The Dan Bongino Show - Ep. 532 The Dangerous Liberal Myth That Just Won't go Away

Episode Date: August 24, 2017

In this episode: The media, and the Left, are lying to you. Racist Democrats did not become Republicans. The "Party Switch" is a dangerous myth. https://www.facebook.com/prageru/videos/1512093508833500/   https://www.google.com/amp/amp.nationalreview.com/article/386257/myth-republican-racism-mona-charen   Why are liberals standing in the way of educational opportunities for young minority students?  https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-attacks-success-1503443366   Hillary has a new excuse for her election loss - the media did it.  http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-supporters-still-moaning-about-media-coverage-nearly-10-months-later/article/2632175 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

From the kitchen to the laundry room, your home deserves the best. Give it the upgrade it deserves at Best Buy's Ultimate Appliance Event. Save up to $1,000 on two or more major appliances. Shop now, in-store, or online at bestbuy.ca. Exclusions apply. Dan Bongino. They've been tweeting to me, Bongino's a nut, Bongino's a blanker, blanker. The Dan Bongino Show.

Everywhere big government gets bigger, corruption grows bigger, and these liberals just keep going on and on and on about how great big government is, and they can't prove to you any examples of how wonderful big government is almost anywhere. Get ready to hear the truth about America. Young kids, you are too stupid to figure out your health insurances, so we're going to hammer your cabooses to death until you figure out that the government knows what's best and you're an idiot. On a show that's not immune to the facts,

with your host, Dan Bongino. All right, welcome to the Renegade Republican with Dan Bongino. Producer Joe, how are you today? I am locked and loaded, Dan. Yeah, man, busy day. I'm all fired up today. Fox and Friends this morning coming up on Outnumbered at noon on Fox, so make sure you check that out. I will be the hashtag one lucky guy for a whole hour.

You're stuck with me on your television set, so let me know. Let me know your feedback, too. If you liked it. If you didn't like it, Daniel, app on Gino.com. I'll be watching. I'd appreciate it. Thank you, Joe. I appreciate that.

Yeah, I know Joe goes to bed at like 2 o'clock in the afternoon for his early morning show, so it's right around his sweet spot right there. All right, today's show brought to you by our buddies at BrickHouse Nutrition. You know, big fan of these guys. I've had them from the beginning. They're a young, hungry, fresh up-and-coming nutrition supplement company. They put some of the best products on the market out there. One of the products I use, my family uses, my wife loves it before yoga, is Dawn to

Dusk. Listen, the problem with the whole energy market arena is you take these products, whatever it is, even coffee or energy drinks and all this other stuff, and you crash a couple hours later, and you can't even move off your couch. These guys figured out a way over at Brickhouse Nutrition to do a time-release energy product. Gives you a nice mood elevation, nice good bump in energy, gets you through the day, lasts about 10 hours. It's really terrific stuff. Again, it's called Dawn to Dusk. It's available at brickhousenutrition.com slash Dan. That's brickhousenutrition.com slash Dan. You're working, you're on an assembly line, you're out there, you're in a boardroom, it doesn't matter. Working moms, you need to get through the day. Crossfitters, MMA folks, cops, firemen, military folks, this product works for

everybody. It's a really terrific product. Gets you through the day. Nice bump in energy. Go give it a shot. BrickHouseNutrition.com slash Dan. Give it a shot. It's called Dawn to Dusk. All right.

I'm still trying to get over yesterday's story, that Robert Lee story. I mean, it's just become – so many news people have been talking about it now since yesterday's coverage and they're all saying the same thing like they just thought it was a fake story i mean i thought it was too it was just so ridiculous but it covered that yesterday and i'm just still having a hard time getting over it but a couple stories i saw um today which i really thought were interesting uh you know it's amazing how i always speak about how liberal liberalism it's not just that joe liberalism is a failure and it doesn't say what it's going to do.

It's that liberalism, when implemented, actually hurts the people it purports to help. So the analogy I like to use to make it really simple for you is, you know, if you're walking down the street behind someone and they fall and I don't help you up, there's a certain level of depravity there. I mean, wouldn't you agree if you see an older person fall and you just walk by them like nothing happened? Help them up. Yeah. I mean, I think we would call that, you know, misfeasance, you know, the failure to do something that leads to a negative outcome, the failure to help.

