Are you old enough to remember real Dem's?

[Jim Lane]

208. Yes, a big change that's occurred since World War II is the reversal of the parties' roles on race.

In #102 I pointed out that FDR was responsible for huge progressive accomplishments but that he nevertheless continued to accommodate the Southern segregationists, who at that time were Democrats.

The segregationist exodus that you ascribe to Johnson actually began earlier, in 1948, with the Dixiecrat walkout and Thurmond's presidential race. In 1960, after JFK supported civil rights, Nixon became the first Republican presidential candidate to get electoral votes in the South while losing nationwide. Certainly, though, LBJ's continuation and successful prosecution of JFK's policies accelerated the trend.

But that bit of history doesn't refute the OP. The thesis of the OP is that the Democratic Party was more progressive in the 1932-1976 period, which encompasses the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act as well as Medicare (an enormous progressive achievement that most Republicans opposed). The OP further argues that, since the 1990s, there's been a rightward shift in the Democratic Party. Consider that Barack Obama himself said that, a few decades ago, his policies would have placed him as a moderate Republican. He's not a Republican today because, as per the OP, there's also been a rightward shift (well, rightward lurch, more like) in the Republican Party.

As I look at the Democrats in Congress today, I don't see out-and-out white supremacists in the Strom Thurmond mold. I also, however, don't see many individuals, let alone a party leadership, willing to press for significant breakthroughs of the kind we achieved under the four Democratic Presidents from Roosevelt through Johnson.

So, I agree with you, I don't want Strom Thurmond back -- but I'd love to have Hubert Humphrey or any of the Kennedy brothers back.