@JamesMorrison,
Yes, JamesMorrison, I realize it's been over a month since you posted this comment. Ordinarily, I wouldn't have bothered posting; but you make a particular characterization of a political nature that I must address.
Before I continue, let me say that I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican. Because of particular issues, I cannot support either of the two major political parties because I would have to violate my conscience to do so. I have no use for the Libertarians, either. In fact, I've largely given up on politics. Several months ago I stopped reading syndicated columns in the local daily. I even voted for McCain in 2008 (but now wished I hadn't voted at all). In fact, I've given up on voting. (Hey, I live in Texas, one of the reddest states in the country. Every elected official where I live is a Republican. There is no political competitiveness. What's the point?) In other words, I don't have an axe to grind here; but there is a particular claim of a historical nature that I find to be absolutely outrageous and that I feel compelled to refute.
JamesMorrison wrote:Define 'deep south'. Just because I identified as a registered Democrat does not mean that I agree with those southern Liberal Democrats that opposed the abolition of slavery, wanted gun control (disarming of blacks), pushed Jim Crow laws, opposed desegregation, and opposed both the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts.
I'm glad that you support civil rights laws. But your label "southern Liberal Democrats" is outrageous. It's like saying "democratic Nazis" or "democratic Communists." In the realm of politics, the naming of political parties frequently is meaningless. In other words, the party label is nothing more than a label that may have one meaning for an earlier generation, but may have a completely different meaning several generations down the line. What I've always done is view American politics in terms of ideology. In other words, I've wanted to know what the record of political liberalism is and what the record of political conservatism is.
I'm a 63-year-old man who grew up in the state of Texas. Observers of the state's politics would say that Texas had
three political parties: the conservative Democrats, the liberal Democrats, and the Republicans. In the late 1980s, conservative Democrats (encouraged by President Reagan) joined the Republican Party, with the result today that the state is dominated by conservative Republicans and the liberal Democrats are shut off from power on the state level.
Likewise, the two major politic parties haven't remained static over a period of generations. From the early 1950s through the 1970s, both parties had a left wing and a right wing. Yes, there were liberal Republicans, the so-called "Rockefeller Republicans" -- who were bitterly opposed by the conservative Republicans (such as William Buckley, Barry Goldwater, Phylis Schlafly, Ronald Reagan, etc., etc.) In the mid 1960s, both parties began to undergo a process of polarization. The Southern segregationist conservative Democrats began to join the Republican Party, as leading Republicans such as Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon pursued a "Southern strategy." So, today both parties basically consist of only one wing. The Democratic Party really doesn't have a conservative wing; and, likewise, there no longer is a liberal wing of the Republican Party.
The so-called "deep South" has always been a hotbed of conservatism
regardless of the party label. The truth of the matter is that Jim Crow was a conservative initiative while the civil rights movement was a liberal initiative -- which is to their credit, historically speaking. Before he supposedly repented of his segregationist stance, George Wallace repeated railed against whom? Did he rail against conservatives? No, he railed against them liberals. The Ku Klux Klan, which predated European fascism, was (and is) a conservative movement. I would challenge anyone to point out a single liberal issue (other than being pro-civil rights) that has been supported by the KKK.
I feel very strongly about this because I grew up under Jim Crow and witnessed just how terrible it was. I've also known several men of the World War II generation (both white Texans) who publicly opposed racial discrimination in the early 1950s, which took a great deal of courage. In fact, I'd say they were cut from the same cloth as Andrei Sakharov. One of them, who was an attorney who represented black Americans in discrimination lawsuits, repeatedly received death threats. On the other hand, I don't know of a single leading conservative who ever condemned Jim Crow and supported civil rights legislation.
So, in conclusion, I say that I don't mean to be confrontational; and I'm certainly not going to engage in name-calling. But your identification of white Southern segregationists as "southern Liberal democrats" is both ludicrous and outrageous.
Incidentally, the U.S. Supreme Court recently gutted the Voting Rights Act. All the Justices who ruled against the Voting Rights Act were conservative Republicans. Image that! (sarcasm intended)