Notes and Summaries Pertaining to the Evolution of the Major U.S. Political Parties

Notable political factions, politicians, and platform planks switched between the major U.S. political parties throughout U.S. history leading to a number of complex changes. Here are some different ways to look at “the party switches” and different “party systems” the changes resulted in.


Below is a summary of a longer essay on “party switching,” This summary covers most of the same stuff that page does, but is an alternative way to look at the data (this page aims to skip details and focuses on key points). I suggest reading both if you have time. See also, our other works on the subject of “party switching”.

All comments are welcome and encouraged, I’m happy to answer any questions.

Before we get to the story of each party system and the many different switches, let’s quickly as possible cover the basics.

The Most Important Points in Terms of the Parties Switchings

So much changed it is near impossible to sum up neatly. There are a few important things to note however:

1. There isn’t one thing that changed. As time rolled on factions changed parties, political leaders changed parties, platforms changed, regions that had always voted one party switched and began to support another… slowly, and over time. Further some of the switches were in response to changing times and platforms and some of the switches led to platforms changing.

2. The southern bloc (the solid south social conservative voting bloc consisting of most of the south; AKA the Solid South) used to be a major voting block in the Democratic party. However, that bloc has increasingly voted Republican since the 1960s partly in response to first Johnson, Civil Rights, Voting Rights, and the expansion of Social programs in that era, then the messages of Nixon and Reagan, and finally the policies and platforms of the modern parties under Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump. This change is so noticeable that today we think of southern social conservatives of being synonymous with the Republican party. However, the reality is things changed considerably since the pre-WWII era and are still changing today!. In the story of the “solid south switch” (“the big switch”) factions changed parties, political leaders changed parties, platforms changed, regions that had always voted one party switched and began to support another… slowly, and over time (with most changes being made by 2000, but still with some occurring today). Meanwhile, some of the switches were in response to changing times and platforms (the increasing progressiveness of the Democratic Party and conservativeness of the Republican Party) and some of the switches led to platforms changing (the Republican Party increasingly began to target rural voters in platform and message). This is only one example of what changed, there are many other equally as important stories, but this switch is emblematic of what party switches look like because it is so pronounced (it literally caused the voting map to look like it had flipped or time; see the images on this page for a visual). Details and third parties aside, the result is that the Democratic Party used to be favored in the rural south and had a “small government” platform (which southern social conservatives embraced), and the Republican party used to be favored in the citied north and had a “big government” platform (which northern progressive liberals embraced)… but today it is the opposite in many respects, it “switched.”

3. Although a few notable politicians literally switched parties, that isn’t the main thing that happened. What happened was that seats in government in states that used to be held by one party came to be held by the other and regional voters switched parties over time as new officials came into office (sometimes voter bases switched first, sometimes seats switched first, they both impacted each other). Again, this happened to a degree that the voting map looks like it flipped.

4. There were so many major changes in history that historians have a name for them, “the party systems.” See an overview of the party systems.

5. In general one could say that the Democratic Party became more progressive over time and the Republican Party became more conservative. Both are big tents, but in the past each had a prominent liberal and conservative wing and today each party has become more polarized (they still have liberal and conservative wings, but generally there isn’t a lot of consensus across party lines). So the parties switched in that way as well, and this is notably one of the main reasons factions and voter bases switched.

FACT: In the Civil War the faction that became the Confederates were the Southern Democrats. The socially conservative south is still the socially conservative south, but today they are no longer Democrats. Thus, saying the modern Democrats are the party of the socially conservative Confederate south misses a key fact, that is, the people of that region have been voting for third party or with the Republicans increasingly since the Nixon era (mostly due to a rejection of progressivism and the shifting message of the Republican party which focuses on the southern conservative vote).

The Bottom Line on the Party Switch

The parties changed over time as platform planks, party leaders, factions, and voter bases essentially switched between parties.

Third parties aside, the Democratic Party used to be favored in the rural south and had a “small government” platform (which social conservatives embraced), and the Republican party used to be favored in the citied north and had a “big government” platform (which Northern progressive liberals embraced).

You can see evidence of it by looking at the electoral map over time (where voter bases essentially flipped between 1896 and 2000). Or, you can see it by comparing which congressional seats were controlled by which parties over time (try comparing the 115th United States Congress under Trump to the 71st United States Congress under Hoover for example). Or, you can see the “big switch” specifically by looking at the electoral map of the solid south over time. Or, you can dig through the historic party platforms.

With that in mind, we can sum up the history of the switches that created the modern party system as:

The old southern conservative Democrats, a big faction of voters called ‘the solid south’ (because just like today, they tend to vote as a solid voting bloc) who were in Jefferson’s anti-Federalist coalition, have essentially today changed parties and teamed up with the old Republican party of Lincoln (who came from Hamilton’s Federalists).

Meanwhile, Teddy’s progressive faction (those who would have been the progressives of the old Republican party) essentially switched as well starting after Teddy’s run as a Bull Moose in 1912.

Generally then, the Democratic party started moving toward progressivism (from WJ Bryan, to FDR, to LBJ, to Obama) and the Republican party starting shifting more toward the conservative right from Harding forward, and this in turn changed the parties (they had elements of this before, the Democrats simply became more liberal and progressive and the Republicans more socially conservative over time).

With that said, the story of the big switch often starts in the 1960s. This is because after WW2 died down the focus went back to national politics and “states’ rights.” After 10+ years of head-butting between factions in the Democratic party (evidenced by documents like the Southern Manifesto and parties like the States’ Rights “Dixiecrat” parties), LBJ’s Civil Rights became the last straw for southern conservatives and some southern senators like Strom Thurmond began to switch in response to what we can call the cultural and economic aspects of the Democratic Party’s progressivism.

However, despite the initial switch in the 60s, the voter bases and leadership mostly shifted slowly over time as new members ran for office (which confuses people, and which is why I told you to look closely at the Congressional seats over time above). In fact, the switch actually took until about 2000 to fully happen. In other words, the modern polarization is fairly new (despite the fact that we can point to factors like Civil Rights).

That version of the story is extremely brief, and as such it missed details. We cover the details below. With that said, the bottom line is: Everything that didn’t change aside, the small government southern rural party of yesterday became the big government citied northern party of today as factions switched parties in response to platform changes and platforms, leadership, and voter bases switched along with them.

The Big Switch and the Big Tents of the Two Party System

THE CONCPT OF THE BIG TENT: Each party is a “big tent” of different political factions who agree on a single platform (which generally represents the interests of the big tent). It is a mistake to assume each faction holds the same left-right stances on a given single-issue (in fact, it can be a challenge to get ideological factions to agree on a platform). With that in mind, one of the main things that changes over time is that factions switch parties (either switching between major parties or between major and third parties). One of the most notable factions in history is “the Solid South.” As the Democratic Party platform became more progressive and as the Republican platform became more conservative, this ideological faction switched along with its voter base (and this then went on to affect the Republican party platform with its presence and the Democratic party platform with its absence). If you think of parties as coalitions of factions, then the historic switches will make more sense. TIP: Check out the map from Lincoln’s election to get a quick visual of the factions of the third party system (those factions help shed light on the modern factions).

THE BIG SWITCH: One of the clearest proofs of what is sometimes called “the big switch” can be seen in the following chart which shows which Presidents and parties won which of the “Solid South” states from 1876 to 2106. In the chart below, blue is the Democratic Party, the Red is the Republican Party, and the Orange are Southern Conservative States’ Rights parties (Dixiecrat parties). As we can see, the sometimes-Democrat “Dixiecrats” like Strom Thurmond, Harry F. Byrd (not to be confused with Robert Byrd), and George C. Wallace broke away from liberal Democrats like Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson starting after WW2. This culminated with Civil Rights 1964 and Voting Rights 1965 under LBJ specifically, and then continued until the late 1990s early 2000s as Southern leadership began to run as Republicans and voter bases shifted (in part due to the effective “Southern Strategy of the Republican party,” a strategy to win over the rural southern voter with a “small government” platform.)

TIP: “The South” didn’t switch, the socially conservative party leadership and their voter base did (as the parties evolved and party platforms shifted). This recolored the electoral map, but the South is still a diverse place just like it has always been.

Visual Proof the parties switched. Today the Democratic Party is dominated by “liberal Democrats and Progressives” from the North and South like FDR, LBJ, MLK, and Kennedy. Meanwhile, most (but not all) of those who would have been the old “socially conservative Democrats” (Dixiecrats) now have a “R” next to their name. Don’t try to oversimplify this to “what Strom did” or “what Robert Byrd didn’t do,” most of the changes happened over time from the 1960s to 2000. Today things are still changing!

FACT: It is called “the Solid South” because it is referring to Southern states that [almost] always voted lock step solidly for Democrats from Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans to FDR’s New Deal Democrats (today the vote solidly Republican). The southern leadership of the solid south is one of the most impactful political forces in American history… which is part of the reason we want to get our history right (the other part being that changing the history of half the country is absurd and confusing). Consider checking out VO Key’s Southern Politics in State and Nation (that is an overview, the book is not free online to read). For a more modern take, see The New Southern Politics J. David Woodard.

A Quick Summary of How the Major Parties Changed and Switched With Some Visuals

Above was an overview of the main points, below is a more detailed summary of points that will help one understand “the party switches of the different party systems.” After the summary are some images and videos which help tell the main points of the story:

  • When we say “the parties switched” or “the parties switched platforms” what we mean is: the two major U.S. parties (now called Democrats and Republicans) went through many changes in American history as support from geographic locations, party leaders, political factions, stances on key voter issues, and platform planks switched between the two major parties and third parties throughout the different “party systems.”
  • You can look at the the electoral maps over time, comparing the maps from 1896 and 2000 specifically for a visual of “the big switch.”
  • You can also look at how Congressional seats in the House and Senate that used to be controlled by Democrats are now generally controlled by Republicans (especially in the core 11 solid south states, but generally in all 14 featured in the image above). Just look at the 115th United States Congress under Trump, then compare those seats to the 71st United States Congress under Hoover (for example). Clearly, we can see a switch here. Here we should note that it is a mistake to only look for politicians who switch parties, that tells part of the story, but that isn’t how the switches worked for the most part. Although single figures did switch like Van Buren, Teddy Roosevelt, Henry A. Wallace, Strom Thurmond, and David Duke. Generally what happened is that key members switched like Thurmond (while others didn’t like Byrd) and then voter bases and platforms shifted over time as new Congresspeople ran.
  • Given American history it makes sense that some would consider race to be the main issue at play. However, it isn’t only about race. That issue should be considered, but it isn’t the only issue. All issues of state are generally political (dealing with the use of state), economic (pertaining to taxes, spending, debt), and social (pertaining to social issues and culture). One shouldn’t discount the party loyalty of the south which caused some to stay in the party far longer than made sense given their politics (a shift in the 1920s after Wilson would have arguably made more sense). Also, one should consider the pro immigrant stance that changed the Democratic party from the Gilded Age to the post WW2 era. One should consider the Great migrations and New Deal politics that changed the Democratic party and the south in the first part of the 1900s. One should consider how the expansion of the welfare state left a void for Reagan, Bush, and Trump to run on a message of small government economic populism like the old Democratic party (thus pulling away a portion the populist base from the Democratic Party). One should not underestimate the alienating effects of the Democratic Party moving toward progressive left and urban politics on rural America (especially when at the same time the Republican party focused on a message of traditionalism and ruralness). One should also not discount the substantial liberal and progressive base in the south that still exists today (be they voting for Trump, Hillary, or Jon Ossoff, or Bernie). In other words, there are countless factors outside of race that lead to switches in the 1960s (same for the 1860s)…. but despite this race was an issue and it was an issue central to the switch spurred on by Civil rights and Voting rights for example.[1]
  • If one is still confused, today we can see some recent and major proof, that is Charlottesville 2017. In Charlottesville we saw the Dixie battle flag of the Southern Democrats being waved by Republican Trump voters who were standing up to protect the statue of the Southern Democrat rebel army leader General Lee. Meanwhile, the progressive American liberal antifascists marched against these groups with Black Lives Matter. In ye old terms, the socially conservative right-wing Know-Nothing and Solid South radicals marched against the Reformers, Progressives, and Left-wing anarchists. In the old days all those factions were in the Democratic party except the Know-Nothing nativist northeners, today the socially conservative factions generally vote Republican and the progressive factions generally vote for the Democratic party. Of course, these are only a few of the many factions that comprise the major parties in any era! So just like we shouldn’t confuse “solid south leadership” with “literally the entire south,” we shouldn’t confuse a given protestor with “literally an entire party.”
  • Another way to see this is that the cross-party New Deal Coalition vs. Conservative Coalition of the 1930s essentially became the modern parties as the Republican party went toward small government austerity policies and traditionalism and the Democratic party went toward progressive welfare state policies and social justice (thus attracting the small government socially conservative south to the Republican party on the back of Civil Rights and Voting rights starting under Goldwater after the Solid South leadership has previously tried to run a number of States’ Rights third parties.)
  • Whatever the exact story, the result is a change that resulted in the small government party of the rural south becoming the big government party of the urban north while the big government party of the north became favored by the rural south (despite some ideological factions remaining constant in both parties)! Today the modern party system can be described as free-enterprise (gilded age factions) vs. progressive (progressive era factions) and their allies in two big tents that contain different factions and platform planks than was previously the case.

PARTY SYSTEMS: Historians refer to the eras the changes resulted in as “party systems.“ The first party system included the Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists; and the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans. The second party system included Jacksonian Democrats vs. Whigs at the time when the issue popular sovereignty and race split the parties and resulted in the Civil War in which the Democrats are the Confederates. The third party system included Reconstruction and the Gilded Age which turned both parties into business parties until William Jennings Bryan. The fourth party system included the Progressive Era, the era in which Theodore Roosevelt broke from the Republicans to form the most popular version of the Progressive Party in history. At the end of this era Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover returned the Republicans to Gilded Age politics and became increasingly “anti-Communist” and “anti-Progressive.” Today’s fifth party started with FDR, who ensured the Democrats would remain the Progressive party despite the states’ rights Dixie-wing who phased out of the party by 2000. This era was marked by the New Deal Coalition vs. Conservative Coalition. Some feel that this is followed by a sixth party from LBJ on when Dixie started to shift over Civil Rights ’64. Some recognize a seventh party system from Clinton on.

Also consider the following general notes about the party platforms in any era:

  • Northern (and later coastal) “City” Interests (pro-banking, pro-federal power, pro-northern factory, and pro-tax conservative-liberals that are generally “big government”): Federalists, Whigs, Third Party Republicans, Fourth Party Progressive era Republicans (like Teddy), Fifth Party Democrats (starting in the 1930’s under FDR, then culminating with LBJ and then Clinton), Modern Democrats.
  • Southern (and later middle) “Rural” Interests (anti-tax, anti-bank, pro-farmer, small government, populist liberals that are generally “small government”): Anti-Federalists, Democratic-Republicans, Third Party Democrats, Fourth Party Progressive Era Democrats (Like Wilson), Fifth Party Republicans (starting in the 1920’s under Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover, then culminating with Nixon and then Bush), Modern Republicans.

NOTE: Saying there is way too much ground to cover to say it all in a consumable bite is an understatement, so if you are looking for specifics use “command find” or our site search.

TIP: The Confederates wanted free-trade and states rights, meanwhile the northern Republicans wanted a debt-based economy with modernization and protectionist trade. Things have changed considerably, but not every plank changed. What happened was complex.

TIP: Some people conflate slavery with social welfare, insinuating that because Democrats were the party of slavery that welfare is an extension of this. That is an incorrect view that ignores the switch and ignores the history of progressivism in the West. Urban wage inequality has always been a problem in any era, it has essentially nothing to do with chattel slavery. See wage slavery and chattel slavery are different. Also consider, population dense centers like cities tend to be more socially liberal and suffer from inequality in general. This has always been true, while the parties have changed. The fact that the parties have changed has complex effects that are each challenging to discuss and summarize, yet easy to twist into a pretzel for propaganda. It is easy to point to slavery and inequality in a city and say “that is why Democrats are bad.” It is harder, but more rewarding to talk about the complex history of a given city and the major parties and their factions. However, when we do tell the complex story we see that equating modern welfare born from the progressive movement with slavery born from social conservatism and elitism is generally unwarranted (in specific ways it is a subject worth debating, but as a general explanation of party ideology over time it misses the mark).

Below some images that might help tell the story without me even having to say another word:

A map showing realigning elections and Presidents who represent major changes in the U.S. parties. We can see something happened, that is empirically undeniable, but what?

In the 1860 election, the North and Coasts were in one party, the Solid South “Breckinridge” Socially Conservative Democrats were in another, the border state represented a middle ground between the pro-slavery and progressive anti-slavery stance. This should give you an idea of why we say “the parties switched”, and what it means that Lincoln was a moderate conservative AND socially liberal Republican (but not a Know Nothing). Learn more about Lincoln, the First Republican President (Jackson, the first Democratic Party President tells a similar story; his is the map from 1824 in the image of maps above, he took the South unlike Lincoln who took the North; geography didn’t change, the parties did).

I know you aren’t going to believe this, but the social conservatives in the white sheets aren’t left-wing progressives. However, you probably would be surprised to know that faction (speaking generally) is so populist that they used to ally with the liberal Democrats (and by the way, where they disagreed on issues of social programs and Civil Rights, they fully agreed on things like Prohibition). Our history is strange, but the left-wing progressives were rarely also socially conservative Democrats. The Democratic party used to be a VERY big tent, today both parties are a big tent… but only one has the southern social conservatives in it (HINT: it is the one that waves the Dixie Battle flag). Consider, Strom left the Democratic Party to support Goldwater Republicans. Learn more about the history of the Democratic Party.

Bryan, Father of modern American Left-Wing Populist Progressivism, was a progressive liberal Democrat, just like Jefferson. Jackson was a sort of mix between populist right and populist left. They were all Populist Democrats who supported the left to a degree (especially Bryan did). These men are not of the same faction as Calhoun.

“The bank, Mr. Van Buren, is trying to kill me. But I will kill it.” – Andrew Jackson. When asked if the two term President had any last regrets, Jackson responded, “[That] I didn’t shoot Henry Clay and I didn’t hang John C. Calhoun.” (I.e. the nativist populist regretted not killing the southern and northern party leaders of the time, including his VP Calhoun). Likewise he [supposedly] said, “John Calhoun, if you secede from my nation, I will secede your head from the rest of your body.”

Racist Hiester Clymer campaign poster from 1866 “smearing” the eventual winner Union General John W. Geary. Geary was a Radical Republican, a socially liberal Northerner who probably wasn’t waving the Dixie battle flag if you know what I mean (unlike Clymer who was a conservative Reconstruction Democrat… which is to the radical socially conservative right of most factions in American history).

TIP: As recently as the Clinton and Carter years you could still see solid support in the South for some Democrats (where we even see things like Dixie flag pins to support Clinton; the Clintons didn’t make them, but they exist according to the pictures below). Assuming these are real, it makes sense when you consider Clinton and Carter are actual southerners, like LBJ or other progressives southerners who didn’t sign the Southern Manifesto like Gore’s dad. This is different than say Reagan, Bush, and Trump who are all from the North. People call the move toward a southern identity by the Republican party “the southernization of the Republican party.” Remember, the South as a people didn’t switch, the southern conservative party leadership and their voter base switched.

