Why did the American Political Parties Switch?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 бер 2022
- If you're ready to take action and prevent hair loss, go to keeps.com/MrBeat to receive 50% off your first order.
Mr. Beat finally tackles the complicated story of the Southern Strategy and the Party Switch...aka The Big Switch...aka The Big Lie. Wait, the Big Lie? Some people think it's made up? Really?
Produced by Matt Beat. All images and video by Matt Beat, used under fair use guidelines, or found in the public domain. Music by @ElectricNeedleRoom (Mr. Beat's band).
Other recommended videos about the Party Switch:
@CynicalHistorian: • The Party Switch | US ...
@KnowingBetter: • Political Ships of The...
Sources/further reading:
www.nytimes.com/packages/html...
digitalcommons.salve.edu/cgi/...
millercenter.org/president/fd...
www.jstor.org/stable/273604
press.princeton.edu/ideas/why...
www.presidency.ucsb.edu/docum...
history.house.gov/Historical-...
www.bustle.com/p/how-the-gop-...
www.nytimes.com/1976/09/21/ar...
www.latimes.com/archives/la-x...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8274866/
www.nytimes.com/1970/05/17/ar...
www.jstor.org/stable/23518391
www.chicagotribune.com/opinio...
Nut Country: Right-wing Dallas and the Birth of the Southern Strategy by Edward Miller
For business inquiries or to send snail mail to Mr. Beat:
www.iammrbeat.com/contact.html
/ iammrbeat
Buy Mr. Beat merch:
matt-beat-shop.fourthwall.com/
www.bonfire.com/store/mr-beat/
sfsf.shop/support-mrbeat/
Buy Mr. Beat's book:
amzn.to/3fdakiZ
How to support Mr. Beat:
Donate to Mr. Beat for great perks on Patreon: / iammrbeat
Donate to Mr. Beat on Paypal: www.paypal.me/mrbeat
Buy Mr. Beat a coffee: ko-fi.com/iammrbeat
“Free” ways to show support:
Subscribe to my channel
Turn on notifications
Like, share, and comment on my videos
Connect:
Mr. Beat on Cameo, yo: www.cameo.com/iammrbeat?qid=1...
Mr. Beat on Reddit: / mrbeat
Mr. Beat on Twitter: / beatmastermatt
Mr. Beat on Facebook: / iammrbeat
Mr. Beat on Instagram: / iammrbeat
Mr. Beat's Discord server: / discord
Mr. Beat's TikTok: www.tiktok.com/@iammrbeat?lan...
Mr. Beat’s website: www.iammrbeat.com/
Mr. Beat's band: electricneedleroom.net/
Mr. Beat’s second channel: ua-cam.com/channels/JYl.html...
Listen on Spotify: open.spotify.com/artist/62BsM...
Mr. Beat favorites:
POP! Icons: George Washington go.magik.ly/ml/11jrb/
Shampoo: rb.gy/vlqeym
Acne fighter: rb.gy/a6dnb0
Recommended books:
Republic, Lost by Lawrence Lessing go.magik.ly/ml/11jul/
Truman by David McCullough go.magik.ly/ml/11jwc/
The Ultimate American Presidential Election Book: Every Presidential Election in American History (1788-2016) by Matt Beat amzn.to/3fdakiZ
How the States Got Their Shapes by Mark Stein go.magik.ly/ml/1fdvf/
Command and Control by Eric Scholosser go.magik.ly/ml/1fdvi/
The Age of Fracture by Daniel Rodgers go.magik.ly/ml/1fdvn/
Blowback by Chalmers Johnson go.magik.ly/ml/1fdvw/
The Third Reich at War by Richard Evans go.magik.ly/ml/1fdvt/
Railroaded by Richard White go.magik.ly/ml/1fdwq/
The War on Normal People by Andrew Yang go.magik.ly/ml/1fdwi/
A Short History of Reconstruction by Eric Foner go.magik.ly/ml/1fdwk/
The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt go.magik.ly/ml/1fdwn/
Studio equipment:
Canon EOS M50 Camera EF-M 15-45mm Lens amzn.to/3dcNPen
Samtian LED Video Light Kit amzn.to/3llDwHO
TroyStudio Acoustic Panel amzn.to/33CkqHn
Blue Snowball iCE USB Mic amzn.to/2GseOHa
Affiliate Links:
Useful Charts: usefulcharts.com/?aff=12
Typesy: ereflect.postaffiliatepro.com...
Kids Connect: kidskonnect.com/?ref=iammrbeat
Ekster: ekster.com?sca_ref=444709.jvl...
I use MagicLinks for all my ready-to-shop product links. Check it out here:
www.magiclinks.com/rewards/re...
FTC Disclosure: This post or video contains affiliate links, which means I may receive a commission for purchases made through my links.
#apgov #thesouthernstrategy #thepartyswitch
So what did I forget to include in the story?
For folks wondering why there were already comments before Friday, those were my Patreon supporters, who often get access to my videos a few days early.
Also, don't forget about your hair. If you're ready to take action and prevent hair loss, go to keeps.com/MrBeat to receive 50% off your first order.
legend
the Democrats are the bad guys and the Republicans are the good guys
Video came out 35 minutes ago. Mr. Beat wrote this comment 8 hours ago. Time Travel confirmed.
The whole concept of a political party switch is actually false, the Democrats and Republicans are literally the same party from a policy perspective(which should be obvious to everyone since they both split from the Democratic Republican party) the only difference between the two parties is superficial stuff primarily culture war based topics, if we completely ignored the culture war everyone would realize how completely trash these two parties are and would find a "third party" to support instead
@@arielkarat4338 see my comment above ^
One thing you failed to mention is that politics was more regional before, so the politician from both parties tended to look the same in the same region. For example, the Republican Party has always been strong in New England (look at how many GOP governors and senators they've had even recently), but New England Republicans tended to be liberal, like their Democratic counterparts. Similarly, Democrats from the Deep South tended to be conservative, like their Republican counterparts. In general, until about 1994, Republican politicians from New England were much more liberal than Democratic politicians from the Deep South.
Thanks for saying, that makes sense in the manner or style of an explanation I've heard before.
One thing I've heard before is that the Civil Rights determined especially, "defined after so many years", the way Republicans held black rights - generally speaking - above the belt while Democrats formed the KKK... there was a way of interpreting the questions, bringing about these results... let me think or remember
got in reading recs where i can learn more?
@@dsxa918 and
This is still going on to an extent in New England, with Republican governors such as Phil Scott in Vermont and Chris Sununu in New Hampshire. One could also argue politicians such as Senators Joe Manchin and John Tester from West Virginia and Montana respectively are also a part of this trend.
