How true is the claim that the Democrats are the party of

>>1644425
It's completely true.

>>1644425
Dixiecrats were the racist portion of the party, and they left for the Republicans in 1948. The party of slavery is the Dixiecrats, and therefore the modern day Republican Party is the party of slavery.
Only idiots who don't know shit will claim that and be laughed at by the majority of Americans, a party can change platforms.

>>1644447
>Dixiecrats were the racist portion of the party

That's a strange way to say "majority." If that were the case then why did FDR keep New Deal and defense industry projects segregated throughout his administration and refuse to sign an anti-lynching law?

>>1644425
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
the parties are basically unrecognizable from their inception

>>1644483
Don't want to piss off a large amount of your party.

Many deals and programs had to be compromised to deal with any bitching Dixiecrats would do and pass.

>>1644497
>Scholars generally emphasize the role of racial backlash in the realignment of southern voters. The viewpoint that the electoral realignment of the Republican party due to a race-driven Southern Strategy is also known as the "top-down" viewpoint.[5][7] Most scholarship and analysts support this top-down viewpoint and claim that the political shift was due primarily to racial issues.[7][82][83] The Southern Strategy is generally believed to be the primary force that transformed the "Democratic South into a reliable GOP stronghold in presidential elections."[6] Some historians believe that racial issues took a back seat to a grassroots narrative known as the "suburban strategy". Matthew Lassiter, who along with Shafer and Johnston is a leading proponent of the "suburban strategy" viewpoint, recognizes "This analysis runs contrary to both the conventional wisdom and a popular strain in the scholarly literature...."[84] Glen Feldman, when speaking of the "suburban strategy", states it is "the dissenting – yet rapidly growing – narrative on the topic of southern partisan realignment..."[10]

>Matthew Lassiter says, "A suburban-centered vision reveals that demographic change played a more important role than racial demagoguery in the emergence of a two-party system in the American South."[85] Lassiter argues that race-based appeals can't explain the GOP shift in the south while also noting that the real situation is far more complex.[86]

The "Southern Strategy" argument has been challenged pretty successfully in recent years.

File: jpeg[1].jpg (55KB, 960x523px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 960x523px

>>1644425
It still is.

>>1644483
>they left for the Republicans in 1948