian axis may well be called the good/bad axis
The “political compass” is just TWO binary metrics stacked on top of each other in some dipshit effort to reduce the ludicrous nature of either of those measurements by simultaneously embracing both of them
Just going to leave this critique of both sides here. Both sides love to use the support of the KKK as something that represents the entire party when in reality the KKK is a miniscule minority that barely deserves a mention. While they had power ~70 or so years ago that is ~70 years from today. In less than 70 years Venezuela went from incredibly wealthy to extremely poor and in ~100 years the British Empire went from 1/4 the globe to a tiny island. People using extremists as playing cards is so incredibly lazy and stupid that it boggles my mind. 23:30 That is probably the best way it could be put.
The fact that England was a global empire is something that definitely deserves a mention and is the reason the majority of the world is the way it is, and the reason America fucking exists. That's a terrible comparison.
True, the Klan is small. But for which party does the modern Klan vote for? Were they voting for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? Or Mitt Romney and Donald Trump? Which political party applauds the efforts of the Klan and the "alt-right?" Which party would love to see both evaporate to nothingness? Go ahead, take a guess. Believe it or not, the Political Spectrum does mean something. There are defining traits to each side. The Klan is most definitely on the extreme right hand side of the Spectrum. The same extreme position that the Republican party has been steadily moving toward these past 40+ years.
Douglas Dea Ok and what party does antifa vote for? What party gives antifa good press? Do you see why using an extremist group as an example is flawed? To tackle your point on where the parties are going I will give you this. No, neither of the parties are getting more and more extreme than the other. The Republican party isn't going to become the KKK and the Democratic party isn't going to become antifa. You are basing what each party is doing on the vocal minority, not the silent majority.
I found it humorous that George Washington, either when he left office or when he died, told the country to not form political parties, and then said "eeh" and did it anyway.
That was when he left office. The way I was taught it, Washington was pressured to decide between the Federalists and anti-federalists, the only two parties of the time. He refused to pick a side because he always hated how party allegiances divided the country. Towards the end of his second term he caved and decided to side with the federalists, for which he took so much shit from the anti-federalists that he refused to run for a third term. That's supposedly where the tradition of the president's running for only two terms comes from. Not totally sure on the one-hundred percent accuracy of all this, but its one reading of history. The inability of political parties to cooperate was what led Washington to resign after two terms.
I have no doubt that some of Washington's anti-partisan views had to do with regional alliances, but these two regions weren't part of the union until after his death. That also doesn't change the well-documented fact that Washington was against the formation of political parties. I don't have to be "wrong" for you to be right about this so why are you framing this as an attack?
Yeah, its true that in the Farewell Address he mentions regional prejudices within the union and argues for why individual states are better together rather than apart. At one point towards the end he says "I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally." Then he goes on to describe how parties are bad, but they form inevitably. So we're both right.
Sadly the estate was almost entirely built from rotting wood. Btw please tell me to kill myself, I'm trying to become numb to being told, even when people find my address and tell me over the phone or vandalize my home.(I still have no clue how they found my number)
@@daerdevvyl4314 I would say that maybe Josh is being sarcastic, but I just saw someone check twice when backing their truck up yesterday...by getting out and looking and still backed off of the side of a cement dock.
The problem is the Republican Party “Ship” is missing TWO HUGE PLANKS that it never took from The Democrats. The Republicans NEVER supported Slavery, and the practice had been illegal for 130 years after the south “went Republican” consistently in 2000. The others are Jim Crow era laws and the real KKK. Neither one was something that existed and also was being represented by a bunch of Republicans. You’re such a biased propagandist faux intellectual. It’s disgusting, incorrect, and divisive to presume the Republicans became the slave owning, KKK Lynching, Jim Crow era Democrats because in the year 2000 the Republicans started to win the South consistently. Which was related to libertarian and pro-business reasons, not racism. This entire video and theory of the ships is PROPAGANDA, not based on evidence, facts, history and is 100% intellectually dishonest.
hey, who else should they use than their token black person? I cant wait til they use a token trans person on trans topics lmao, will be a day to remember
@@truthseeker6377 Prager U is objectively conservative and right. He's not catering, he's presenting facts. Of course he has bias, like every other human being ever.
@@khadijahmuhammad4771 mmm there's a lot of non-facts and misinformation though. It kinda keeps me on the fence for still not knowing the truth about this scenario
Slamz Dunk well of course PragerU would admit it when they produce a video trying to call the modern Democratic Party racist. The whole thing was a hit piece attempting to blame slavery on the Democratic Party rather than placing the blame on the divide between the industrial north and farmer south. The north wanted skilled labour to run the banks and factories as the weather in the northern states made farming a less viable industry to pay off their state’s debts while the south needed manual labour to pay off theirs. Slavery existed in both the North and South while still a British colony but only the South would benefit from it financially after independence.
"The South itself has changed. Its values have changed." I live in South Carolina, and I see Confederate battle flags flying over more than one house. The fact that these people would rather fly those than U.S. flags shows how much their values have changed.
Sir Not Appearing In This Film I can’t belief that they celebrate traitors. The union didn’t fail the south. The south failed the union! Treason is one of the most selfish and morally repugnant acts one can commit, and As a yankee and a wasp I sometimes wonder why the north didn’t just leave the south in ruins. It’s refreshing to know that the south was worth preserving.
Sorry as a native Texan the flag meams something different now. While yes some people fly it because they're racist. Many fly it out of southern pride.
Number One is incredibly true, but I'm not so sure about the second one. So few people switch parties, but I do believe he'd be a Liberal Republican, or, as some Republicans call them nowadays, "Republicans In Name Only".
@@starlightbutthealt8991 I suggest you look at his economic policies before saying he’d be a Liberal Republican, you should consider how similar is economic policies were to Trump’s. “Give us a protective tariff and we have the greatest nation on earth.” -Abraham Lincoln He also warned “The abandonment of the protective policy by the American government will produce want and ruin among our people.”
I love how the graduate poli-sci student knows that his segment has a definite time limit and thus speaks like he's about to get cut out in the next few seconds. It's great. I want more of this guy.
But this claim that the party flipped is trying to insinuate that politicians flipped parties and that racism transferred from Democrats to Republicans. This is just silly.
@@PhillipCummingsUSA Wierd coincidence that all the white supremacists, KKK, white nationalists, alt right etc are all Trump and Repbulican fans and the Democrats are the ones complaining about all the racism. The Republicans have been racist pieces of shit for at least 4 decades.
Judging politic on the sole base of label of political parties is for peoples who don't want to think, or for peoples who want manipulate opinions with binaries ideas. It is magic thinking : naming a thing with a label makes this label reality.
@@thnkng You'll have to excuse him, He's American, he's too busy calling Liberals "commies", and has NO IDEA what goes on outside our country... We have a right and a center wing. We have a few senators that swing further left on some issues, but nothing like other countries, I'm told.
Just think about it, just see what the democrat stand on in the past, and what the republicans stand on in the past, you could easily see that the party indeed switch on some of their policies, but not all of them
The Democrat Party used to be primarily conservative. People who deny it today only do so because of their hatred for the South & their love for Lincoln. Lincoln was a tyrant & a hypocrite but people think he was some hero who freed slaves. His emancipation proclamation didn't free a single soul, it was actually the 13th amendment, signed after his death. Even then, the 13th amendment doesn't completely abolish slavery. True conservatives who know this are rare, which is sad. Please look over our material. I am representiing a new party for NeoConfederates.
You know... it's pretty refreshing to find a channel on UA-cam with a dubious, possibly Orwellian handle like "Knowing Better," that against my expectations _really does_ seem to know better. At least on this issue.
I was concerned about learning as much as I could about this topic because I thought it might affect my party affiliation. I then finally realized I need to pay more attention to what the parties stand for now. They have both changed alot.
The issues facing America during the founding of the Republican Party, Civil Rights, and today are all very different. Also an important thing to keep in mind is that each party isn't a uniform group but more of a broad coalition. The parties didn't switch but they also didn't stay the same.
Yeah this video is more about the southern myth that Republicans are actually the progressives who gave black people all their rights. Like, yeah, it was *a* party that was called republican, but they're so different from the party today that they can't really be compared. The biggest tie between the 1800s, late-1900s and 2000 republican party is their economic policy. In almost every other aspect, they've changed or "swapped" their opinions I say all this as someone raised in the south, where it is proudly (and frequently) proclaimed that no one there can be racist because they vote republican, the anti-racism party! That is the primary myth that this video wants to dispel, not debate the nuances of the meaning of switch / swap
You know. I had a friend who tried to claim that the south was right. That slavery wasn’t wrong and that the north should have let them leave the union. We lived in California. He was also black, someone who moved to Georgia. People, man.
Nick Waddle If u look at how slavery formed a fundamental economic part of America from the 1800-1860s then not really. America would be better off without the whites who suppressed Americans the rights that they were owed due to their skin color.
How can a country so big, with a central government with so much power, be elected purely on a first-past the post constituency based system? Surely this is simply a recipe for a nation to become more tribal, more polarised. There should be space for at least three to four major political parties, with no single party being able to govern without a coalition.
Thank you. My only complaint is That you could have pointed out specific racial events that prompted black voters to move away from the Republican party.