@@highgrounder Tester no, but Gov Andy Beshear in KY and until recently AG Jim Hood in MS. Manchin is probably the last southern Democrat.
Remember friends whenever you hear someone mention "states' rights" always be sure to ask them "states' rights to what?"
@@tauntingeveryone7208
Does your State own you?
I've never heard of a State owning someone.
Unless I'm missing something?
@@tauntingeveryone7208
We fought a war to prevent State's rights to owning people??
Bahahahahahaha
@@tauntingeveryone7208
Read your own comments bro.
You aren't making a lot of sense.
I don't know what to tell ya.
@@Dougie1969 I don’t know what to tell you racist pro-slavery bigot.
Just admit you’re pro federal overreach and oppression and support minimizing regional differences in order to put everyone under one totalitarian boot.
As an ex-History teacher I really appreciate the clarity of your stories, and your presentation. Wish I had been as good!
really lol
Former student?
To bad it’s full of crap
@@brandonbenson6804 in 1860s the South voted Democrat and the North had a new party called the Republican party, which was for big government and civil rights. Now the South votes Republican and the North is Democrat and votes for big government and civil rights. Don't let facts get in the way of your ignorance!
I was confused by this since Lincoln was a republican. So I did a study of our history and saw that Mr. Beat is correct.
The democratic presidents in the 20th century did more for civil rights, and for Americans in general, than the republican presidents.
Please don’t stop making factual and informational content. They should just be showing these videos in school for history class.
@@lesleyt8984when you forget mr beat is a history teacherr
That would go well with all that other bs taught in school... this dude is wrong. He's just repeating the leftist lie
This video is literal propaganda and leaves out so much information it isn't even funny.
@@markhennessy7598like what?
Mr. Beat totally nailed me at 10:00. I was cleaning the dishes, it made me nervous laugh. 😂 How did he know!?!
I was listening at work, because, you know, I'm at work. He got me too!
@@dustinpetersen7730 same lol
@@CadaltosCorner You copy-pasted your talking points on the wrong comment, bruh
@@CadaltosCorner Understand how people think that that prop was racist but not really. Let me use a school analogy. If it was harder for single parent children to get good grades and it would hurt their chances at getting into collage. The solution to this was to make it easier to have single parent student to get into collage. Now in reality African Americans are generally poorer that white Americans.The solution that came up was affirmative action, Now most people would say this is unfair because students should get there based on work. But the way we measure this SAT scores and grades have been proven that AA students have a harder time achieving the same grade. So without any intervention we would have white students who work less get into collage based on those scores that African Americans would find hard to achieve. that is the point of affirmative action
i was washing my hands
Thanks Mr. Beat for making me enjoy learning about history outside of school! Despite being in college, it feels like reading a book that’s not for a class… you don’t realize how cool history is when you’re not required to throw info back up on a test.
I'm so glad you think learning history is cool. This always makes my day.
Mr. Beat is so cool learn more they click on the funds up and I'll tell you more history
@@iammrbeat you are a joke
@@ryanchristopher8848 if you dont have anything nice to say dont say anything at all
@@ryanchristopher8848 don’t insult my god!
I know this is late but thank you Mr. Beat. I’ve heard “do you know which party actually ended slavery?” far too many times and having to explain that ideas change is so trivial it’s exhausting.
It's insane anyone tries to argue against the switch. I mean, who flies Confederate flag? Protects Confederate statues? Who does the KKK vote for? The Confederate states are almost all Red today and teach the "silver lining" of slavery. Willful ignorance is the only explanation.
Neither party really resembles what they were in their origins. It’s almost entirely redundant to argue that Lincoln’s policies better represent democratic policies. The main constant is that republicans are more independent and for individual or local government and that democrats are more for government control
people just forget that we live in the 21st century
This was actually REALLY helpful but this will always be one of the hardest aspects of American politics for me to fully wrap my head around
It's a case of correlation not being causation.
Because it never happened.😂.
@@Dom-vo9ni watch out, you're going to face the same screeching that Ukrainians do when they dispel Kremlin talking points.
@@Dom-vo9ni Man gave a detailed example of what happened. There are literally videos on youtube from that era where people on both sides are talking about this who were in politics. You have historians conforming this, newspaper articles but since it does not align with the regurgitated lies you filled you dense head with , all of a sudden it " never happened". Lmao. The fact that this eats at you so bad you have to lie to yourself makes me smile so freaking hard. It's hilarious and so so so sad at the same. I'm actually embarrassed for you. Cause no matter what, I know in your head you know it's the truth and it's eating you Lmmaaoo. This is great man.
@@rudiruttgerI'm glad we agree that the republican party and the kremlin are basically the same.
I've seen so many people say it didn't happen, but also seen so many people sum it up as "Richard Nixon used the Southern strategy so the parties flipped immediately afterwards", when both are so blatantly missing the entire story
You got it
Ironically people who liked Nixon don’t like how he got us off the gold standard and made all of the losses in privacy in banking.
True very very very true
Like most things in life, there's nuance involved.
@@night6724 The major significance is that while Nixon worked slowly behind the scenes to enforce desegregation, he did not vocally support it. Instead he favored socially conservative racial dogwhistles such as appeals to "Law and Order."
I would add that many people forget how much of a state's vote is influenced by what each candidate will do for their state. When the south was uber racist, guys like Wallace won states, despite being fairly unpopular elsewhere. Carter won the south in 76 because he was a fellow southerner, with southerner values, and was southern baptist. Goldwater won many southern states because the feeling of betrayal felt around Johnson.
We also have to understand that back in the day, the political party meant less.
Political parties still don't mean much but people assume more from the label. That happens with lots of things these days. People on both sides see groups more than individuals.
"Southern values" like segregation.
@@tonyetzu you'd be surprised how many people in the south aren't actually racist and how many people outside the south actually are.
@@The.One.True.B Wouldn't surprise me.
@@tonyetzu so why are you trying to label all (or most) southerners as segregationists?
Never stop doing what you do, the visuals are very crisp and keep my ADD mind glued to the screen
That was an excellent presentation!! Thank you for making it so clear!
Obviously I haven’t seen the video yet, but from my understanding, it wasn’t simply a “party switch.” I call it party evolution. There were always conservative and liberal factions of both parties that slowly won out over time. Let’s see if I’m right.
Party evolution is probably a more accurate way to put it.
Also the integration of non-white males into the parties (Mr. Beat didn’t include how this changed the fundamentals of each party) that aided on the changes. The modern Democratic Party have a massive number of African American elected officials in it. That’s obviously going to change the core values of the party, in a way that the Republican’s large white elected membership does as well. That’s how you know the right is lying that the switch didn’t happened.