What my problem with liberalism, why I get so fiery, and rightfully so, and some people criticize me. I got a Facebook message from my, I think I mentioned this before, a pastor the other day saying, hey, I love your show, but you got to go easy on dropping bombs on the liberals all the time. Well, I get it. And I understand. I listen to everything people say and I take it all in. But the reason I get so mad to provide an explanatory base here is that it's not just that liberalism doesn't help the people when they fall.

It's that as they try to get up, it kicks them in the face. Like it's actual malfeasance. Liberalism is a cancer. Not the Democrat Party, although they tend to harbor a lot of liberals, but liberalism is a metastasizing cancer on America. That's it. It's nothing.

It is an anti-American ideology that hates everything we stand for, that has no position other than dividing America up into groups and getting them to hate each other. Now, I saw a story, although you may say, well, that's a pretty dramatic open for this story, but it's important. This is not an irrelevant story of what's going on because, again, it speaks to the notion that liberals want you to believe they have the answers that are actually hurting

you. I read a story the other day in the Wall Street Journal about this brewing controversy behind the scenes about Obamacare. And the controversy, Joe, is about this thing called bundled payments. Now, the liberals are desperately trying to defend the idea of bundled payments. I'll tell you what it is in a second, for a number of reasons. And the reasons they're trying to defend them have nothing to do with actually helping people get healthcare under Obamacare. The reason they're doing it is because it's a pathway to single payer type healthcare. And they won't tell you that because they lie about it.

So Jason Furman, who was an economic advisor to Obama, who I mentioned on the show quite a bit. Because any time there's a brewing controversy about taxes or economics or Obamacare, you'll see him creep up in the pages of the Wall Street Journal writing an op-ed and basically highlighting what the liberals' attack mode is going to be next. So they're trying to scrap bundle payments. And what bundle payments are is this idea that the government, through its rules and regulations, can order insurance companies and even government payments to go to, say, collections of health care outfits based on outcomes. So it's not just they're not going to do a fee-for-service thing. So if you're a doctor, Joe, in other words, and you bill for a hip replacement to the government or insurance company, whatever it may be, the way the bundle payment works is you're not going to get payment for that hip replacement.

There's going to be a big fat bundle payment that the hospital, the anesthesiologist, the doctor is going to share, and it's all going to be shared based on the outcome of the patient. In other words, there's incentives for the patient to recover well from the hip replacement. They may get more money, but they're all going to have to share it. And it's kind of comical. I read the story. Maybe like, why are you bringing this up? Because, again, it speaks to the fact that liberals don't.

What they're trying to do to bundle payments is replicate what happens in a free market naturally. Doing it poorly, bankrupting America, costing you more money and more health care headaches. to do through bundled payments is replicate what happens in a free market naturally, doing it poorly, bankrupting America, costing you more money and more healthcare headaches, all by trying to replicate what happens naturally in the free market. Now, I'm going to move on. I don't want to spend a lot of time on this story, but I want to read this quote from the piece by Jason Furman in the journal to show you what I'm talking about. It isn't crazy.

He says, because he's defending these bund payments, designing bundle payments takes significant effort. Experimentation is required to ensure that treatments and outcomes are properly defined and the payments for them are set correctly. Okay, wait, time out. Experimentation is required to ensure that treatments and outcomes are properly defined and the payments for them are set correctly. Joe, what does this naturally? Free markets. correctly joe what does this naturally free free markets free when you go to buy a car who decides if the payment and the payment the way the payment is set is correct you do you go in and you say when i bought my raptor here's what i'm willing to pay i thought i got a pretty good deal

the guy says here's what i'm willing to sell it for and you agree right firman right this guy's an economist by the way writes this piece talking about how we need to experiment using government, government experimentation to ensure that the payments are set correctly, knowing that the free market would do it automatically. Remember, folks, I can't say this to you enough. The government cannot replicate the knowledge of what Hayek would call like the fatal conceit, right? This idea that the government can replicate the knowledge of what Hayek would call like the fatal conceit, right? This idea that the government can replicate the knowledge of 330 million

Americans in a free market is nonsense. The government couldn't price a baseball card. Despite the best experts out there, there is nobody that has the body of information that people out there who are actual consumers of baseball cards have. This is their entire lives. There is no government expert who could appropriately price a baseball card. It's not going to happen. It's like fetch fetch it's not going to happen for you mean girls

fans isn't going to happen so it's kind of comical that in trying to defend so-called bundle payments which is going to be the next front on the obamacare war they're saying oh we need the government to experiment with these payment models to make sure the outcomes are properly defined joe what's an outcome properly defined if you're having a life-saving surgery? Staying alive? What's the outcome? Like the patient doesn't know the outcome? Folks, I had stem cells done, okay?

