this is really the wrong argument.

the right argument is to accept that the new deal was constructed during an era of segregation and reflected the realities of that era and then to argue that future new-deal-like legislation should reflect the existing era.

frankly, it would have been remarkable if the new deal wasn't racist, as every other piece of legislation at the time was.

when i criticized frank's narrative on populism, i was just trying to set the record straight - he was being revisionist. they were racists - and not much different on race, specifically, than the contemporary populists, at all. the movement was also broadly driven by small business owners, not salaried workers - another point that was badly misrepresented. the bottom line is that you still need to make the argument that the solution is to expand the policies, even as you accept they were racist (and sexist) in the era they were proposed and legislated in.

i mean, we don't argue against voting because it was restricted to landowning whites. and, we don't pretend that didn't happen. we just argue to expand the franchise.

--

but, i just want to interject on this idea that the new deal is the reason blacks switched to the democrats in the south, because that's kind of baffling to hear.

it is widely written about that the reason the civil rights movement targeted democrats in the south via the primary process was to unseat them. this wasn't about policy, in any sense - this was about building a mass movement to primary southern democrats. that's what the voter registration drives were all about!

i'm baffled.

and, i think what i'm seeing here is a couple of upper class kids that are so divorced from the country's legacy in slavery that they can't even begin to understand how to understand it, and should probably just shut up about it. in a sense, that's progress. i guess...

the reason southern blacks took over the democrats is that the republicans weren't competitive.

they had to primary them to get rid of them, because they'd never beat them in a general.

"but i cited a scholarly source! therefore i win! you lose!"

ugh.

you believe everything you read i guess, huh?

just look this up - the "solid south" was a series of one-party democratic states, kind of like california is today. voting for republicans would get you nowhere - the winner of the democratic primary won almost every office at almost every level all the way to 1964.

so, if you wanted any influence at all, you had to get into the democratic party.

and, like - that's the entire narrative of the civil rights movement: taking over the democrats from the inside, and dismantling jim crow.

these erudite scholars do not appear to have learned a thing at all about the period besides what they learned in school about it. and, we see how useful that is.

where did you think this tactic the squad is using came from, anyways?

it seems nowadays that the greater number of letters you amass besides your name is evidence of how long it took you to figure out you were wasting your time - the more letters, the dumber you are. eh?

they didn't teach you the plot.

they taught you identity.

do you think that's an accident?