I like this a lot! I definitely think we should shift to use this more accurate way of understanding the two parties. A switch is stupid and didn’t happen. I just see it as a weird way of understanding how policies and people change. People don’t just wake up one day and have totally different ideology. Don’t see how a switch benefits or hurts parties in the modern day but whatever lol
@SuperDuck64 That’s what happened over time. Today, there are very few “political machines.” Liberals took over the Democratic Party, and moved to the left. Conservatives took over the Republican Party, and moved to the right.
@@pictureperfect3211 :|
When my father, from a small southern county in northern Florida, registered to vote in the state in the mid 80s, he was automatically registered as Democrat by the old fart behind the counter. When he asked what if he had wanted to be a Republican, the old guy just old him “But then you can’t vote in the election” My dad was uber confused, until my grandpa explained the old guy meant the Democratic primary, because the Dems were so assumed to just automatically win any election where they were, your vote in the vote in the primary was seen as more valuable than the vote in the general election.
They still are, just less people get involved in their local politics on either end of the spectrum.
Kinda like the Republican party of today
@@Thobeian if you live in a partisan district that leans left your statement is correct. Or are you trying to push the progressives conspiracy theory that there are millions of far-left people who don't vote because no candidate is far left enough.
If people paid more attention to local politics there would probably be more moderates. However both parties seem to believe in federal supremacy.
It was almost like that for me when I registered and that was the turn of the century.
The system of "registering" to vote is corrupt and frankly un-American. We should emulate Canada and permit people to vote as their conscience dictates for any fielded candidate, without regard to "party" affiliation. One person, one vote, for whomever you choose. So simple, so democratic. The Founders would agree.
Thank you MrBeat, it’s great that you can give a very good history lesson while not trying to get to semi-political. Thanks so much your like a second history class for me 😊
How can this be covered in any way without it being inherently political? it is quite literally about politics, and MrBeat covers almost exclusively the history of Politics. Do you mean to say that he remained objective without divulging his own personal opinion?
ps sorry if it is a misunderstanding english is not my first language so it may be a dialect thing
Pov: you went to new comments to look for angry people
Lol
What the actual fuck, I was multi tasking man. Didn't have to call me out doing the dishes like that
Often times I see on the internet "but the parties switched platforms!" used as a response for, let's say, criticizing Democratic policies from long ago.
It's way too simple to just say the two parties flipped and did a 180.
I agree there was a realignment in the South specifically, and I agree with you that it wasn't like some people say - just happened all of a sudden. Democrats still held a majority of Southern congressional seats until the 90s.
I think the best idea is to look at it like this - both Democrats and Republicans were massive coalitions of diverse ideologies. They still are coalitions, but they ditched, at least partially, some of their wings. Everyone knows conservative Democrats, and to a lesser extent liberal Republicans still exist; they haven't gone away, they just lost a lot of influence. Yes, the Democratic Party moved more to the left and the Republican Party moved more to the right, but saying that today's Democrats are the Republicans from the 1950s (or the other way around), just feels very dishonest.
Like you said "party evolution" sounds much, much more accurate than "party switch". Obviously there was a shift and a realignment but those always happen. Just not on as large of a scale.
I would disagree the Republican party and the democratic party have both shifted much more liberal especially on social issues. Democrats just shifted so extremely compared to Republicans it make them look far right. But in actuality trump would be liberal back in the 80's or 90's while biden would have been extremely leftist.
@@survivalsuiters5982 What you just wrote is nonsense !
@@survivalsuiters5982 ..... check the Overton windows of the U.S. compared to all the other Western Democracies of the world . Biden's policy platforms are considered centre right anywhere else in the developed world !
@@andrewbrady6154 i dont care about politics in foreign nations every nation has unique values and what is considered conservative and liberal. Right and Left are non sense terms anyways i just used it because those are phrases people understand.
@@survivalsuiters5982 but not in the 30s and 40s. You picked the most right wing time in our country possibly. If not then the second most
My favorite thing about Republicans is when they claim they can’t be racist because Lincoln was a Republican. Amazing how quickly people can help inform on whether or not you should take anything they say seriously.
oh oh oh... now do affirmative action. You can't be racist because you alleviate your white guilt by helping people you think you are superior have a better life because you don't think they can actually do better if they were asked to meet the challenge of standards.
literally no republican says that ever. Amazing how I can figure out that you care more about "owning the conservatives" than having an actual discussion and recognizing that the truth isnt black and white
BS
@@nooblord1233 they actually do lol. They say republicans freed the slaves
@@gballdadon312 which they did actually but thats not the point of the original comment anyway
So useful. I've always wondered this. Much more complicated than I thought.
Each party must constantly counter react to actions of the other party to survive and reach new voters. They do what they do in order to win.
yep
couldn't have said it better myself
If we had a system that incentivized more political parties then party switches would probably happen less often.
@@theperfectmix2 yeah but sadly in the rest of the world, two parties still (de facto) are the only ones who can control a country, like in UK, Spain or Germany
That sugar coats what's happening by playing the 'both sides-ism' bullsh!t. The Democratic party pushed for changes through the Civil Rights Acts but the Republican seized upon that as an opportunity to expand their power AT THE EXPENSE of blacks. There is no both sides-ism there, it was a one way street that resulted in the disenfranchisement of blacks.
Fun fact: Regardless of wether or not the switch happened, it's of no consequence for the party colors. A lot of people say that the reason why, unlike in european countries, the conservatives are red and the liberals are blue, is this switch, however, the association of party colors actually goes back to i believe 1980, and it wasn't even inspired by the parties themselves. Basically, in that years electoral period, NBC decided to cover the election live, featuring a map of each state that would be colored in as the vote is decided. Notably, however, this map featured the republicans in blue and the democrats in red, and there is no specific reason why they did this, other than blue and red being colors that are easy to tell apart. When a competitor did the same thing 4 years later, they decided to color the republicans red and the democrats blue, to set themselves apart, and when other competitors also decided to do the same thing, over time, red republicans and blue democrats won out over the original coloring that NBC used.
The republican red/ Democrat blue really solidified in 2000 when news media all adopted that use and it entered popular imagination of "red" and "blue" states.
it's also because CBS used "Red for Reagan" and it caught on
I always understood it as the 2000 election making it the standard because of how long that election got extended due to litigation.
It's interesting because here in Australia the conservatives are called the liberal party and are blue. And the progressives are called the Labor party and are red. Confusing? Yes it is
@@dashkostka9281 That's not supported by the facts (though CBS did use Red for the GOP at that time).
The problem seems to lie in our national desire to see everything as a binary. There are regional and ideological nuances to so much of this.
Not national, global
@@jakefromstatefarm6969 There is indeed a global dimension to this being missed. Specifically, that the professional class which used to be the base of support for right-wing parties has been moving Left while the working class which used to be the base of support for left-wing parties has been moving Right. It's expressing itself in various ways in different countries due to how their unique systems are set-up, but it is observable in some form across many if not most Western nations.