Honestly, Taft removing Teddy's black employees did severe damage to the Republican Party. The blacks kept voting for them however because of how the Democrats put extreme racist Wilson in office. Coolidge and Hoover called for making lynching a federal crime, but didn't exactly rush to destroy Jim Crow. FDR's New Deal basically ensured the Dems would win the black vote for possibly 100 years (because it was for all races and economically boosted their communities) unless Republicans did a massive shift and were the ones to totally tear down Jim Crow. Also, many northern blacks were far more liberal socially than their southern counterparts, and believed in labor unions (which from the 1920s on, Republicans had a VERY roller coaster relationship with). This is why Eisenhower did not win the black vote in 1952, they were afraid he would tear down the New Deal. In 1956 and 1960, the Republicans significantly improved their performance with blacks thanks to Eisenhower and Congressional members taking action on civil rights (plus fears of the New Deal's dismantling were greatly exaggerated). However, they STILL did not get a majority of them because they again were hesitant to embrace labor unions, embraced moderate to conservative economics and tried to pressure racial equality change through the courts and state level rather than direct forceful federal action in many cases (although they did vote in favor of all civil rights acts by a solid majority). This all happened before ANY of the Southern Strategy was implemented or Goldwater was nominated. Simply put, the economic policies of the Republicans were extremely unpopular from the 1920s onwards with blacks and the lower class. Ironically, the Democrats have opened the door for a possible future realignment due to their embracing globalism and throwing unions under the bus with free trade agreements and foreign visa workers. They literally DESTROYED the unions' power beginning in the 1990s.
The problem with this is that there were no "racial events" That prompted black voters to move away from the Republican party. Democrats pretended to care about the poor, and back then (and still today), Democrats pretend like their policies are meant to help the poor. At the time most black people WERE poor. The fact of the matter is that Democrats have successfully won a majority of black voters since Woodrow Wilson- who openly supported the KKK and even showed their propaganda film "Birth of a Nation" at the White House. Similarly, FDR won the black vote, despite nominating a KKK member to the supreme court. LBG won the black vote, despite repeatedly referring to the Civil Rights Act as "the [N-word] bill". "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American [Obama] who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man." -Joe Biden; still racist, still a Democrat
Before I say anything, I want to mention that I don’t really identify with any political party or alignment (not even centrist); I just kind of believe what I think is right. That said, I know teachers shouldn’t push political agendas, but the education I got about civil rights was completely bogus. All they taught us was that slavery was a thing in early America, but Lincoln made it better, and then segregation was a thing, but MLK made it better. I mean, it’s good for them to teach us that we’re not where we were all those decades ago, but they only taught us about the past of civil rights. We were never taught about the present-day realities and all the ways they can manifest. I agree that it’s a touchy subject, but there are most certainly ways of talking about more modern forms of racism without inciting revolution.
The problem is, many people today do not believe that there see struggles of racism. Despite the overwhelming evidence to the lasting effects of slavery, Jim-crow etc. Simply approaching the subject would get you labeled as political speech. If a Republican or Democrat disagrees with it, well you better believe it's going to get called out as "agenda pushing." Even now, things that shouldn't be debatable(Climate change, evolution, round planet) Get called out all the time as political agenda pushing. Even when it's really just the simple truth.
This is important. The thing is as a right winger myself, I think the threat is wokeism and the alt right (which are not our friends as some people think). The wokeists ofcourse think they are doing what we think we are doing by calling out what they think is racism. I mean things like "kill whitey" or "black people can't be racists" makes it pretty clear to me. However we must recognize that many forms of racism have gone away and not make non-racist things racist.
I agree. My thinking is Ethics, History, and Political Science should be required in high school (or college should be required as an extension to high school, idk). In college is when things get deeper into the nitty-gritty, but these are things that are highly troublesome and need to be digested for our country to actually be better informed.
@@gch5559 Who taught you what the term "woke" means? The people who coined the term (black people fighting racial injustice), or the people against them who hijacked and redefined it to mean something completely different? Your comment gives me my answer.
knowing better would imply learning truths not lies. Republicans in the south stopped after 1900 because the party was suppressed for the next 70 years. KKK supporting Democrats turned Southern states into Deep Blue states until after the Civil Rights wrecked their political machines. he is extremely biased. the fact that he compared the KKK and its relationship to the Democratic party to United the Right and the republicans show it. No one who is intellectually honest would make that comparison. Democrats used the KKK and other White groups to suppress not just black people but any whites who might vote republican (called "scallywags") It was a tool of political oppression and suppression and it was extremely effective- in much of the deep south following the fall of reconstruction groups like the Red Shirts and KKK handed a period of regional political dominance to one party for almost 100 years. He compares that to a single protest where several groups some of whom white nationalists who voted for Trump fought with radical leftwing counter protesters. White supremacists groups are not powerful and are not at all effective at suppressing other peoples rights. By comparison far left wing "activists" are extremely effective at disrupting events and harassing people.
If all the members of the KKK were Democrats then saying “democrats founded the KKK” would be accurate. What would be inaccurate would be to say that the Democratic Party founded the KKK. Although I am sure they were mostly fine with it.
I was told once by a biographer about Walt Disney "He was not really more or less raciest than most men of his age and demographic, witch is sadly more than kind of raciest. This is something you find when looking back to people of that age you see the good and then go oh wow that's raciest, you get use to it."
*I don't like the term, "switch", because that incorrectly suggests a sudden reversal. But IDEOLOGICAL CHANGE between the parties most definitely took place.* The problem is too many people think because *today,* "liberal" or "left" is automatically perceived as Democratic and "conservative" or "right" is automatically perceived as Republican, that it's always been that way. That's patently false. Decades ago, your party affiliation did not identify your ideology. Depending on what region you lived in, a Democrat or Republican could be liberal, conservative or moderate. All combinations existed. That is an indisputable historical fact.
It's genuinely concerning just how many people completely ignore what you've stated here to still come into your comments and make the same easily debunked claims.
I saw that ad from PragerU and am really glad you decided to address it. PragerU seems to be very good at grabbing people with impressive titles and confusing us because who am I to refute a PHd professor of that exact topic.
So, point is, it is more complicated than just a "180 degree" switch. Taking Classical Democrats (Dixiecrats), the new Democrats of the time, the Republicans with the south, the Republicans against the south, and societal events into account, it is way more complicated.
Most people use the Strom Thurmond argument yet most people who use it won't mention why Strom changed in the first place. If they did mention it, it would refute their claim.
True. If you look at state maps of elections, then republicans are southerners. But if you look at district maps, youd wonder how sach election isnt a landslide republican victory
@@firingallcylinders2949 I hate having affordable housing! I hate having healthcare that doesn't cost an arm and a leg! I hate not being essentially doomed when fired due to an increasingly cutthroat employment scene!
@@user-dl5gy6lc2n For God's sake, good intentions don't equal good results. For every four square feet of living space the average European has, the average American under the poverty line has FIVE. And you want to talk about affordable housing...
FDR is the reason we're swimming in debt now. He never considered life expectancy might increase when he instituted Social Security (it was 64 years old at the time, one year below retirement age). We haven't gone backwards. In 1950s, we had almost no economic growth and the poverty rate was as high as 22%. Before Reagan's tax cuts, the top 5% only paid half as much as a share of the nation's revenue as they do today. The only step backwards we took was LBJ's Great Society which increased broken families 6X.
Fun Fact : the 3rd party candidate in 1968 became a born again christian, reflected on all his racism and ran again as governor in the end of his life and won because of the black vote and appointed tons of black people
Maybe, but people who point out dog whistles generally have reasons for believing a dog whistle means something beyond the literal meaning, whether that is the context such phrases appear in or explicit statements by the dog-whistler/their political allies.
@Con Troversy So Atwater, leader of the RNC for a time, was just making shit up about his own strategy? He himself described it as a system of dogwhistles.
Gavan Borgias Atwater was outcasted from the Republican Party. I can also explain his reasoning. No true Republican would say that tax cuts are a racist policy because they would help black People also. Republicans believe that black people can thrive in a meritocracy and be just as good as white People. Atwater, who was a racist thought that in a meritocracy white People would naturally perform better since he believed black People were stupid. President Nixon even helped black people by creating affirmative action to help balance out historical oppression. Just because some racist though that meritocracy would lead to white favoritism doesn’t mean it’s what happened. As you see republican policy helped black people keep more of their money and lower black unemployment. Who cares what some racist said, look at the actual policy of the Nixon administration.
Would you accept "profoundly conservative"? If far right means White Supremacist or something, then, no, he's not "far right." But almost everything he works to promote is on the far right side of the *normal* political spectrum.
Prager is definitely ancap, which automatically qualifies as far right to me. But on the other hand I haven't seen a Prager video that says we should ban porn or bring back sodomy laws yet....yet.
Right? I hate it when people describe the two parties as “the left” and “the right”. In reality, it’s the “centre-right to mid-right” and the “mid-right to far-right” parties, and depending on the issue, they might switch places.
Not really. A large wing of the Democrats want universal healthcare, free/much more regulated university fees, liberalised abortion and other social issues etc. I think those are wholly sensible policies by the way, but I don’t really think you can claim it‘s not a left wing party.
thinking about a recent video from the florida house showing republicans and democrats dancing the cha cha slide together after rolling back half a dozen civil rights legislations
3:25 You want to talk about *why* the economic policies of the Democrats supposedly benefited black voters? Or do you wanna just gloss over it like its insignificant?
On average black voters are less wealthy because of historical discrimination and slavery, thus policies that expand services for people with lower incomes are likely to help black voters. Examples would include; expanding Medicaid, increased public transportation, Food stamps, etc.
Hubert Humphrey never gets enough credit. Such an underrated figure responsible for the gradual "switch" in the Democratic Party and Democratic leadership. Definitely cool for you to quote him.
This is a fascinating video. Previously, I assumed that the Dixiecrats switched from being democrats to Republicans. I will definitely watch this again. Everyone, I'm not a trained sociologist or political scientist. I'm a recovering alcoholic and a factory worker with a high school diploma. However, I will tell everyone, as a Washington state resident who moved to Texas 14 years ago, that racism and bigotry are still huge issues in this area of the South. People will not usually openly come out and call someone a slur, and the impact of racism is lessening, but it's still here.
