How do "the parties switched platforms" people explain Joe McCarthy?

[Dan the Roman]

Despite being a conservative, this is an area where I feel genuine(not hipster) Marxist analysis is somewhat useful. The US parties, contrary to claims they don't differ on economics, actually were always class-based, and Marx never claimed class politics are represented by differences on economic policy. In fact, he argued quite the opposite. Classes, which are the primary political actors in any system, have interests, and they approach policies from that perspective.

In fact, the ability to even have an ideology is a conceit of the upper bourgeoise and it is important to understand that the "woke/liberal/progressive" trend has always been a form of elite class politics.

1. Abolitionism
2. Good government progressivism
3. (Social eugenics including actual eugenics, jewish quotas etc)
4. Ideological support for civil rights(ie pushing bussing and increasingly academic policies in the 1970s designed more to crush white groups opposed to integration rather than to advance integration)
5. Modern "wokeness" LGBT/Racial stuff

Has always been associated with a New England class tradition. That tradition was strongest in the Federalists, then the Whigs, then the Republicans.

It was not the whole the GOP. After all, the GOP was created in opposition to the Democrats who were themselves an alliance of Southerners, northern free traders, urban machines, immigrant groups.

So the GOP had two wings

1. The Progressive New England Wasp wing
2. The more conservative, often ex-Democratic Midwestern Wing which was in it out of opposition to Eastern Cities, for protectionism, and suspicion of White Southern power


What changed?

Well

Group #2 was always in favor of civil rights not because they liked African Americans. The claim Republicans were racist in the 1860s is a lie. New England ones generally were progressive. Boston integrated its schools early. However, the Midwestern Republicans tended to be free soil and backed African American rights to keep the South/Democrats weak, not out of any affection themselves. Which meant once the "African American" issue moved northward, they had a reason to split with the first group.

In turn, what happened in the South is not Dixiecrats leaving. Instead, the Southern suburbs produced a new local elite who were self-confident in their economic and social position who resented their subordinate position in the Democratic party.

It is worth considering that while the Democrats had the support of the solid South, only one three southerners ever became President

1. Woodrow Wilson debatedly
2. Jimmy Carter
3. Bill Clinton


So the deal was very much the Democrats nationally would be run by their northern wing which would protect the white southerners.


So three things happened at once.

1. Midwestern Rs revolted against New England Yankee Rs(and the latter lost out in battles for control of the California party among others with Reagan)
2. The Immigrant Catholic Elite in the North chose to ally and absorb the Wasp Rs rather than destroy them. Or at least they didn't need the white southerners
3. White Southern Ds lost their existing Northern allies, which meant they and the Midwestern Rs were both adrift. So they united.


Looking at this in terms of parties leads to confusing ideas such as "they swapped policies". In reality, the parties have always been alliances of various constituencies and they shifted their alliances. But very few groups changed their politics. In other words, the Free Soil Republicans in Iowa who voted for Lincoln but also tried to ban African American migration would absolutely be on the Right today. And they have merely formed an alliance with other groups who are willing to back their positions on trade and economics, because those have become articles of faith for the Old Whig/NE elite who run the Democratic party today