@@johnweber4577
Everything you said is definitely observable in the US.
It's nuts how fast it's happening too
It bothers me when Republicans think they have this "gotcha" moment when they ask what party Lincoln was from. Then they state he was a republican and think it makes any kind of point about the current Republican party.
Donald Trump's Alt-Right Groyper MAGAtard base would call Abraham Lincoln a woke cuckservative RINO for ending the enslavement of Blacks!
@@josephimperatrice5552 hell of a word salad. Touch grass
Just remind them Lincoln wanted all the slaves to leave. While President. Then tell them *he quit the Party* and was reelected on the "Unity Party" ticket. And no, the Democrats had nothing to de with the founding of the KKK, that was drunk, war losing confederate soldiers. It did not last & was a taken down by one of it's founders. But when the KKK was refounded, Republicans embraced it as the Party of White Anglo Saxon Protestants.
It’s a gotcha in the sense that you believe the republicans have roots in racism when they do not, evolutionary and otherwise. There was no “switch.”
More like you have some delusional conspiracy theory to justify the democratic parties horrible past.
The “party switch” myth isn’t really a myth as it is an oversimplification. It’s really three periods where the parties changed:
1934-1936 when the New Deal coalition among Southern Democrats, business-type Democrats, Union Democrats, and Academia led to decades of constant Democrat control in the WH, Senate, and especially the House
1968 when the New Deal coalition among the aforementioned groups collapsed due to infighting concerning civil rights and the war in Vietnam
1992-1994 when the Cold War ended, neoliberalism kicked into full gear, and the Gingrich wing of the Republicans took over
Black people switched during the 1930s era, from overwhelmingly Republican in 1932 to overwhelmingly Democrat in 1936. Why? Because they decided that it’s better to face overt racism from Democrats and make money during a depression under the New Deal, than to face covert racism from Republicans and stay poor from their “markets fix themselves” ideology. Eisenhower did great with blacks both times (but didn’t win them in either election), which is why people think they suddenly went Democrat in 1960.
The 1960s change saw Republicans winning the South only in presidential races, once again due to that destroyed coalition. Congress-wise, they were hardcore Democrat. Republicans during this period also turned into “globalists” who promoted international trade, while Democrats were more protectionist due to unions (This in particular is the most obvious and simplest example of the parties switching). Republicans under Reagan we’re also (ironically) very anti-gun, pro-amnesty, and interventionalist: three policies that Republicans in 2022 won’t even dare run on.
The 1990s was when the South switched Republican, with some states (like MS) not being a Republican-majority state until 2010. Likewise, it was the time the coasts turned Democrat due to more favorable white collar work policies then.
All of these, blended together, make the parties look like they switched in the big picture. But it’s multiple policy changes within decades, not a single policy within a year.
But parties in their current forms hardly last longer than 30-40 years, if you look back in history and the 7 party eras we had. At that average, we’re due for a party “switch” this decade (although Trump could’ve started that in 2016-18).
This is a great analysis, but I would also like to add that so many people that it had to have been the same people that had voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976 that voted overwhelmingly for Reagan in 1980.
@@FailedKing Interesting assumption. Is there a source that would indicate individual votes from 1976 and those same individuals voting differently in 1980? That source should certainly be cited. Most citations I've come in contact with use generalized voting patterns not individual votes cited to demonstrate your claim.
@@FailedKing - My parents were among those who switched in the 1980 election. I've got a feeling we may see a similar flip in 2024.
@@potstuck so even if he provides a cite you won’t accept it? Because you think generalized information is bad? By that logic business shouldn’t use focus studies, the FBI shouldn’t make crime reports, and the concept of categories should be erased for the books.
Don't forget that Clinton pulled the D's further into neo-lib style politics as a response to the last dem getting elected president being Carter.
It’s interesting that the switch was very slow on the state and local level. Alabama’s state legislature was controlled by conservative democrats till Obama’s term.
Yep, it was a very slow process
Likely generation politics, people vote how their ancestors do and the party switch was really top down
Dem guvernor lost in 2002 by like 2,000 votes
@@michaelnguyen9348 once again generational politics
Hell, Biden is so old, he is a pre-switch Democrat
HAHAHA! I was literally listening while washing my dishes when he called out the audience. Always great videos. thanks -
Thanks. I was curious about additional perspective on this.
It would be ignorant to pretend the parties haven’t changed in the last 50 years. Both have, for better and worse
Or the last 250 years!
@@iammrbeat the republicans didn’t exist 250 years ago
@@auramaster8459 i think he means the parties in general in American history
@@auramaster8459 The United States of America did not exist 250 years ago.... God save the King?
10:00 I was literally laying in the sun just listening lol. I love your content! I’m trying to be a better voter and understand American politics better!! Thank you
Dude you totally friggen got me with that “you’re only listening put the dishes down” I was literally doing just that at that exact moments. Subscribed
The funny thing is southern democrats still had a voice in local govts until 2010. In 2008, democrats had 3/4 of the Mississippi house delegation, with similar trends being seen in other southern states like Arkansas which had 2 D senators and a trifecta in the local govt. That domination only ended in 2010
Obama killed them all
Yeah but that is because gerrymandering has basically eliminated democrats in the south.
@@GageEakins which comes from GOP control of state governments…
Obama was the first Democrat ever to win the presidency without Missouri (which he only lost by a few thousand votes). I think he might've been the first not to win Arkansas, at least since Arkansas became a state.
@@TheAlexSchmidt Missouri was really close. If McCain didn’t have Palin he probably would have got it
This is gonna hurt a lot of PragerU fanboy feelings.
But facts don’t care about your feelings 😎
From what I can tell in these comments, it already has! Of course, they are exactly what this video says they are: straw-man arguments and political rhetoric!
what most mean by "the switch" is claiming that the Republicans are now the racist party and the democrats are the heroes. Its a propaganda piece used to point the finger and ignore anything you say with the accusation "you're racist". Its literally the song and dance done constantly
@@oblitusunum6979 It goes both ways. Most Republican responses I hear aren't like your comment. It's more along the lines of "the switch never happened, you guys are the actual racists. We're Lincolns party." Everyone just talks over each other.
Nick Lee .. only people taking this video at face value are politically inept
Keep doing the good and hard work 💜
Mr. Beat always keeping it real. He's human and flawed to personal biases as we all are and with that said I think he really is more focused on th3 truth then any allegiance to a political party or ideology. Besides the Bill of rights and the pursuit of liberty and happiness.
