JavaScript is not available.

I'll say at the start that I'm not going to pick apart the entire piece, mostly because I have real work to do, but also because the last time I fact-checked his claims at length, the sum total of his response was to call me a "pasty-faced white leftist"

Quote Tweet

Dinesh D'Souza

@DineshDSouza

Jul 27, 2018

Pasty-faced white leftist unsuccessfully tries to take on one of the country’s leading African American historians twitter.com/KevinMKruse/st…

224

3,377

I'm sure other historians -- or, really, any adult with basic reading skills -- will address D'Souza's claim that Abraham Lincoln, the big-government liberal whose re-election was celebrated by Karl Marx, would have been some kind of Trump toady were he alive today.

6:27 PM · Jul 31, 2018

Bookmarks

That said, it's notable that his section on "Did the Parties Change Platforms?" never discusses the GOP platforms of the 1860s, but immediately switches to focus solely on Lincoln's "core philosophy." Hmm, I wonder why he ignores what the GOP did then?

Quote Tweet

May 17, 2018

Yes, Republicans in the 1860s *did* end slavery and promote civil rights. They also significantly expanded the federal government, built up the income tax, funded a huge system of public colleges, embraced reparations for slavery and, um, impeached an incompetent president.

154

1,710

Anyway, I'll just focus quickly on "The Myth of the Southern Strategy." D'Souza claims Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips never planned to pursue racist southerners. And yet Phillips in a 1970 interview predicted "Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans."

433

2,171

But how could the GOP reach such voters without explicit racist appeals? D'Souza asks, in a typical fake-naive question, could it be "code words" and "dog whistles"? Why that sounds ridiculous! Isn't that right, former GOP strategist Lee Atwater? youtube.com/watch?v=AT2fsv

354

2,154

Here D'Souza brings my own book White Flight into it. Again, in fairness to actual leftists, I should note here that I'm not a leftist, but as we've seen fealty to the facts is not D'Souza's forte.

100

1,365

I'll just note quickly that I didn't "portray" white flight as racist. Instead, I directly quoted racists being racist. Here's the opening anecdote from White Flight. They didn't flee "inner-city crime." They fled middle-class blacks buying homes in their neighborhoods.

210

1,835

And yes, white-flight suburbanites did "secede" from the city. They vowed to "build up a city separate from Atlanta and your Negroes and forbid any Negroes to buy, or own, or live within our limits." They fought metro programs (like rapid transit), linking them to integration.

167

1,486

Lastly, he says my depiction of these voters departs from Norman Mailer's account in Miami and the Siege of Chicago. Wow, Norman Mailer found nothing objectionable there?

967

Oh wait, just a few pages before that passage, Mailer notes how that same "suburban America" was waiting for "Super Wallace." The "atmosphere of the Republican convention" was so toxic on race he found his own previously liberal attitudes to blacks turning noticeably uglier.

100

1,141

Moving on -- yes, Nixon had a liberal record on civil rights, supporting everything from Brown to the CRA & VRA. Which is why, as he worked to get the 1968 nomination, he relied on Strom Thurmond to convince segregationists that he was all right. From

@CrespinoJoe

's great bio:

115

1,148

In the same vein, the changes in the GOP platform over the 1960s are instructive. When Nixon first ran in 1960, it had a huge section on civil rights. When he ran again in 1968, not a word.

Quote Tweet

Jul 27, 2018

Replying to @KevinMKruse

The change was equally clear in the GOP platforms: In 1960, a lengthy, detailed section on civil rights. In 1964, only a few lines. In 1968, not a *single* mention of civil rights Here, read them yourself: presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?p presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?p presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?p

128

1,175

OK, enough on that, what was going on in the Democrats? I'm going to dig a little deeper here, because it shows how fast and loose D'Souza plays with the evidence.

