In part 1 of “But…the Democrat Party Changed”, I ended the tidbit by refuting the Democrat’s false claim that the two parties switched positions regarding race: Racist Democrats became the now racist Republicans, and the former non-racist Republicans became the present-day non-racist Democrats.
  However, what I failed to address is the contemporary Democrat evidence for their “the parties switched’ claim. And, what is that evidence? Republican President Richard Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy’. Democrats falsely claim that beginning with Nixon’s Presidential campaign, his ‘Southern Strategy’ helped to turn the South from Democrat to Republican. Furthermore, they claim that Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy’ hit its peak during Republican President Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980, and reelection in 1984. In other words, according to contemporary Democrats, the ‘Southern Strategy’ was the blueprint, and its fruit was the South turning Republican during Ronald Reagan’s election victories.
1.
The question now needing an explanation is because it was true that the South almost completely turned Republican during Ronald Reagan’s presidency (1980, 1984) did that turn begin with Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy’ (1968, 1972)? And, how do I refute this?
  First, please re-read the final point of part 1, which uses the ‘Cub-White Sox’ analogy rejecting the idea that rivals can switch places. Second, in order for the “Big Switch” to be true beginning in 1968 and climaxing in 1980, Democrats unwittingly have admitted that prior to at least 1968 they were responsible for the massive White Supremacy that existed dating back to the Civil War!!! This means they indict themselves as the party that created slavery; KKK; lynchings; Jim Crow; and opposed the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments which ended slavery, established Civil Rights, and Voting rights for Blacks--- all of which happened prior to 1968!
 Furthermore, their self-indictment includes the fact that they were still the party of racism when the 1964 and 1965 Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts were passed! In other words, by placing a date on the ‘Southern Strategy’ of 1968, Democrats must fess up to their racism prior to, and through 1968!
 2.
Second, how did the South become Republican after Nixon & Reagan? This is a more difficult answer, not because it cannot be answered, but because it is more complex, i.e.having many variables.
i.
  The first Democrat lie needing exposure regarding Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy’ is that to win the South Democrats claim Nixon used racist “dog whistles”; by which they mean he spoke in some kind of code to the White Supremacists in the South! First, historian, apologist, and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza eloquently responds, 
     “Is it plausible that Nixon figured out how to communicate with Deep
       South racists in a secret language? Do Deep South bigots, like dogs,
      have some kind of heightened awareness of racial messages --
      messages that are somehow indecipherable to the media and the
       rest of the country?”1*
  Moreover, in 1968, George Wallace ran for President as a pro-segregationist and won five deep south states where White supremacy was most prevalent: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi. He won 9,901,118 votes out of a possible nationwide total of 73,199,998 2*, which amounted to 13.53% of the total votes cast in the presidential election. Wallace, although he was a life-long Democrat, officially ran as the presidential candidate for the American Independent party3*. Hubert Humphrey was the official Democrat candidate.
  My point is that the folly of this Democrat accusation is revealed in the fact that Nixon did not even win the deep south where Wallace was the candidate of choice with White racists! If Nixon did in fact send “dog whistles”, the Southern White Democrat racists were obviously not listening!!!
ii.
  ‘Another’ of the many variables D’Souza cites to refute the Democrat’s view of Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy’ is that the Democrat South began to shift to Republicans under President Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956, as he won two landslide victories over Democrat Adlai Stevenson II. Republican Dwight Eisenhower lost 9 total states, all southern states in 1952; and in 1956 he lost 7 total states, once again, all southern states. Of course, the states he lost were the most racist southern states!! This is significant because Republican Eisenhower won the presidency before the start of the Civil Rights movement of the mid-1960s. This is further evidence that the South was ‘beginning’ its move away from its Democrat deep-seated racism--as they turned to the Republican Party4* ….which ironically, and according to their own Democrat propaganda, establishes that they had not yet switched!
iii.