U.S. Presidential Election Results (1789-2016). Consider starting with Lincoln’s 1860 election forward to really see the different factions (including the Solid South Southern Democrats who seceded over “States’ Rights” and other things.)

A General Summary of the Party Switching and Party Systems

Above I offered summaries in the for of bullet  pointed lists. Below I’ll try to weave everything together into a story to offer another perspective:

As America became increasingly progressive over time, from 1776 forward, different socially conservative and socially liberal movements banded together to create the parties of each of the 6-7 Party Systems (becoming increasingly divided by left and right and not stances on government as they originally were).

This caused different social-minded factions to align with different business-minded factions over time (in a Big Tent coalition of factions all generally for or against Progressive Modernization), and this changed the parties (in terms of some, not all, ideology, members, and platforms).

Oddly enough, this resulted in the previously Small Government Populist Democratic Party becoming the party of Big Government, Neoliberalism, Progressivism, Globalization, and Social Liberalism, and the previously Big Government Aristocratic party Republican Party becoming the party of Small Government (rhetorically), Nativism, and Social Conservatism. Oddly again, despite the changes the Republicans have always been Protectionist, Nationalist, and Stricter on immigration (although how that translated to policy changed as the party became more “socially conservative” over time). On that note, it is very important to understand that immigration changed the Democratic Party as they embraced new non-Anglo Protestant immigrants over time.

The tricky thing to grasp is that some conservatives want to conserve back to a time that they feel they had more freedom (more liberal liberty) and that progressive social liberalism requires Big Government to implement.

The best proof of this is looking at the voter map. See: a map of Historical Presidential Elections. In the story above specific changes are denoted by Party Systems, but even that classification fails to truly illustrate the complexity of all the changes.

TIP: At this point you can, with the images and summary above in mind, probably get away with just watching the following two videos. These VOX videos don’t say everything I want to say, and they aren’t fully centered, but they are notably fairly accurate and not overly bias.

From white supremacy to Barack Obama: The history of the Democratic Party. I didn’t make these videos, but they work as an introduction to some of the basics.

How the Republican Party went from Lincoln to Trump.

TIP: See the Cook Partisan Voter Index for the 115th Congress. This political report shows the current Republican / Democrat divide of the country. The Rural vs. City split is very pronounced, this does not bode well for the divisive Sixth Party Strategy. Federalism works a lot better when we actually respect each other’s values and work together across the aisle. Remember, the map may look “very red”, but a lot of that is wide-open space. By the popular vote, the nation is pretty much split down the middle.

NOTES: The general party switching is denoted by party systems and realigning elections. Specific terms like “Red-State / Blue-State” Switch, “the Big Switch”, the 20th Century Reversal are all different ways of describing different general or specific switches. A lot has changed over time, including the changes in the era of Good Feelings, the time the Whigs became Republicans, the changes of the Civil War, Reconstruction, and Gilded Age, Bryan’s influence on the Democratic Party, Teddy Roosevelt’s exit from the Republican Party, the impact of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover and the impact of FDR, the Southern Voting Bloc party switch (“the Solid South Switch“), and general changes in the parties post ’64 and into the era of figures like Roger Ailes and Karl Rove (the Sixth Party Switch). However, history is too complex to just be said (just like it is too complex to look for a senator or two to hang up their hat and switch parties as proof for or against a switch, that isn’t really how it happened). Generally though, the idea “the parties switched” is not a myth (it is true, they did switch, as we can see on the map and I can prove it six ways to Sunday if given a chance)!

TIP: The story below skips over some important aspects of the most recent part of the 20th century reversal, you can get that part of the story of “the Big Switch” by clicking on the aforementioned link. The deal is that so much changed that I can’t fit even the general idea in just one space (although that is the plan eventually).

TIP: The New Deal Coalition and Conservative Coalition are two factions who symbolize the switch well. This summary doesn’t focus on them, so see the link. I feel the same way about key figures like Hamilton, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, Bryan, Cleveland, LBJ, Reagan, Clinton, Obama, and Trump. Each tells an important part of the story, but I can hardly offer all my notes on any of these at once.

The Complexities of Changing Parties, Changing Factions, and Changing Party Platforms

Look at the images above, your eyes do not deceive you, the voter map of the Historical Presidential Elections tells a quick visual story of that which we will explain below, “that the political factions that formed around key voter issues in any era have switched parties over time as the major parties and their platforms changed, and this in turn changed the major parties and their platforms”.

The result of this is what we call “the Party Systems” (First Party System, Second Party System, Third Party System, Fourth Party System, Fifth Party System, and Sixth Party System).

The result is also, more specifically, that the major parties no longer reflect their original platforms or namesakes and that in many cases we are left with a full “switch” of underlying ideology (for example Republicans are now the small government States’ Rights party, but it used to be that the Anti-Federalist Democrats were! Really; this is well documented and provable.)

The main problem we have in arguing over Lincoln, Byrd, oddly never Teddy, and Strom Thurmond and whether or not “the parties switched” is that American history is complex and summarizing can take longer than reasonable human attention spans allow.

In other words, it isn’t that nothing changed, it is that it is harder to tell an accurate story than it is to perpetuate simple myths (like Dinesh D’Souza and infowars do). Meaning, I can’t make my full argument quick enough to sway the casual skeptic, but I promise those of you who want to dig deeper: ours is the most accurate answer you’ll find outside of the history books.

Looking to the Classics and Factions For Proof

One good and not-so-divisive way to explain history is to look at the classics, especially those who focus on state-based political factions over political parties.

Classic works of this sort of political history, like V.O. Key’s Southern Politics in State and Nation (see an overview), make it very clear that the Solid South had (prior to the 1950’s) historically always voted lock-step for the Democratic Party (Anti-Federalists, Confederates). Of course, the voting map over time, actual recorded history, and so much else tell this story too, but a well respected book like this is a great secondary source!

Today the Solid South (here speaking of them as a national political faction) is with the Republican Party (just look at a voter map) and today old Socially Progressive Republicans like Teddy (or Hamilton or Lincoln) aren’t in the party (or at least they aren’t influencing the platforms or speaking out if they are).

This isn’t to say that some of the more progressive Dixies, Bryan followers, and even economically minded Southern Bourbons aren’t in the Democratic Party, they obviously are, just look at Carter, Clinton, Gore, and Bernie (they have their Neoliberal Bourbons and Populist Progressive Bryans right there).

Likewise, the GOP have their constants. The conservative Federalist pro-business faction, the neocons be they switched Bourbons, Gilded Age post-Reconstruction Republicans, or traditional Federalists, and the Federalist War Hawks are still in the Republican Party, as are the nativists of the north Know-Nothings.

However, despite what didn’t change, a ton did, including the party platforms, key factions, and a large swath of the voter base.

Today the Democrats are notably missing their Jeff Sessions States’ Rights Southern Solid South Conservatives, and the Republicans are missing any notable socially progressive wing.

Modern Democrats know this well, they lost the 2016 election and didn’t get one state in the Southern Bloc for Hillary (AKA the switch isn’t just real, it is actively impacting current politics and platforms).

Simply, today the modern Republican platform has conservative Federalist elements, but it is a States’ Rights platform. Likewise, the Democratic Party platform has some populist and southern elements, but it is a Federalist neoliberal globalist platform.

There are countless Keys to point to (pun intended), but pointing only works as long as I have your attention.

How the South Went Republican: Can Democrats Ever Win There Again? (1992). These fellas talk about VO Key and the actual history of the South. In the real deep south they don’t even like Lincoln, but that fact is only known by those with longer memories. The alt-right is twisting things for a new audience.

What was the Southern Strategy? This part of the story is only one part, but it is vital to get. This is from Keith Hughes who explains much of our American history accurately. All videos on this page are secondary resources not created by us.

TIP: One might say “but Tom, only like 13% of Democratic Party Congresspeople actually switched”, to that I say, “something like that”. That isn’t what we are talking about, we aren’t looking for an all-at-once switch, we are looking at evolving parties over time as reactions to things like Civil Rights 1964 and Voting Rights 1965. Look a little harder at the data, it backs up what I say. Also, just listen to modern Republican talk about the South and States’ Rights and wave a confederate flag, it is a giant signal our theory is correct.

The Bad Boy of Washington: Lee Atwater – Southern Strategy (1997). Lee Atwater was a major player in political strategy (he is like the Karl Rove of the 80’s). He gives a pretty clear account of the switch, from the perspective of someone who had to understand it to spew alternative facts in an era when the switch was still happening.

Dinesh D’Souza Gives an Inaccurate Reading of the “Big Switch” Myth: His Version of History is a Myth

Dinesh D’Souza decided to make a movie about how the Democrats didn’t change and how Northern ghettoes are proof of modern slavery (where welfare state = slavery, ignoring the fact that the Solid South votes Republican and literally uses the same “States’ Rights” language they did back in 1850; see the clip below).

This argument shows a lack of an understanding of American history (consider the argument against the North in Lincoln’s time was that that economic inequality of the Northern Whigs/Republicans was worse than slavery).

Northern ghettoes are a problem because “lots and lots of reasons” (I will write an essay on “northern ghettoes”, but for now see the Black Vote and American History and Wage Slavery and Chattel Slavery are Different I touch on the subject in both places). Their problems stem from things like: the nature of capitalism and classism, a push-back against busing and integration, the great migration, immigrant rather than a history of slavery, and even less heartwarming truths of obstructionist factions in both parties (think States’ Rights KKK and Nativist know-nothings).