Part of the issue is traditionally *each* party had both a liberal wing (with people we would recognize as liberals) and a conservative wing (with people we would recognize as conservatives). The parties themselves were not more conservative or liberal than each other by today's values. They were less defined by the left/right political spectrum especially regarding social values, but even to some degree regarding economics.
It's only in the 21st century that that they really fell into line into 2 completely different tribes. But in a way that was bound to eventually happen in a 2 party system.
No that's not true. This is just another case of Americans thinking they're so special and unique and the rest of the world doesn't deal with the same problems they do.
@@biggibbs4678 two things can be right at the same time. But to tell the truth it isn't because "we are American" it's because our voting system is first past the post, which many other countries have. We aren't that special ;)
Well yes and no. What we call Conservative are Conservative Liberals and NeoConservatives vs the Paleoconservatives that we traditionally had as they mostly died out. Meanwhile The Modern Liberal are Progressive Liberals who merged Clasical Liberalism and Progressivism vs traditional Classical Liberals of the past. The terms has stayed the same but not the definition.
Regardless of the truth of any 'party switch' it has little or no bearing on the state of the parties and voters today.
99% of Southerners are racially equalitarian, and so are both parties.
@@biggibbs4678 dude what are you yapping about?
I keep saying it (and you’re right): it wasn’t an instant switch. It was gradual.
This wasn't like a single lightning strike; the realignment was more gradual. When JFK was killed in 63 and LBJ became the President who pushed through the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, Nixon and John Mitchell realized it was their time to approach the Southern States to tell them that Democrats had abandoned them; this was the Southern Strategy. Republicans who hated the GOP as the party of the Union Army now had permission to embrace the GOP for upholding Southern values, while the Democrats took the side of the Black Man. And that's where we've been since then.
@@patrickdrazen8411 Problem with that claim is Nixon lost the Deep South to "Segregation Today, Segregation Tomorrow, & Segregation Forever" George Wallace, a Dixiecrat running as an independent in 1968.
Also, blacks joined the Democrat Party back in the 1930s, voting overwhelmingly for FDR for his first term. The blacks did not switch in the 1960s/70s.
@@GreyWolfLeaderTW Nixon of course wanted and hoped to win the Wallace voters next time in '72 (although he managed to win most of the whole country then).
@@GreyWolfLeaderTW (a) Yes, Wallace ran an overtly racist effort in 1968 and may have drained votes from both parties; the final margin of Nixon's win was very tight. History did not repeat itself in 1972; that spring, Wallace was shot on the campaign trail and had to drop out of the race. It was an easy re-elect for Nixon, which meant he probably didn't need to have his people bug the Democratic office at the Watergate... (b) Black voters didn't switch, because the GOP made it clear that they weren't interested in the Black vote as far back as the 30s; Truman reaffirmed the commitment to Black voters after the war.
@Dr SalTeeNeutsMD This video proves that it all did happen, my friend. Those who are rewriting history are those insisting that it didn't happen, despite all impartially sourced evidence.
Both parties, indeed, "suck all the time." Mr. Beat, you're doing a fine job - keep it up. Your videos are very informative.
Suck all the time?? FDR and JFK say hello to you
I'm very glad this video addressed that it was the political parties, not the people's ideologies that switched!
This is the most important part, especially when people bring up "democrats were the party of slavery".
The pro slavery people didn't change, the label they went by did.
@@casteanpreswyn7528 What are you getting at? The Democratic Party did tolerate and support slavery in the past, until a divide emerged between Northern Democrats and Southern Democrats, eventually shifting the party platform. It is also happens to be the oldest existing political party in the US.
@@nte5 the label changed that those people use. It's straightforward, idk why you needed to ask "what are you getting at", when I said something straightforward and impossible to misinterpret.
@@casteanpreswyn7528 Sorry if I wasn't clear, we both know political parties shift over time. I just wanted you to clarify your statement, but since it was impossible to misinterpret, it seemed like you were saying that the Democratic Party wasn't really the party of slavery, even though it was in the 19th century to early 20th century.
@@nte5 you'd have to intentionally twist my words to come to that conclusion.
The party switch could also be said to have started in the 1920's when Herbert Hoover cracked the Solid South & won a few traditionally Democratic southern states.
Oh good catch there
That’s mainly because Al Smith was Catholic
@@sickzappybeef9209 Yeah that was also a factor, but Hoover did actively court Southern whites with his lily-white strategy which alienated many black voters.
@@bishopbling4115 Funny you should say that, because Herbert Hoover won a majority of blacks in his first presidential election win.
@@GreyWolfLeaderTW I'm not saying that Herbert Hoover performed poorly with black voters, but that the GOP's lily-white movement which Hoover did court started the alienation of black voters from the GOP. As this video points out, it wasn't any one event that caused the parties to immediately switch, but a long evolutionary process that I'd argue started in 1920's with Hoover if not the late 19th century with the birth of the lily-white Republicans.
I can't wait until the party system collapses and we start looking at politicians as individuals. Did you ever buy a variety pack of something and go, "I want those 3 flavors, but I don't like the other 2"? That's how I view the party system. Pre-packaged politics 🙄
Exactly when you're voting democrats you're ranging from people like Bernie to Biden
The collapse of the party system is intriguing, and I agree with you on "pre packaged politics," but I'm not sure a collapse is going to happen. For so many people, their political party is like a team sport with fanatical backing regardless of what the party is doing. I think most independents vote one or two issues at most--and that also leads to the party system getting by as is. As long as either is true, the party system is going nowhere--sadly.
This is a fantasy. Even without parties, coalitions are inevitable.
Yep.
@@TheArkDoc Well yeah that's true. Realistically, I don't expect it change any time soon, if ever.
Sir thank you so much for covering this topic
Dear Republicans, “I’m not saying you’re racists… I’m just saying that the racists believe you’re racists.”
Dear Democrats:
The real racists are the ones that are the most concerned with race.
If only they had the self awareness enough to realize this 😂😂
@@Sh0ckapollo
I know right
Dear Rebublicans I'm just saying you're Racist I'm not saying you're Nazi, not more than 70% anyway.
@@jrabele
Let's say you're right and i am a racist.
Now what ?
Loved the intermission! You caught me right in the act. I was literally doing my dishes.
This is a good video about an often misunderstood topic. One thing I would add is that not every issue or constituency switched. The republicans remained the party of business.
Very good point, and thank you!
Both parties are the parties of the business
Both parties had big business factions. The Democrats used to be the Party of Big Agriculture or only white property owning southern landlords until 1896.
@@nicolaseito5172 Definitely over the past 40 years.
@@nicolaseito5172 Define "Party of Business".
Because there is a difference between the support of Laissez--Faire Free Market Capitalism and businessmen running for office or allying with and cooperating with politicians (the latter is found among factions of both parties, whereas support for Laissez-Faire Free Market Capitalism is a feature of only the Republican Party and is not liked by the aforementioned fascistic public-private partnership factions).
