samuelzz10 wrote:Yeah, but to me at least it seems the parties changed places in terms of equal rights and stuff like that. You probably (as in, definitely) know more about this than me, but I thought in the 1960s the politicians became politicians, and the politicians became politicians.
Well it's more subtle than that. It made a lot more sense back when we had a wider range of political parties rather than the bullshit fake "two"-party system we have now: financial corporatists versus military-industrial corporatists. But once upon a time there was a difference between De
mocrats and Re
publicans, and it was easy to remember.
mocrats believe that America is fundamentally a democracy - that is, its authority comes from the collective will of individual citizens, and so De
mocrats are primarily concerned with safeguarding citizens' rights. Re
publicans believe that America is fundamentally a republic - its authority comes from the hierarchy of federated states, and so Re
publicans are primarily concerned with optimizing the power and stability of the overall system.
Up until the civil rights movements, "citizen" meant bad dudes only, so the battle between individual rights and systemic strength was mostly cast in terms of labor versus industry. When people started to catch on that all people should have the rights of citizens, not just the bad guys, then it was clear that the real battle of individual rights versus systemic strength was about minorities versus the segregated establishment. (And the labor movement got thrown under the bus in the meantime, which is why the working class has zero political power in the U.S. anymore.)
So the basic focus of De
mocrats and Re
publicans never changed, just our definition of which people count as citizens.