When we remember this important piece of legislation, it's also important to note that, to a significant extent, modern American conservatism drew much of its energy from the *backlash against* the Civil Rights Act. https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1278666998050951168

This is when some troll will step in and say "bUt lOtS oF rEpUbLiCaN's vOtEd *for* iT wHiLe mAnY DeMoCrAtS vOtEd aGaiNsT iT." That is true. But...those Republicans who voted for it were subsequently pushed out of the party. Same happened to pro-segregation Dems.

July 1964, when the Civil Rights Act was signed, was also the month when the GOP held the convention where it nominated Barry Goldwater, who voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act. Take a look at this electoral map. It is the map of Southern white backlash.

The conservative faction within the GOP had known for years that the electoral future of a small-government GOP depended upon drawing white Southern Democrats into their party, and opposition to integration was the issue that would do the trick. https://twitter.com/SethCotlar/status/1116347022741606400?s=20

But folks like Goldwater knew that they had to be opposed to integration, yet also not come across as bigots. They needed to win the votes of the bigots without driving away white racial moderates. This is why the dog whistling about States Rights was key.

But I also want to emphasize how forthright Goldwater conservatives were with each other about how the backlash against the Civil Rights Act could be a real electoral boon for them. Take these two articles from Human Events (a pro-Goldwater mag and Reagan's favorite) for example.

This one is from May 1964, right before passage of the Civil Rights Act. Here the author sees a future for the GOP in using the white backlash against the civil rights movement to peel off some white votes in traditionally Democratic cities. This is what Nixon did in '68 & '72.

This piece from August 1964 is even more cynical. It points out LBJ's history as a Southern Democrat with hopes that it will sour black voters on him and the Democratic Party, despite the fact that they had just pushed through the landmark Civil Rights Act.

It's important to note that Human Events' readership was almost entirely white. That article was written by someone with no authentic investment in any sort of racial justice in the US. They *agreed* with Johnson's pre-1964 stances.

What that author is doing is fantasizing about a future in which GOP propagandists can make black voters sufficiently cynical about the Democratic party that they'll just not vote, or vote for a 3rd party. Nowhere is it imagined that the GOP might try to *attract* black voters.

Because these pro-Goldwater Republicans knew in 1964 that attracting black votes meant that the party would lose the white backlash voters who would be so essential to their future electoral success. In 1964 the GOP became, to a large extent, the party of white backlash.

This is why the nomination of Trump in 2016 was not so much a departure for the GOP, but the logical end to a trajectory that had been set in 1964.

All along, from 1964 to the present, there have been voices inside the GOP who have tried to excise the white backlash politics from the party, but they have always failed. Nelson Rockefeller and George Romney tried, to no avail. More recently Michael Steele tried. No luck.

At this point, after having thrown their lot in with Trump, it's hard to imagine what a future GOP looks like that isn't fully committed to the politics of white grievance and backlash. Or I should say, if it should emerge, who would would be left to vote for it?

1964 was a long time ago. There are few people alive who remember a time before a GOP that was committed (implicitly if not explicitly) to being the party of white backlash. It's just the political water most of us have swum in our entire lives.

This is why I'm very interested in the extent to which Never Trump conservatives have sought to reckon with this part of their party's history. George Will, for example, published a book in 2019 DEDICATED to Barry Goldwater, and which never mentions Trump. https://twitter.com/SethCotlar/status/1150938147074662400?s=20

How one writes a 500+ page book on conservatism that sees no possible dots one could connect between Goldwater (the hero) and the MAGA movement (which you dislike, but which has taken over your party) is beyond me.