as oeb states .. this Salon article is sheer far left nonsense. it's major points are flawed. let's look at a few shall we?
The big sort began in earnest 20 years later, in Franklin D. Roosevelt's landslide victory over President
Herbert Hoover, a Republican who was widely blamed (fairly or otherwise) for the stock market crash of 1929 and the trauma of the Great Depression. Roosevelt set out, quite literally, to save
capitalism with his famously
ambitious agenda, known as the New Deal. Politically the New Deal allowed Democrats to forge a majority coalition by becoming the party that offered economic security to America's most vulnerable citizens, and by greatly expanding government aid and assistance in many other areas of life.
any attempt to paint that effete snob socialist FDR as the "savior" of capitalism is laughable. the New Deal was an abject failure. and it ushered in the one thing that the founding fathers most certainly did not want .. a large intrusive Federal Government. the founding fathers limited the scope of the Federal Government in favor of State's rights for a reason. FDR was a betrayal of this.
Roosevelt's economic and political innovations laid the foundations for several decades of American prosperity that, among other things, allowed the
baby-boom generation to flourish as no other generation had before (or has since).
more total nonsense. the one and only thing that lifted the U.S. out of the Great Depression and FDR's dismal handling of it was WWII. FDR had nothing to do with it.
now for another of this author's revisionist history ....
As Johnson himself clearly foresaw, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 — which established full racial equality, at least as a matter of law — drove white Southerners out of the Democratic Party, apparently forever. A conservative insurrection within the Republican Party began immediately, resulting in the nomination of
Barry Goldwater (essentially a segregationist, although he was not from the South) in the 1964 election.
nonsense. lies. false.
In the Senate, Goldwater rejected the legacy of the
New Deal and, along with the
conservative coalition, fought against the
New Deal coalition. Goldwater also had a reputation as a "maverick" for his challenging his party's
moderate to liberal wing on policy issues.
A member of the NAACP and active supporter of desegregation in Phoenix,[3][4] Goldwater voted in favor of the
Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the
24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but reluctantly opposed the
Civil Rights Act of 1964—
despite believing in racial equality, he felt one of its provisions to be unconstitutional and a potential overreach of the federal government—a decision that considerably anguished him.
so, what do we learn here? that this asshole liberal Matthew Rozsa simply does not like anyone who thinks FDR's New Deal was great (it wasn't) and who found tenants of the 1965 Civil Rights Act to be unconstitutional this he feels justified to label Goldwater a "segregationist" when it's clear who the real segregationists were. the Democratic party.
today's Democratic party is even more racist, socialist and intolerant than at any point in their miserable existence.