The only possible good that can come of this wretched campaign is the ever-increasing likelihood that it will cause the Democratic Party to self-destruct. A lot of people are seriously worried about this, but I am not one of them. I have never been much of a Party Man myself. . . and the more I learn about the realities of national politics, the more I’m convinced that the Democratic Party is an atavistic endeavor – more an Obstacle than a Vehicle – and that there is really no hope of accomplishing anything genuinely new or different in American politics until the Democratic Party is done away with.

hst-pissed From Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72

  • Red_Sunshine_Over_Florida [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    The lesson here is that we should never underestimate the resilience of the Democratic Party. It is one of the oldest political parties on the planet, clocking in at nearly 200 years old. It’s survival strategy has been to stand for very little in terms of ideological consistency, and therefore has included in its big tent nearly every conceivable constituency under the sun at one point or another, including some that were diametrically opposed to the other.

    It has always been a formidable ship of Theseus.

    • Red_Sunshine_Over_Florida [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      7 months ago

      I would not characterize the parties as having “switched,” despite it’s prominence in popular discourse. I’d describe it more accurately as a process of ideological sorting that resulted in the creation of a liberal and a conservative party. The coalitions before that point both had liberal/progressive wings in urban areas amongst the middle class that came into prominence in the late 19th century, hence the bipartisan consensus of the Progressive Era. Both parties also had conservative wings to one extent or another. The process of ideological sorting that we have seen only really completed itself around 2010 with the defeat of the last Southern Democrats, the conservative so-called Blue Dogs. It started with Congressional opposition to the New Deal with the formation of the Conservative Coalition in the late 1930s. Conservative Southern Democratic strategy then evolved from breaking with the party in order to discipline the liberal wing, with examples such as Strom Thurmond’s 1948 Presidential Bid in response to Truman’s integration of the armed forces that year, to outright voting for Republicans at the Presidential level in 1964, with Barry Goldwater only winning the formerly “Solid South” outside his home state of Arizona, as a result of his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. During this time from the 1960s to the 1994 Republican Revolution, you saw a proces of some white voters in the South switching to voting for all Republican candidates, abandoning a taboo they had held since the end of Reconstruction, while some continued to vote for conservative Democrats. This position of “Ticket Splitting” to elect a Republican President and a Democratic Congress saw some reprieve with the election of the Georgian Jimmy Carter in 1976 but, held as a trend until the next generation of white voters came of age and all voted solidly Republican in the states of the Deep South, where their superior numbers eventually overcame support for the local Democratic Parties that were being held up through the later part of the 20th century by the solid support of newly enfranchised African American voters. The landslide Republican victories in the Southern states in 1994 and 2010 completed this process in the Deep South, with many remaining Southern Democrats like Senator Richard Shelby becoming Republicans in response to these events.

      • citrussy_capybara [ze/hir]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        appreciate the really detailed answer, was mostly wondering if using this on blueanon would work without them countering with “but they were the bad party back then”

        is this taught in schools over there or something that has to be learned outside the classroom?

        • Wertheimer [any]@hexbear.netOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” in 1968 is probably still taught in schools, for classes that make it past WWII before the end of the year.

        • Wheaties [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          7 months ago

          if it helps;

          FDR began the process in the 1930s with his response to the Great Depression. Conservative funders fled to the Republicans, although they remained a relatively minor voice until they were able to capitalize on the racist backlash to the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s.

    • Wertheimer [any]@hexbear.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 months ago

      Just before the Wisconsin primary in 1972. McGovern had just beat expectations in New Hampshire. Next two paragraphs (page 125):

      It is a bogus alternative to the politics of Nixon: A gang of senile leeches like George Meany, Hubert Humphrey, and Mayor Daley . . . Scoop Jackson, Ed Muskie, and Frank Rizzo, the super-cop Mayor of Philadelphia.

      George McGovern is also a Democrat, and I suppose I have to sympathize in some guilt-stricken way with whatever demented obsession makes him think he can somehow cause this herd of venal pigs to see the light and make him their leader . . . but after watching McGovern perform in two primaries I think he should stay in the Senate, where his painfully earnest style is not only more appreciated but also far more effective than it is on the nationwide stump.