Anda di halaman 1dari 3

In response to this video:

So, Neal, I watched the full video and discussed it with my brother. We agree with
some postulates that DSouza makes, but we think he has some large errors in his
logic. From what I gather DSouzas argument is that there was not switch of
racists between the Dems and the GOP in the 1960s as is commonly claimed. If
that is not the argument, please tell me because I am basing my analysis on that
form of his argument.
Therefore, I am going to go through the video and discuss certain claims Mr.
DSouza makes.
First claim @ 00:10: Mr. DSouza claims the Democrats say they became racially
enlightened and became the good guys and the racists in the party all became
Republicans. This is, therefore, backed up by three claims (1) Blacks became
democrats (2) southern whites became Republicans (3) Strom Thurmond, a racist
Democrat, became a Republican.
DSouza claims (0:44) that (1) is because of the New Deal and the economic
promises the Democratic Party made under FDR. It has nothing to do with race.
They did so knowing they were joining the overtly racist party. At 1:00 DSouza says
the Southern Dems moved to the party in the 1970s because the South became
more economically prosperous. Then he says racism had declined dramatically in
the south (1:09).
Therefore, I am going to respond to these claims. Firstly, Blacks did not change
party affiliation to Republicans en masse until the 1960s, as seen from this graph
created from census and electoral data:
This fact seems to contradict DSouzas claim that the Black switch was because of
FDRs presidency. Obviously the trend begins in the 1960s, but even through the
40s, Blacks identified with the GOP more. DSouzas point is accurate at the
presidential level, to be fair. In addition, this is because of the Black New Deal FDR
proposed and provided. This does not seem to be a racial movement, as much of
America leaned Democratically during the New Deal, so Blacks werent the only
demographic affected.
The second claim is more egregious. DSouzas proposal that Southern Whites
became Republicans because of the increasing economic prosperity does not mesh
with the facts on the ground. The South and Appalachia have always been
Americas poorest regions. Even today. Not much changed, economically, between
1960-1990s in the South. The only areas in the South that prospered were cities,
such as Atlanta, Charlotte, parts of Florida, Nashville, and etcetera. These areas,
though, are overwhelmingly Democratic, even today. There was no change in the
prosperous areas of the South. The part of the South that was poor and still is poor
did change to the GOP, especially in federal elections.

My last point is incredibly important Federal Democrats and State Democrats are
vastly different, especially in the South (I would argue this is to a larger degree then
state/federal differences in the GOP). The Southern State Democratic Parties have
remained conservative. This is evident in N. Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky. All of
these states have had in the recent past Democratic State legislators, governors,
etcetera, but vote increasingly Republican and conservative. So simply put,
generally, Federal Democrats are progressive, liberal, and Local State Democrats
are conservative. This also explains DSouzas graph of who switched later in the
video. In addition, the claim that the South became less racist, so more Republican,
is backed up with what statistics or research other than anecdotal evidence? Its
hard to quantify that (Im not denying it is way, way better than the 1960s, but the
1970s were not dramatically different then 5 or 10 years prior). The less racist ->
more Republican is a hard thing to claim, especially when the more racially
accepting parts of the South are more Democratic. It does not stack up. At 1:32 he
says that the most racist whites stayed in the Democratic Party. As I stated before
they may have stayed registered Democratic, but overwhelmingly vote Republican
at the Federal level (Senators, Representatives, President). I also wonder why the
white southerners would choose to join the Republican Party for the same reasons
Blacks joined the Democratic Party, thirty years prior. There was be a reason for
switching to opposite parties outside of the economic message.
At 2:00 is my largest problem with this video. DSouza lays out a map of the United
States and shows all Southern Democrats and if they switched to the Republican
Party or not. Then he reveals only 15 or so out of the 1600. There are multiple major
flaws in this presentation, which follows:
1. Some Democrats actually did see the light on racism and became better people
(see the final years of George Wallace or Robert Byrd).
2. He includes ALL Democratic senators from 1860 onward. South Democratic
Senators who were Senators in 1860 were born in the 1810s and could not possibly
be around for the big switch in the 1930s all the way to the 70s and 80s. Remove
those senators (ones not in Congress during the 1960s-1980s) the map will look less
imposing. He stacks the numbers in his favor unfairly.
3. Finally, as I said before and I will say again, local Democrats did not change party,
as local Democratic committees stayed conservative and sometimes racist. This is
actually changing in the past 10 years, especially with the election of Donald Trump.
If the Democratic Party, especially the Federal Party lead by Democratic Presidents
like FDR, JFK, Truman, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton were racist, you would not have
Southern Democrats walking out of the 1948 convention and starting a new party,
the Dixiecrats. You would not have the 3rd party runs of George Wallace.
( It makes no sense that

conservative judge on the Supreme Court have struck down parts of the Civil Rights
Act and Voting Acts if progressive Democrats were the racist ones.
I hope you read over what I wrote, and check my sources. I watched your video and
respectfully disagreed with its argument. As, always, I love honest detailed debate
over important things.