Great video. I appreciate it!
Thank you for being 100 percent factually correct.
George Wallace was right
Those who argue against the existence of the party switch and the Southern Strategy generally categorize everything as good and evil, so "the good guys and bad guys did not switch." The switch is easier to see objectively when looking at conservative vs. liberal/progressive without branding either as good or bad. Making the switch focus only on racism, while it certainly played a part, puts conservatives on the defensive and leads to those denials.
Wrong the switch did not happen at all the racist did not switch the well fare proponents did not switch and the people looking out for working Americans did not switch those that say other wise can neither read nor do math
Not true! Because the switch has EVERYTHING to do with racism in the South. The Dems created the KKK, JIM CROW LAWS and the like.
Amazing, two responses from exactly opposite ends of the pendulum. It's simple to see that when the Republican party started out, it was the party of progressives while the Democrats were the conservatives, and today the Republicans are the party of conservatives while the Democrats are the party of progressives. That is a switch. However, it is incorrect to think that the switch was quick or based on only one issue. Think of it as one of those puzzles where one word changes to a completely different word with entirely different letters through steps where in each step it changes only one letter at a time. Were some of those steps about racist policies? Yes, particularly at the end. Were all the steps about racism? Not necessarily. Are there still individual issues that did not move along with the general conservative vs. liberal divide? Yes. We have a diverse country with a multitude of hot issues, and the party switch reflects that.
@@h_in_oh That is NOT even true. The Democrat created the KKK, Jim Crow Laws, and tried at every turn to NOT free salves and to keep them "on the plantation". The Republican Party was the party which wanted freedom for ALL! The Republican party was the party of BLACKS. You aren't very good at true history, are yah?
@@RottenInDenmarkOrginal Yes, the Republican party started out as the party for freedom for slaves. At the time, you could not get more radical progressive than that. At the same time, the Democrats were the conservative party with the hot issue of preserving slavery and segregation. When did I indicate otherwise? The point is that the parties eventually flipped which was conservative and which was progressive though a series of phases, not one big flip. Some of those shifts were focused on race and some were not.
Mr. Beat, the way you bring people back to paying attention is funny. thank you for making history fun
Great videos! Truly appreciated
“Put those dishes down” 😭😭😭
Hell I've seen Democrats and Republicans basically switch positions on tariffs in my lifetime
I love that you base most of your videos on facts not just opinion it's mostly facts. I love it, it helps for people to actual learn and it's great. Thank you
I was actually doing dishes and I now think you are magic Mr Beat
You almost got me a second time mr beat. This time I was trying to go to bed not doing the dishes
What I find odd is that since the Southern Strategy began, Republicans have run few Prez/VP candidates from the South. W. I guess you might count Romney, McCain and Dole, but they’re not from the traditional South and they lost. Maybe Agnew? But none of them were who you’d pick to appeal to segregationists.
Dems, however, had Carter, Clinton, Gore from the traditional South. Of course, they were considered progressive on race but they had their moments when they needed to appeal to conservatives.
Ironic.
This video was done very well and clear as can be. Thank you so much
I was actually watching when you asked, thank you very much
Great video.
Thanks especially for the quote from Atwater about the Southern strategy.
The real key in terms of the racism aspect is in the Dixiecrats, the Democrats were factionalized. If it was as some claim, Nixon would have won the deep south in 1968 but Wallace did, with support of Dixiecrats. Then the next election as shown Nixon got 49 states, so not even just the South. I do like how you pointed out the other issues, such as how ab abortion was not something that was split along party lines like it is today. It is often portrayed as a 180 switch but it was an intricate shifting of policies, that didn't all happen at once. As for dog whistles, I hear it thrown around but when asked for specific examples, about all I hear is state's rights, a concept that has a much longer and deeper history than merely being supportive of racism, being supported in the North prior to the confederacy.
Dixiecrats started to walk out after Humphrey's speech in '48 (yes, born and raised here in MN)
"Southern Strategy" of course racism and trying to appeal to it was part of the Republican strategy but trying to making it sound as if that was the core of Republicans or their success crudely ignores that Nixon in '72 and then Reagan won landslides, had and were successful with 40-49 state strategies.
The democrats are still fractured and the Dixiecrats now call thems loves progressives.
Dog whistles are whistles that only dogs can hear. I'm not being literal, that's the definition of the term in politics. This nonsense about using coded words to make normal people support racism is just left-wing bs. Actual dog whistles can only be recognized by members of the group they're addressing. They serve as a signal that someone is like-minded, and it's safe to privately discuss controversial beliefs.
@@MrDj232 which explains why only Demoncrats hear the so-called "dog whistles" of the Republicans.
Mr. Beat, I've been watching your videos since I was in the tenth grade and needed to find some info on the election of 1876 for my APUSH class, I'm almost 20 now and I haven't regretted subscribing for one day. This has honestly been the best video I have seen on the subject and all I can say is, *Mr. Beat voice* See you in the next video buddy!
Aw that's really cool to hear. I'm so glad you stuck around these past 7 years 😊
Thank you for this video!!!!
Just took a graduate course on Southern Politics...the entire class was about the Southern Strategy! Love this video!
As a non American I have always been confused by the colours of the American Parties, because where I'm from the Conservative Party, or the right wing Parties usually are shown in blue and the social democratic or as I think you would call them liberal Parties are always in red. But if the US-Parties kinda switched over time it makes sense that they would keep their associated colour.
Neither party had any particular color officially attached to them for most of their history and ultimately didn't really pick the ones that they have now either. But the first electoral television news coverage to feature one of the color-coded maps which wound up popularizing the practice was done by CBS in 1972 and actually used blue for the Republican Richard Nixon and red for the Democrat George McGovern. NBC followed suit during the next election cycle in 1976 by giving blue to Gerald Ford and red to Jimmy Carter. They cited the color scheme that had been adopted by the British parties, blue for the Conservatives and red for Labour, as the reason for assigning them the way they did. Though if you want to go back further, there was a printed electoral college map for the election of 1888 approved of by both candidates that also used blue for the Republican Benjamin Harrison and red for the Democrat Grover Cleveland. They were inconsistently applied across all the various news stations following the 1972 CBS broadcast, with the modern color associations only being uniformly agreed upon by the major networks in 1996 for the sake of not confusing audience members who switched between them and finally solidified in the public consciousness by the long-drawn-out process Bush vs. Gore turned into in 2000. If one needs some kind of an explanation beyond pure chance for why the red for Republican and blue for Democrat motif was even considered in the first place, there are two commonly-held theories. One is that the media as a whole simply likes the alliteration of the words red and Republican. The other is that they were playing defense for the Democrats by helping to distance them from the color traditionally linked to radicalism when the looming fear of communism remained ever-present. However, I still tend to believe it was just an accident of circumstances at the end of the day.
they got their colors late 90s early 2000s
Makes more sense. Communism is leftist and red.
