Was speaking to a friend who's been doing research into the shifts of US politics since the end of World War Two, and he mentioned that had the Nordic countries not shifted to the left, and adopted certain socialistic principles, then there would not have been a model for the Democrat party to embrace during the sixties. Instead, this would be the state of the two parties:
'no shift left for the dems means the democrats are far right socially, center ecomoically and the republicans are center right socially and center right ecomoically. A major difference between them would be foreign policy with the Democrats being right-wing interventionist and the Republicans being right-wing isolationist (to a certain extent)'
And as regards Nixon's southern strategy, he had this to say:
'I don't think there would be the dems own the south they are still the party of Jim Crow, blacks in the south will vote republican tho.'
How true is this?
If the Nordic countries had remained absolutist monarchies, would that have influenced the US Democratic party whatsoever?
'no shift left for the dems means the democrats are far right socially, center ecomoically and the republicans are center right socially and center right ecomoically. A major difference between them would be foreign policy with the Democrats being right-wing interventionist and the Republicans being right-wing isolationist (to a certain extent)'
And as regards Nixon's southern strategy, he had this to say:
'I don't think there would be the dems own the south they are still the party of Jim Crow, blacks in the south will vote republican tho.'
How true is this?
If the Nordic countries had remained absolutist monarchies, would that have influenced the US Democratic party whatsoever?