Northern Ghettoes like South Side Chicago aren’t a product of the Confederate ideology, they are a product of economic inequality. It isn’t “because Socially Liberal Progressives and Neoliberals are racist and have racist policies”, it is because “aristocracy + oligrachy + capitalism + the welfare state = economic inequality for economic minorities (including the minority poor whites)”.

This is very different than Southern Slavery where the “less-thans” were known by skin color rather than pocketbook size.

This is to say:

  • The party with the outwardly hurtful policies is generally the party with the Social Conservatives in it (so Democrats for most of history, but also third party Northern parties like the Know-Nothings, and then today and increasingly since 1968, the Republicans).
  • The party with the policies that are economically hurtful… is typically the business wing of both parties, always. Not all factions of a given party, but generally the dominate establishment factions; as those are always the factions with the most money and thus the one’s least likely to create policies that don’t help their class first.

The above is a harsh oversimplification, but it is less a judgement call and more a call to see reality for what it is:

  1. We are divided by social issues.
  2. We are divided by class and economic issues.
  3. We are divide by ideology related to government size and its purpose.
  4. And everyone always operates on self-interest on some level.

Those three positions and one maxim each need to be thought of as their own thing, although they often relate.

Essentially the main factions in political history who tried to help that bottom percentage that many black Americans sadly find themselves in directly are the Lincoln / Roosevelt Socially Liberal Republicans and the Progressive William Jennings Bryan / Bernie Sanders factions (the social liberals in each party).

We may not think that “big government” is a good answer to social inequality, but those socially liberal factions do. And their big state solution is about as far from slavery-in-practice and confederate ideology as possible. To what degree a neoliberal gets on board, and their motive, that is a different issue.

It isn’t that neoliberals don’t try to lift everyone up, and thus lift the bottom, or that libertarians don’t try to lift every one up with economic liberty, or that Neocons don’t try to lift everyone up by promising more coal jobs or freedom from government for some classes… it is that the business factions that took over the parties have successfully divided the country over social issues since 1776 while everyone kind of suffers economically (if only it were this simple, stick with me while I make my point).

Now, don’t get me wrong: people don’t need much help dividing themselves over social issues.

Rather, for all my study, I would say we divide ourselves over social issues and ideology first, and then economic issues second.

Marx thought it was all about money, but for many of us it seems that money isn’t a primary concern (it may inform our other fears, but it isn’t what drives the majority in most times). After-all, Hitler didn’t rally the masses on economic promises only, no he made Jewish people and non-Germans the symbol of Germany’s economic problems (thus, economics was the cause, but it was not the primary divisive motive).

Again, this may sound harsh, but I’m just trying to be accurate and brief as possible.

The Solid South never wanted integration and globalization… You are thinking of the Federalist Liberals (who are essentially now mostly Democrats). I’d say, followers of Dinesh “you are only being divided by the oligarchs and aristocrats again!”… but like I said, I don’t think it is them, I think it is us who divide ourselves.

And we don’t divide ourselves over the issues of yesterday, we divide ourselves over the issues of today. In other words, it isn’t that D’Souza doesn’t make some good points, it is that his theory that “the parties didn’t switch” and that modern socially liberal Democrats are modern Confederates when it comes to a racist or economic ideology, is provably wrong.

Read VO Key. The right-wing alternative fact that the Democrats are still the Confederate party is a misreading of history any way you slice it and frankly it is distracting from the real issues at hand. In other words, it doesn’t just annoy me as a liberal Democrat, it annoys me as someone who cares about our history.

Did the parties switch?

Lincoln was a mid-1800’s moderate Republican. That is like today’s social liberal, but he had conservative values too.

TIP: Just because the Republicans are the socially conservative party of today doesn’t mean “all African Americans should vote Democrat” or Lincoln has no place in a moderate Republican ideology. That really isn’t where I’m going with this, both parties are today and have always been Big Tents. I’m just trying to sort out history and stop the whole “Progressives are Dixiecrats” alternative fact from revising history at the whims of the alt-right propaganda machine (an “invisible machine” AKA self-interest more than coordination, as explained in our Sixth Party Switch Page).

TIP: Other points include the fact that the Federalists, Whigs, and Republicans all used to see Free Trade as being oligarchical and hurting the working man. In other words, things are way too “changed” and “switched” to draw a straight line between the welfare state and Confederatism… but to the extent we can connect the party’s of yesterday and today, the South is still the South and the North Still the North, not everyone waves the Confederate Battle Flag (and really, it is as simple as that).

In words: Today the Know-Nothings and States’ Rights factions are on the same side, in the Republican Party together, and that is at the heart of why our politics are so divided. They are trying to act like the neoliberal globalists and the Sanders Social Liberal Populists are the Confederates in the Civil War because of the party name. Um, no, look at the platforms! Why would you think welfare is the new slavery and not States’ Rights to discriminate and waving a confederate flag is the same thing with a different party name? Get it?

To summarize this section, Ill say it like this: Don’t confuse economic inequality (a national problem) with socially conservative policies that hurt blacks more than whites. The first problem is one that both neocons and neoliberals share, it is the classist divide in any country occurring once again. It is complex, but not akin to actual socially conservative policies (like a ban on muslims, or telling trans kids they can’t use a bathroom, or making a black person sit in the back of a bus). One is an ill of globalism and the welfare state, one is an ill of the fear embedded in the human condition coming out as prejudice policy. Neither is great, but they aren’t “the same”.

Bill Whittle – Racism – Democrats and Republicans switch sides? (this video, which charges sides didn’t switch, is the alternative fact we bust here). So today this sort of alternative garbage is brainwashing a generation of conservatives to think that neoliberalism is akin to slavery (I am saying this video is wrong). The problem with the video’s logic is that Jeff Sessions and the rest of the States’ Rights social conservatives are the one’s who are perpetuating the claims made in this video, and they are historically the slavery south and historically the anti-liberal-globalist right-wing. Globalism has problems of economic inequality, but at the time of Lincoln it was the ideology of the North and what the South was fighting against. In words, this is a giant misreading of Federalist Globalist and American history. Yes, neoliberals are globalists, and yes some of them are also prejudice like many Americans, and yes that has economic concerns, and yes they are aristocrats first, but they are also the faction that wars with the social conservative nativists as they fight for global integration and national banking… Seriously, read your history folks! Lincoln was a neoliberal, as was Hamilton, as was Teddy, as is Clinton. There is an element of protectionism that is consistent with the Republican Party, and they are no way a cast of shady villains, it is just that this narrative doesn’t work. If you are on the other team, fine, maybe you are a know-nothing, maybe a confederate, maybe a business neocon protectionist, maybe religious right, maybe just classically fiscally conservative. Whatever you are, own it, but stop dragging the Democrats through the mud, our history already does that for us. The proof is in the platforms and voting map here.

Notes on Key Aspects of the Parties Changing / Switching / Evolving

WHAT IS A POLITICAL FACTION? To understand how the parties switched/changed/evolved, one has to understand political factions. A political faction is a group of people who form a coalition around key voter issues or a voter platform (which contains “planks” AKA stances on voter issues). Key voter issues include government size, positions on trade, positions on welfare, positions on social justice, positions on the environment, etc. The major U.S. parties are, from this perspective, best thought of as coalitions of factions. For example, the Democrats contain humanists, environmental activists, business minded “neoliberals,” progressives focused on workers rights, anti-elite progressives, social justice progressives, etc. while the modern Republicans contain the religious right, business minded “neocons,” paleocon Tea Party types, libertarians, constitutionalists, etc. Each party houses elite and populist factions from different geographic regions of the U.S., some cities, some rural areas, who share general ideology regarding key issues. It is the differences between factions in the parties that allow for the many changes

KNOW-NOTHINGS  AND LINCOLN: One important note in the overarching debate is that the Know Nothings were nativist populists in the Whig party before the Civil War. They were founded in 1844 some good years after their members may have cast a vote for Jackson Democrats in the Era of Good Feelings. Like the Northern anti-Federalists and socially conservative Federalists in the founding days, these were akin to modern Northern Tea Party Republicans. When the Know-Nothings are in the Whig Party, it can look as though “nothing switched.” We can almost trace a line from Know-Nothings, to northern McKinley Republicans, to Hoover to the modern era. When we trace this type of American ideology throughout history, we see that the faction wasn’t in the Whigs at the time of Lincoln (in 1860 there were four clear factions). Lincoln by his own admission was “no know nothing.” This faction too “changed parties” over time despite not keeping their “know nothing” title. As noted, they tended to be in the Republican party by name, especially as more and more immigrants came to America after the Civil War. Immigrants are typically supported by Democrats in any era. On that note, I’d like to also clarify that Republicans, Federalists, and Whigs have typically been less welcoming to immigrants despite all the other changes. This is part of why they have also tended to be the “nationalist party” throughout history. Here one should note that the Confederates were a type of nationalist (its just that their idea on what the nation should look like was not in-line with the rest of the nation). This is an indication that there is “no clean switch.” There were many changing factions, platforms, planks, ideologies, etc.

BRYAN, THE PEOPLES’ POLITICIAN: I’d like to also make clear, for a brief moment in the late 1890’s, the populists teamed up under Bryan and against McKinley. Here most of what one would consider the Solid South and Progressives were in an alliance similar to what we saw under Jefferson. They at this point were still both Democrats; however, they lost the election to big money elites in part due to the northern factory workers and rural farmers having different needs and, at the time, having different thoughts on racial and sexual equality. Bryan was a progressive, but he was also an early religious activist and a rural midwesterner.