My own stem cells injected. I had a great outcome. How did I know? Because it's me. No government bureaucrat called me and said, hey, how do you feel about those stem cells? This is nonsense. This is insane. Again, the government trying to replicate what happens naturally in the free market,

screwing it up, and then doubling down and apologizing for it. They want bundled, or not apologizing for it, they want bundled payments because they know bundled payments are the pathway to single payer. Because they can eliminate a bunch of middlemen. You see what I'm saying, Joe? Like, without having to negotiate with the doctor, the anesthesiologist, the hospital, they'll make one blanket payment and negotiate with one person, one representative for that whole group.

And then when you're representing, when that whole group is represented by one person who has to negotiate with the monolithic mammoth government, the government has significant power over everybody in that group without having to divide its bureaucrats time and negotiating with each one. Does that make sense? There it is, baby. That's the only reason that they're defending this. The only reason. Sorry, I mean, talk over there.

That's quite all right. Now, one more quote and we'll move on. It's a story I saw, but I usually lead off more spicy stuff. But this is just this is the kind of stuff I wake up every morning that aggravates the hell out of me. He's lying to you. He wants bundled payments because he wants the negotiating power of government to bury these people, to move the single payer. And he's talking about things that happen naturally in the free market as if the government has some special power to do them. He says the Affordable Care Act authorized the Department of Health and Human Services to test payment models and then scale up those that either reduce costs without hurting quality or improve quality without raising costs. You mean like what kind of like happens in the free market when people go out and spend their own money and are concerned about costs or are concerned about quality?

Folks, I've mentioned this a thousand times, but it's worth mentioning again because it cannot be said enough. thousand times, but it's worth mentioning again because it cannot be said enough. Milton Friedman, this was his golden rule of resource allocation. When you spend your own money on yourself, what we would call a free economic market, cost and quality matter because it's your money and it's your product, whatever product you're buying. The cost of it matters because it's your money, the quality because it's your product. I found this line comical because he's talking about testing government models to determine which what's the effective cost and what's the effective quality when the government as friedman would say is other people spending other people's money on other people cost doesn't matter because it's

not your money and quality doesn't matter because you're not even buying anything for yourself you don't have to test payment models joe when you're going out and getting a hip replacement for yourself because it's Joe Armacost replacing his own hip. He would know what the cost was if there was a free market and he would care about the quality because it's Joe's hip. Yeah, I'm hip. This is insane. I read this piece.

I'm like, this guy's an economist. This is embarrassing. They have to test models to find out how cost and quality can be improved. This is insane. I read this piece. I'm like, this guy's an economist. This is embarrassing. They have to test models to find out how cost and quality can be improved. Meanwhile, people just do this naturally in the free market. Just a dopey piece. All right, moving on. Another piece I saw, again, speaking to the extent, sadly, liberals will go to damage the lives of inner city kids and largely people of color, unfortunately.

And, you know, I don't, this is the kind of story that drives me nuts. So I always have to take a deep breath before getting into it because I don't want to lose the point and the emotion. There's a story I saw yesterday at the Wall Street Journal about charter schools. And without going into the backstory in too much detail, because it's really, it's just, it's kind of boring. But there was a guy, he's a big hedge fund investor, and he supports charter schools and he's on a board. His name's Dan Loeb.

And he wrote something on Facebook about how Democrats, or he compared them basically to the Klan, Ku Klux Klan, by saying, you know, they're doing more damage than anybody with a hood ever did to kids of color. And Loeb's point is actually a correct one, that Democrats are doing damage, whether it's more damage than people with hoods on, that's probably, and I think Loeb regrets saying it in those terms. But this hedge fund investor supports the Success Academy in New York. Now, this is interesting, Joe. This is a network of 46 schools. They are charter schools schools meaning they're outside of their they're basically school choice type models you have to uh apply to get in there um but they they take you know it's done do a lot of it's done to a lottery so they'll get the cherry

pick students so let's debunk that liberal talking point right away but here's what's fascinating these 46 success academy schools joe they would if they were a school district in New York, they would be the seventh largest school district in New York. But that's not the interesting number. The interesting number is it would also be the highest achieving. It would be the highest achieving school district. Here are some numbers. So you may say, this is great.

