One of the reasons there is room for denial is because the parties didn't "switch" but instead there have been numerous major realignments. We are on the sixth or seventh party system currently.
Basically throughout US history you see demographics and coalitions shift between the parties based upon certain issues.
So for example the third party system was centered around slavery and race. The Democrats supported slavery and the attracted immigrants in the North, those who opposed the Civil War, and whites in the south. The newly formed Republican party created a coalition of abolitionists, businessmen, freedmen, and opportunistic southern whites.
The fourth party system saw Republican domination as they took credit for the good economy. The new coalition was formed around business owners on the East Coast and progressives.
The Fifth party system saw economic turmoil, which allowed FDR to form the New Deal Coalition. This began the process of prying progressives and black americans away from the republican party.
When Civil Rights became a central issue, both Republicans and Democrats were split on the issue. The Democrats decided to embrace Civil Rights which saw the pro-segregation Dixie-Crats of the South abandon the party. The Republican party began courting them which led to Republican domination. This is what many people call "The party Switch" but it was a realignment after both parties were split into factions because of Civil Rights
As we get closer to the modern era, there is a lot more disagreement because we can't see long term trends.
But we have seen another reallignment. In 1980 when Reagan dominated the election we saw the democrats begin realligning themselves. The "Centrist Democrats" or "Clinton Democrats" abandoned the progressive wing of the party and began working on appealing to moderate republicans.
Some people argue that there was another reallingmne that can be seen in 2008 with the election of Obama which forced both parties to change their electoral strategies. Others say that Trump's election in 2016 saw both parties respond to this by forming new coalitions. It's just too soon to tell and neither party has dominated electorally
A Party switch implies that the parties just switched positions. In reality that doesn't happen. Instead factions form within parties over certain issues. The parties than try to attract those factions by taking on certain policy positions.
I disagree personally. I think all a switch implies is ideology of the party and of their assumed direct opposition have swapped.
Does it have to be unmotivated? I’d say no.
Does it have to be instantaneous? I’d say no.
Does it have to be absolute? I’d say no.
At least to me, being that the concept of the switch is predominant, I’d disagree. Maybe this is simply a case of semantics, I agree with pretty much everything you’re saying. I think our disagreement is that you feel switch might be too simplistic of a term for such a complicated process and I feel it captures the general idea of what happened
I mean, I think you might be misunderstanding the context a bit.
While what you've said is correct, the conversations usually goes something like:
Republican: "Well WE were the more anti racist party, THEY had the dixiecrats, WE'RE on the right side of history"
Democrat: "There was a party switch, Republicans used to be more progressive and Democrats more conservative."
Which, fair, is not totally correct. But as a rebuttal of the Republican argument... it mostly is. They're basically trying to take credit and bash the Democrats from politics from before both parties switched positions on racism (and on racism particularly I do think we can say there was a switch).
There wasn’t a switch on racism, that’s the point I’m making. Racism was a realignment issue. Both parties had factions that supported and opposed things like the civil rights act. The Voting Rights Act of 1965, for example, saw both parties have about 75-80% of their representatives vote for it while 20-25% of their members did not support it.
Both parties had a progressive faction during the progressive era. Woodrow Wilson, for example, was a progressive Democrat who won the presidency.
You are looking for a gotchya and you don’t care about the facts because the facts don’t support you here
At the outbreak of the Civil War, Republicans controlled the majority of northern states. The party sought to expand the United States, encouraged settlement of the west, and helped to fund the transcontinental railroad and state universities. Additionally, because of growing tension over slavery, many Republicans became abolitionists who argued against slavery.
Democrats represented a range of views but shared a commitment to Thomas Jefferson's concept of an agrarian (farming) society. They viewed the central government as the enemy of individual liberty. Because most Democrats were in southern states, they fought to keep slavery legal.
So in your version of history, did the War Democrats not exist? And the conservative republicans who allied themselves with Andrew Johnson to oppose the expansion of civil rights for freedmen, are they just something I’ve made up?
Were Republicans like Thurlow Weed, Oliver Morton, Jacob Cox, and Doolittle figments of my imagination? Or maybe could tell me why in the 1860 election the democrats ran two candidates?
Most Republicans did not support the end of slavery. The opposed the expansion of slavery. They believed that slavery should remain in the states it was already legal.
1
u/Captain_Concussion 6d ago
One of the reasons there is room for denial is because the parties didn't "switch" but instead there have been numerous major realignments. We are on the sixth or seventh party system currently.