NEOLIBERALS AND NEOCONS: In the Gilded Age, before Roosevelt, both parties had big business wings that today we can neocon and neoliberal. The story of the business factions are odd though. When we admitted Texas to the United States, it was seen as a victory for the old Bourbon liberals. You might say that Bush was like an old Bourbon, but perhaps not (after-all Clinton is a bit like an old Bourbon too). The Cleveland and Wilson line makes Gore and Clinton the new bourbon liberals or neoliberals in some respects. However, Today this is confused by the Southernization of the Republican party and the move toward elitism and progressivism by wings of the Democratic party. There is no clean and simple part of this story (as the current elite really are also divided by ideology, just like they were in any era). Things don’t just “flip once,” they are fluid and changing.

SHOULD I FOCUS LESS ON DIXIECRATS? The story of the modern switch always comes back to the Solid South Conservative States’ Rights Dixie Confederate-Crats like Calhoun, Thurmond, and Wallace and their differences from the Bourbon liberal Redeemer-crats like Wilson and Cleveland and progressive Jefferson-Van-Buren-Bryan-like Democrats. The states’ rights “Dixiecrat” faction was comprised of radical liberals from the South who were so liberal they fought against kings, against banks, and against elitists. That made everything confusing for the next 240 years. They fought for their right to own slaves and competed with the North in early America. In other words, there is a faction that has existed since the start of our political system that is comprised of what today we call conservatives, but then they called Democrats in the Solid South states like Georgia and South Carolina. Today we count “the great bourbon liberal victory Texas” among them. States like Texas are more like Florida or Arkansas and don’t have as much in common with states like Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina, although this differs vastly by region. In classical term, the core solid South states from the original 13, the ones most like Georgia and South Carolina, which are radical liberal and social conservative, dominated states who were once at the heart of slavery, the Civil War Confederacy, and segregation. They formed states’ rights parties to have the right to be a slave state. They used to be Democrats, and now they are Republicans. It is perhaps to easy to demonize them if we look at them through a modern lens given the Civil War. A modern Democrat may be sympathetic to Clinton, Obama and Kennedy (our northern and southern allies), and not be as sympathetic to Byrd, Thurmond, and Wallace (our former and current old Democrat allies). The Democratic Party has lost some of its voter base to the Republican Southern strategy that attracted old states’ rights conservative Dixie. Dixie has largely driven the anti-Obama anti-Progressive message alongside the Nixon-Republicans. Dinesh D’souza (being one of many) now claims Hillary and the Democrats are the Confederates. That doesn’t seem fair to me, does it to you? I’m not insulting Calhoun, Andrew Johnson, Thurmond, or even Byrd, Gore, Bill Clinton, or Lyndon B. Johnson, nor am I insulting a rural American from the south. I am saying, “Progressives from the North-east and their Gore-like allies aren’t the same as the modern David Dukes of the world. David Duke is clearly not a Democrat today, but clearly could have been one in the early 1900’s unless you think he would have been campaigning for Teddy’s “square deal“? Even in Andrew Jackson’s time, when slavery was a less divisive issue, Jackson and Calhoun were not the same, and they weren’t the same as Jefferson, Madison, or Van Buren. Today factions are so divided that I don’t think any of us can be confident those old Democrats would have been on the same team. Some would be Tea Party and some Progressive, which is the way it is. We both teamed up with the economic elite who benefited during the Gilded Age instead of coming together under figures like Bryan. Is that odd? Well, perhaps no odder than the full red-state blue-state switch we can see on the map. And, it is only one of many odd things that happen in American history. It is one centerpiece of the argument, but it isn’t the full story.

Then Again, the Bourbons: So know-nothings were whig-like and the Confederates were most certainly always in the South and had been Democrats up until the era following Civil Rights (then they test out Dixiecrat and American Independent parties before finally becoming Republican). That is pretty clear. However, on the point above, there is a very real thing called Bourbon Liberal Redeemers and another very real thing called Party Bosses. These are elements that were in the Gilded Age Democrats and still in the party today. We can see them as “Elite Oligarchs” who caused some of the modern South’s problems. That is fair, and a fair version of that viewpoint can be seen in V. O. Key’s classic Southern Politics in State and Nation. Also to be fair, we can see the relationship between elite conservative neocons and the modern south as this… same F’ing thing (which is, social issues aside, still elites using poor whites, and that is not much better, right?) A northern Ghetto is a shame, but it was a shame back in the days of Bill “the Butcher” of NYC when the North was Republican (in this same way, the black belt is a shame, but it was also a shame back then, and it has never had much to do with the North). This line of thinking doesn’t prove or disprove the party switch, it only shows how history is complex. We know the history of Carter, Byrd, the Gores, and Clinton, but we also know the history of Strom ThurmondLester Maddox, and Bo Callaway too (and it is from this lens that we see the changes). Today the charge against the Democrat is the same as the charge against the old Radical Republican. The modern charge that a D’souza makes is “Democrats are trying to get the black vote / immigrant vote to keep the poor white man oppressed under welfare” but Progressives/Radicals say to this what they have since the 1800’s, “no, this is a moral issue not an issue of Hobbesian domination”. Maybe this is just Bernie and Billy-Bob slinging mud at each other over divisive social issues, not listening to the other, while the elites divide, conquer, and benefit? But, again, on the moral issue, Progressives from Bryan, to the Roosevelts, to Henry A. Wallace have made their main issue the idea that social justice and civil rights are human rights. So it is like “the States’ Rights” of progressives if that makes sense. There is probably room for debate, but to conflate that with Confederatism in such a flippant way as this… is like “super confusing” and “super annoying” (here is the true version of that). Even at the time the Bryan faction and States’ Rights faction were not the same faction. They did however, form a union called the Democratic Party. So who knows what the future holds?

TIP: If you don’t believe that the Solid South switched parties, ask yourself, “which party supports the flying of the Confederate flag?” Lots of things changed; geography and the human condition isn’t one of them. Of course, the other thing that doesn’t lie is “the voting map“.

THE SEMANTICS OF THE TERM “SWITCH”: The term switch works on some levels, and doesn’t on others. It implies that there was a clean switch, there wasn’t. Instead, many complex factors led to what looked like a clean switch between about 1896 and 2000. In reality the parties evolved. The Republicans became more conservative and Democrats more liberal while the Solid South Democrats “switched” to supporting Republicans and some Progressives switched to supporting Democrats. The other factions of each party evolved, but essentially remained in a given party. Of course, in the factions that switched, not every voter or politicians “switched sides.” Enough changed for the map to make a clean switch and the general platforms of parties to change. One could argue that a party only “switches” when it hangs up its hat and changes its name. We could say, “the parties changed and evolved” as changing stances on key voter issues attracted new factions to each party resulting in the red and blue states “flipping” over time.

U.S. Presidential Elections 1789-2012. This video shows each U.S. election result from 1789-2012 with party names and voting maps. Given it shows each election, it illustrates some of the major switches clearly. NoteThe colors that have represented the parties have also changed over time. Despite this fact, the video (like most modern sources) represents Democrats as Blue and Republicans as Red, as has been a tradition since the 2000 election. TIP: Speaking of learning about this in video form, see Keith Hughes’ series on American ElectionsCrashCourse American History, and Tom Richey’s American history videos

Comparing the Changes in the American Political Parties by Comparing Presidents, Elections, and Factions

We can see the changes in the parties by comparing key political figures in a given era like Hamilton and Jefferson, Adams and Jackson, Lincoln and Johnson, Grant and Cleveland, William J. Bryan and McKinleyTeddy Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson, Hoover and FDRTruman, Dewey, Thurmond, Henry Wallace (who all ran in 1948 and where each faction except the progressives won states)Kennedy, Byrd, and NixonLBJ, and Nixon, or Clinton and Bush. We can point to key realigning elections like 1828, 1860187618961912, 193219641968, 19801992, and 2000, and now 2016 elections. The changes, evolution, and switches are perhaps best exemplified by examining the opposing factions of each party system in American history. These include Federalists and Anti-Federalists, Whigs and Second Party Democrats, third parties like the Know Nothings and Free Soilers, the Union and Confederacy, the Redeemers and the Progressive Party third parties, and finally the factions that sum up the modern parties the New Deal Coalition and Conservative Coalition and their corresponding progressive, states’ rights, traditional conservative, and bourbon liberal factions.

I could say, “compare Jefferson, Jackson, Calhoun, William Jennings Bryan, and Cleveland, Wilson, FDR, LBJ. Compare Hamilton, Adams, Clay, Lincoln, Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, Hoover, Eisenhower, Reagan. Then account for the different populist and elitist factions and the changing times. Explain how things changed after 1824 and after reconstruction and after the progressive era and due to the red scare. See how the voting map switched. Notice how race issues stop the left and right populists from working together. Do you see the left and right elite who agree on business, but not which businesses or trade or fiscal policy to support? See which party supports which factions and voter issues changes? Do you see how Dixie abandoned the Democrats as the party shifted toward progressivism and the Republicans shifted right.”