One, 86% of the students there are students of color, right? 86%. 95% of the students, of those students, in those 46 success academies are proficient in math, 84% are proficient in English. If this success academy network were a school district, it would be the most successful one achievement-wise in New York. Now, compare their 95% proficiency rate in math and 84% proficiency rate in English to what's happening in the rest of the public schools among students of color. 24% proficiency in math amongst other public schools, 29% proficiency in English. Now, you might say to yourself, again, so you have students, you have black and Hispanic students who are struggling and the regular public

school system is based on these atrocious proficiency numbers for math and English. students, you have black and Hispanic students who are struggling in the regular public school system is based on these atrocious proficiency numbers for math and English. You would think what, Joe, that we'd be looking for an opportunity if you were the left, if you were liberals, not all Democrats, because there are a lot of Democrats that support charter schools. But you would think if you were a liberal and you profess to believe what you believe, that you're helping the little guy, that you would actually help him up. Not only are they not helping them up, they are punching them in the face because what's happening right now?

There's a board member on a New York State board that gets to approve these new charter school applications who is refusing to approve new charter school applications despite the fact that students of color are kicking ass in those schools and they are majority students of color in these schools. It would be the highest achieving schools in new york they will not reprove any new ones until they kick this guy off the board for making what he probably acknowledges is what was a was probably a bit of a hyperbolic comment but the guy's a hedge fund guy donates his money and time to getting students who are in struggling schools and education what are they doing they're in a

full-blown meltdown mode. They're saying they're not going to approve anything until they get this guy off the board. Folks, again, I don't get it. If you're a liberal listening, I don't understand why you bow in front of the altar of liberalism despite overwhelming volumes, encyclopedic volumes of evidence that it is

your specific political ideology that is actually destroying the people you purport to help. How do you explain this away? So because you don't like the comments of a hedge fund guy who supports school choice, gives his own time and money, you're now going to block the educational opportunities for legions of young black and Hispanic kids because, because why why the answer is because you were just looking for a reason it's just like I said to you about the Robert Lee thing and the confederate statues the outrage campaign by the left will never stop Joe they are looking for a reason constantly to get you to believe that the other side hates you and they will find the reason. Statues, transgender bathrooms, it doesn't matter.

War on cops. They will move on and on to the next and the next thing because the only way to motivate liberal voters is not with ideas, it's only with anger. They don't have ideas. They don't have anything. What are they going to do? Put on a campaign sign?

We want to grow government, hike your taxes, and pull your kids out of schools? They can't do that. The only way to motivate you is to get you to believe the other guys are racist and to keep you angry all the time. All the time. It's the only way. One more story I saw right along these lines.

Missouri just passed right to work. The Republican governor, Eric Reitens, signed the right to work legislation in Missouri. What's happening in Missouri right now? The unions don't like it. The unions don't like the fact that we elected representatives in the Missouri State House and the Missouri State Senate and with a Republican governor. They don't like right to work because they think they have a right to your union money. These unions think they have a right to your work, I should say.

The unions think they have a right to your salary. So what are they doing? Now they're engaging in this massive initiative in Missouri to put it on the ballot to overturn what happened after the election. is what they do they they they think they are entitled to everything to send your skid to your kid to a school that sucks to take your money they think they are they're actually hurting you job growth and right to work states far surpasses states that are uh that are fully unionized that, that use force to take a union employee's money. This is just amazing.

All right. I'm sorry, I got a lot of news stories. They're piling up, and there's stuff I really find interesting. So my apologies for just laying this all on you. But here's another one I saw at the Washington Examiner. Again, more liberal lies. The Clinton team right now, and I have my suspicions. I may have said this a week ago or so on the podcast.

I have my suspicions that Hillary's lining up for another run. You know, I don't like to say that. I'm not trying to be Mr. Newsbreaking guy. I hate when guys do. It's all BS later on. They're just looking for clicks. But I have my suspicions here that Hillary's lining up for another run. And here's another reason i

think that's true her people are out there now vigorously defending her legacy on on the presidential on the on this presidential campaign and they're saying now the new excuse because the trump russia thing is falling apart remember that was excuse number one joe but the trump russia narrative is entirely collapsed there's nothing there no there there. They have nothing left to do with it because there's nowhere to go. So now the new Clinton team narrative is going to be that the media, this is all, but Joe, this is funny. The media destroyed

them. That it was the media, yeah, who did the Clintons in. So again, without beating this story to death, the Washington Examiner, Paul Bedard, took a quick look at this. Sorry, man. It's fascinating. Yeah, no, it's just, I know, it is funny because it's just so stupid. And they found out that when you analyze media coverage of the campaign, this is a Harvard study, by the way.

The Washington Examiner is publishing this Harvard study. This Harvard study from, I think it was the Kennedy School over there, 77% of Trump coverage was negative during the campaign. Now, if Mrs. Clinton's theory is right, you're a liberal out there, and again, you have another excuse. It wasn't just the Russians. Now it's the campaign. Now, if Mrs. Clinton's theory is right, you're a liberal out there. And again, you have another excuse. It wasn't just the Russians. Now it's the media. You would think, okay, if 77% of Trump's coverage was negative during the campaign, this Harvard study would probably show that, what, 85% of Mrs. Clinton's coverage was negative? You'd be wrong. It would be 64%. So again, you're just making this up, but this is what they do.

Democrats and liberals are absolutely committed to the idea that they have to have an excuse for losing to Trump. Mrs. Clinton's committed to that idea because I think she's lining up for another race and she doesn't want to be the candidate who lost to what they consider to be an unprepared and unfit for office president, what they consider to be. So she has to set up an excuse already. And this is the excuse they're already looking at. It's really, it's just staggering how they will just lie to your face constantly. All right. Today's show also brought to you by our friends at My Patriot Supply. Big supporter of preparedness, as you can imagine being a former federal agent and having seen what we did in the Secret Service to prepare for all eventualities. You know, folks, you really need to ensure your food supply. It doesn't make sense

not to. We ensure everything in our lives that matters, our health, our cars, our homes. You know, folks, you really need to ensure your food supply. It doesn't make sense not to. We ensure everything in our lives that matters. Our health, our cars, our homes. I mean, we even ensure our teeth. But we don't ensure our food supply. What are you going to eat with those teeth?

You may have great teeth. You got dental insurance, but you got no food. God forbid there's a natural disaster, an EMP attack. Is this stuff likely? No, thank God. But can it happen?

It's happened before. It's happened many times. You have to ensure your food supply. My Patriot Supply will sell you a one-month supply of emergency food for just $99. It's breakfast, lunch, and dinner. It's easy to prepare. All you need is water. Get your water, too.

Always be prepared with some water as well. But breakfast, lunch, and dinner, it lasts for 25 years. You can stick it in your closet. You don't have to worry about it. Better to have it, though, and not need it than to need it and not have it. Go pick up your one month supply of emergency food today. Go to preparewithdan.com. That's preparewithdan.com. Pick it up today. It's just 99 bucks. Put it in your closet. Hopefully you never need it, but God forbid you got to crack that box. Go get it, preparewithdan.com. All right. So yesterday I teased this story and this is the story I want

to spend some time on. So I want to get some news out of the way and then get this done because this is important because it keeps creeping up. And it's this idea, this silly, mythical, nonsensical idea by the left and the media that keeps it going that the Republican party, there was a party switch in the South. Now, why is this coming up again and and why am i talking about it now i've noticed an upward tick in my twitter traffic from looney tunes liberals which i block about every 10 seconds i have no patience for liberals unless they say something substantive then i'll keep them around but the charlottesville uh situation when we had these uh some neo-nazis show up and then we had some antifa people show up and

the woman was tragically killed uh when the car ran her down this the democrats now are trying to paint again the republican party to be racist now this is nothing new it happens all the time but what happened in charlottesville uh is there's been an erasing of history. Obviously, they're trying to get rid of the Confederate statues. That's what started this whole thing. They wanted to take down a Robert E. Lee statue, who was the commander of the Confederate Army. They wanted to take that down. They want to take it all down because they want to wipe clean American history. But what's happening now, and this is what you may be missing, is that re-evaluation of American history in light of the conversation about Confederate Statue Show has brought up a very uncomfortable truth, folks,

