Sunday, September 02, 2012

The Parties Switched Sides/Names in the 60's Meme

I keep hearing people say "the parties switched sides in the 60's" when it comes to the issue of civil rights and racism. Everybody just nods in agreement.  The first time I heard this I didn't know how to respond to it. I tried my hand at it in "The Party of Racism" post, but didn't quite get it right (I may just go back and revise it now). But it came up again today, and the proper response sprang into my head like a cat on a field mouse. See, no explanation is given to how or why the parties supposedly "switched sides". "Everybody knows" it's true. But how does "everybody know" that?

Same reason we "know" so many other things that just aren't so. The people who promote the idea repeat it until over and over and over again until it takes root and gains a life of it's own. People have forgotten. The Republican party was established as a party in opposition to slavery. It took the name "Republican" in recognition that this is not Democracy, but a Republic which uses Democracy as one of its tools. And in 1965, the party was largely responsible for the passage of the 1964/1965 Civil Rights Act.

The idea that they then did a 180 in just a couple of years is absurd. Why, just a few years after 80% of Republicans (vs 64% of Democrats) voted for the Civil Rights Bill of 1965 would they suddenly say, "nope, screw it, we were wrong ... they were right. Let's get back to the racial oppression the Democrats institutionalized over the previous 100 years that we fought so hard against"?

As long as rights are based on race, whatever the race, it's not equal protection under the law... which is the principle. When it just becomes a way to get your Not A Racist for the Next 4 Years™ card punched by doing things that highlight and underscore race rather than you know, treat all men equally ... it's gonna be what it is today. Post Racial my a**. Racial is the bread and butter of the Democrats, followed closely by Gender. Division is the the tool. Divide and conquer.

No comments: