- NEW!
by ChrisDC on June 9th, 2009
The Democrats had been the socially conservative party up until the 1960's; Republicans had been relatively liberal.
They started changing places with each other as the civil rights movement of the 1960's started working itself out. It was around this time that Reagan switched parties.
I have a number of friends who are African American or Asian American who had been Republicans, but switched to the Democratic Party around the time of John F. Kennedy's campaign for President.
Lots of people switched parties around that time.
by Moongrim on June 9th, 2009
Because he was willing to do what he was told by his masters.
by Fiddle Playing Creole Bastard on June 9th, 2009
He was tired of paying high taxes. ChrisDC's answer far eclipses my own though.
Where is Parris Island?
by Answerbag Staff on February 1st, 2011
| 2 people like this
Where can you find the Statue of Liberty?
by Answerbag Staff on January 31st, 2011
| 1 person likes this
What is the mileage from Scottsdale to Tombstone, Arizona?
by Answerbag Staff on January 31st, 2011
| 1 person likes this
What does C.I.A stands for?
by LoverOfSophia on February 10th, 2012
| 4 people like this
What does Nasa stands for?
by LoverOfSophia on February 10th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
You're reading Why did Reagan switch from democrats to republicans? (No lousy jokes or lashing out please)
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
Thank you, I just learned something today.
by President Norris 2016 on June 9th, 2009
Glad to help -- and glad you're interested.
To give you an idea of how this change caught people by surprise, Hawaii and Alaska were both admitted to the Union in 1959. They were admitted together because everybody absolutely knew that Hawaii would be solidly Republican and Alaska would be solidly Democratic, so they'd balance each other out with their new Senators.
They did balance each other out, but within 2 years, Hawaii was solidly Democratic and Alaska was solidly Republican -- exactly the opposite of what was expected. Again, right around the time of JFK's presidency.
by ChrisDC on June 9th, 2009
what made the parties change there roles as libs and cons?
by President Norris 2016 on June 9th, 2009
It was a combination of civil rights and labor issues, and how they played out in very different ways.
Bear in mind that the Republicans started as the anti-slavery party (Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican President). The Republicans were socially liberal, economically conservative, and frankly kind of the aristocratic party. Very pro-business, opposed to big government, etc., but with a strong commitment on civil rights and individual rights.
It was the Republicans who ended slavery, wrote a ban on racial discrimination into the Constitution, and later were the leaders is getting women the right to vote. (The first woman elected to Congress, Jeannette Rankin from Wyoming, was a Republican.)
(more)
by ChrisDC on June 9th, 2009
The Democrats were the populists, heavily concentrated in the South, and they had been the losers in the Civil War. (They were the pro-slavery party originally, in other words.)
The first big schism opened up with the Great Depression. Republicans had been very resistant to labor unions, because of their pro-business, pro-capitalist focus. The Russian Revolution in 1917 seriously freaked them out, and they reacted negatively toward organized labor.
We actually had a huge and powerful Socialist Party movement in the United States in the 1920's here in the U.S.
When the Depression started, and (Franklin) Roosevelt ran for President on the platform of "capitalism with a heart" the Democrats became the social welfare and pro-labor party.
The fact that Roosevelt succeeded in putting in a basic social welfare net actually took the wind out of the sails of the Communists and they just pretty much disappeared. (more)
by ChrisDC on June 9th, 2009
So at that point, you've got Democrats as the labor party and Republicans as the business party. During and after World War II, the leadership of the Democratic Party started agreeing with the Republicans on the basic principles of civil rights.
In part, this was egged on by their new, important, labor constituency that had an "all the common men for each other" mentality about it.
The Republicans had a great commitment to civil rights, but their emphasis on limited government meant that they couldn't bring themselves to do anything really effective to enforce their principles.
In the late 1940's, Truman desegregated the military (which the Republicans supported and his fellow Democrats opposed). Then we got the school desegregation decision in Brown v. Board of Education in the late 1950's.
Which Eisenhower, as a traditional Republican, backed up by sending in National Guard troops when he needed to. (more)
by ChrisDC on June 9th, 2009
Then, we get to the 60's. The Democrats now have a coalition of constituencies that simply doesn't make sense. They've got white Southern racists who are vehemently anti-communist (and anti-union), labor unions, and African Americans (who can now vote in large numbers, which they couldn't do before).
When the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act passed, and Lyndon Johnson signed them, he said "We've lost the South for a generation." In effect, the Democrats made a call on what constituencies they wanted to keep.
With Democrats embracing labor unions (which a lot of people considered to be Communist), and racial and ethnic minority groups (who they were willing to actively help being less afraid of strong government), white Southerners were ripe for the picking. (more)
by ChrisDC on June 9th, 2009
In 1968, Richard Nixon adopted what he called the "Southern Strategy" in his race against Hubert Humphrey. It wasn't explicitly racist, but it focused on opposition to desegregation (especially busing to desegregate schools), strong opposition to Communism and Socialism (which was a shot at the Democrats' ties to labor unions), and a hawkish stance on defense issues (remember the Vietnam War was going on at the time, which put the whole communism/socialism issue at the center of things).
This has all shaken itself out in the last few decades, so today, we have a situation where the Republicans are strongest in the South; while Democrats are strongest in the Northeast and the Pacific coast states (which used to be Republican strongholds).
Sorry, that's probably more information than you needed, but it's a fascinating subject. (more)
by ChrisDC on June 9th, 2009
It's the best example I know of how American political parties are different from European political parties. In Europe, the parties' ideologies are tightly defined and they emerge, have their time in the sun, and then disappear.
In the U.S., the parties are much more like corporations competing for market share. (Like Coke and Pepsi.) Anytime one of them dumps a segment of the market, the other steps in to pick it up.
Just like Democrats basically dropped conservative White southerners, and Republicans picked them up, the Republicans started turning off intellectuals, and the Democrats picked them up.
Anyway, sorry for nattering on. Like I said, it's a fascinating story (at least to me).
by ChrisDC on June 9th, 2009
Wow sounds like you know your history; what if one party was able to adopt almost all party ideologies and wipe out the other party thru lack of public support for that party, do you think that could happen or is there a safeguard in place to keep democracy in check.
by President Norris 2016 on June 10th, 2009
That would be tough because so many of the party ideologies are each other's opposite. The people who hold those differing views may, occasionally, come together on another issue where they do agree, but when that issue is resolved the other issues pop up again.
The biggest risk of that kind of breakdown right now is the Republican Party, although I think that will work itself out. But when you watch the news coverage, you can see the conflict between people who are urging shifting the party's positions and rhetoric to appeal more broadly to African American and Latino voters. But many of the strongest adherents in the GOP are in the party precisely because they do not like social welfare spending, and are worried about the cultural and fiscal impacts of immigration. Which means the GOP is facing a really difficult choice on what to keep, what to change, and what to get rid of in terms of party ideology.
by ChrisDC on June 10th, 2009