Friday, October 30, 2026

The ‘party switch’ explained

Over the past few months, you’ve likely been hearing videos from conservative content creators, many of them black, insisting that the Republican Party was the true home of black Americans and the Democrats were always the racists. Most notably, they’ve been saying that the Ku Klix Klan is the aegis of the Democratic Party and it hasn’t changed in all that time.

The charge is clearly false, but not for the reasons most people think.

It’s true that the founders of the Klan, a Christian nationalist organization founded in Tennessee in 1865 by Confederate Civil War veterans, were registered Democrats — no surprise given that the Republican Party was formed in 1854 and was expressively anti-slavery. But it would be a stretch to say that the Republicans wanted to oppose slavery to free blacks for their own sake — the party, funded by merchants who decided that they couldn’t compete with slave labor, took that stance for economic, not social-justice, reasons. And in fact, the opposition to slavery was originally limited to its expansion; Abraham Lincoln tried to broker a compromise that would mandate one free state admitted to the Union for every slave state, and he also said, “If I can save the Union without freeing a single slave, I would do it.”

(Indeed, the 1876 presidential election put an end to the decade-long Reconstruction era, when Southern electors threw the election to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes after he promised to remove Federal troops from the South, which had the effect of selling out the newly-freed slaves.)

Still, at that time most blacks who could vote were registered as Republicans — until the 1920s, when many left the party over President Harding’s refusal to support a federal anti-lynching bill and President Coolidge became the only candidate not to condemn the Klan. Blacks started leaning Democratic during the New Deal even though the racial policies of that day limited benefits, though Eleanor Roosevelt became a voice for civil rights, for the first time being seriously considered.

The split in the Democratic Party began in 1948, when President Truman — a Democrat from former slave state Missouri — issued an executive order integrating the Armed Forces. That caused many Southern Democrats to form the States’ Rights Democratic Party, commonly known as “Dixiecrats,” and Sen. Strom Thurmond to run for president against Truman. Then you had the fights over desegregation in schools and public accommodations in the 1950s.

And speaking of which, this is where the modern conservative movement caught fire. The machinery, already built with think tanks and media as a reaction to the New Deal by industrialists sore at FDR, was jump-started with the Army-McCarthy hearings, during which Sen. Joseph McCarthy, a Wisconsin Republican, accused the Army of harboring communists, leading to a “Red Scare.” And that picked up in the South, with civil-rights demonstrators being accused of such (in fairness, small communist cells were operating in those days in Southern cities, which is why Martin Luther King Jr. was forced to disavow any influence of communism publicly).

But another factor largely overlooked was the rise of libertarianism in the Republican Party in the West and Southwest in the 1960s — and Barry Goldwater’s candidacy for president in 1964. Though never a racist, he had publicly opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, passed by Congress and signed by President Johnson, on the grounds that it overstepped the Constitution. (Goldwater, though crushed elsewhere, won the electoral votes of five Southern states.) Suddenly, opposition to civil rights for black Americans had justification — “big government.”

Two years later, another Western Republican, Richard Nixon, who lost the race for president in 1960 plotted a political comeback by unleashing what later became known as the “Southern Strategy” by exploiting the divisions he already knew existed in the Democratic Party. (Pat Buchanan, then an aide, gave the details in an excellent article, “The Fall of Conservatism,” published in May 2008 in The New Yorker magazine.) Slowly, white Southerners began migrating to the Republican Party, cemented with fellow Western Republican Ronald Reagan.

But by this time overt racist appeals had run their course, so Republicans started using “dog whistles” — “welfare,” “crime,” “busing” etc. — to oppose civil rights. It was in that context that Reagan used the phrase “welfare queens driving Cadillacs” when running for president in 1976, and he got even more brazen when, in 1980, he gave a speech near Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil-rights workers were found murdered in 1964, in favor of “states’ rights,” clearly a thumb in the eye to the civil-rights movement, which led a Klan leader in Georgia named Bruce Wilkinson to endorse Reagan, saying that “the Republican platform could have been written by a Klansman.” (Reagan did reject the endorsement, to be sure.)

That, in a nutshell, is why labeling the Democrats as the party of the Klan and other white supremacist groups is obsolete. Yes, I’m aware of the late Klan recruiter Robert Byrd being feted by fellow senators upon his death; however, he left the Klan in the 1950s; repudiated it; apologized for joining; and, importantly, after white West Virginians began migrating to the GOP, voted for civil-rights legislation. Contrast that with Southern Republicans such as Bob Barr and Trent Lott attending meetings of the Klan-adjacent Council of Conservative Citizens (formerly known as the White Citizens Council — which was arguably more influential than the Klan because it wasn’t terrorist).

This thus represents a cowardly campaign on the part of conservatives to run away from their own racism. And with the fear-mongering that’s become endemic on the political right, especially with the Make America Great Again and Christian Nationalist movements in serious trouble, I hope that people hear the truth.

Thursday, January 29, 2026

The imminent revival, part 18: Touchdown, Minnesota!

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

“Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but Him. To love Him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.

--Mark 12:28-34

Those of you who have read my blog over the years know that I’ve spoken about spiritual revival many, many times but in entries mentioned the specific conditions under which I believe has to happen. And I believe that those conditions are being met right now in the Twin Cities, people and churches being united and even some clergy being arrested for living the Word of God.

Basically, they’ve returned to “first principles,” as mentioned by Jesus above.

That’s right — loving God and loving neighbors is all that He asks for.

Over the decades many people have prayed for revival and even set up agencies hoping that God will heed and set up according to their own understanding of Who He is and what He wants. Two examples: The “Asbury revival” of 2023 and the Charlie Kirk assassination of last year. I know personally folks who have studied past revivals and suggested ways in which they could be duplicated.

In my view, they’ve missed the point. A creative God has access to infinite ways to demonstrate His intent and won’t be tied down to any one way of doing things, which I understand. Basically, He will never share his glory with another.

One thing, however, of which I’m convinced: No revival at this time would be complete without a complete and total repudiation of Donald Trump — for spiritual, not political, reasons. He has become an idol to much of the church of Jesus Christ, which has sought political power at the expense of its true mission of reconciliation — indeed, he’s shown that he’s pathologically cruel and has no use for God’s mercy, something that flies in the face of the very Gospel that Christians say that they stand for.

With recent shooting deaths of innocents at the hand of agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement this month, an issue because under Trump it’s targeted non-whites, especially those of Somali heritage, in Minnesota, folks decided to stand up for their neighbors. “Why didn’t they just obey the law?” some people are asking — but this is about the law of God, which Christians believe should supersede man’s law.

We can study the Bible and learn all the theology we want, and I’d never knock those, but if those get in the way of the personal and corporate relationship with God through Jesus Christ, especially if that doesn’t lead to obedience, they will have no effect. The folks demonstrating in Minnesota may not have their theology right or know the Scriptures as well, but they’re doing what Jesus actually said — and that cannot but bear fruit. May we all do the same.