> The problem with the narrative that the parties switched places is that most of their policies didn’t change. When Strom Thurmond switched parties, Democrats didn’t go from supporting the New Deal to opposing it.
To the extent there was a switch, it was between the pre-New Deal alignment and the alignment after the end of the double (New Deal and Civil Rights) realignments, Thurmond was from a constituency that was with the Democrats before either realignment and that left with the Civil Rights realignment.
> Their policies are much the same as they were when they were the party of the Klan.
Their politics on racial issues aren’t the same as before the Civil Rights realignment, and their policies on economic issues and the role of the federal government outside of race aren’t the same as before the New Deal realignment; those two realignments overlapped, as the New Deal realignment hadn’t finished shaking out when the Civil Rights realignment (which itself took almost exactly 30 years to settle out after the usually-cited 1964 kickoff) started. Note that the rumblings of the Civil Rights realignment, while usually timed to 1964, were evident earlier, but no one else was welcoming the disaffected Democrats until after 1964, and the tension was very much with the new people and ideas being brought in due to the New Deal realignment.
> Their politics on racial issues aren’t the same as before the Civil Rights realignment
Residential zoning in the US came out of racism. Restrict multi-family zoning to keep black people out of white neighborhoods. Then use that to create separate school districts for rich suburban white kids and poor urban black kids and maintain de facto segregation after de jure segregation was made unconstitutional.
Predominantly Democrats control the high population density areas where these policies are relevant and it's still ongoing.
Today Democrats promote the construction of abortion clinics and subsidizing the procedure. Before they promoted the construction of abortion clinics for the explicitly stated purpose of encouraging black women to get abortions. It's a changed in the stated justification but it's not actually a policy change.
I think at this point a lot of modern Democrats don't even realize what the intended purpose of these policies was, because they don't like to talk about that for obvious reasons, but they're still the party's policies.
To the extent there was a switch, it was between the pre-New Deal alignment and the alignment after the end of the double (New Deal and Civil Rights) realignments, Thurmond was from a constituency that was with the Democrats before either realignment and that left with the Civil Rights realignment.
> Their policies are much the same as they were when they were the party of the Klan.
Their politics on racial issues aren’t the same as before the Civil Rights realignment, and their policies on economic issues and the role of the federal government outside of race aren’t the same as before the New Deal realignment; those two realignments overlapped, as the New Deal realignment hadn’t finished shaking out when the Civil Rights realignment (which itself took almost exactly 30 years to settle out after the usually-cited 1964 kickoff) started. Note that the rumblings of the Civil Rights realignment, while usually timed to 1964, were evident earlier, but no one else was welcoming the disaffected Democrats until after 1964, and the tension was very much with the new people and ideas being brought in due to the New Deal realignment.