Or I could say it like this:

  • Jefferson was the original populist, supporting individual rights to the extent that he allied with pro-slavery factions, unlike the more elite Hamilton who preferred a more centralized government but had less tolerance for slavery.
  • Jackson, the first Democratic Party President, was a nativist populist whose anti-bank states’ rights stance is easy to relate to the modern Tea Party, but isn’t too far from the anti-elite stance of Sanders, and is notably different from the stance of the party leaders Dixiecrat-precursor Calhoun and Lincoln-precursor Clay.
  • Lincoln, the First Republican Party President, inspired by Clay, implemented the first income tax and went to war to abolish slavery and restore the Southern Confederates (ex-Democrats) to the Union, yet he wasn’t the same as his War Democrat VP Andrew Johnson or the following Republican Grant.
  • Cleveland who was a Bourbon Liberal Redeemer, the party of the pro-business faction who helped Redeem the South during Reconstruction.
  • Williams Jennings Bryan drew inspiration from Jefferson and Jackson to turn the Democratic party back into the progressive party post-Civil War during the Gilded Age where both major parties had become focused on business.
  • Teddy Roosevelt, who drew inspiration from Jefferson, Hamilton, and Lincoln, sought to solve the corruption of the Gilded Age by using central power and “a square deal,” where Wilson sought a more decentralized solution focused on agriculture when the Bourbon liberal teamed up with the populist Bryan.
  • FDR, who stood in stark contrast to the Republican Hoover whose classical liberal position on the economy had little to nothing in common with Teddy who had left the party less than 10 years earlier.
  • LBJ, who doubled down on FDR’s New Deal politics which further drove the right-wing populists from the Democratic party and attracted conservatives to the growing regulatory and anti-communist sentiment of the Republicans.
  • Clinton and Bush who mark the final changes we see in the parties and voter map, where by 2000 the south and mid-west are Republican and the North and Coasts blue, a full switch from Bryan’s day.

There are different factions, elite and populist. The factions that team up to form the major parties are affected just as much by geographic location as they are from the needs, cultures, and voting issues of the day. Where once workers united under Bryan, today Republicans and Democrats have their Tea Party and Bernie Sanders respectively. In all cases, we come back to the same central truism: The parties are comprised of factions, they don’t agree on all issues, even when they share a class. The solid south Dixiecrats switched from supporting the Democrats to the Republicans, after Wilson and by today. This story is told well by Byrd and Thurmond and a close comparison of states’ rights progressivism and social justice progressivism. All workers suffer the same injustices, but not all workers agree on which among them deserves equality. This is a 240-year-old sticking point.

I can point to a thousand telling changes, and explain this a thousand different ways, but each takes time and only complicates things for the average reader (and it can be no other way, history is complex).

In all cases, for everything that does change, there are things that DO NOT CHANGE.

A conservative from the south is a conservative from the south. Dixie is still Dixie. Big city bosses are still bosses. NYC is still NYC. A city still a city; a farm still a farm; a union still a union. A farmer or factory worker is working class in any era. A northern business person is always going to favor wall street. An elitist is an elitist; a populist a populist; a nativist a nativist. The left is the left; the right is the right. The tea party is a right-wing populist response. Social justice is a left-wing populist response. Northern cities have race issues and house both parties, the South and Midwest still contain many progressives. A northern business person who goes to the south to be a bourbon liberal redeemer and rally carpetbaggers and scalawags thus “redeeming the south” is still not a true Confederate Dixie Southerner.

Some things do not change, never have. I’m not sure they ever will, but we can know which party supported which type of American in a given era and, vitally, which of the classical conservative, classical liberal, social liberal progressive, and social conservative factions teamed up in a given era over key voting issues. That is something we can define despite it involving a complex essay, affected by Civil War, Reconstruction, Civil Rights, the rise of Communism, immigration, modernization, and debates over economy, foreign policy, and religion.

Summarizing the Party Systems

Thus, the story of the history of the American political parties and their changing factions is best told by:

America’s history is far more complex than that. To get a better view you, can see the essay in the link above or click on the links and learn more about each era, faction, or great American.

Did the Ideology of the Major Parties Change?

Some say “the ideology” of the parties didn’t change. This is true for some issues like immigration. However, the implication that welfare is equatable to slavery and thus the modern Democrat really has a pro-slavery mentality (as presented by sources like this) is false in my opinion. People are trying to attribute the conservative Dixie south to the Democrats by connecting the Gores and Clintons of the world to the old south, but they are more like a Bush. They are “bourbon liberals” for the most part, not staunch states’ rights Dixiecrats, who truly did not want Civil Rights ’64.

We can argue the Democrats retained their Bourbon liberal faction after Nixon. We can see their progressive faction (which has ever been on tense terms with the bourbon neoliberals) remains strong from Bryan until today. We can see they retained some reformed Dixiecrats like Byrd, and we can clearly point to Tammany Hall style big city bosses. The modern Democrat is not typically a socially conservative southerner from Dixie. The southern conservative Dixie majority now votes Republican, which is why maps look like this when they used to look like this.

Bryan was a Jeffersonian and Jacksonian, but he was not Calhoun. Bryan took the bible literally and believed in equality between all men AND small government AND welfare.

Likewise, Cleveland is a Bourbon Liberal like many future Democratic party leaders were after him. They are all Democrats, but they aren’t the main faction we are thinking of when we think “Civil War Confederates.”

Some say “the ideology” of the parties didn’t change. While this is true for some issues like immigration for example, the implication that welfare is equatable to slavery and thus the modern Democrat really has a pro-slavery mentality (as presented by sources like this) is false in my opinion (again people are trying to contribute the conservative Dixie south to the Democrats by connecting the Gores and Clintons of the world to the old south, but they are more like a Bush. They are “bourbon liberals” for the most part, not staunch states’ rights Dixiecrats, who truly did not want Civil Rights ’64).

We can argue the Democrats retained their Bourbon liberal faction after Nixon, we can see their progressive faction (which has ever been on tense terms with the bourbon neoliberals) remains strong from Bryan until today, we can see they retained some reformed Dixiecrats like Byrd, and we can clearly point to Tammany Hall style big city bosses, but the modern Democrat is not typically a socially conservative southerner from Dixie. The southern conservative Dixie majority now votes Republican, which is why maps look like this when they used to look like this.

Bryan was a Jeffersonian and Jacksonian, but he was not Calhoun. Bryan took the bible literally and believed in equality between all men AND small government AND welfare.

Likewise, Cleveland is a Bourbon Liberal like many future Democratic party leaders were after him. They are all Democrats, but they aren’t the main faction we are thinking of when we think “Civil War Confederates.”

Jefferson is progressive left in many ways, and Jackson progressive right (like the tea party), Bryan was both, but none were Calhoun, they were in the same party, but not of the same faction. Today Calhoun’s faction is Republican, but today Republican is still many factions.

This doesn’t make modern Democrats saints (I mean have you been to LA, NYC, Chicago, or Las Vegas?) and it doesn’t make Democrats purely northern, but it does poke holes in the sort of logic that Dinesh D’souza and the alternative media present.

Same is true for “small government” vs. “big government” ideology. The Democrats and their predecessors were the small government party until the Progressive era. The Republicans and their predecessors were generally the party of “bigger government” until the same era. Compare Coolidge and Wilson or Consider Teddy is a Republican and FDR a Democrat.

In truth, both parties simply have changing factions based on voter issues of the day. Even right now the parties are changing under our noses. Just compare Bush to Trump or Bernie to Hillary. The human condition isn’t black and white, and the groups we form are not either.

Still, with all the changes, the major modern parties don’t purely represent any past faction or president. So there is lots of room to admire Lincoln as a modern Republican, or Jefferson as a Democrat, Jackson as a Republican, or Teddy as Democrat, or Cleveland as a Republican, or Hamilton as a Democrat.

I’ll put it this way, “our ancestors did not fight the Civil War just so modern social conservatives could accuse modern northern progressives of being part of the Confederate South in the Civil War.” That is a bizarre theory, which cherry picks history and ignores the changes that give the party systems their names. That aside, exactly how things changed is too complex to not examine the implications in detail, we can refute the general charge, but it doesn’t imply the true full story is simple or as easy as finding a consistent red team blue team.

Modern Social Progressives also aren’t Duke-style anti-Communist conservatives, a faction that has been with the Republicans since WWI at least, and is classically conservative in terms of government and classically liberal in terms of trade. The Religious Right is not Social Justice Warrior Progressives although they can both be puritanical. A Libertarian isn’t a Socialist, and an apple isn’t an orange.

“The major parties are comprised of factions” and the southern conservative Dixie faction is no longer voting for the Democratic party; they are voting with the classical conservative Duke-style Republicans, neocons, and the Religious Right in the Republican party. The Republican party just fought for the right to fly the Confederate Dixie flag. I understand how Wilson, Gore, LBJ, and other southern progressive Democrats confuse this issue, but they are generally “bourbon liberals” and not the same faction has the more hardcore “states’ rights liberals” like Wallace, Byrd, and Thurmond. The Democratic party carries aspects of its past, but the Republicans are the favorite party of the current Solid South.

Do you think that people like John Calhoun, Jefferson Davis, and other southern icons would be modern Democrats? If they would, why can’t the Democratic party get support from the conservative south? These truisms don’t imply that every faction in a party cares about the same issues in a given era or supports general platforms, planks, and polices for the same reasons. I understand why a traditional conservative doesn’t see themselves as “the same” as a southern social conservative. After-all, New Deal Progressives sat right next to the same faction in FDR era. Empathy can be easy to come by given similar objectives. The exact implications of all this are up for debate, but the general facts aren’t. Feel free to ask questions or comment below.

WAS LINCOLN A REPUBLICAN? You can read our essay on it here, or the Nation’s When the Republicans Really Were the Party of Lincoln. Otherwise, I’ll let you use your imagination and let his words speak for himself. I’m of the mind that coming together as a nation is more important than fighting over who gets Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, or the Roosevelts (although I’ve never in my life seen a conservative try to appropriate a Roosevelt).

“I do oppose the extension of slavery, because my judgment and feelings so prompt me; and I am under no obligation to the contrary… I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor or degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that “all men are created equal.” We now practically read it “all men are created equal, except negroes” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read “all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.” When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy [sic].” – Abraham Lincoln 1855

TIP: a Know-nothing is a mix of Solid South and Anti-Communist or Anti-Immigrant conservative. They were nativist populists who wanted to make sure America stayed Anglo and Judeo-Christian. Lincoln wasn’t that, but “what is the stated agenda of the Tea Party?” Also, to end on a light note, using Russia as a scapegoat in any era carries the same lack of credibility.