Thank you SO MUCH for addressing PragerU's bastardization of this part of history. From the moment I saw their video on this, I wished I had the platform to address it myself. With Trump supporters claiming: "We're the party of Lincoln!", it drove me crazy.
@@Ziiphyr yeah, absolutely. But the point isn't that Lincoln was a Republican. The point is a Republican in today's terms is most definitely not a Republican like in Lincoln's time. Same thing with Democrats. Democrats today, the people that make up its base and the policy stances the Democratic party adheres to are not anything like the policies and political makeup that was the Democratic party in its early years. The Democratic party was indeed founded and supported mostly by White Southerners and the KKK while the Republicans in those times were more progressive, had most of the Black vote and had many Black leaders in Congressional positions. As weird, confusing and convuluted as it is, starting with FDR's New Deal and culminating in the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act and the civil rights movement, the parties completely switched. You only need to look at which party garners the support of white supremacists and the KKK today and which party now has the support of (and supports the causes of) Black people today to see that this is true.
Would you please do an episode on Claudette Colvin? She did the same thing as Rosa Parks, but a few months before. The difference is, she was a pregnant teenager, and the civil rights leaders didn't want a pregnant teen as the face of the movement.
All I can say is that if the Republican party wants my vote they should stop hating gay people and making laws that target us :) of course there's other problems that stop me from supporting conservative politicians but the fact that my own state's senators hate me and think I shouldn't exist makes supporting their political party a non-starter.
Big thanks to ProfessorPolitics for explaining the lag between presidential and state/local elections. Check him out at ua-cam.com/users/professorpolitics
And MicahPsych for lending his voice for those (sometimes racist) quotes!
So who are you voting for in 2020?
what is wrong with putting coke cola in a freezer?
go ahead and try it
Knowing Better I Agree with you on so many things but I am a supporter of President Trump
Yeah there was a lag. It was heinous / unthinkable for older generations to identify with the other party. Esp. in the south. They weren't going to call themselves Republicans and register as such no matter how the politics were shifting.
It’s almost like having two incredibly vaguely named parties comes with issues
The problem is that if you're for example pro 2nd amendment, you have no choice but to vote for the kind of lukewarm to the 2nd amendment republicans over the democrats who are opposed to it. Or if you're socialist you have to vote for the kind of open to some socialist ideals democrats over the avidly opposed republicans.
Most people don't actually align with republican or democrat ideals, they're just closer to one of them.
Moreso forcing everyone in the country to vote for 1 of 2 parties or not seeing any representation whatsoever
The confusion can come even when you name them concretely. For example in Portugal the major right-wing party is called Social Democratic Party. It competes with left-wing Socialist party, lefter Left Bloc and leftest Unitary Democratic Coalition
Well even more specifically named ones have this problem. The modern Communist Party of China since Deng Xiaoping is obviously quite different ideologically than it was during Mao Tse-Tung, one could stand to question if the leadership is even communist at all nowadays.
It’s true that some ‘specifically’ named parties have confusing names - Portugal’s conservatives being one of the best examples, as well as how the ‘liberals’ are the right party in Australia, but the left party in Canada - but for the most part it does make things clearer. Sometimes you do need some context, however - e.g. like how in English adding the word ‘people’s’ to a party sounds left-wing, but in most Germanic languages the term ‘volk’ or its equivalents is pretty right-wing
"Y'all don't quote me on this"
*Journalist quotes him*
Well, not in his lifetime, anyway.
That's my fav lat of the video, because at least they made sure to keep it in the context he was going for
@Ranel Gallardo - *"Journalist quotes him"* - Protip: You can't get out of having your words accurately reported just by saying "don't print this". The person you're talking to has to agree to keep your secret. You request that the interview be "on background" or "off the record". If the reporter agrees you can be as racist as you like an no one will ever know. Now go forth and you use your new knowledge! Cheers!
I think that was dropped after atwood had already passed. Releasing off-the-record statements might as well be career suicide for a journalist. But it is hilarious that he prefaced it with "dont quote me on this"
everyone quotes him
I don’t understand why you would base your voting decision on what the parties used to be rather than what they are now and what they currently at this moment in time are advocating for.
People really will be like "well your party was pro-slavery" as if their party isn't CURRENTLY supporting racist policies
It’s just a way for them to demonize Democrats and call them the “real racists”
I think this lag is more of a thing for people who (A) are old enough that the "used to be" in question is still within their personal lived memory and (B) are only _somewhat_ engaged in politics and didn't really keep up with the shifts as they were happening.
@@matterhorn731 that’s makes sense why so many older people are out of touch politically.
@@matterhorn731 well, this tactic is used by young adult, pretty stupid in my opinion
I love the fact that Lee Atwater's most famous quote literally starts with "Y'all don't quote me on this..."
“Y’all don’t quote me on this…”
Narrator: he was quoted on that.
And it's frequently taken out of context to make it seem like he said the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he actually said.
@@MarioFanaticXV it is? How so?
@@davidtaylor142 In said quote he goes into a hypothetical that is often clipped from the interview; not just one piece of the quote, but generally they skip over a line that makes it clear he's not even agreeing with the premise:
"Here's how I would approach that issue as a statistician or a political scientist. Or as a psychologist, which I'm not, is how abstract you handle the race thing. Now once you start out, and now you don't quote me on this, you start out in 1954 by saying '[n-word], [n-word], [n-word].' By 1968 you can't say '[n-word],' that hurts you, backfires, so you say stuff like ‘forced bussing, states rights’ and all that stuff, and you're getting so abstract. Now you're talking about cutting taxes and all these things. What you’re talking about are totally economic things, and the byproduct often is Blacks get hurt worse than whites."
This is usually the first part of the quote, but then these next couple lines are very often skipped over:
"And subconsciously maybe that is part of it, I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract and that coded, that we're doing away with the racial problem one way or the other.
"Do you follow me?"
We can see from these lines that: 1) He's presenting it as a hypothetical that he doesn't even agree with and 2) even if it were true, racism as a whole was becoming less acceptable everywhere, including in the southeast. But those lines are usually cut out and it skips to this next part:
"Because obviously sitting around saying, 'we want to cut taxes, we want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the bussing thing, and a hell of lot more abstract than, '[n-word], [n-word].'"
This deceptively edited quote is often used as a silver bullet "admission" as proof of a party switch conspiracy theory.
@@MarioFanaticXV the rest of that quote is just admitting that they're trying to remove the mentioning of race while still using it as a polarizing force. It's more admission of dogwhistling
“Y’all don’t quote me on this...”
Lee Atwater, 1981
"Now this may come as shock to you, because it certainly did me. Polling data showed that the voting rights act wasn't even in the top 10 concerns for southern whites. It showed that the main concerns among southern whites wasn't race but national defense and economics. So that's what we campaign on."
-The exact same interview. The more you know.
@@saytax the 1950s dems literally filibustered the civil rights act for 24 hours. It seems to me it was something their politicians cared about at least.
@@saytax Since Atwater was well known as a master of using emotional wedge issues in campaigns, that just shows he was bending the truth there.
@@LisaBeergutHolst I dont know how much validity there is in that statement, but unless you actually listen to the entire interview or read the transcript you won't know what the context is. No, he wasn't bending anything. In this quote, he speaks in hypertheticals, he says, if he was some machiavellian strategist, he'd do what the southern politicians (democrat) did, and that was to be so abstract in the language; state's rights, forced bussing, all that. But then adds in the end of the hypothetical that the campaign didn't have to do that. He says the same thing before the hyperthetical. The campaign went off of polling data. The voting rights act wasn't even in the top 10 concerns of southern whites. What white collar southerners cared about was economics and national defense. "So that's what we campaigned on."
@@saytax That's right. They campaigned on economics knowing that they could use it to appeal to Southern racists: "and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites".
Lee Atwater: “Y’all don’t quote me on this”
Bill Wurtz: *“How about I do, anyway?”*
No, stop, if you're part of the League of Nations you're not suppose to take over the world.
@@blackknightjack3850 The league of Nations more like The League of Losers
eeeeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Lee Atwater: Meh, it's not like the racists will believe you anyway.
Think through the logistics of what He suggested! How could they create a secret list of words that had hidden meanings, then distribute it through all the southern states, but only to the racists. Without the whole thing getting discovered and exposed on the nightly news? I have been a conservative since the Vietnam war when the news media gave away U.S. battle plans on the nightly news and got many U.S. soldiers killed! Never have I ever seen a secret list of words with hidden meanings being passed around! Being a White Man married to a Black Woman I would have told the distributor of such a list that He was an ignorant bigot!
i like your name
Teddy cared about the environment because he was worried about not being able to hunt every animal with his bare hands if they died out because they weren't protected. A man after my own heart.
Political compromise in a nutshell: I like the action you are taking but, your motivation is a little suspect.
Guy 1: we must end segregation!
Guy 2: great! Join us in supporting this equality amend-
Guy 1: I'm tired of the owner of the general store fleecing just whites! The blacks and others need to suffer this price gouging too!
Guy 2: please just vote for the bill and leave the talking to us, ok?
And you know this because you knew him right? Close personal friends right? Oh wait no someone told you this and you just repeat it!
@@aliway4136 It's a pretty well known anecdote, one of many about Teddy being a madlad
@@aliway4136
You deadass tryin' to claim Theodore 'fuckin' Roosevelt was not an avid hunter? Why you gotta do the man like that, he loved to show off his trophies and photos!
Teddy just wanted to get some bear hands with his bare hands.
It always gets me whenever members of certain parties try to own the actions of their party from over a hundred years ago as if the party of then is still the same as the party of today
Very true. Hell, compare the republican party to how it was 10 years ago.
