The Famous and Infamous Party Switch Debate
Spoiler: It's a distraction.
The question of whether there was a party switch in the south from Democrat to Republican is a topic of ongoing, often heated debate between the American right and left today. The historical context of this debate dates back to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, when Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 into law. The aim of these landmark pieces of legislation was to end racial discrimination and segregation in the United States.
The argument on the Republican side is that Democrats were the real racists from the time of slavery and have simply changed the way they engage in racism from overt manifestations like slavery, the Ku Klux Klan, and Jim Crow to more subtle expressions of racism like affirmative action, welfare programs, and lowering of educational standards in the name of equity. Democrats assert that Republicans have always been racist and hate measures like affirmative action, welfare programs ,and lowering of educational requirements because they hate black people.
Some conservatives believe there was never a party switch, but I fail to see the logic behind this argument. There was indeed a party switch. The real question isn’t whether but why.
History You Probably Never Learned in School
The Republican party was born in 1854 when northern leaders rallied in opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which would allow for the first expansion of slavery to new territories and states since the division of the US into free and slave states in the Missouri Compromise. It’s worth noting that this wasn’t the same as advocating for equal rights for blacks. The political realities these leaders had to contend with wouldn’t allow for what at that time would have been an overly ambitious and unrealistic legislative agenda.
However, during the Civil War and Reconstruction era, the Republican party became associated with the cause of emancipation and civil rights for blacks. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, known as the Reconstruction Amendments, which abolished slavery, granted citizenship and equal protection under the law to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and protected the right to vote regardless of race, were the brain children of so-called “Radical Republicans.”
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Republican, signed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which was primarily a voting rights bill. President Richard L. Nixon, a Republican, also supported civil rights for African Americans, including signing and executive order extending affirmative action in federal employment. These two instances alone throw into serious doubt the narrative of historical institutional racism of the Republican party. The platform on which conservatives support Republican candidates has changed since the early days of the civil rights victories of the 1950s and 1960s, but the accusations of racism are dubious.
Republicans point to the party's historic support for civil rights as evidence that it has always been committed to promoting equal rights and opportunities for all Americans, regardless of race. However, unfairly maligning the Republican party as racist or anti-civil rights has been the norm for many years. This is partly due to the actions of a few prominent members, such as former Senator Strom Thurmond and former Louisiana Governor David Duke, who were both Democrats before joining the Republican party.
Uncovering the Gems
Because of its highly contentious nature, I’ve found this topic inordinately difficult to research. Attempting to separate truth from biased opinion and even blatant lies has forced me to pour over more material than I can even remember reading. In my quest, however, I came across three sources that I strongly feel elucidate the true nature of the party switch quite nicely.
Carol Swain
In one of Prager University’s many excellent “5-Minute Videos,” retired Vanderbilt University political science and law professor Dr. Carol Swain, argues against the notion that the two major political parties in the United States switched their stances on civil rights. She begins the video by saying:
Once upon a time, every student of history—and that meant pretty much everyone with a high school education—knew this: The Democratic party was the party of slavery and Jim Crow, and the Republican party was the party of emancipation and racial integration. Democrats were the Confederacy, and Republicans were the Union. Jim Crow Democrats were dominant in the South, and socially tolerant Republicans were dominant in the North.
Dr. Swain, a former Democrat, states that in the 1960s and 70s, left-leaning academic elites and journalists propagated a myth that Republicans became the racists, and Democrats became the champions of civil rights. She breaks down this myth into three separate misconceptions:
1. In order to be competitive in the South, Republicans started pandering to white racists in the 1960s: Dr. Swain refutes this idea by presenting historical evidence showing that Republicans were already competitive in the South as early as 1928 when Herbert Hoover won almost 50% of the popular vote against Al Smith. Dwight Eisenhower also won several southern states in 1952 and 1956, despite being a Republican who supported the desegregation of schools and the enforcement of integration.
2. Southern Democrats, who were angry with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, switched parties to become Republicans: Dr. Swain debunks this idea by pointing out that only one of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the Civil Rights Act became a Republican, while the rest continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by other Democrats. Furthermore, she highlights that on average, it took more than two decades for these seats to go Republican, indicating that the switch was not immediate.
3. Since the implementation of the "Southern Strategy," the Republicans have dominated the South: Dr. Swain contests this notion by pointing out that Richard Nixon, who is credited with creating the Southern Strategy, lost the Deep South in 1968. In contrast, Democrat Jimmy Carter nearly swept the region in 1976, over a decade after the Civil Rights Act was passed. Moreover, Bill Clinton, a Democrat, won several southern states in 1992, more than 30 years after the Civil Rights Act.
Dr. Swain then suggests that the reason for the South's shift towards voting Republican is not racism, as many claim, but rather changing values such as being pro-life, pro-gun, and pro-small government. She notes that Southern whites are more likely to vote for a black conservative, such as Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, than a white liberal, indicating that skin color is not the determining factor in their voting decisions. She concludes by dismissing the myth of the Southern Strategy as a way for Democrats to smear Republicans with the label of being racist and argues that this is not true.
Ben Shapiro
In an opinion piece on The Daily Wire, renowned conservative political commentator and media personality Ben Shapiro submits that the popular notion that the Republican party hijacked racism while the Democratic party abandoned it is a claim that lacks solid evidence. The argument is often centered around the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the gradual shift of the South from the Democratic to the Republican camp. However, according to Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin, the shift in the South was mainly driven by economic growth rather than race. This means that the movement toward Republicanism in the South began in the 1950s as the region industrialized, and racial loyalties didn’t spark it exclusively.
