In a now locked thread, critical of DUers, critical President Obama ...

[MADem]

129. Republicans were not racist pigs back then--MLK was a registered Republican.

The reason for that is because he couldn't stand those racist Dixiecrats. He didn't trust either party terribly much toward the end (and who could blame him), but he could spot a southern Democrat at a hundred yards. The racist GOP of today sometimes tries to use his party registration as "proof" of something, suggesting that they aren't a racist outfit, but they are operating without context. The GOP of yesteryear is not the same animal that it is today.

A good touchstone to understand how civil rights issues "broke" in terms of party is the Civil Rights Act of 64. Check out the vote totals--they aren't "along party lines" at all. In fact, Republicans were key in delivering that vote to LBJ. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Nixon's southern strategy was still the early days of the whole GOP "race card" thing, and that wasn't an attitude that was cast in stone when Stonewall happened--it was still regarded as a 'one off.' The "racist Republican" theme didn't take hold for many years, and many northern Republicans were very pro-equal rights, were horrified by the behavior and attitudes of southern Dems and newly-minted 'racist Republicans,' and routinely voted against the southern Democrats in Congress. In fact, it was the grave failing of the DEMOCRATS that they were the "united front" of racist bastards back in the days when LBJ was prowling the corridors of the House and Senate, vote counting-- and they carried a lot of clout in Congress--there was a real difference between what I knew as a "Democrat" (from the north) and a "southern Democrat." The latter was code in my neck of the woods for "racist asshole."

As the southern strategy took hold those "southern Democrats"--like Trent Lott, Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond--became Republicans, because they didn't like the fact that the party wasn't going to tolerate racist bullshit south of the Mason Dixon anymore.

I just don't think that Stonewall was an active expression of "progressive POVs." It was an active expression of human beings being sick and tired of being bullied, harassed, threatened and beaten by crooked and cruel cops, on top of being ripped off by mobsters (the Stonewall Inn was owned by mafiosi). It was insult, injury, and a "mad as hell/not going to take it anymore" attitude. If the riots encouraged people to become activists in future, that's all to the good, but I don't think those riots came out of a greater strategy--they came from frustration and anger and might have produced a strategy--but only after the fact.