  1. Why Did White Workers Leave the Democratic Party?

"A Summary of How the Major Parties Switched" is tagged with: American Politics, Human Rights, Party Switching, United States of America

Leave a Reply to Thomas DeMichele Cancel reply

Robert Martin on

While I found this interesting I did not see any of this backed up by numbers. Showing a few well known members of congress switching to the Republican Party does not show millions in the South switching their party allegiance. That would be like me being a monarchist suddenly becoming a socialist. because of one issue I disagree with. Why would the racists of the 60’s leave a party that barley supported the civil rights movement and move to a party that overwhelmingly supported the civil rights movement your logic makes zero sense. I am currently now looking to see if I can find through the voting records where millions stopped voting Democrat, with suddenly new millions voting Republican. That would be a great way to either show more proof of your theory then just saying because Republican are winning in the South now is because racists are voting for them. This kind of thing is why I hate both Parties equally, just saying something is not proof and it is what has turned me into a devout monarchist.

Thomas DeMichele on

Good points. It isn’t that we have ignored how the switched worked in terms of details, it is that they I think get burried a little in all the writing. Maybe a single page on just this would be good.

Here is what is up.

– Mostly it isn’t that a given person switch (although key figures like Van Buren Teddy Roosevelt, Henry A Wallace, Reagan, Thurmond, etc did to major parties or third parties). It is that parties changed and conservative districts that were once run by a D became run by an R (and vice versa).

– From about 1900 to 2000 progressives who were once GOP switch and conservatives once DNC switch.

– You can see the proof in the voting map over time:

– You can see the proof in the Rs and Ds next to the name of House and Senate in Congress over time. To see this you have to go through the voting records and such or look at the make-up of congress each year. Here are resources for that: and (try starting here and hitting the forward button through each iteration of congress to see the switch):

TIP: Just look at the 115th United States Congress under Trump (without naming names, look at Trump’s administration and the current House and Senate, pick out modern conservatives from the south, then compare those seats to say, the 71st United States Congress under Hoover).

As you can see, it isn’t until into Clinton’s years and under Bush that the switch really fully switches. Then again, things are changing again under Trump.

We are lying to ourselves thinking things didn’t change. They did. Some changes are very recent. and things are still changing today.

Think what you want about the parties, but I’m telling you I am earnestly trying to offer you the core story here.

Now after the core story, we can talk about what aspects of progressivism caused the switch and what ideological relics do both parties still hold. Stuff like that. And there is a whole conversation in there.

Jordan on

“Contrary to today’s liberals, Stein argues that it wasn’t the racism of white workers that forced the Democratic Party to the right on economics. It was powerful political and business elites, who chose to abandon organized labor and turn the Party of Roosevelt into the Party of Clinton.”

Have you considered the economic element in this “evolution” or “switch” as it is being called?

Thomas DeMichele on

The establishment wing of the Democratic party who never loved Bryan or FDR had a giant impact on the party in the 1900s (although to be fair, this is true for the establishment wing of both parties in all eras).

There are a ton of factors that impact the switches/changes/realignments of platforms, party leaders, voter bases, etc…. economics is one of them, and of that there are many issues to discuss, race is another, and of that there are many issues to discuss.

100% Reagan, Bush, and Trump came in and capitalized on the economic security of workers who had once been Democrats. This was especially in the south and mid-west, by focusing on populist politics alongside their social conservatism, and by equating big government social programs with tyranny, they managed to sway a lot of voters. I call that part of “the right wing strategy” (a part of which Hillary called “the vast right wing conspiracy” and a part of which we call “the southern strategy). They capitalized on a void left by changes in the Democratic party (many of which are well described in the article).

This is certainly a part of the story, and certainly part of the story that a modern southern Trump voter is going to favor over the other aspects like Civil Rights, Voting Rights, and the expansion of the welfare state.

That said, while I think its clear that Civil Rights, Voting Rights, the expansion of the welfare state, and the fact that the Democratic party dirfted away from some populist planks and toward elite planks are all factors… I don’t fully agree with the article in its downplaying of race.

The article says: “when black Americans began to demand their rights, the New Deal — and organized labor — imploded as racist white workers fled the Democratic Party for Ronald Reagan.”

But its more like: “when New Deal rights were expanded to all citizens the social conservative solid south leadership began to shift to the Republican party taking their voter-base with them using the New Media and the Hollywood Darling Reagan paired with classical liberal and social conservative talking points to form a new conservative coalition inside the Republican party.”

It is at this time we start seeing what today we know as alt-facts and Fox news talking points. Those strange ones that tell us cutting the safety-net is liberty and that a citied Democrat doesn’t understand the poor rural worker. The one that says marriage equality is no good, “because traditionalism” and goes to war against a starbucks cup. That messaging, which is heavily steeped in social conservative thought (so it thus does speak to race) is just as much a factor as anything else.

Reagan’s populist appeal worked so well Clinton ran as a Reagan Democrat, trying his third way neoliberalism. However, in this both Reagan and Clinton sparked the start of modern neoliberalism/neoconism in both parties (#debtandcredit).

Then since that time the Democrats have been erring toward the party elite and city politics while doubling down on social justice, while the continued a message of right wing populism from the Republican party (despite its own ruling elite that control the party). This messaging, and to some extent the results of policy, have pulled away a good portion of the populist base of the old Democratic party.

So mostly agree with this: “Stein argues that it wasn’t the racism of white workers that forced the Democratic Party to the right on economics. It was powerful political and business elites, who chose to abandon organized labor and turn the Party of Roosevelt into the Party of Clinton.”

However, the Jacobin (and the person being interviewed here) are unsurprisingly overlooking the racial aspects (and further social justice aspects, because LGBT, immigrants, non-Christians are all groups who the Democrats still support).

Sure, the populist Democratic party liberals and the radical republican progressives allied in history, and today they often ally in the Democratic party, but the “big switch” above pulled a lot of the populist white rural base away from the Democratic party (but oddly had previously already pulled the progressive Republican into the party).

I agree, the base stopped voting or switched parties for more than just racial issues… however, they have also been targeted by socially conservative messaging that sways them away from a number of progressive planks (not just economic, but social). Thus it isn’t just a story of the economic (as we can see in anti-immigrant policy, the wall, muslim ban) and to the extent that it is economic, it is also an odd talking point version where taxes on the wealthy are treated like being taxes on the poor (when it comes to messaging for the base).

Oddly, today the old progressive Republican is generally a Democrat and some of the old populist Democratic party base has switched to Republican since Reagan, Bush, and Trump. One can see how they would have allied in the past, as even today what we call the populist left and right share planks, but one can also see how in any era different factions butt heads over key social, political, and economic issues.

Every issue of state is essentially social, political, and economic. So let’s not play up race more than it should be, but lets not act like economic issues are the only factor to consider either.

Crazy pretzel of history, right?! Great article (despite a few gripes when applying those truths of the past to the modern day), those are my thoughts.

Joseph Dutton on

That’s some exhaustive theory! But despite all the conjecture, there still remains no hard date or documented deliberate ‘switch’. It is just not a historical fact. It’s all still just conspiracy and theories and conjecture.

Sorry, but parties did not ‘switch places’. Democrats were – and still are – very fixated on race and minorities and gender.

Thomas DeMichele on

Thanks for the compliment. The story of the country is long and complex in this respect… the result of researching it and trying to get it right reflected that.

In my opinion you are conflating the way Progressives care about social equality, in terms of race and gender, with the way the social conservative south cares about race and gender, and with the way the centered neoliberal cares about it (votes and funding; half joking).

Of those three factions, the social conservative south is no longer with the party. Given this, the way in which the Democratic Party cares about their central issue of race and gender is different today in some ways than it was.

Today Roy Moore and bathroom bills are a gop thing and trans democrats are winning elections in virgina.

That is what did and didn’t switch from the days when LBJ and gores dad were only a handful of southern democrats who refused to sign the southern manifesto. In those days you still hand Kennedy’s and harry a Wallace, but there was another faction there allied with them that aren’t any more.

This is one of the major changes.

I get the switch, I don’t get the denial of it. Look at the electoral map. Look at our history.

I get what you are saying, but I’m telling you, the general premise of the above theory is right. We know why the disinformation is there, no one wants to own the history of the south… but like, that does our country and the south an injustice. Let’s just tell it like it is and move forward… without the bigotry. Let’s leave that in the past where it belongs so we can focus on issues that matter like the $20 trillion in debt. I know we all care about things like that.

Canof Sand on

Revisionist history. This is nothing but projection.

It’s indisputable that the Democrats have been racist scumbags so you try to insist that today’s Democrats aren’t related to them (despite the unbroken chain) because “reasons.” You use a lot of words but you don’t actually make your case. You show maps and other things and just ASSERT that they support you. (“Look at these maps! Like, there’s a swap!!!” Doesn’t prove your point at all, and worse, you reference some people who tear down that exact argument and yet just pretend they didn’t.)

If anyone’s interested in an article on the subject that actually looks at relevant data and draws meaningful conclusions, see:

The Party of Civil Rights – by Kevin D. Williamson
Pt 2

Why Did the Democratic South Become Republican?
Carol Swain, Professor of Political Science at Vanderbilt University

Canof Sand on

re: Robert Martin (Reply button doesn’t work, so doing this)
“Showing a few well known members of congress switching to the Republican Party does not show millions in the South switching their party allegiance.”

It also completely (and in my experience, having dealt with this argument MANY times, purposefully) ignores the fact that the vast majority of Democrat politicians switched not to Republicans but to Dixiecrats and then SWITCHED BACK to Democrats.