961

First of all, remember that "politicians switching parties" is *not* how scholars track the process of party realignment. D'Souza insists that's the metric scholars use (while never providing a source for his straw man) because he knows how rare it is:

Quote Tweet

May 5, 2018

Replying to @KevinMKruse

Conservative speculated at the time, like William F. Buckley here, that other southern Democrats might follow Thurmond to the GOP, but only if -- and it was a *huge* if -- they were allowed to maintain their seniority, and all the congressional perks and power that came with it.

948

But fine, let's meet this claim on his ground. Here's a list of senators who didn't change parties in the aftermath of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Most of these are big names with powerful positions in the Democratic Party, nicely illustrating why elected officials didn't switch.

794

Just a few quibbles. Thomas Gore died in 1949 and Kerr Scott died in 1958; so … no, they didn't switch after 1964. Herb Walters was a caretaker appointed for sixteen months -- not sure he's worth mentioning once, much less *twice*. "Senator William Murray" wasn't a person.

124

1,329

Several of the big names left -- Johnston, Hill, Russell, Holland, and Robertson (Pat's dad!) -- never ran for re-election after 1964, choosing to enjoy the seniority they had as Democrats for one last term. They all retired and/or died between 1965 and 1971.

932

Let's turn to the governors he lists as Dixiecrats who hadn't changed parties by the late '60s. William H. Murray (Oklahoma governor, not a senator) and Fielding Wright both died in 1956, while Frank Dixon died in 1965. So, yes, they didn't switch. Because they were dead.

107

1,343

Meanwhile, here is a segregationist Dixiecrat governor -- Mills Godwin, who managed to live into and through the 1960s. Oh look, he did switch parties.

Quote Tweet

Jul 3, 2018

Replying to @KevinMKruse

Governors, for instance, could switch more easily. 18. In Virginia, Democratic Gov. Mills Godwin, an outspoken leader of the state's Democratic segregationist resistance, switched parties and won re-election as a Republican in 1973.

976

D'Souza: "I don’t have space to include the list of Dixiecrat congressmen and other officials. Suffice to say it is a long list. And from this entire list we count only two defections." Well, the royal we should count again. Here's a list of thirty:

Quote Tweet

Jul 3, 2018

Replying to @KevinMKruse

As I've noted before, focusing solely on Southern Democratic politicians who officially switched parties -- instead of ordinary voters, as scholars emphasize -- intentionally misses the thrust of the party realignment on matters of race and civil rights: twitter.com/KevinMKruse/st

1,079

Lastly, D'Souza returns to the one scholarly source he repeatedly uses, Shafer and Johnston's End of Southern Exceptionalism. As I've noted before, the book was savaged by southern historians when it came out. Here's Alabama's Glenn Feldman in the Journal of Southern History:

1,016

It's not just that they didn't name-check big books in southern history. Without grappling with them, they made some *incredibly* flawed assumptions about the South. For instance, as a starting point, they assume racism is connected to physical proximity between the races:

831

So, whites who fled Atlanta & said they'd build forts along the Chattahoochee to keep blacks out of Cobb or formed "No N-ggers in Gwinnett" were less racist, as there were so few blacks in these 95%-96% white counties. Whites who stayed in integrated areas? *More* racist. OK.

959

This then is D'Souza's ultimate conclusion: "As the South becomes less racist, it becomes more Republican." This is, once again, contradicted by the actual history of the early wave of Southern Republicans, who were just as racist as older Dixiecrats:

Quote Tweet

May 7, 2018

Replying to @KevinMKruse

Notably, when Republicans first started winning in the South, they were *not* like those liberal and moderate Republicans who backed the Civil Rights Act. Instead, as that 0-11 vote on the CRA showed, they were quite like the conservative southern Democrats who had opposed it.

1,010

But -- and it's odd for a historian to say this -- I'd argue that what's more important than the history here is the current state of the two parties. (Again, my apologies to the very angry, very vocal PBR fans.)

Quote Tweet

Jul 26, 2018

If you have to reach back to the 1860s to find evidence supporting your claim that your political party is "the party of civil rights," please know that you sound like Pabst insisting it's a "blue ribbon beer" because it won a competition all the way back in 1893.

1,169