The policies lead to the same end. Same parties, different tactics. That's the point of the comparison
You forgot to add that members of certain parties claim that their ancestors were oppressed as if they themselves are oppressed today
The political spectrum to be fair has changed so much being a conservative in the 50s is a lot different to being a conservative now. The military is a good example because a good American conservative 90 years ago would have hated the idea of large military because goes against the founding ideals of America but now conservatives are all for it. There has not being ideological consistency for the last two hundred years in America so that should be fairly taken into account.
Exactly, it’s a non-argument.
I thought PragerU had a dumb video, and then I watched this one
Regardless, this still means prager u or conservatives shouldn't make this argument, in fact, it's the conservatives who started this nonsense.
On the issues of foreign relations old conservatives from the 40s like Taft are like libertarians such as ron paul
@Will _ I'm sorry that high school history failed you so spectacularly.
Instead of demanding answers in a youtube comments section, you should probably do a bit of research so you can meet the entry level requirement of political discussions in the US.
@Will _ And who was fighting in WW2? Oh yeah, Democrats. And republicans opposed intervention. In WW1, Roosevelt was the only one to want an intervention, and remember he split from the republicans.
Honestly, I think having a two-party state is a mess.
Dude, shut up if you knew how difficult multi-party politics would be, you'd prefer a double-party system
This message was promoted by the Hispanic gang
@@voxpopuli7910 Dude, you'd prefer a multi-party system if your parties weren't riddled with cartel collusion and corruption.
This message was brought to you by Anglo Gang.
I mean Washington warned us about having parties
Speaking from a Canadian perspective.. it’s great to have a choice in which party to vote, while not choosing the main two may not have as much power, we still can sway our government different ways. In the recent federal election we have a minority government, which forces our House of Commons to really battle out different issues. We’ve seen that having more perspectives can help more citizens. I think it’s great! Two party systems are a way of making division and force choice, if there are more parties, more voices get heard.
Quinn Stilwell
We still have shit parties and too few of them.
I would like to just have people with their own agendas, and not parties. I want someone who can have some conservative policy and some liberal policy and anything in between.
This video just proves that the party switch idea isn’t simple and is really complicated to prove. It proves that the parties neither 180 swapped nor did they stay the exact same
This is the take I agree with. It was a hard all-encompassing Switch. I’d argue that a part of the problem is that there haven’t only ever been two broader ideological camps but at the very least three and that they’ve mixed and matched in different ways over time.
@Corry Burton But yeah watch the video cause your missing history for the sake of political bias
@Corry Burton I don’t follow or am part of any party first of all.And yes they clearly have changed drastically.For one the Republican Party in 1980 had a conservative revolution with the ousting of the old Rockerfeller Republicans who were moderate or conservative liberals.And of course with the Democratic Party you have the New Deal Coaliation changing them.Clearly you haven’t watched the video since a party switch as I stated does not mean politicians leaving the party as most just retire.
@Corry Burton Also how do you explain George freaking Wallace becoming a supporter of the Republicans?Kinda weird If the parties did not switch.
@Corry Burton Also these aren’t ancecdotes you are talking anecdotes saying well only 4 politicians left ,yeah that’s not what people mean by a party switch,it means a change in policies of the parties.
When talking about the "party switch", it's always the south that is brought up, but never the north. I want to know more about the north's evolution in politics
Part of the problem is there are really 4 parties, Northern dems, Norther repubs, southern dems, southern repubs.
It's mostly because modern Republicans use it in their propaganda to imply "Look how evil the Democrats were _back in the day_ (i.e. pre-party switch)".
@@greyjedi1272 Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater Girl.
It's more correct to say that rather than the parties "switching," the US political parties during the Gilded Age (end of Reconstruction in 1877 until the Great Depression) didn't particularly believe in anything at all.
@@mathewfinch No, Northern Republicans were super into eugenics during that time period. They loved race based immigration quotas and sterilizing disabled people, which were considered progressive at the time. (Later, a failed Austrian painter whose name I don't want to use here was inspired by these policies, and praised American Republicans in his writings and speeches.)
A vestige of that was Republicans being the party pushing "family planning" in the 60's and 70's as an alternative to welfare. George HW Bush was on the board of directors of Planned Parenthood before he became Reagan's VP. Reagan, and the emergence of guns and abortion as wedge issues, was really the end of Northern Republicans as a distinct thing. By the time of George W Bush (born and raised in Connecticut, but a master student of Southern Democrat race baiting), there was really only one Republican party.
Prager: "Why the Democrats and Republicans didn't switch"
Prager, the very next day: "Why JFK would be a Republican today"
@Ambrose Burnside The Republicans have become more conservative over time as well.
Repulbicans are not conservative now? If you say so.
@Ambrose Burnside
@Ambrose Burnside But to answer your question-Ronald Reagan was conservative then prior Republican nominees (except Goldwater). , and the moderate wing of the party is now insignificant.
@Ambrose Burnside That's pure conservativism but it's not the real world. Lot of conservatives may want those things-but realize that you can't have everything you want-indeed if you go to far-then the other side takes power-and then you get nothing.
@Ambrose Burnside I understand.
Soooo that’s why Oklahoma has a panhandle?
There is a really good video on YT. It has to do with the breaking up of all the land that was annexed from Mexico.
I read this in Zoidberg's voice.
No, Lincoln really liked macaroni and cheese, he demanded Oklahoma look like a pan. It was his dying wish, and sealed his legacy.
Don't man-handle the panhandle.
@@moth3562 thomas jefferson invented mac and cheese.
Well done. One thing that folks might find interesting. I always teach to my students that the Civil Rights Movement started during WWII, with African Americans protesting racial segregation in the military, as well as the race riots that broke out in Detroit in 1943.
I think that you're doing it right to make it a long-term view. This sort of stuff is a long-term process that can sometimes be catalyzed by something short-term.
The civil rights movement start during WW2?? I've been reading black newspapers from the post-civil war era to the 30's and I can tell you right now that this is complete BS.
Detroit is more important than people realize. Thanks for mentioning.
In some ways you could say there was a "Civil Rights Movement" since the founding of the nation, depending on how you want to define it. It just wasn't until the 1930s-60s where blacks started to see significant victories and leaps in social standing.
One of the things that really blew my mind was the fact that during WWII, African American soldiers had to stand in buses in order to let German POIs sit, by virtue of being white.
The USA during WWII was so incredibly racist, that actual card holding nazis were considered superior to American soldiers of color.
AS A European I always wondered why your right party was red and the slightly left blue
The earliest broadcasts that started in the early 70’s portrayed them the right way with Republicans as Blue and Democrats as Red. But different networks started doing them inconsistently over time until all of them were using the current color scheme by the Mid-90’s. The two most common explanations you will hear are that they either like the alliteration of Red and Republican or that they simply didn’t want the Democrats associated with the color of Communism.
I remember a few years ago American parties did not associate with a color so strongly.
"slighty left" - LOL
A lot of single-issue and in-between voters don't pay the color association much time, its really amongst the party members themselves. For instance, at Republican events many women don red dresses. Sometimes politicians also try to cross over, as to not look so allegiant to only one half of the population; at one 2016 debate Trump wore a blue tie, the Democrats' color, and Hillary wore a red dress.
The association is a fairly recent development, and the only real reason the binary of red and blue is used before other colors is that they're 2 of our 3 colors. I'm sure the parties would gladly use the nice, pure white only that's the flag of surrender, not to mention it looks like an unshaded map😂
@@Chadness316 The democrats are moderate conservatives by the standards of any other country that isnt ksa, there is no left leaning party in america
Lee Atwater: y'all don't quote me on this
KB: I'm gonna pretend I didn't see that
Read the transcript for full context.
@ATAX It says the same thing
Can we get an f in the chat for Massachusetts in the 1972 election?
Straight up overkill...
DC still went by 65.1 points. It didn't lend 65.1% to McGovern, it was won by a margin of 65.1%
@@xiphactinusaudax1045 impressive but today DC is like D+85%+
@@PremierCCGuyMMXVI yeah
need to get a revision on those “don’t blame me - i’m from massachusetts!” stickers lol
We should’ve listen to Eisenhower because now we live with the military industrial complex and have a huge amount of the tax money siphoned into funding it.
Until we cement a new alliance passing on NATO , it is good to have a large standing army. The only threat I feel worried about is either China or Russia
Christopher Rivera
Y’all sleepin on Malaysia again.
@@christopherrivera9827 Russia doesn't need that much containment - for now, at least. It's broke, relies on extraction industries, has a falling population, will lose much of its southern land mass and will probably be surpassed by India in the coming century.
The development of India is more relevant to long-term US interests - where for eg, is US going to get its PhDs from? Reforming the school system in US and crushing the Democrat colonization of education looks impossible. US looks set to still require 50% of its PhDs in future - unless those who 'benefit' from the Dems wise up and burn the party down and crush 'democratic' control of education. This is relevant in both lower case and upper case 'd'. Parents, families and individuals should be able to balance the power of the community, in relation to education.
Nato is useless as 'containment'- Nato needs a replacement - by something like the Three Seas initiative.
This is all a long way from denying the obvious fact that the Democrats are the party of plantation, slavery, Jim Crow, mass incarceration and the prison industrial complex, welfare slavery and black genocide by planned parenthood.
@@ard1805 Malaysia? Now I'm interested. Is their Navy pretty OP? Is there a totalitarian regime in place?
@@christopherrivera9827 funny I find the greatest immediate threat to be politicians in Europe and America in the pockets of third world dictators. Big Oil money controls politicians and the American defence forces.
Lmao when we talk about "Party switch" conservatives really think we're saying that one day someone woke up and said "aight boys let's switch it up"
@@jkesgoogleaccount4686 so u agree the parties switched?
