[a_conservative]

I don't have a lot of time to think about this right now, but generally I do agree that the right is learning how to ridicule and using it more.

I'm curious about your association of slavery with conservatism. It's doubly strange since the Republican party is the one that fought the Civil war and supported desegration while many Democrats fought against it. The Democrat party had a former KKK member not that long ago.

I'm not saying that this should be used to invalidate Democrats or dismiss them out of hand or anything like that. I just think it is strange that modern day people aligned with the Democratic Party speak with a great deal of certainty that conservatives are racist.

I've heard and read the arguments for the party switch and I find them to be a bit tortured personally. But, civilized people can disagree about all of this, and I don't want to drag us into a partisan battle either.

Also, my sense of your post is that you are using left and right more along the lines of European usage of left and right. I'm using them more along the lines of American politics. While Europeans might say, "you Americans hardly have any true left at all". I'm more likely to say, "Where are the true conservatives in Europe"

[nebula8804]

The republican party of today is not the same as the Republican party of Lincoln. Completely different ideology. Do you know the history of the parties? I refuse to believe that any actual informed American does not know this important history. This is a disingenuous argument and you should know better.

>I've heard and read the arguments for the party switch and I find them to be a bit tortured personally. But, civilized people can disagree about all of this, and I don't want to drag us into a partisan battle either.

What does this even mean? The history is pretty cut and dry and explains their current day actions. The ideology of the party was completely different in the Lincoln era.

[a_conservative]

I could stand to be more educated, so please give me something to educate me instead of calling me disingenuous.

I am willing to listen to arguments that explain how it is that the Democratic party has been able to shed it's incredibly racist history and instead push all of the accusations of racism onto Republicans. I've read these arguments a few times over the years, and I found them to be very tortured and to raise lots of questions.

Even though, you didn't offer any information to further your arguments, I will try to add one to further mine.

If the parties did switch somehow, how do you explain that Social Security act was passed in 1935 by a Democratic President, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House.

Should I attribute the Social Security Act to conservatives?

[nebula8804]

Before I go into this, Are you an American? If so, which state did you grow up in?

[a_conservative]

I'm an American who grew up in the midwest.

[nebula8804]

>I am willing to listen to arguments that explain how it is that the Democratic party has been able to shed it's incredibly racist history and instead push all of the accusations of racism onto Republicans. I've read these arguments a few times over the years, and I found them to be very tortured and to raise lots of questions.

So the following two videos provide a very brief cursory glance at the transition the two parties went through and how they got to the circumstanced that led to that transition. I recommend watching both because they are each covering one side of the story.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6R0NvVr164

[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8VOM8ET1WU

>If the parties did switch somehow, how do you explain that Social Security act was passed in 1935 by a Democratic President, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House.

Unfortunately one thing that the videos do not cover more is the underlying trust in government programs that were well received by the Southern Democratic base. You had techniques like redlining that began around 1934 that would block Black Americans from government programs that were designed to build up a new middle class. These programs were embraced by the majority white portion because in essence it was a generational transfer of wealth. Most families wealth is in their homes and by making it as easy as possible to obtain a home and build equity, White America was set on a path of generational wealth while the Black people at the time were systematically barred and those trickle down to this very day. The videos discuss in minor detail the idea of government starting to become more neutral in regards to things like mandating prayer in school. This began a growing mistrust in government. As the push led to Engel v. Vitale in 62, it along with other related social issues caused a massive change in mentality for social programs. Why? Because they started to view government meddling in social issues as a way for blacks to raise their status.

All of this exploded into a massive end for the relationship between southerners and the democratic party after the Civil Rights act. The idea of a good old boy southerner betraying his own people appears to have been the last straw. (Note: I am not certain if it was the final straw or if the movement was already underway but not openly.)

The video touches upon Reagan. He did what the southern racists wanted. He reduced the size of the government while also working to keep minorities behind. One example is that he introduced the idea of "welfare queens" which turned out to be a continuation of the racist policies to further hold back Black people.

At the same time the Democratic party was being decimated in election after election. Unions were being watered down and workers rights were slipping away. Democrats losing finally ended when they joined forces with the corporate overlords running the Republican party and finally they got someone in the White House (Bill Clinton). And what did he do? Be socially liberal while continuing the Republican destruction of the middle class. As a midwesterner you must know all about the consequences of NAFTA. Going back to my original comment, it does not cost the Democrats anything to be socially liberal. But when it comes to harming their corporate donors, they will be in line with the Republicans.

So hopefully that gives some simple answer to your questions. However a lot of this history requires a deep dive. Its a shame that this history has not been taught in schools or been whitewashed. Recently we had the stupid fight over "Critical Race Theory". Its just another attempt to downplay these systemic racist issues that have been in place for decades. AOC and the squad have utterly failed at pulling the Democratic party Left in a meaningful way. In hindsight, it was a fools errand. The Democratic party is fundamentally a corporatist party and until that goes away the real Left (that the rest of the civilized world would consider left) does not exist in the US, they have been completely destroyed for at least a generation now. One thing AOC gets massive credit for is creating a discussion where people are finally going back into the history books and looking at what really happened. She has started so many discussions discussion systems of oppression that have probably caused many people to finally get curious and do their own research.

Here is a curveball: What do you think about this video(it might wrinkle your brain a bit): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns-BgOf6DRg

[a_conservative]

Thank you for taking the time to write this detailed response. I've been very busy, I don't want to just skim it and fire of a response after you took the time to write all that out. You are a good writer. Give me some time to respond.