and I don't want to add any fuel to this fire, so we're just going to talk in facts today, and I'll let you form your own conclusion. That uncomfortable truth is that our history of racism from slavery through Jim Crow is exclusively a history of the Democrat Party. Now, I know that's not a comfortable thing to say or for many people to hear. And I noticed I didn't say it with any sense of anger or vitriol because I don't want to blame and do what liberals do to us. I am not making the claim and never would that everyone who aligns themselves with the Democratic Party today should have to apologize for the disturbing history of the Democratic Party and racism and slavery. That is absolutely not the case. The overwhelming majority of Democrats are good people who don't have a racist streak in their entire body. But to ignore history and to paint over history and pretend this didn't happen does us no good in learning where we are now.

What's even more pernicious and more malicious about this, I'm trying to be rhyme or anything like that, but is that they're not just not telling you the history, the media folks of the Democrat party, the history of slavery and their attachment to the Democrat party and racism, Jim Crow. They're actually lying about it. The myth goes like this,

Richard Nixon and Atwater and a couple of other folks that they was Atwater. I think that was his name. So if I'm wrong, correct me other folks that they, was it Atwater? I think that was his name. So if I'm wrong, correct me. But they had to find a way to win a national election. So in order to win a national election, this is the myth. I'm not telling, this is obviously not true,

but this is what Democrats in the media want you to believe. So what they did is they quietly sent dog whistles to Southern voters who were aligned with the Democrat party, who were racist. Again, this is airmen, those Southern rednecks, Joe, this is what they'll tell you. And the dog whistles were, Hey, come with us. We're the new racists now. And you have a home in the Republican party. So the Democrats will tell you, yes, the Democrat party may have had an alliance with slavery, Jim Crow, and hard racism in the South. But all of those people then turned over and switched to be Republicans, so you guys are now the racists today.

Which, on its face, is just nonsense. Now, I did a lot of homework on this, and I want to give a heavy-duty hat tip to Prager University. If you go to their Facebook page, Carol Swain has some terrific videos, and I'll put the link to one of them up in the show notes at Bongino.com. Again, if you want the show notes sent to your email, just subscribe to my email list at Bongino.com. I'll get them right to you. But she has some terrific videos up at Prager University on their Facebook page, explaining a lot of what I'm about to tell you. So I took a few articles. I took an article from Mona Charan at National Review, which I'll put in the show notes as

well. And I got some numbers and some statistics. So you'll understand that this myth that the racist Southern Democrats switched over to become a Republican and the Republicans embraced them with open arms is entirely nonsense, not supported by any facts at all. It's made up. And the reason it's made up is because the Democrats are obsessed with painting the Republican parties as racist and avoiding their own really disgusting history with race as slavery and

Jim Crow. Okay. Number one, 1964, Joe, the Civil Rights Act in 1964. All right. In the House, the House of Representatives, 86% of Republican congressmen and women supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Only 61% of Democrats did. So kind of strange if there was this mass movement of racists into the Republican Party, how they were electing people who supported by 20 percentage points more the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Kind of strange. In some limited circles, Joe, we call that a clue that there's something wrong. So 86% of the GOP House supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964, only 61% of Dems. On the Senate side, 82% of Republican senators supported the Civil Rights act of 1964 only 69 of democrats did now of those 21 senators right on the democrat side who didn't support the civil rights act of 1964 by the way it was democrats that filibustered in fact the civil rights act of 1964 i'm not getting any of this wrong, folks. Not backwards. The Democrats did this.

Again, the myth is that all these racist Democrats moved over to be racist Republicans. So you had 21 senators who fought against this, even filibustered it. If the myth is true, Joe, all 21 clearly became Republicans, right? Oh, yeah. Well, you'd be wrong. Intentionally. We set you up. Of course you knew it was wrong. There was one. Strom Thurmond became a Republican. That's it. Matter of fact, the other 20 who stayed Democrats held their seats for decades

and were replaced by other Democrats who were also not on the wrong side of the issue. So I don't get it. If there was this major swap between racist Democrats who became racist Republicans, how come they voted for people in far greater numbers on the Republican side that voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 while the Democrats voted against it? I mean, where was the party switch?