@Kerbal Miles oh no bc u belive democrats are racist for foudning the kkk and bc u cant deny parties didnt switch bc of this video u say we agree when no republican agrees
@Kerbal Miles how are yall not racist but fly the confederate flag i undertsand not all are racist most arent but alot of yall support racist things
Must be nice to think so reductively.
@Kerbal Miles at the time sure i can say maybe it wasn’t racist but now yea i belive the flag is racist bc what did the confederets fight for and why would people now support that
Saying Teddy Roosevelt was "anti big business" is a bit of an overstatement. he believed there were good trusts and bad trusts, not some kind of demonic portrayal of business. In fact, he broke with Taft partially because Taft had become indiscriminate in trust busting - Taft busted more than Teddy did.
Correct.
So by the standards that have been set today . . . Roosevelt was anti big business.
@@alexanderf8451 nah, he was crony capitalist. Maybe it wasn't based on whether the trust supported the right politician, but I'm gonna assume it was until proof otherwise supplied.
Teddy opposed taft due to taft undoing a lot of Teddy's environmental conversation work as well.
Crony capitalist for sure.
Note: Liberalism and conservatism are in no way opposites of each other. They're merely the focal points of the only 2 political parties in the US. One can be a liberal conservative or vise versa, depending on the emphasis you want.
They are actually complete opposites on every political scale.
@@maximilianjack1764
*liberalism* noun [ U ]
uk /ˈlɪb.ər.əl.ɪ.zəm/ us /ˈlɪb.ər.əl.ɪ.zəm/
1. _an attitude of respecting and allowing many different types of beliefs or behaviour_
2. _the political belief that there should be free trade, that people should be allowed more personal freedom, and that changes in society should not be made in an extreme way_
*authoritarianism* /ɔːˌθɒrɪˈtɛːrɪənɪz(ə)m/
noun
_the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom_
*conservatism* /kənˈsəːvətɪz(ə)m/
noun
1. _commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation._
2. _the holding of political views that favour free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas._
*progressivism* /prəˈɡrɛsɪvɪz(ə)m/
noun
_support for or advocacy of social reform_
@@maximilianjack1764
Only if you don't think of economic
Note the term "Social Conservative" and "Social Liberal"
That's what the video was about, used initially and later used the short form.
Social conservatives and social liberals are opposites.
Economically liberalism and conservatism isn't that far apart.
Bram Van Hooydonck continuation of federalists vs anti federalists. It’s the same theme our country has had from the very fucking beginning.
"We must not be racist, after all why would the black lady say those things"
Institutional racism = institutional liberalism, friend
@@dannybursace9151 where is your anime avatar?
@@jb34ch1 where is yours?
PragerU: I can’t be racist, I have a black friend
Danny Bursace “Oh, what‘s that? It says institutional racism doesn’t exist? How curious.“
I tried explaining to a conservative friend that over the years, the parties did in fact have major belief changes over the years which is evident on how various parts of the country started voting. He dismissed it as fake news.
I'm thinking of ditching mine. He admitted behind my back that "I don't call my liberal friend an idiot, but I do think that!"
I never have had that mindset towards him but, ya know, he's into that anti leftoid liberal agenda or whatever the bravados called.
@@tobyrix7082 dude, I doubt you are a centrist. Liberalism is farther right than the center on a political compass
nah, democrats are still using skin color to gain votors, its jus tunder the guise of equity now.
Did he correct you?
The BIG mistake liberals and the media make is painting the Civil Rights Movement as the "moment of the flip". Immediately conservatives can point to the electoral maps of Eisenhower and Reagan (along with Nixon in 1972) and show all or much of the South voting with the rest of the country. The economic voting patterns are too often completely ignored. Eisenhower and Theodore Roosevelt would have found themselves at odds in MULTIPLE areas, notably labor unions, the economy and stuff like religion in government. Eisenhower if honestly studied is much more along the lines of Reagan than many earlier Republicans in several ways. This is why I laugh when Eisenhower is painted as a liberal, he literally threw a lot of FDR and Truman's policies in the trash after taking office (including the Economic Bill of Rights).
That Peter guy gives Ben Shapiro a run for his money on fast talking lol
However, Ben can do it in one take, and doesn't need to cut every sentence. Ben would also easily defeat him with facts and logic.
Every time I am presented with the ship of Theseus, I reaffirm my answer of "it is always the ship of Theseus". The ship is it's charter, not its material parts.
*throws a piece of paper in the ocean*
Behold: a sailing ship
@@ayczbx4652 *plucks the sail off your "ship"*
Behold! A sinking ship!
(God I love Diogenys)
It would appear that every time you're presented with the ship of Theseus you are consistently unable to understand the concept. Frankly, I don't think you're trying very hard. I don't think you're trying at all. Either that or you're catastrophically unintelligent. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with "not trying very hard".
Actually, your answer makes as much sense as Southern Republicans of today claiming to represent the party of Lincoln, and that Democrats are the party of the KKK. 😂. That's "Prager University" level stupid.
@@ayczbx4652you’d have to throw the entire book, not just a page. A single page is more akin to a plank. Unless you’re going to write “this is the ship of Theseus” on the page.
In a nutshell From 1960-1994 the south slowly went Republican due to factors such as generational change and national politics shifts.
I think socio-economic development is a major factor that gets glossed over very often myself. Haha
Yeah, but democrats like Knowing Better really want to add in racism as one of the factors that made the south turn Republican so they can pawn off the horrible racism from democrats pre-1960s onto republicans. Clearly what happened was a generational shift and the change of what social conservatism was. It’s why you see the south still vote for Carter and Bill Clinton because they showed themselves off as conservative Democrats at the time.
Part of that comes from the misunderstanding of the Republican Party. The Republican Party were conservatives, they just weren’t racial segregationists. They were still pro gun, anti abortion, and anti communist. Republicans were not liberal. JFK was a liberal while LBJ was a conservative. Democrats were both the liberals, left wing radicals, and the ultra conservatives all within a single party while the republicans were always unified under social and economic conservatism. This wasn’t Republican vs democrats. It was Southern Dixiecrats vs everyone else.
He isn’t wrong, but he leaves out so much and really wants to see racism where there is none. Lee Atwater was outcasted from the Republican Party. The State who voted Strom Thurman, voted in a black republican into the senate. Republicans didn’t just win the south, they won rural areas all over. Democrats have always been the party of big cities. It’s just that pre-1960 they managed to be big city liberals and rural southerners. Part of the party Switch myth is why the democrats won northern states, and those had nothing to do with racism. It had to do with big cities growing vastly and those areas becoming more liberal. Democrats like pretend like there was no racism against the Irish, Polish, Jewish, and Italians in New York because they know they can’t pawn it off to the republicans.
@@kylevernon I don't think we should leave out racism. When Democrats became anti-segregationist it ultimately doomed them in the south. They managed to be both liberal and conservative beforehand but would no longer forgive liberalness after the civil rights era. As the last Segregationist democrats lost or died, they turned red. While Republicans didn't necessarily become pro-segregation, they did decide to exploit the the dividing democratic party and embrace cultural conservatism. For some people in the south, it was also revenge for a perceived abandoning during the civil rights era.
TheAmazingDolphin As I said before, yes democrats lost the south in the 1962 election, but that’s it. LBJ was hated by the south, but not the Democratic Party as a whole. Carter and Clinton only managed to win because of the south.
TheAmazingDolphin there is data and historical facts proving they still were voting democrat for some time.
It wasn't really a flip, however.
From Reconstruction to 1924, elections were North vs South
From 2004 onwards elections are urban vs rural.
It was more of a gradual shift, one that's still ongoing.
Every election cycle, urban areas get more Democrat, and rural areas go more Republican, and if there's a place that doesn't align with that, it will rapidly trend to where it needs to.
Though the Rust-Belt is bucking that trend to an extent since the Trump administration seems to be backing industrial concerns, it'll be interesting to see if the Republicans stay on that or not going forward.
I’ve lived in the rural south and metropolitan north, this comment is true.
That's not exactly true. There are a number of urban areas like Boise, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Cincinnati and Southwest Florida that are more Republican, and rural areas like Western Wisconsin, Southern Texas, Eastern Iowa, Western Massachusetts, most of Vermont, and the Black Belt tend to be more Democratic. The "urban archipelago" narrative may have been compelling to explain Kerry's loss, but it was never all that accurate.
Journalist Colin Woodard's research into this, while somewhat flawed in some points, indicates regional culture has a more significant role to play.
かみやん Thanks for the information!
KnuxMaster 368 it’s always been urban vs rural. That’s literally the federalists vs the anti federalists. The first major political split. Based around what system our country should model. Rural family owned farms or urban mercantile industry.
This divide has always been there. You must realize that.
For clarification, the Voting Rights Act of 1960 was used to rid poll tax by first having the records be kept to prove racially based discrimination, which it did.
Ah yes the famous republican FDR
Cursed image
And the famous democrat Abraham Lincoln.
Will be joined soon by the famous staunch Republican Bernie Sanders.
@@suprcrzy even more cursed
FDR was he that republican that signed the executive order for the Japanese detainment?
Fuck both, we need a new teddy.
He was a gigachad in all ways:
-War vet
-Helped the little man by busting monopolies
-He created competition in the free market
-Literal progressive
Who wants to dispute?
Expanded American empire by pressuring Panama into letting him build the canal
Are we counting that as a pro or con?
He also would NEVER have gotten elected. His predecessor died (got assassinated?) and he wrecked Executive mischief everywhere.
@@rustinustiI _BELIEVE_ later on he realized that American imperialism was bad and actively opposed it.
@@crabman2073 You want to believe that but unfortunately, it's not true.
"Y'all don't quote me on this."
When y'all say terrible racist things, y'all don't deserve to have your statements stay off the record.
Top 10 Anime Betrayals
@@tomassmith2088 I did ur mom sjw.