  Yet another variable D’Souza cites that Democrats use as evidence to blame Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy’ instead indicts Democrat Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon Baines Johnson.
  First, Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt won the presidency in 1932 which was at the apex of Democrat White Supremacy and lynchings in the South. I’m sorry to report that in spite of the horrible conditions imposed on Blacks at this time by White Democrat racism, Blacks still gave the Democrat party 35% of their vote in 1932, and an astonishing 75% in 19365*. How could this happen? As a whole, Blacks were still extremely poor and were still unable to overcome the systemic White Democrat racism embedded in Southern culture. So, when FDR offered money to Blacks through his ‘New Deal’, to survive, Blacks turned to the party of their lynchings! In short, FDR’s ‘New Deal’ handed poor Blacks free money for their votes!
  Now, on to Democrat President LBJ’s contribution.  D’Souza cites multiple biographers who offer irrefutable evidence that LBJ was a monstrous racist! Why then would LBJ sign the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Because he had a plan to finish the work started by FDR’s ‘New Deal’, that would both continue and further establish the movement of Blacks turning their support and loyalty to the Democrat party! And, what was that deal? LBJ’s ‘Great Society’, which in effect, repeated FDR’s ‘New Deal’…paying Blacks for their allegiance to the Democrat party!!!
  Confirming LBJ’s plan for Black people, as well as his racism, on page 33 of  “Inside The White House”, LBJ’s biographer Ronald Kessler, writes:
“Johnson, like other presidents, would reveal his true motivation in asides that the press never picked up. During one trip, Johnson was discussing his proposed civil rights bill with two governors. Explaining why it was so important to him, he said it was simple. “I’ll have them niggers voting Democrat for two hundred years.” “That was the reason he was pushing the bill, said MacMillian, who was present during the conversation. “Not because he wanted equality for everyone. It was strictly a political ploy for the Democrat party. He was phony from the word go.”6*
  In other words, out of near complete destitution and desperation imposed upon them by the Democrat Party, Blacks did not switch from Republicans to present-day Democrats because the Democrats were in favor of racial equality, but because they were paid!!!
iv.
  It is completely disingenuous at best, and a ‘Big Lie’ at worst for Democrats to declare that the parties switched places because the South is now Republican! In reality, even though the South is presently primarily Republican does not mean racism is the reason!!! When White Democrat Supremacy was dominating the South, literally thousands of Blacks and Whites were beat-up and lynched to keep the Democrat party in power---which is irrefragable racism!!
  However, to this day, the election percentages between a Democrat or a Republican victory in many of the South’s most historically rabid racist states reveal that both Democrats and Republicans strongly compete for those spots!! For example, as far back as 2008, in America’s historically most racist states, Black former President Barack Obama won 38.7% in his loss in Alabama; he won 47% of the vote in his loss in Georgia; he won 43% in his loss in Mississippi; he won 39.9% in losing Louisiana; and he won 44.9% in a loss in South Carolina.7* 
  And, in 2012, Obama won 38.4% of the vote in his loss in Alabama; he won 45.5% in his loss in Georgia; he won 43.8% in his loss in Mississippi; he won 39.9% in his loss in Louisiana, and he won 44.1% in his loss in South Carolina.8*
  My point is, in the Southern states where racism was most rampant, Democrat Black President Obama still lost by only a few percentage points in 2008 and 2012. This reveals that the election percentage results cannot be used to determine racism! Why? Because regardless of who now wins an election in the South—either Democrat or Republican--the election percentages are almost always close!9*
  Therefore, because Republicans are winning the South now, is no evidence that Republicans are racist, any more than the Democrats are racist if they win the South in 2024!! On the contrary, for Democrats to pin racism on the Republicans because they are now winning the South simply demonstrates the Democrat party’s abject hypocrisy!! My point is, in today’s America racism cannot be determined by the South voting either Democrat or Republican!
  In conclusion, how about considering another more reasonable answer? Of course, the idea that the two parties switched places on race is completely absurd for all the aforementioned reasons! On the contrary, however, a much better explanation is that as the South has become less racist, it has become less Democrat. Remember, it was the Republicans who freed the slaves, fought for Civil Rights, and passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments during the Reconstruction period…and thereafter!
 