Only one out of 21. That's your party switch? One guy? People switch parties all the time. One guy left. Now, it goes on. The voting patterns, if this theory is correct, if the theory, Joe, that in the 60s and the Nixon era,

there was a dog whistle out to racist Democrats to become Republicans like, hey, you got a new home here. You evil racist. Come over to the Republican Party. You've got a home here with us. You would think that shift would have happened after Nixon, right? If your theory is that Nixon was the boogeyman and Nixon's the one who did this and he's the one who put this Southern strategy out there. Hey, tell all the racists to come over with us.

Then the shift should have happened after 68 or in the 60s as Nixon was campaigning. But folks, the shift to the Republican Party happened way before that. So if your whole premise is based on nixon's other strategy turning racist democrats into racist republicans how come the shift to the republican party happened way before nixon even got around came around the political scene 1950 people voted for ike eisenhower a republican he won tennessee he won flor. He won Virginia. He went on to win Kentucky, Louisiana, and West Virginia in his re-election.

He won significant portions of the South before the infamous Nixon Southern Strategy. By the way, Ike, Joe, and then you may say, well, oh, well, Ike was a Republican and even before Nixon, what are they going to call Eisenhower a racist? Oh, yeah. Good luck on that one. You mean the one who desegregated schools and sent in the National Guard? You mean that Eisenhower? Ike was the one who fought to desegregate schools.

So let me just be clear on this. Your premise is that Nixon started a Southern strategy, dog whistled a racist to come over to the Republican Party. The transition, though, happened way earlier under Ike. What's your comeback to this? Oh, well, they quietly knew Ike was a racist. Are you insane? Are you crazy? Seriously, are you out of your mind? Ike was the one who sent the National Guard in to desegregate the schools. You're just making this stuff up. The transition started earlier when Ike started winning those votes. Now, again, inconveniently,

for the left, oh, Nixon, the Southern strategy, come on over, racists. Nixon lost the Deep South in 68. He lost the Deep South, you knuckleheads. I mean,

I'm sorry to throw that out there, but come on, can you be this ignorant? I mean, do you realize as you make stuff up that sooner or later, people who are interested in facts and actual data are going to call you out on what clearly are nonsensical terms of arguing?

Nixon lost the Deep South in 68. Here's another interesting little tidbit for you. Here are things the Democrats, Democrats defended. I'm not blaming Democrats. I'm just telling you what actually happened. The Democrat Party in the South exclusively defended slavery, opposed reconstruction, founded the KKK. What is it? Nathan Bedford Forrest?

Democrat. They imposed Jim Crow, fought the Civil Rights Act, even filibustered it. They imposed Jim Crow, fought the Civil Rights Act, even filibustered it. The Dred Scott decision, Joe. You bet. Which determined that slaves were property and not human beings. An abhorrent decision. There were seven yes votes on the Supreme Court.

What were they all? Democrats. There were two no votes. What were they? Republicans. Oh oh you didn't know that you hadn't heard that one either here's another one lbj lyndon baines johnson once he started to figure out that they were losing uh they were starting to lose the south they realized they needed to retrench and go back and grab the black vote. Black voters used to almost exclusively, especially in the Northeast, vote Republican.

This is a fact. We started to lose black voters, not because of some mythical Southern strategy, but because of New Deal posturing. New Deal posturing in an entitlement state that started to reach out and silo voters into racial boxes and racial categories and get them to vote Democrat so they could give away the goodies. This was a strategic approach by the Democrats to buy off not just black America, all union America, wars on women. This was a strategic shift towards identity politics. It had nothing to do with the Southern strategy and everything to do with New Deal politics. Now, the reason I bring that up is because Lyndon Baines Johnson was alleged, to be fair,

was alleged to have said, but this has been out there for a long time, and I can't even use the word because it's one of those words understandably no civil human being should ever use. Right. But he said after he figured out that they could use the entitlement state to buy off voting blocks and they were losing in the South and needed to go and get black voters back. LBJ is alleged to have said, I'll have them N-word voting Democrat for 200 years.

You can fill in the blank there. It's not even a word you say. But it's emblematic of what the Democrats thought at the time. Their party is indelibly attached. I mean, it's marked permanently with the stain of racism and Jim. I'm not saying that the Democrats today, I'm just saying that it's marked indelibly because you can't change that. It is what it is now. To sum this up, what's the real reason this happened? What's the real reason this happened? What's the real reason as Republicans, excuse me, as the South started to slowly detach itself from its historical ties to slavery? What's the real reason as it became more diverse, it became more Republican? Well, because people in the South are good folks. It shouldn't surprise anyone. Not every single person in the South supported slavery. This should be obvious to anyone who just has a basic understanding of human nature.