In the future, I'd recommend not using a linear political chart but a political compass.
Good point but I think he did it because it makes it simple.
I think it makes sense here since he is taking about parties in a binary system as opposed to ideologies. I don't know if you can stick democrat or republican on an x/y axis.
He literally separated economic politics from social politics. Even so, the political compass is BS. The libertarian/authoritarian axis may well be called the good/bad axis
@@devy2 not necessarily. think about drug laws. Rather on the authoritarian side. Although I agree that you're mostly right.
The “political compass” is just TWO binary metrics stacked on top of each other in some dipshit effort to reduce the ludicrous nature of either of those measurements by simultaneously embracing both of them
Just going to leave this critique of both sides here. Both sides love to use the support of the KKK as something that represents the entire party when in reality the KKK is a miniscule minority that barely deserves a mention. While they had power ~70 or so years ago that is ~70 years from today. In less than 70 years Venezuela went from incredibly wealthy to extremely poor and in ~100 years the British Empire went from 1/4 the globe to a tiny island. People using extremists as playing cards is so incredibly lazy and stupid that it boggles my mind.
23:30 That is probably the best way it could be put.
The fact that England was a global empire is something that definitely deserves a mention and is the reason the majority of the world is the way it is, and the reason America fucking exists. That's a terrible comparison.
@@maximilianjack1764 He used the British empire as a reference for time, not as a reference for something that should be forgotten.
Ever read about the Klanbake? That was an official part of the 1924 Democrat convention.
True, the Klan is small. But for which party does the modern Klan vote for? Were they voting for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? Or Mitt Romney and Donald Trump? Which political party applauds the efforts of the Klan and the "alt-right?" Which party would love to see both evaporate to nothingness? Go ahead, take a guess.
Believe it or not, the Political Spectrum does mean something. There are defining traits to each side. The Klan is most definitely on the extreme right hand side of the Spectrum. The same extreme position that the Republican party has been steadily moving toward these past 40+ years.
Douglas Dea Ok and what party does antifa vote for? What party gives antifa good press?
Do you see why using an extremist group as an example is flawed?
To tackle your point on where the parties are going I will give you this. No, neither of the parties are getting more and more extreme than the other. The Republican party isn't going to become the KKK and the Democratic party isn't going to become antifa. You are basing what each party is doing on the vocal minority, not the silent majority.
Still an amazing and relevant video 3 years later. Love your content and work.
The issue with even humoring this idea is that politics is not 1 dimensional.
And any failure to address this will fall short of accuracy
I found it humorous that George Washington, either when he left office or when he died, told the country to not form political parties, and then said "eeh" and did it anyway.
That was when he left office.
The way I was taught it, Washington was pressured to decide between the Federalists and anti-federalists, the only two parties of the time. He refused to pick a side because he always hated how party allegiances divided the country. Towards the end of his second term he caved and decided to side with the federalists, for which he took so much shit from the anti-federalists that he refused to run for a third term. That's supposedly where the tradition of the president's running for only two terms comes from.
Not totally sure on the one-hundred percent accuracy of all this, but its one reading of history. The inability of political parties to cooperate was what led Washington to resign after two terms.
Texas and California both weren't states when George Washington was president. What are you on about?
I have no doubt that some of Washington's anti-partisan views had to do with regional alliances, but these two regions weren't part of the union until after his death. That also doesn't change the well-documented fact that Washington was against the formation of political parties.
I don't have to be "wrong" for you to be right about this so why are you framing this as an attack?
SomeKid George Washington was fucking based.
Yeah, its true that in the Farewell Address he mentions regional prejudices within the union and argues for why individual states are better together rather than apart. At one point towards the end he says
"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally."
Then he goes on to describe how parties are bad, but they form inevitably. So we're both right.
prageru: makes a video
kb: it’s free real estate
Sadly the estate was almost entirely built from rotting wood. Btw please tell me to kill myself, I'm trying to become numb to being told, even when people find my address and tell me over the phone or vandalize my home.(I still have no clue how they found my number)
Joshua Newton You might want to adopt a pseudonym, a nom de cyber if you will. My real name is not daer devvyl.
@@daerdevvyl4314 I would say that maybe Josh is being sarcastic, but I just saw someone check twice when backing their truck up yesterday...by getting out and looking and still backed off of the side of a cement dock.
I’m very confused
The problem is the Republican Party “Ship” is missing TWO HUGE PLANKS that it never took from
The Democrats. The Republicans NEVER supported Slavery, and the practice had been illegal for 130 years after the south “went Republican” consistently in 2000. The others are Jim Crow era laws and the real KKK. Neither one was something that existed and also was being represented by a bunch of Republicans. You’re such a biased propagandist faux intellectual. It’s disgusting, incorrect, and divisive to presume the Republicans became the slave owning, KKK Lynching, Jim Crow era Democrats because in the year 2000 the Republicans started to win the South consistently. Which was related to libertarian and pro-business reasons, not racism. This entire video and theory of the ships is PROPAGANDA, not based on evidence, facts, history and is 100% intellectually dishonest.
I like how Prager U uses a black person to narrate their manufactured version of history.
hey, who else should they use than their token black person? I cant wait til they use a token trans person on trans topics lmao, will be a day to remember
@@LadyZeldaia "Hello, I am trans and want to not have rights"
Love the sorry ms Jackson “forever ever ever “ thrown in there 😂😂😂
I'm literally on the floor!
As a person not from US I find all this utterly fascinating subject. Thank you for this video.
"Don't quote me on this" says man, quoted
This man has bravery leaving the comments on
Omg the outkast "forever ever" got me laughing harder than i want to admit
Hahaha same here!!
That moment when you found another good UA-cam channel, and you’re not going to get a lot of sleep...
@@truthseeker6377 Prager U is objectively conservative and right. He's not catering, he's presenting facts. Of course he has bias, like every other human being ever.
@@truthseeker6377 They said Prager U is objectively conservative and right, not far-right.
@@khadijahmuhammad4771 mmm there's a lot of non-facts and misinformation though. It kinda keeps me on the fence for still not knowing the truth about this scenario
@@AltheHealer 22:28
And yet, even PragerU's video about the cause of the Civil War has the honesty and intelligence to admit slavery's role.
"It was about states rights"
"A States right to what, Johnny?"
PragerU admitted that? I'm genuinely shocked.
@Egg T not if your a texas teacher
Slamz Dunk well of course PragerU would admit it when they produce a video trying to call the modern Democratic Party racist. The whole thing was a hit piece attempting to blame slavery on the Democratic Party rather than placing the blame on the divide between the industrial north and farmer south. The north wanted skilled labour to run the banks and factories as the weather in the northern states made farming a less viable industry to pay off their state’s debts while the south needed manual labour to pay off theirs. Slavery existed in both the North and South while still a British colony but only the South would benefit from it financially after independence.
@@ridelikeagirlaus8751 At least for a while there, it wasn't uncommon to hear "it had nothing to do with slavery, but rather State's Rights".
Dude you can't just drop the pokemon battle theme out of nowhere like that, my fight or flight instinct kicked in and I punched an old lady.
"The South itself has changed. Its values have changed." I live in South Carolina, and I see Confederate battle flags flying over more than one house. The fact that these people would rather fly those than U.S. flags shows how much their values have changed.
Sir Not Appearing In This Film I can’t belief that they celebrate traitors. The union didn’t fail the south. The south failed the union! Treason is one of the most selfish and morally repugnant acts one can commit, and As a yankee and a wasp I sometimes wonder why the north didn’t just leave the south in ruins. It’s refreshing to know that the south was worth preserving.
You can't legislate a change of heart. Doing that is much harder
Sorry as a native Texan the flag meams something different now. While yes some people fly it because they're racist. Many fly it out of southern pride.
Bob Bob it still is a flag that symbolizes treason, and if I were you I wouldn’t be too proud of the south, with a culture rooted in slavery.
@BTIsaac you can do all that. But it will increase resentment and hatred. Pretty simple
Two interesting facts about Abraham Lincoln, if he was alive today.
1. He'd be really old.
B. He'd be a Democrat.
Number One is incredibly true, but I'm not so sure about the second one. So few people switch parties, but I do believe he'd be a Liberal Republican, or, as some Republicans call them nowadays, "Republicans In Name Only".
@@starlightbutthealt8991 I suggest you look at his economic policies before saying he’d be a Liberal Republican, you should consider how similar is economic policies were to Trump’s.
“Give us a protective tariff and we have the greatest nation on earth.” -Abraham Lincoln
He also warned “The abandonment of the protective policy by the American government will produce want and ruin among our people.”
@@sethcampbell6475 so one economic likeness. This whole thing is focusing on social issues, and socially, he be a Democrat.
@@Dannyuh7Abraham Lincoln was a faithful Protestant, and would abhor things such as abortion and transgender. I completely disagree.
I love how the graduate poli-sci student knows that his segment has a definite time limit and thus speaks like he's about to get cut out in the next few seconds.
It's great. I want more of this guy.
Basically the switch was gradual and prageru is saying that it didn’t happen because it didn’t happen over night
I’m just glad he included his sources. 👍🏼
In the 1970's the democrats became socially liberal and this alienated many southern voters who were socially conservative
Also the Clintons shifted the Overton window, they are not Leftists, but Bouguise centrists
Carter won the south, and Nixon won the entire country
But this claim that the party flipped is trying to insinuate that politicians flipped parties and that racism transferred from Democrats to Republicans. This is just silly.
@@Elendrian I actually did pay attention. Are you saying that saying something in the video means I didn't pay attention?
@@PhillipCummingsUSA Wierd coincidence that all the white supremacists, KKK, white nationalists, alt right etc are all Trump and Repbulican fans and the Democrats are the ones complaining about all the racism. The Republicans have been racist pieces of shit for at least 4 decades.
