Geesh wrote:jellyhead wrote:
I mean, where are the sane voices for the republicans? Most of what i'm seeing is blamestorming and denial. Digging a deeper, more acidic hole to stick your head in can't be the answer.
The voices which aren't "sane" are the ones that give them support. Look at the past, the republicans had no monopoly over the South because why would they? The South was poor and the republicans policies favoured the rich. Then the republicans realised if they wanted to get power was if they pursued very conservative social policies to win the South.
Result? The strange situation that the poor South vehemently supports the party which is worse economically for them because of social beliefs.
It's not really as simple as that - the parties that exist now are literally not the same as the parties that existed even 50 years ago. If anything, the democrats were the traditional rich old boy's club and had a stranglehold over the South (it was the Dems who passed Jim Crow laws, for example) entirely right up until the Civil Rights movement - it was that which changed everything. GOPs effectively then realised that the Dems would lose the South because, broadly speaking, everyone with political power there was a massive racist, and Kennedy et al were strong supporters of Civil Rights (whereas the GOPs were banging the "too much federal government power" drum about it). Nixon aggressively went after the conservative South and won a landslide victory - it wasn't really to do with money. Then the South see-sawed between the two parties, mostly favouring GOPs, until it finally settled where it is, with the reds basically incumbent. GOPs didn't really start being the rich boy's club until the 80s.
The sad part is, the South is mostly incumbent because a strong-but-not-official policy of disenfranchisement exists for black people there.
