Modern political discourse, or the critique of current affairs, often involves the discussion of the relationship between modern occurrences and historical events.

At some point or another, most of us have heard the mainstream punchline of the “party switch” of the 1960s, in which the Democrat and Republican parties allegedly swapped platforms. The claim tends to be used as a last-ditch effort to deem one party more racist than the other. Given the history of racism and white supremacy in the Democratic party, it’s easy to cop out for modern Leftists. And given the rampant accusations of racism in the modern Republican party, it’s easy for right-wingers to claim that the whole notion of “the switch” is a myth.

Neither of these views embodies a complete sense of accuracy and they are dangerous to teach because of their impact on how young people view both history and partisan politics. To purely seek truth within our nation’s history, it is important to examine the evolution of political parties in America through an objective lens.

Whether or not you are a historian, there’s a good chance that you’re aware of the fact that the Democratic party was once the party of slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation. You’re probably also aware that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and represented the party of emancipation and equality. However, neither of these facts equip anyone to make a well thought out judgment on the current state of political affairs in the modern world. To make such a judgment would be an abuse of history.

Shall we not discuss the 1930s New Deal coalition that swayed multiple interest groups from the Republican party to the Democratic party? Or the conservative culture of post-World War II America that incited a counterculture of rebelliousness, both socially and politically? We surely can’t forget the desire of both pre- and post-1960s Democrats to, in general, expand the role of government? Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society that began to carry the flag of modern liberalism? These points could be talked about for hours. While that is not necessarily the point of the article, I encourage people from both sides of the aisle to bring these points up if someone ever tries to oversimplify history (or demean your position) with the claim of the “party switch.”

There is another objective element that can be explored when discussing this – the people in power at the time. If there was an extreme and obvious party switch, you would think that members of Congress would have taken action and made the switch themselves. Republicans would become Democrats and vice versa. Of course, this did not happen. This concept is explained particularly well by none other than Ben Shapiro.

Using the history of the parties in an attempt to marginalize the modern state of the parties is sometimes valid but doesn’t often have firm ground to stand on.

In the era of Donald Trump, immigration and multiculturalism have become pertinent issues of discussion. While Republicans take a more disciplined stand on this issue, the Left claims the Right are the modern racists. The irony of this statement is that the Democrats, as stated earlier, have a lot of racism in the history of their party.

However, the proper retaliation to accusations of racism is not a flippant point about the Democrats once being in the party of slavery. Both parties have evolved beyond their views on slavery and segregation and it is unfair to paint a picture that may suggest otherwise.

Both parties without a doubt have undergone some serious change and development throughout history, and it is foolish to attest the contrast in platforms to a 1960s effort to win votes on the national level. If this were the case, well, I suppose my favorite Conservative president would be FDR.

Point being, the blanket claim that the parties switched at this period of time falls short in explaining the true dynamic of historical events that shaped party platforms. It also deprives us of the privilege of learning how our past transformed our present.

All of this is centered around the quality of political discourse.

In terms of education as well as more casual exchanges of dialogue, let’s not oversimplify in attempt to belittle. Studying our past is one of the best ways to formulate opinions on the present and the future. Allowing party history to be defined by something like the “party switch” without further discussion or evidence will not encourage people to think more deeply about the conclusions they make.

It is time to get serious and fearless in cultivating accurate conversations about contemporary and historical affairs.