Judging politic on the sole base of label of political parties is for peoples who don't want to think, or for peoples who want manipulate opinions with binaries ideas.
It is magic thinking : naming a thing with a label makes this label reality.
Especially because both parties are right wing
Gezi5 Lol yeah sure, thinking gender is a social construct is so right wing.
@@abren5974 it's economically right
@@abren5974 I don't think a single democratic candidate has ever said that. Pretty sure that's just your strawman idea of a democrat.
@@thnkng You'll have to excuse him, He's American, he's too busy calling Liberals "commies", and has NO IDEA what goes on outside our country...
We have a right and a center wing. We have a few senators that swing further left on some issues, but nothing like other countries, I'm told.
This channel has so many incredibly diverse topics
This shouldn’t even be a political issue I just want to know if and how the party’s switch.
You want to know how two political parties switched without getting political?
What you're asking is just impossible
well, they would mainly have political reasons...
Just think about it, just see what the democrat stand on in the past, and what the republicans stand on in the past, you could easily see that the party indeed switch on some of their policies, but not all of them
The Democrat Party used to be primarily conservative. People who deny it today only do so because of their hatred for the South & their love for Lincoln.
Lincoln was a tyrant & a hypocrite but people think he was some hero who freed slaves. His emancipation proclamation didn't free a single soul, it was actually the 13th amendment, signed after his death. Even then, the 13th amendment doesn't completely abolish slavery.
True conservatives who know this are rare, which is sad.
Please look over our material. I am representiing a new party for NeoConfederates.
You know... it's pretty refreshing to find a channel on UA-cam with a dubious, possibly Orwellian handle like "Knowing Better," that against my expectations _really does_ seem to know better. At least on this issue.
He's like all of us. He's opinionated, but his head is on very, very straight.
i got scared because i was doing my homework while scrolling through this comment section and my homework happens to be an essay by orwell lol
lol.... "at least on this issue that I agree with them on"... lol, now agree with the columbus video.
He does pretty well on a few topics. This isn't one of them.
Look at a few more of his videos and you'll see how accurate his name is. He's just another radical progressive talking head, nothing more.
I was concerned about learning as much as I could about this topic because I thought it might affect my party affiliation. I then finally realized I need to pay more attention to what the parties stand for now. They have both changed alot.
The issues facing America during the founding of the Republican Party, Civil Rights, and today are all very different. Also an important thing to keep in mind is that each party isn't a uniform group but more of a broad coalition. The parties didn't switch but they also didn't stay the same.
Yeah this video is more about the southern myth that Republicans are actually the progressives who gave black people all their rights. Like, yeah, it was *a* party that was called republican, but they're so different from the party today that they can't really be compared. The biggest tie between the 1800s, late-1900s and 2000 republican party is their economic policy. In almost every other aspect, they've changed or "swapped" their opinions
I say all this as someone raised in the south, where it is proudly (and frequently) proclaimed that no one there can be racist because they vote republican, the anti-racism party! That is the primary myth that this video wants to dispel, not debate the nuances of the meaning of switch / swap
By far the most underrated channel on the site. Keep up the good work.
go gophers
You know. I had a friend who tried to claim that the south was right. That slavery wasn’t wrong and that the north should have let them leave the union.
We lived in California.
He was also black, someone who moved to Georgia.
People, man.
I would absolutely love to know that man's reasoning.
Ask him how he would feel about being your servant, duh.
We should have let them leave the Union, then did to them what we did to the native Americans
Take no prisoner
I really want to know how he arrived to such a self deprecating conclusion.
Nick Waddle If u look at how slavery formed a fundamental economic part of America from the 1800-1860s then not really. America would be better off without the whites who suppressed Americans the rights that they were owed due to their skin color.
How can a country so big, with a central government with so much power, be elected purely on a first-past the post constituency based system? Surely this is simply a recipe for a nation to become more tribal, more polarised. There should be space for at least three to four major political parties, with no single party being able to govern without a coalition.
Thank you.
My only complaint is That you could have pointed out specific racial events that prompted black voters to move away from the Republican party.
Honestly, Taft removing Teddy's black employees did severe damage to the Republican Party. The blacks kept voting for them however because of how the Democrats put extreme racist Wilson in office. Coolidge and Hoover called for making lynching a federal crime, but didn't exactly rush to destroy Jim Crow. FDR's New Deal basically ensured the Dems would win the black vote for possibly 100 years (because it was for all races and economically boosted their communities) unless Republicans did a massive shift and were the ones to totally tear down Jim Crow. Also, many northern blacks were far more liberal socially than their southern counterparts, and believed in labor unions (which from the 1920s on, Republicans had a VERY roller coaster relationship with). This is why Eisenhower did not win the black vote in 1952, they were afraid he would tear down the New Deal. In 1956 and 1960, the Republicans significantly improved their performance with blacks thanks to Eisenhower and Congressional members taking action on civil rights (plus fears of the New Deal's dismantling were greatly exaggerated). However, they STILL did not get a majority of them because they again were hesitant to embrace labor unions, embraced moderate to conservative economics and tried to pressure racial equality change through the courts and state level rather than direct forceful federal action in many cases (although they did vote in favor of all civil rights acts by a solid majority). This all happened before ANY of the Southern Strategy was implemented or Goldwater was nominated. Simply put, the economic policies of the Republicans were extremely unpopular from the 1920s onwards with blacks and the lower class. Ironically, the Democrats have opened the door for a possible future realignment due to their embracing globalism and throwing unions under the bus with free trade agreements and foreign visa workers. They literally DESTROYED the unions' power beginning in the 1990s.
The problem with this is that there were no "racial events" That prompted black voters to move away from the Republican party. Democrats pretended to care about the poor, and back then (and still today), Democrats pretend like their policies are meant to help the poor. At the time most black people WERE poor.
The fact of the matter is that Democrats have successfully won a majority of black voters since Woodrow Wilson- who openly supported the KKK and even showed their propaganda film "Birth of a Nation" at the White House. Similarly, FDR won the black vote, despite nominating a KKK member to the supreme court. LBG won the black vote, despite repeatedly referring to the Civil Rights Act as "the [N-word] bill".
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American [Obama] who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man."
-Joe Biden; still racist, still a Democrat
Before I say anything, I want to mention that I don’t really identify with any political party or alignment (not even centrist); I just kind of believe what I think is right. That said, I know teachers shouldn’t push political agendas, but the education I got about civil rights was completely bogus. All they taught us was that slavery was a thing in early America, but Lincoln made it better, and then segregation was a thing, but MLK made it better. I mean, it’s good for them to teach us that we’re not where we were all those decades ago, but they only taught us about the past of civil rights. We were never taught about the present-day realities and all the ways they can manifest. I agree that it’s a touchy subject, but there are most certainly ways of talking about more modern forms of racism without inciting revolution.
What kind?
The problem is, many people today do not believe that there see struggles of racism. Despite the overwhelming evidence to the lasting effects of slavery, Jim-crow etc. Simply approaching the subject would get you labeled as political speech. If a Republican or Democrat disagrees with it, well you better believe it's going to get called out as "agenda pushing." Even now, things that shouldn't be debatable(Climate change, evolution, round planet) Get called out all the time as political agenda pushing. Even when it's really just the simple truth.
This is important. The thing is as a right winger myself, I think the threat is wokeism and the alt right (which are not our friends as some people think). The wokeists ofcourse think they are doing what we think we are doing by calling out what they think is racism. I mean things like "kill whitey" or "black people can't be racists" makes it pretty clear to me. However we must recognize that many forms of racism have gone away and not make non-racist things racist.
I agree. My thinking is Ethics, History, and Political Science should be required in high school (or college should be required as an extension to high school, idk). In college is when things get deeper into the nitty-gritty, but these are things that are highly troublesome and need to be digested for our country to actually be better informed.
@@gch5559 Who taught you what the term "woke" means? The people who coined the term (black people fighting racial injustice), or the people against them who hijacked and redefined it to mean something completely different? Your comment gives me my answer.
I cant wait to gain some KNOWLEDGE
Now that's a lot of *Knowledge*
No need of flextape
tai lopez
knowing better would imply learning truths not lies.
Republicans in the south stopped after 1900 because the party was suppressed for the next 70 years. KKK supporting Democrats turned Southern states into Deep Blue states until after the Civil Rights wrecked their political machines.
he is extremely biased. the fact that he compared the KKK and its relationship to the Democratic party to United the Right and the republicans show it. No one who is intellectually honest would make that comparison. Democrats used the KKK and other White groups to suppress not just black people but any whites who might vote republican (called "scallywags") It was a tool of political oppression and suppression and it was extremely effective- in much of the deep south following the fall of reconstruction groups like the Red Shirts and KKK handed a period of regional political dominance to one party for almost 100 years. He compares that to a single protest where several groups some of whom white nationalists who voted for Trump fought with radical leftwing counter protesters. White supremacists groups are not powerful and are not at all effective at suppressing other peoples rights. By comparison far left wing "activists" are extremely effective at disrupting events and harassing people.
@@MrChickennugget360 woah there mister triggered
Red Eyed tree frog- triggered means an emotional reaction. i am not triggered. I am merely stating facts
If all the members of the KKK were Democrats then saying “democrats founded the KKK” would be accurate. What would be inaccurate would be to say that the Democratic Party founded the KKK. Although I am sure they were mostly fine with it.
I was told once by a biographer about Walt Disney "He was not really more or less raciest than most men of his age and demographic, witch is sadly more than kind of raciest. This is something you find when looking back to people of that age you see the good and then go oh wow that's raciest, you get use to it."