From what Ive seen, NBC was the first to use "red for reagan" in '80 and the other networks follow suit to avoid confusion
Actually, they got their associated colors in the early 2000s, before that the colors would switch between them in the 80s and 90s
Southern republican here. Yeah, the switch happened. My grandparents were all conservative democrats, but my parents switched from democrat to republican in the 1980s to vote for reagan. The switch was a weird gradual shift into neoconservatism from what i see from my family. Grandparents were traditional conservatives, parents are neocons, now i'm a libertarian republican
a “libertarian” Republican is a contradiction in terms
@@adam3496 the republican party was created to fight slavery. How is it a contradiction?
At this rate your next generation will lie between moderate democrat to extreme .
@@TheManWhoTypes ye it was, but now its just a bunch of authoritarians who don't care one bit about freedom or liberty. the patriot act was passed by and created by republicans.
@@TheManWhoTypes did you even watch the video lmao
This was covered very well. If could have written a piece on this subject it would be “I Don’t Know This to be True, I just Know It’s True. The two groups switched places, but I couldn’t prove it. Thank you.
Thank you! Literally other than myself, you are the only person who doesn't teach it, "Johnson signed the Civil rights bill, he said he lost the south forever, and he did"
Literally every history class I had was them saying it, me going, "what about Carter in 76" and their response is just something vague like, "it was different then"
Yep, it's so much more complicated
He did lose the South in terms of it being a partisan "Solid South" although a moderate can still win.
@@suarezguy when it comes to presidential elections, yes, but as the video pointed out, most congress people up until 1990 were still democrats.
I know this is coming to you third hand, but I've always wondered if there isn't more to the story about Carter. I worked with an older man maybe 15 years ago who was absolutely disgusted with Carter. When I asked why, he said that he had had a friend who was African American and who had worked on the Carter peanut farm. His friend told him that the Carters had treated him and his fellow African Americans pretty poorly on account of their race. Now, I've no doubt that Carter doesn't hold racist views (at least, not anymore), but could it be that part of the reason why many in the South voted for Carter was because they believed Carter was on their side when it came to race relations? That seems to make a lot more sense than simply saying, "Well, Carter was from the South. So, people from the South voted for him." Doesn't it make more sense to say, "Carter was from the South. So, a majority of Southerners believed that he would represent their interests, possibly even their perceived interests when it came to race-relations." As I've said, ever since that conversation 15 years ago, I've wanted to delve into this deeper.
Could Ford pardoning Nixion played a role in Carter winning?
Elanor Roosevelt was a anti-segregationist campaigner. FDR wanted to include African-Americans into the New Deal program but racists of that time fought really hard to keep them out. There is a great book on it by Ira Katznelson called "when affirmative action was white"
Sorry if there were any mistakes made. I am just an ameraboo Indian.
You’re correct. FDR had to compromise with those sorts of democrats if he even wanted to pass any of his policies.
And the Southern Dixiecrats forced FDR to put whites at the front of lines to receive benefits from his New Deal programs.
Isn't that peachy /s, he basically bribes blacks to vote with him with promises of government benefits, then stabs them in the back in order to retain Dixiecrat support.
@@GreyWolfLeaderTW But we can't that in school because of you know...Critical Race Theory *signs*
@@jnayvann What Greywolf just said (albeit oversimplified) is Critical Race Theory
More people need to watch your videos.
Was listening while doing my oil change and that call out made me bonk my head pretty good to try to look at my screen lol
This video is so well-timed, I have a test that includes this switch on Monday! Thanks Mr. Beat!
Well that works out. :)
Mr. Beat thank you for all of your great content over the years. I appreciate your well researched and presented videos and especially your dry sense of humor. You cutting straight to "I'm losing my hair" after finishing the discussion about race based politics had me legitimately laughing out loud. I've heard you're from Lawrence, and I'm only about 25 minutes east in Lenexa! If you have any events coming up I'd love to meet you in person, you've really kept history interesting for me in the last couple of years.
I was listening to the video but not watching it until I heard MrBeat saying "are you not watching this video and just listening to it"?
I was shocked and thought that the 4th wall has fallen and Mr Beat was spying me in my phone.
Great video, I learned a lot from it.
Amazing video as always Mr. Beat! This felt very unbiased and covered a lot of political history that people are not always comfortable recognizing.
Also, around the 8 minute mark I started falling asleep and listening instead of watching. So when you said that thing about paying attention it definitely freaked me out. Thought I was dreaming for a second!
He had to do that or he loses his audience wiht his crap.
Woodrow Wilson was left-wing on economics, but incredibly racist.
And that's why so many dislike him today! History is complicated.
Indeed, except I think that Wilson gets way too much hate online. Everyone would agree that Wilson’s racism is a bad thing about Wilson. Conservatives and libertarians would oppose his liberal economic policies and his liberal internationalist foreign policy. I mostly agree with Wilson’s economic policies and I partially agree with his foreign policy. Wilson is a C tier president in my opinion.
@@night6724 We already had a conversation about Wilson in the comments on Mr. Beat’s presidential tier list video with Vlogging through History. I know that you are very conservative and even though I disagree with you I understand why you hate Wilson.
Apparently Theodore Roosevelt was also a supporter of the Lilly White movement.
@@night6724 when did Woodrow Wilson ever publicly seize the means of production?
@@night6724 I mean he did keep us out of the war for as long as he could. although I definitely do think it was justified that we joined in 1917. other than that I hate him
OML I WAS LITERALLY WASHING THE DISHES WHILE LISTENING TO THIS AND MR. BEAT REALLY SAID I SHOULD PUT IT DOWN 😭😭 LOL IT MADE ME CRACK UP! HOW DID HE KNOW 👽👽
I was actually washing the dishes as I listened to this. Is Mr. Beat watching me?
Fun to watch a Mr. Beat-style summary of the change in party loyalty in the South.
You hear that folks? He said I got style! 😄
What can I say? Your vids are uniquely entertaining from my perspective. 😊
The big takeaway is that the people largely stayed the same. Social conservatives supported whichever party promoted their values. It used to be the Democratic party but overtime new generations of social conservatives supported the Republicans
It happens in most countries that essentially only allow two parties to have winning odds, over time.
I always loved Abraham Lincoln if you want to learn more then go to one of his shot in the back of the head videos
Thanks for tackling this. I looked at this years ago informally and came to the same realization. It's great that finally someone is giving this subject the closer look that it deserves in the public eye.
They switched back.
What is this, musical chairs
@@Dom-vo9ni since when?
