The Big Switch: The First Blue-Anon Conspiracy Theory.
By Trevor Brown
Blue-Anon is a very prevalent problem in the united states. Their dominance in popular culture via the colonization of institutions, has allowed them to sneak in their ideological premises in society. Thus creating a historically illiterate Midwit class. One of the first instances of this is the notion of the “big switch”.
Fundamentally, their are two different types of people who propagate the conspiracy theory known as the big switch. One, is your average Joe who lives a rather a-political life/ misinformed. The other is the type of person who knowingly propagate the big switch. If you are the former and not the latter please understand that I do not condemn you in any way. For you have done no wrong. If you are the latter I condemn you in the strongest possible terms. In such a way that also allows me to be civil.
The story of the “big switch” in terms of politics is usually brought up in a singular manner. An example of this is shown below.
The False Axioms of the big switch:
- The Republican party and the democrat party switched sides over the signing of the 1964 civil rights act. Which caused southern democrats to join the democrat party.
- Haven’t you heard of the southern strategy?
- The parties swapped positions on race and civil rights.
- The great depression cased black voters to leave the republican party.
Axiom 1. 1964 and 1957 Civil Rights act.
First let us begin as is right with what is obscured. For in the Apologetic nature of this historical revisionism is a lack of popular support.
According to Constitution center. The reality is that for republicans in the house and the senate passed the 1957 civil rights act with flying colors.
While democrats with power and authority like then Senator Strom Thurmond (democrat). Who Filibustered the bill by himself with the longest standing record of 24 hours 18 minutes. 20 years later Joe Biden spoke at his Memorial Service.
A year prior southern democrats wrote and signed the “Southern Manifesto”.
- HOUSE VOTED “YEA” R: 84% vs. D: 51%
- SENATE VOTED “YEA” R: 93% vs. D: 59%
Similar results are shown for the 1964 Civil rights act. Which was filibustered for 60 days by democrats.
- HOUSE VOTED “YEA” R: 78% vs. D: 69%
- SENATE VOTED “YEA” R: 82% vs. D: 60%
Blue-Anon conspiracy theorists often use this and point to democrats being outraged that Lyndon B. Johnson did not veto this bill causing southern democrats to become republicans.
This is false for a multitude of reasons. However, the primary one is that it does not actually match with the political attitudes of the south. In-fact southerners did not actually become republicans until the late 1990’s and early 2000’s. (More on that later.) The Second reason is that it doesn’t really make any sense.
(A question you might want to ask Blue-Anon conspiracy theorists regarding the “Big Switch”)
Why would the democrats, who hated Johnson for not vetoing the 1964 civil rights act suddenly flock to the party that overwhelmingly supported/voted for it?
Axiom 2. The Southern Strategy that Wasn’t:
Critics of reality (Also known as Blue-anon cultists.) often site the “southern strategy” in their apologetic acts. You can see this in real time with the video embedded above. Fundamentally however, common sense and the data regarding the deep south contradicts this narrative.
As shown in the graphs above (from BallotPedia) it took quite a few decades for Republicans to have the majority in the deep south.
Republicans only had an actual majority in the Alabama House and Senate in 2010.
Let us also take a look at Nixon’s victory.
When one observes the 1972 presidential election victory map. One comes to the conclusion that Nixon did not need to win the south (especially the deep south) in order to win the election. Some caveat to this is the potential reality that his opponent was truly awful. Thus causing a massive swing in favor of Nixon. However, the fact remains that Nixon did not need the “racist south”. Moreover, to claim that the use of this supposed “southern strategy” was the reason for Nixon’s victory. Would be to suggest that the “southern strategy” was equally appealing to the north, Midwest, and California. Which is obviously not true.
This is the data reason regarding the falsehood of the “big switch”. However, I understand why that may not be very persuasive. After all the “big switch’ is a narrative and as such it is a story. And stories do not have to reflect reality.
The Story Debunked:
In an essay from Real Clear Politics Sean Trende quotes Haley Barbour (Former Governor of Mississippi) and his critics. “The people who led the change of parties in the South … was my generation. My generation who went to integrated schools. I went to integrated college — never thought twice about it . . . . by my time, people realized that [segregation] was the past, it was indefensible, it wasn’t gonna be that way anymore. So the people who really changed the South from Democrat to Republican was a different generation from those who fought integration.”
His references to his critics make the same exact claims that are in the Axioms listed above. So I shall spare you the boredom that is prevalent in repetition.
His Critics are wrong for a multitude of reasons; however, it would be prudent to first point out President Nixon’s actions and compare and contrast it to the then previous democrat party Administration.
The Eisenhower administration of which Nixon was vice-president was not just pro integration, but inherently anti-segregationist. Under this administration they integrated the armed forces, promoted more black people into the federal bureaucracy than his predecessors, and appointed federal judges, and lawyers in his justice department, who supported pro-integration policies. As well as Sending U.S. National Guard troops to integrate Little Rock’s Central High School to enforce the 1954 unanimous Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board of Education.
Once elected president Nixon instituted an executive order mandating equal opportunity in federal employment Executive Order 11478. Nixon’s policies regarding the schools system was very similar to Eisenhower’s. (inherently Integrationist and thus inherently meritocratic)
Nixon also said inspiring words of hope such as the following quote, “In these difficult years, America has suffered from a fever of words; from inflated rhetoric that promises more than it can deliver; from angry rhetoric that fans discontents into hatreds; from bombastic rhetoric that postures instead of persuading. We cannot learn from one another until we stop shouting at one another–until we speak quietly enough so that our words can be heard as well as our voices.”
Lyndon Johnson championed in his so-called ‘War on Poverty.’ The ‘War on Poverty’ has done nothing to reduce poverty, but it did have every impact on African Americans that Milton Friedman predicted, when he called it a ‘War on black People.’
Lyndon Johnson was a stanch segregationist. Who spent his first 20 years in Congress before he was president opposing “every civil rights measure that came up for a vote.”
Lyndon Johnson is also credited by racists like himself for the following quote, “I’ll have those N***** voting democratic for 200 year’s” as well as other horrendously racist statements.
Axiom 3. Accepting Bribes is not the same as Agreeing
Ultimately, the south became more Republican as it became less racist. Or, if you prefer a less harsh way of putting it. As the world changed the American south being part of the world changed with it. Moreover, if we consider the rise of Critical Race Theory Praxis (pro-segregation ethno-nationalism) in Democrat controlled areas as Republican controlled areas are preventing CRT. Then we can safely conclude that the Republicans are the party of integration as they always have been and the democrats likewise are the party of race Radicalism.