According to Shapiro, the available data shows that working-class whites and blacks remained loyal to the Democratic party until the 1990s. Furthermore, the shift towards Republicanism in the South was more prevalent among wealthy southerners, who shifted rightward in droves. For instance, in the 1950s, among southerners in the low-income bracket, only 43% voted for Republican presidential candidates, while in the highest income bracket, 53% voted Republican. However, by the 1980s, these figures increased to 51% and 77%, respectively.
Experts like Sean Trende of Real Clear Politics have also confirmed that the Republican party gradually increased its support in the South from 1928 to 2010. This means that if lock-step white voting loyalties on racial lines had driven the partisan realignment, the South would have had Republican majorities in the late 60s.
Moreover, continues Shapiro, the historical record shows that it was the Democratic party that had a problematic history with racism, segregation, and Jim Crow laws. The party had deep roots in the agricultural South, and it was far less cosmopolitan and racially tolerant than the Republican party. The Ku Klux Klan was the armed wing of the Democratic party in the South for decades, and it was Southern Democrats who fought against the civil rights movement for the most part.
On the other hand, the Republican party was founded as an abolitionist party and repeatedly attempted to end things like Jim Crow. For instance, it was President Dwight Eisenhower who was attempting to forcibly integrate the schools, and Ulysses S. Grant who was pushing for Radical Republican reconstructionism.
Shapiro concludes that, while the notion that the Republican party hijacked racism and the Democratic party abandoned it has become a popular talking point, the available evidence contradicts this claim. Economic growth, rather than race, was the main factor behind the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican, and the historical record shows that it was the Democratic party that had a problematic history with racism and segregation. Conversely, the Republican party has a history of attempting to end racial discrimination, and it played a crucial role in passing significant civil rights legislation.
Thomas Sowell
I’ve known of this brilliant conservative economist and social theorist for some time but have only recently begun to discover how valuable his work is. He’s now one of my heroes. No study of economics, culture, political philosophy, or race relations is complete, or even adequate, without the input of Dr. Thomas Sowell. A prolific writer, his work deserves a place in every library and, in my opinion, should be required reading in any American school curriculum.
Dr. Sowell’s views on the issue of racism in the Republican and Democratic parties are highly nuanced, firmly balanced, and exquisitely refreshing. He has argued that both parties have a history of racism but that it’s a mistake to see racism as the defining feature of either party. He has pointed out that the Democratic party has a history of racism dating back to its support of slavery and segregation in the South, while the Republican party has a history of opposition to those practices, but that these historical legacies don’t necessarily reflect the current views of either party.
On the one hand, Dr. Sowell has also been critical of what he sees as the tendency of some on the left to downplay or excuse the failures of Democratic policies aimed at promoting racial equality, while attributing any disparities to systemic racism. He has argued that this approach doesn’t promote true progress, but instead perpetuates a victim mentality among minority communities.
At the same time, Dr. Sowell has also criticized some conservative voices for being too dismissive of the ongoing impact of racism in American society and for ignoring the need for policies that address the legacies of past discrimination. He has argued that the focus should be on policies that promote economic and social mobility for all, rather than on identity politics.
Overall, Thomas Sowell's work emphasizes the importance of personal responsibility, education, and culture in addressing the challenges the black community faces. He’s critical of government policies that he believes have contributed to the breakdown of the black family and perpetuated poverty, and he argues that solutions to these problems must come from within the community, rather than from outside forces.
Turning the Page
The debate over whether a party switch occurred in the past is ultimately unimportant. Rather than wrangling over the history of racism in one or both parties, the focus should be on the policies and ideas of today.
To be clear, I believe the modern Democratic party still harbors racist policies and ideas, despite the public rhetoric to the contrary from party leaders. The Democratic party's preoccupation with identity politics and emphasis on social welfare programs and affirmative action actually harm minorities by perpetuating a victim mentality, providing special treatment based on race rather than merit, and creating a culture of dependence on government assistance, rather than promoting self-reliance and personal responsibility.
It’s true that the Democratic party has historically had a complicated relationship with racism, and many of its policies and leaders in the past were horrendous in their treatment of black Americans. However, it’s also true that the party has evolved and shifted over time, and many modern-day Democrats are sincerely committed to addressing racial inequality and promoting civil rights, however misguided their policy stances might be.
While I’m convinced that there are elements within the Democratic establishment who continue to use the promises of failed Democratic policies to cling to power, proponents of these policies are generally well meaning. However, the course of history has shown us beyond a doubt that the results of Democratic policies ultimately don’t live up to their intent. They have led to high rates of poverty and crime in many inner-city communities and have not provided the economic opportunities and upward mobility that all Americans regardless of color need to succeed.
Debating the history of the famed party switch, while interesting and even entertaining to undertake—I’m looking at you (and myself), fellow tweeps—distracts from the real issues at hand. We must judge the policies of both major parties on their own merits, rather than through the lens of past historical events. Our focus should be on policy debates that directly affect the black community, such as education reform, criminal justice reform, and economic empowerment.
Granted, knowledge of history matters a very great deal, but the party switch debate now strikes me as counterproductive when at its root is really the argument over race relations in the present. In this case, by moving our attention away from the past and towards the present, we can better equip ourselves to work towards a better future for all Americans, regardless of their race or political affiliation.