People in the South are historically very religious. They respect individual liberty. They can be very spiritual people. They respect their gun rights. They respect the Bill of Rights, they they respected a limited government and an unlimited individual. Not all people in the South are not stereotyping in a positive or negative way. I'm just telling you these values are pervasive. How do I know that? Because these are the values people started to vote in the South. It had nothing to do with racist dog whistles and everything to do with the fact that the Democrats became the party of big government, anti-gun, pro-abortion, and basically anti-religion. They became hostile to religion. As the Democrats became more and more detached from big R rights and detached from God and detached from respect for the Second Amendment, voters down South who respect these things,

big R rights from God, started to detach from the Democrat Party. But they're uncomfortable with that. They can't explain that away easily. So what do they do? They lie about it. They make up stories, again, to paint the Republicans as the racists to avoid their own history.

Oh, those aren't our people anymore. Those are now the Republicans of today. That is fundamentally, absolutely not true. You're just making it up. All right, folks. I said this was the last story, but I just had to get that out there because I really get tired of hearing this. And I'm going to put the link to the PragerU video.

And it's three, four minutes long. Watch it. It's really, really good. Carol Swain does a terrific, commendable job at debunking this really ridiculous myth. Hey, on a final note, you know, Holman Jenkins, who writes in the Wall Street Journal, he does some really good stuff over there, some good pieces. You know, he had a piece and I just wanted to wrap it up because I had mentioned it yesterday and I think it's important today too. I talked about yesterday how we're all

going to have to afflict ourselves a bit and get big. He talks about in his piece, the dangers of the mob, how it's not the mob that needs protection, Joe. I mean, he means the mob. He, he, he makes reference to Boston. What happened in Boston recently,

in case you missed it, there was supposed to be some rally. It was billed as a free speech rally in Boston. Of course, the left painted it as a Nazi rally because left doesn't have anything else. They just, everybody's a Nazi. Now it doesn't really,

you know, rationality has gone out the window. But he makes the point that thousands of people showed up to stamp out the evil Nazis at this, you know, free speech rally. And I'm being sarcastic there. And they couldn't find them.

Like they weren't there. So what'd they do? They started turning their attention to the police, throwing urine at them, urine bottles, and basically beating them up because that's what the left does. And he makes a point in a piece that we can all agree

that anyone associating with Nazis or Nazi values is obviously abhorrent and a disgusting little creature. I think we can all put that to bed pretty easily. He makes the point, though, that it's the mob you need protection from. When 10,000 people show up angry, throwing stuff, it's not the smaller group,

however abhorrent their values are, that we should be worried about. It's the mob. And folks, this is a really interesting point that I just want to make clear that I know it's unpopular sometimes as a conservative to go against the mob zeitgeist of the day that we should all condemn trump that we should all be forced to apologize for for you know racist

comments by someone when we don't attach ourselves to these people at all but you know sometimes do your own thing and i don't i'm not i don't want to be preachy but just be careful of the mob mentality i see it all the time that's why i always applaud molly hemingway from the federalist she goes on fox all the time and she takes unpopular positions knowing that her principles are correct and you're not going to beat her into following a certain narrative i you know she and you know disclosure on this she defended me when i was going through that thing with that that loser reporter from politico and i always appreciated that because the mob piled on me. I know what it's like, and at times it can be a really uncomfortable feeling. Thank God I was comfortable in how I had fought back against it,

but just be careful about following the mob. You need protection from the mob. The mob isn't the one doing the protecting like the left wants you to believe. All right, folks, thanks again for tuning in. Please go to my website, Pongino.com, sign up for our email list. I'll send you the show notes right to your email box. I think you'll like them. I pick some you the show notes right to your email box. I think you'll like them. I pick some really interesting stories each day.

And it makes it easy for you. It saves you a click. All right. Thanks again. See you all tomorrow. You just heard the Dan Bongino Show. Get more of Dan online anytime at conservativereview.com. You can also get Dan's podcasts on iTunes or SoundCloud. And follow Dan on Twitter 24-7 at DBongino.