@@chrisnotpratt1903 Since Obama got selected.
@@Dom-vo9ni that's weird, because no one has ever mentioned that at all. There's people saying the switch never happened and now apparently it did happen, but it switched back? Where did you even get this info from?
I think the lesson to be learned here was that the changes in the parties values would always lead to the voter bases switching who they would vote for. And both parties often cared more about winning then why, how, and what for they won.
When im washing dishes and hear "put those dishes down" i felt called out LOL
Southern Strategy denial isn’t too far off from flat earth nonsense, or holocaust denial.
I'm sure Nixon had a Southern Strategy. And a Midwest Strategy, and a Northeast Strategy, and a Mountain West Strategy, and a West Coast Strategy.
Every campaign has a strategy for every region of the country. This has been politics since the begining of time.
What we have here is a leftist conspiracy theory. Lee Atwater gives an interview in 1981 where he briefly mentions Nixon's 1968 southern strategy (Atwater would have been 17 and has #^@^ all first hand knowledge about Nixon's 1968 campaign), and leftist imaginations ran wild. Unrelated events are now explained by thos grand conspiracy by an administration that ultimately couldn't pull off a simple burglary. The Nixon administration was too much of a cluster #&#& to pull off anything like "The Southern Strategy" as the left defines it.
Today we have conspiracy theorists making all these connections that do not exist. Strom Thurmond leaves the Democratic Party in 1964. Leftist conspiracy theorists attribute this to Nixon's 1968 "Southern Strategy."
@@gtaylor2455 Lee Atwater explicitly laid out what the southern strategy was and that lines up perfectly with what republicans are doing today, how do you explain that? How do you explain the Southern Manifesto, and the Republican's formal apology for using the Southern Strategy in 2005 then? I mean shit dude, they've already admitted to using the Southern strategy in 2005, it's too late to back peddle and say y'all never used it.
@@alexrogers777 Lee Atwater was a 17 year old highschool student in 1968 you moron. He knows fuck @^^# about what Nixon did in 1968.
It "lines up perfectly" because it's your narrative. You are cherry picking you dip #^&$.
Explain the comparison
@@thebruceleefan Both have a lot of historical documentation from the planners themselves.
Thank you for this, I encounter so many who deny this simple historical fact.
Basically the south was the problem in 1860 and 1960 and in 2023 continues to be the problem. Hmmmm
Which party still to this day touts the confederate flag as its heritage?
Very well thought out video. Presented with great context and all of the facts instead of everyone else having an agenda to make their party look better.
When I worked in Memphis, TN, in 2008, most of my co-workers didn't know that the South used to vote Democratic.
10:01 I was honestly doing the dishes 😂
rewatching this and hearing you mention roe v wade just made me sad lol crazy how the supreme court just revoked it like that
Yeah, the Supreme Court shouldn't have the power to do that.
@@therealdontclickme "The power was returned to the states" is your pathetic excuse.
What you mean to say is "certain states were enabled to ban abortion based on religious nonsense."
@@Boxghost102
Based on religious nonsense ???
Lmfao
Aren't you a hoot.
68% of Americans believe abortion should be illegal past 120 days.
That's where the big problem lies , most people believe abortion should be legal (myself included), but only in the first trimester.
If you even care
Yeah if have a moral compass of a potato
@@Boxghost102 so murdering little kids is more important. You have. Moral compass of a potato.
Finally this is one of the videos I’ve wanted to watch for a long while let’s go 👍
Thanks for calling me out Mr. Beat I was literally doing dishes when you told me not too 😂
How did he know I was washing the dishes while listening…I mean watching this video…😮
Holy crap. That was frickin’ surreal, being called out about not watching, but doing dishes. That gave me a mini heart attack.
I love all of the people in denial about the party switch lol
This is just untrue facts created by liberal trying to prove this fake party switch.
It's more like Rural vs. Urban today!
Exactly. Look at the big cities, they are all mostly Democrat and the more rural areas are mostly Republican.
That’s what a lot of people tend to miss. Democrats have pretty much always been powerful in cities, back to the days of Jackson they were the party of laborers and immigrants, and those would grow substantially following the Second Industrial Revolution. The Republicans would lose the brunt of their competitiveness there, aside from the odd victory on a lawn and order platform, when the established Anglo-Saxon Protestant demographic that has served as their political lineage's base back to the Federalist Party was overtaken in numbers. And perhaps even more so after major industry started leaving the cities behind which puts the party traditionally associated with business at a major disadvantage.
1920 would give us the first census that showed that more people were living in urban than rural communities. Gradually, major cities would start to swamp out the other districts of their states in elections. I’d argue that what really happened was that as the South industrialized and modernized it slowly but surely converged with those broader national voting patterns. The states there just don’t have the same number of large cities that can dominate elections. Though that’s not even getting into how people in the late 1970’s started moving into likeminded community en masse to the point we now have more landslide counties than ever before which naturally further solidifies those lines.
@@johnweber4577 the democrats were powerful in some cities but the republicans were powerful in others. Take Philadelphia for example. It was so Republican that it even supported Hoover in 1932. Then in 1936, FDR won it and it never went Republican again. Saint Louis city was also Republican in the early 1900s and New York City would swing between the parties.
Thank you!!
This kind of video is invaluable to combating the self-serving, anti-intellectual denial of the southern strategy and the party switch that is out there running amok on the right today. It's hard to rebut their denials because: 1) it takes ten times as much energy to correct a lie than it does to say one and 2) it is so much more complicated than their oversimplified strawman tactics make it out to be. So, thank you.
@sd sd Yeah, and no, when FDR came about some elements of the party switch had already taken place, he was between the two modern parties, that's why he won over the north as well as the south and his legacy is often claimed by both parties.
If you want, Wilson was a modern republican, Kennedy was a modern democrat and FDR and Truman were between the two. Same could be said for the Republicans, Theodore Roosevelt was a modern democrat, Hoover and Eisenhower were between both while Nixon and Reagan were modern republicans.
Black vote didn't cause the switch, it concluded it, what had started it was the great depression. Again, simply look at who was voting what to understand it.
This video is fully cherry picked garbage, the irony that you point out is exactly what he get a wrong. Thomas Sowell lays it out pretty clearly, but people like you call him an uncle tom with out even realizing what your saying
calling it a party switch is inherently anti-intellectual because it wasn't a switch, it was a realignment. people didn't start voting republican because republicans all of a sudden supported segregation policies.
I mean, it’s the right winger’s tactic, make some really idiotic claims then laugh as you don’t want to explain it to them in a 50 page essay why they’re wrong, so they can carry on being shitty people
Its kinda funny how you say it takes more energy to correct a lie than to say it, right after lying
So well stated. I love your takes.