*I don't like the term, "switch", because that incorrectly suggests a sudden reversal. But IDEOLOGICAL CHANGE between the parties most definitely took place.* The problem is too many people think because *today,* "liberal" or "left" is automatically perceived as Democratic and "conservative" or "right" is automatically perceived as Republican, that it's always been that way. That's patently false. Decades ago, your party affiliation did not identify your ideology.
Depending on what region you lived in, a Democrat or Republican could be liberal, conservative or moderate. All combinations existed. That is an indisputable historical fact.
Istg, I never got the bit of the intro where he puts the coke bottle in the fridge. Then, I forgot a coke can in the freezer. Never again.
It's genuinely concerning just how many people completely ignore what you've stated here to still come into your comments and make the same easily debunked claims.
if they even took a second to watch any of the video at all
2:40 Never forget Huey long
Klaus 'Kaiser' von Heidelburg EVERY MAN A KING
Huey Long Dong
@@kirbyfanos123 BUT NO ONE WEARS A CROWN!
D I R E C T R U L E F R O M A T L A N T A
TheRealDario S H A R E T H E W E A L T H
I'm beginning to think maybe PragerU isn't a real university...
“Dog whistle”
Only dogs hear dog whistles Knowing Better
Almost like it's a metaphor for the right things being able to understand 🤔
Jovani Games except it’s not metaphorical at all
@@carsonianthegreat4672 true can't think of the word for it though
That's the point of the analogy. And, yes, the term "dog whistle" is metaphorical.
A much more nuanced view of the evolution of the American political landscape. Well done!
I saw that ad from PragerU and am really glad you decided to address it. PragerU seems to be very good at grabbing people with impressive titles and confusing us because who am I to refute a PHd professor of that exact topic.
So, point is, it is more complicated than just a "180 degree" switch. Taking Classical Democrats (Dixiecrats), the new Democrats of the time, the Republicans with the south, the Republicans against the south, and societal events into account, it is way more complicated.
Most people use the Strom Thurmond argument yet most people who use it won't mention why Strom changed in the first place. If they did mention it, it would refute their claim.
One person does not a party make.
It's actually a lot more complicated than most people think.
True. If you look at state maps of elections, then republicans are southerners. But if you look at district maps, youd wonder how sach election isnt a landslide republican victory
Why y'all gotta diss my girl Carole Swain like that in the beginning?
PragerU wasn't telling the whole truth?! That's unpossible!
I had to skip the ad because it was a 5 minute prageru ad
FDR should've gone full socialist. We've only gone backwards since they have slowly rolled back New Deal efforts...
Thankfully he didn't. Socialism blows.
@@firingallcylinders2949 I hate having affordable housing! I hate having healthcare that doesn't cost an arm and a leg! I hate not being essentially doomed when fired due to an increasingly cutthroat employment scene!
@@user-dl5gy6lc2n sounds like something only a dirty commie would say smh
@@user-dl5gy6lc2n For God's sake, good intentions don't equal good results. For every four square feet of living space the average European has, the average American under the poverty line has FIVE. And you want to talk about affordable housing...
FDR is the reason we're swimming in debt now. He never considered life expectancy might increase when he instituted Social Security (it was 64 years old at the time, one year below retirement age). We haven't gone backwards. In 1950s, we had almost no economic growth and the poverty rate was as high as 22%. Before Reagan's tax cuts, the top 5% only paid half as much as a share of the nation's revenue as they do today. The only step backwards we took was LBJ's Great Society which increased broken families 6X.
How come you teach things better than my Civics teacher, and you actually make me interested in it? Like wtf?
Fun Fact : the 3rd party candidate in 1968 became a born again christian, reflected on all his racism and ran again as governor in the end of his life and won because of the black vote and appointed tons of black people
Wallace, had some redemption at least...
Short term memory ahh black people 😂
"A Dog Whistle" can be a case of the person perceiving it because of conditioning. Thusly seeing something that isn't there.
Maybe, but people who point out dog whistles generally have reasons for believing a dog whistle means something beyond the literal meaning, whether that is the context such phrases appear in or explicit statements by the dog-whistler/their political allies.
@Con Troversy So Atwater, leader of the RNC for a time, was just making shit up about his own strategy? He himself described it as a system of dogwhistles.
Gavan Borgias Atwater was outcasted from the Republican Party. I can also explain his reasoning. No true Republican would say that tax cuts are a racist policy because they would help black People also. Republicans believe that black people can thrive in a meritocracy and be just as good as white People.
Atwater, who was a racist thought that in a meritocracy white People would naturally perform better since he believed black People were stupid. President Nixon even helped black people by creating affirmative action to help balance out historical oppression.
Just because some racist though that meritocracy would lead to white favoritism doesn’t mean it’s what happened. As you see republican policy helped black people keep more of their money and lower black unemployment. Who cares what some racist said, look at the actual policy of the Nixon administration.
22:30 Prager is far right? Conservative, yes, but far right? What's a far right position they hold?
Would you accept "profoundly conservative"? If far right means White Supremacist or something, then, no, he's not "far right." But almost everything he works to promote is on the far right side of the *normal* political spectrum.
Prager U is about as 'far right' as KB is a 'moderate' i.e. not really.
@@CanuckGod well, to be fair, he is center left.
Prager is definitely ancap, which automatically qualifies as far right to me. But on the other hand I haven't seen a Prager video that says we should ban porn or bring back sodomy laws yet....yet.
I watch prager U videos and they are not far right. They are conservative UA-cam channel
The problem is that Americans think Democrats and Republicans are on opposite sides of the spectrum but they actually agree on more than they disagree
Right? I hate it when people describe the two parties as “the left” and “the right”. In reality, it’s the “centre-right to mid-right” and the “mid-right to far-right” parties, and depending on the issue, they might switch places.
@@12D_D21 one of my in laws said they were politically moderate and I said “yeah, in America, but everywhere else you’re nazi-adjacent
Not really. A large wing of the Democrats want universal healthcare, free/much more regulated university fees, liberalised abortion and other social issues etc. I think those are wholly sensible policies by the way, but I don’t really think you can claim it‘s not a left wing party.
thinking about a recent video from the florida house showing republicans and democrats dancing the cha cha slide together after rolling back half a dozen civil rights legislations
There are 3 parties: Dem establishment, GOP establishment, and the people
It amazes me how the videos debunking Prager U are more organized and thought out than the Prager U vids.
So basically the party switch just confused the fuck out of the parties by making ideas mixed in each party idk this confused the fuck out of me
John Weber oh jeez that’s a lot of words thanks for the response I understand this a bit more now
"What have republicans done for women lately?"
Yeah that aged well
3:25 You want to talk about *why* the economic policies of the Democrats supposedly benefited black voters? Or do you wanna just gloss over it like its insignificant?
On average black voters are less wealthy because of historical discrimination and slavery, thus policies that expand services for people with lower incomes are likely to help black voters. Examples would include; expanding Medicaid, increased public transportation, Food stamps, etc.
Lee Atwater:"Yall dont quote me on this" *proceeds to say one of the most quoted things ive ever heard*
Hahaha holy shit that was a really well time used of Outkast, you get a like for that.
Vaush mentioned this video during a livestream saying it was a great video as a whole. He highly recommended it.
I'm here from Vaush's stream as well
Same
@@larsfrisk6658 Vaush BAD
Vaush RAD
@@TieL3r why...
Hubert Humphrey never gets enough credit. Such an underrated figure responsible for the gradual "switch" in the Democratic Party and Democratic leadership.
Definitely cool for you to quote him.
and Wellstone. They are missed in this state.
@Carla Romero lol
This is a fascinating video. Previously, I assumed that the Dixiecrats switched from being democrats to Republicans. I will definitely watch this again.
Everyone, I'm not a trained sociologist or political scientist. I'm a recovering alcoholic and a factory worker with a high school diploma. However, I will tell everyone, as a Washington state resident who moved to Texas 14 years ago, that racism and bigotry are still huge issues in this area of the South. People will not usually openly come out and call someone a slur, and the impact of racism is lessening, but it's still here.
Thank you SO MUCH for addressing PragerU's bastardization of this part of history. From the moment I saw their video on this, I wished I had the platform to address it myself. With Trump supporters claiming: "We're the party of Lincoln!", it drove me crazy.
Look up the voting history in congress for the civil rights act and tell me the parties switched with a honest face…
I mean it’s a little disingenuous but still doesn’t change the fact that Lincoln was the first president to outlaw slavery. 🤷♂️
Same here! I was like huh?????? How’d she get to that? … Weird that actions and words don’t match with the attempts at re-characterization of history
@@Ziiphyr yeah, absolutely. But the point isn't that Lincoln was a Republican. The point is a Republican in today's terms is most definitely not a Republican like in Lincoln's time. Same thing with Democrats. Democrats today, the people that make up its base and the policy stances the Democratic party adheres to are not anything like the policies and political makeup that was the Democratic party in its early years. The Democratic party was indeed founded and supported mostly by White Southerners and the KKK while the Republicans in those times were more progressive, had most of the Black vote and had many Black leaders in Congressional positions. As weird, confusing and convuluted as it is, starting with FDR's New Deal and culminating in the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act and the civil rights movement, the parties completely switched. You only need to look at which party garners the support of white supremacists and the KKK today and which party now has the support of (and supports the causes of) Black people today to see that this is true.
Would you please do an episode on Claudette Colvin? She did the same thing as Rosa Parks, but a few months before. The difference is, she was a pregnant teenager, and the civil rights leaders didn't want a pregnant teen as the face of the movement.
Yep,tactics are important
All I can say is that if the Republican party wants my vote they should stop hating gay people and making laws that target us :) of course there's other problems that stop me from supporting conservative politicians but the fact that my own state's senators hate me and think I shouldn't exist makes supporting their political party a non-starter.
All that the Republican and Democratic parties are is a name, not a set ideology. Their main goal is to get people in the party elected into office