 
1* https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/402754-the-myth-of-nixons-southern-strategy/
2*This number was not the total of the southern votes, but of the national votes.
3*This does not mean the Democrats in those states were not racist. Remember, it was the
   Democrat Party that passed the segregation policy in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896.
4*Death of a Nation, Dinesh D’Souza, St. Martin’s Press, New York, N.Y., pgs 179-242.
5* Death of a Nation, Dinesh D’Souza, St. Martin’s Press, New York, N.Y., pg 201
6*https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/lJzyIZNE2sC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=two%20
  hundred%20years
7* https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/elections/2008
8* https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/elections/2012
9*See the other elections for president, the races are nearly always close in voting percentages going back to the Civil War!!! https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/elections/2008
 
Quotebit
You will either stand for Jesus, or you will stand for all He died to repudiate. -George Barna
 

 

When challenged about the ‘irrefutable’ & ‘undeniable’ ‘racist’ history of the Democrat Party, contemporary Democrats, especially Black Democrats, have one or more of four responses:
            1.They ignore you and change the subject.
            2.They begin to cite problems with the Republican party.
            3.They declare, “I’ve been a Democrat all my life”
            4.“But…the Democrat Party has changed!”
 
Let’s address these responses.
1.They ignore you and change the subject. This is the most benign response by contemporary Democrats. When the racist history of Democrats is interjected into a conversation, they will either express shock because they are unaware of their party’s racist past or they will simply declare: “I don’t want to talk about it!” and walk away.
   However, after Donald Trump was elected president and Democrats became increasingly more angry, this first response has become rare.
 
2.They begin to cite problems with the Republican party.  First, this response assumes the person who cites problems with the Democrat party is a Republican. On the contrary, a person who cites problems with the Democrat party does not have to be a Republican. Because our nation usually votes either Democrat or Republican, does not mean only two political parties exist. There are many people who have problems with Democrat policy positions who are not Republicans.
   Second, citing problems with the Republican party does not answer arguments against the Democrat party’s racist past—this is simply rationalization to ‘save face’ from having to deal with the authentic Democrat racist history.
   Third, to cite problems with ‘both’ parties does not give license to ignore the problems of the Democrat party, declaring: “Well, both parties have problems!” This is emotional thinking, not rational thinking.
   Fourth, ironically, one problem Democrats cite against the Republicans is: “Republicans are racist!” I find this response one of the most incredible statements made against Republicans by a Democrat. This is your typical ‘pot-calling-the-kettle-black’ response! The Democrat Party did not invent racism, but as I have shown in this series, they surely perfected it!
   Fifth, certainly the Republican Party also has problems because political parties are comprised of imperfect people—but that is not the point! The question is about the Democrat Party’s past racism! And, those who are presently the loudest, i.e.Democrats; who hypocritically declare everything and everyone racist but themselves, are ‘THE’ very people who have been, and still are…the most racist!
 
3.“I’ve been a Democrat all my life!” First, ‘tradition’ is no excuse for retaining allegiance to a political party that has for decades been unashamed and is still unashamed of its racist past (which by the way, is the reason they still deny it). Second, I have Black relatives who are from Alabama, formerly known for its rabid racism. When I point out the hypocrisy of their Democrat allegiance, completely devoid of any reason or rationale, they often use this very statement on me:“I’ve been a Democrat all my life!”,
   This answer reminds me of the Pharisees of whom Jesus said, “…and so you cancel the word of God for the sake of your own tradition” (Mat15:6-NLT). In other words, if ‘tradition’ is so powerful that it can nullify the Word of God, it can also keep a Black person bound to ‘THE’ political party who recently lynched their Alabama relatives!
 
4.“But…the Democrat Party has changed!”  Although I have found this sentiment most often used by ‘educated’ Democrats, i.e.people with degrees, I find this statement laughable but typical of people who attempt to justify their ignorance at best or hypocrisy at worst!
   First, because Democrats are serious when making the above statement, one must laugh to keep from crying at its utter absurdity! Second, they use one statement as evidence for the “Democrats-have-changed” myth: “the two parties switched places”. In other words, they argue: the past racist Democrats became today’s Republican racists, and the past Republicans who, by the way, fought for equality of race, have now become the contemporary ‘equality-seeking’ Democrats!!!
   When I hear the “two-parties-switched-places” argument, I simply inquire: “how could this have happened?” or “Please give me the logistics of such a move?” Of course, these are rhetorical questions, so I just answer my own questions by using what I call my: ‘Cubs-White Sox’ analogy.
   Nearly every person in the Chicago area who follows sports is aware of the ‘Cubs-White Sox’ rivalry; which has been a staple of the city for decades!! Not only do the Cubs and Sox hate each other, their fans are often worse!
   First, the Cubs-Sox rivalry is not even in the same universe as the animosity between Democrats and Republicans. I know of no fan murdered in the heat of the oft Cubs-Sox fan arguments, but history is replete with literally thousands of Republicans murdered by Democrats!!!! Yet, the Cubs-Sox rivalry presents a perfect analogy for my point; how? Because of the nature of rivalries…any rivalry…it is nearly impossible for rivals to ever switch sides; and the rivalry between the Cubs and Sox fans certainly follows suit! However, where my Cubs-Sox analogy shines brightest is that, if a Cubs fan does switch to the Sox, he is welcomed with open arms as an ‘Enlightened One’! However, because that Cubs fan switches to the Sox, does not mean any Sox fan is going to switch to the Cubs! That is ‘more than’ absurd!
   This is a perfect analogy of the absurdity of Democrats and Republicans switching places! If it were true that the ‘past racist Democrats became the contemporary Republicans’, why on ‘God’s-green-earth’ would the slavery-ending Republicans, who were lynched by Democrats, ever switch to the very party who lynched them?!?!!?
 
May God have mercy!
 
QuoteBit
Like virtues in the culture, repentance has been cancelled in the church.
                          -Derrick Jackson