Even left-wing-dominated Wikipedia agrees that, quoting them, “By 1950, nearly all the Dixiecrats had returned to the Democratic Party.”

Which means, statements like this…

“The solid south Dixiecrats switched from supporting the Democrats to the Republicans”

… are nonsense.

This article talks about “alternative facts” and yet the entire thing is one giant exercise in revisionist history.

Thomas DeMichele on

The conservative south is the conservative south. That doesn’t change. Southern conservatives used to be a major faction of the Democratic party up until somewhat recently (it shifted a lot between 1960 and 2000). The southern conservative base and leadership are now mostly Republicans.

This switch had a fundamental impact on both parties as it gradually happened over time.

This wasn’t the only thing that switched, but it is one notable thing.

Dixicrats were in the party in the 1960s, and in some cases all the way until very recent history. It was a slow transition.

Today though, Jeff Sessions is a Republican, not a Democrat. 60 years ago, no question he would have been a Democrat like literally all the other social conservatives from the South.

However you want to make sense of those facts is up to you.

Appreciate the comment, disagree with your stance. I doubt we would disagree on many points in terms of “what does this imply about the South, the Democrats, people, America, how the parties otherwise changed, etc,” but if your stance is the stance of the articles and videos you linked then we fundamentally disagree on how to understand our history. I stand by every word I wrote above and will happily defend any point (and admit if I am wrong in specific cases; it is a long article, not impossible there are a few things to pick apart in there).

ps. In the words of the Prager U video. The socially tolerant Republicans of the North… were socially tolerant Northerners and their allies. And in the South, Jim Crow Democrats… were Jim Crow Southerners. What party they were in at the time is only part of the story, we are more talking about certain types of people from certain regions who we can equate to those same types from those same regions today to some degree. If we blame socialist liberal progressives or elitist leftwing Republicans from Northern cities for being the Social Conservative slaveholder Rebels of the Deep South in the Civil War, we have fully mixed up our history. I get why people are confused, but the idea that we somehow write the south out of the Civil War and anti-Civil Rights (and everything in between) and just blame Democrats (especially current liberal and progressive Democrats) is completely misleading. It is like blaming George Bush for Donald Trump and confusing Jeff Sessions, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, and Roy Moore. Totally different types of leadership from different factions, in the same party.

Bill Clinton on

You are full of sh***. Strom Thurmond was the only one who switched parties, yet you lie (of course, you’re a Democrats, it’s all you shitheads do) and pretend ‘many’ switched.
Nope. Democrats becamse Dixiecrats and then went right back to being Democrats. Al Gore Sr and Robert Byrd were both KKK members and Byrd was Clinton and Bidens “friend and mentor”.

You lying pieces of sh*** are total scum bags who want to pretend you are decent… You aren’t. We know the Dems are racist pieces of sh*** and you’re just proof of it.

Thomas DeMichele on

Not to be rude, but if you read what I said rather than telling me who switched and who didn’t, you would see that I explain all of that in the article. If history was really simple and clear, I wouldn’t have bothered examining it. Basically, to re-summarize though, Southern social conservatives used to dominate the Democratic party alongside neoliberals and progressives, but over the course of the 20th century, the southern social conservative faction began being represented by and becoming representatives of the Republican policy, due to a switch in the politics of the parties and as changing the parties as a result. You can see the switch in voting maps over time, but it’s mostly reps from states winning elections and filling seats, and mostly not actually party switching. That is what I mean by switch, and that is the switch that did occur. Like it is for sure a thing, but let’s remember times have changed, and society is a whole is way more progressive and there are far less literal KKK types. So I mean I think any rational non-racist today would rush to take the modern southern social conservative over the past one. So if anything, that is probably where the best criticism against the Dems comes from. Anyway, that is how I see it, and as far as I can see how it is.

Austin Thompson on

I am keeping my comment short to get my ideas across in a short amount of time.

1. Geological trends are not an indicator of a party switch because there are more variables such as growing industry in the south

2. Despite my love for the guy Lincoln did not care about slavery, he would have allowed it some might say he was a small government republican.

3. Expanding on point 2 Lincoln only started the civil war because the south left the Union

4. The changing of party ideas slowly over time is called evolution not a magical switch

5. The parties are not able to be compared to the civil war era parties

6. Many southern states had democrat legislators until the 2000’s

7. the modern era has made all geographical trends obsolete, television and the power of the media have increased drastically those can swing geographical districts to one side

These are a few points of many that make this well researched argument pointless.

Thomas DeMichele on

SO for the record I do think those are solid counterpoints. If we sat down and went over every point and counterpoint I think we would find that so much changed that pointing to the Civil War (and in some cases even Civil Rights) era and trying to connect a straight line to either party or any group of modern people was a little bit absurd.

Instead we would probably find our history leads back to both parties and that people who are politically active today have their own ideologies that we can’t fully compare with the past.

If I was a conservative from Georgia, and I didn’t view myself as racist or having a connection to the pro-slavery or anti-civil rights movement, and I voted GOP, I would probably be more than offended by the implications of the “switch.” It isn’t how I would see myself, and I wouldn’t appreciate others seeing me that way. I get that. Also, I get that Democrats fully dismissing their history is a little too easy. there is nuance here.

In words, I’m happy to discuss nuance and to conclude that “so much has changed we can’t simply blame a modern party for the past of a given party or in cases even fully celebrate a modern party for its past achievements… not without noting the other party and the changes.”

However, while I would conclude the above, I would not accept the idea that the modern Democratic party should be equated with the Democratic party of 1860 fully. Nor would I accept the idea that the anti-Civil Rights movement of the 1960s falls squarely and only on the back of the modern Democratic party. I would in a sense reject Dinesh D’Souza’s theory and fully reject any theory that tried to equate modern Democrats with old Democrats without noting what has changed…

Does that makes sense? This page is about the changes, not about pointing fingers at the GOP and removing all blame from the Democrats.

We can say the conservative south has changed, but we can’t pretend like they moved San Francisco and started voting for Bernie Sanders. The social conservative south did not magically turn into the liberal citied north, although both the north and south and both rural and citied Americans, the parties, their leaders, and their platforms may have changed.

NOTE: I also have my own views on things like progressive policy vs. policy I find to be rooted in bigotry. And I would, all this aside, argue that in policy and in action today the modern Democratic party is acting more like the old pro-civil rights and anti-slavery groups… However, this is really a different subject (especially since one person can see an assistance program and social justice measures as a benefit and the other can see it as a negative for ideological reasons not connected the aforementioned).

David Niemeyer on

You say the parties can not be compared with respect to the civil war before and after. I suggest you compare the significant events in society along the entire timeline. I am confident you will notice that the democrats of consistently used groups as a dividing wedge against others throughout their entire history, only changing strategies when a more lucrative voting bloc was seen as viable.

Thomas DeMichele on

You could argue the same about the Republican party in any era. I can say Lincoln was the most divisive President in history for example (because a Civil War broke out under his watch), or I can say Trump’s stance on immigrants or liberals is an attempt to divide the country and that the push back by Democrats is an attempt to unite.

I’m not making the case, I’m simply trying to make a point. My point being, that what you just said boils down to opinion.

I think when you try to take an opinion (and not a policy issue) like “the Democrats always divide” and look for patterns, you get off track. There have been so many changes that trying to trace a thread like this is I don’t think helpful.

I could say “the Democrats always favor those with lower incomes (ex. poor southern farmers in the early 1800s, factory workers in the late 1800s, etc”… but then you can say “no Regan did with his tax cuts.”

There is sooo much to talk about, but it isn’t in these sort of discussions that we will find the answer.

In my opinion, your comment is closer to a talking point that a useful thread to follow. Not holding that against you, just giving you my opinion based on my research.

Deletta orange on

Well sir, you had me until you claimed that Bush was from the north and showed that picture of former president Jimmy Carter claiming it was from a collection of Clinton with the Confederate Battle Flag. Are you sure you’re a historian? I quit reading after that because I don’t have time to fact-check everything in this very long article. Two obvious mistakes and I’m out of here.

Thomas DeMichele on

George Bush was born in New Haven Connecticut and went to school at Yale in New Haven Connecticut. He Grandfather Prescott [born in Ohio; worked as an investment banker on Wall Street] was a Connecticut Senator. The Bush family are bunch of Yankees who went to school in the town next door to me growing up (i.e. New Haven)… neither I nor the Bush family are ol’ boys from the South to say the least… Look, I’m being a little snarky here, there is obviously a rich history of the Bush family in Texas (and who am I to tell someone what their identity is), but ultimately, they are as they would say in the south “a bunch of carpetbaggers” (being snarky again).

Also, Carter is ACTUALLY from the south, he is literally and actually a southerner from Georgia. If you have ever been, they have the southern flag everywhere (they, like many in the south, don’t treat it as the confederate battle flag; in fact, the old Georgia state flag had the confederate flag on it… This explains the many different pictures you can find showing Carter + confederate flag

Same deal with Clinton, someone made some pins with the flag on it to help get southerners to vote for Clinton.

Times have changed, they really have in some ways, in other ways they haven’t changed much (ex. Yankees going down south to rule over southerners)… but alas, this is the point of the page and impact I hope the fact-checked facts I’m trying to convey illustrate.

In simple terms, I made no mistake, you simply decided I did and used it as an excuse to ignore the content of the page. I get it, but I challenge you to come back and fact-check. If you can show I am wrong with citation, I’ll happily make the correction. I’m not infallible, I am simply making an attempt to present researched fact. Cheers!

myth buster on

“Conservative” is relative to the status quo. Republicans are on the side of Justice. When the status quo is that certain persons are deprived of their natural rights under color of law, Justice is revolutionary. When the status quo is equality before the law, Justice is adamantly conservative.