Members banned from this thread: FUCK THE POLICE, evince, signalmankenneth, Buckly J. Ewer, Text Drivers are Killers, CFM, TheDonald, Bill, domer76, Amadeus, Silver Buzzard, BillyB, Mason Michaels, JqYaqui, ThatOwlWoman, PraiseKek and liberalsAREracists


Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 38

Thread: The myth of the Southern Strategy

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    20,584
    Thanks
    5,584
    Thanked 2,435 Times in 2,073 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 172 Times in 170 Posts

    Default The myth of the Southern Strategy

    In “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin prove that the shift in the South from DEMOCRAT to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class.

    This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the DEMOCRATS. This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.

    The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively.

    Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t.

    To be sure, Shafer says, many whites in the South aggressively opposed liberal DEMOCRATS. “But when folks went to the polling booths,” he says, “they didn’t shoot off their own toes. They voted by their economic preferences, not racial preferences.”



    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html
    Last edited by Русский агент; 10-18-2017 at 06:06 PM.

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Blue Ridge
    Posts
    37,741
    Thanks
    21,918
    Thanked 12,581 Times in 9,703 Posts
    Groans
    4,312
    Groaned 1,312 Times in 1,210 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Staregy?

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to MAGA MAN For This Post:

    Русский  (10-18-2017)

  4. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    20,584
    Thanks
    5,584
    Thanked 2,435 Times in 2,073 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 172 Times in 170 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Right View Post
    Staregy?
    I was careless. Thanks for catching it.

  5. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Blue Ridge
    Posts
    37,741
    Thanks
    21,918
    Thanked 12,581 Times in 9,703 Posts
    Groans
    4,312
    Groaned 1,312 Times in 1,210 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by God bless America View Post
    I was careless. Thanks for catching it.
    [libtard] Too bad it destroys your ENTIRE argument. [/libtard]

  6. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    20,584
    Thanks
    5,584
    Thanked 2,435 Times in 2,073 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 172 Times in 170 Posts

    Default


  7. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    5,166
    Thanks
    1,138
    Thanked 2,495 Times in 1,799 Posts
    Groans
    7
    Groaned 171 Times in 164 Posts

    Default

    I grew up in Louisiana and remember my father, or was it my mother, telling me they couldn't even vote unless they were registered democrat. Once that little inconvenience was done away with my father became a lifelong republican.
    Last edited by Cancel 2018.1; 10-18-2017 at 06:44 PM.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Cancel 2018.1 For This Post:

    Русский  (10-18-2017)

  9. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    20,584
    Thanks
    5,584
    Thanked 2,435 Times in 2,073 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 172 Times in 170 Posts

    Default

    The myth about Southern conservatism being inherently racist continues to circulate among the credulous.

    It goes something like this: the Republican Party assembled a national majority by winning over Southern white voters; Southern white voters are racist; therefore, the GOP is racist.

    Sometimes the conclusion is softened, and Republicans are convicted of base opportunism: the GOP is the party that became willing to pander to racists.

    This myth is not the only viewpoint in scholarly debates on the subject.

    It is so pervasive in fake news reporting that an NBC news anchor can casually speak of "a new era for the Republican Party."

    It has become a staple of DEMOCRATS who accuse Republicans of dividing Americans against each other, stirring up racial prejudices and bringing out the worst in people through the use of so-called racist "codewords."

    All this matters because people use such putative connections to form judgments, and "racist" is as toxic a reputation as one can have.

    Now to be sure, the GOP had a Southern strategy.

    Willing to work with, rather than against, the grain of Southern opinion, local Republicans ran some segregationist candidates in the 1960s.

    From the 1950s on, virtually all national and local GOP candidates tried to craft policies and messages that could compete for the votes of some pretty unsavory characters. This record is incontestable. A party acted expediently in an often nasty political context.

    The myth is much bolder than this. It insists that these events should decisively shape our understanding of conservatism and the modern Republican Party. It is only a short step to the DEMOCRATS' insinuation that the GOP did not merely seek votes expediently; it made a pact with America's devil.

    The mythmakers typically draw on two types of evidence. First, they argue that the GOP deliberately crafted its core messages to accommodate Southern racists.

    Second, they find "proof" in the electoral pudding: the GOP captured the core of the Southern white backlash vote. Neither type of evidence is persuasive.

    The GOP's policy positions are not sugar-coated racist appeals.

    Election results show that the GOP became the South's dominant party in the least racist phase of the region's history, and got that way as the party of the more socially conservative, openly patriotic middle-class.



    http://www.claremont.org/crb/article/the-myth-of-the-racist-republicans/

  10. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    41,960
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 22,041 Times in 13,848 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 3,042 Times in 2,838 Posts

    Default

    Then how do you explain Wallace's success running as an independent in 1968 carrying the Deep South? Your explanation predates the actual "Southern Strategy"



    "Democrats feared Wallace's appeal to organized blue-collar workers would damage Humphrey in northern states such as Ohio, New Jersey, and Michigan. Wallace ran a "law and order" campaign similar to Nixon's, further worrying Republicans."

    "In Wallace's 1998 obituary, The Huntsville Times political editor John Anderson summarized the impact from the 1968 campaign: "His startling appeal to millions of alienated white voters was not lost on Richard Nixon and other Republican strategists. First Nixon, then Ronald Reagan, and finally George Herbert Walker Bush successfully adopted toned-down versions of Wallace's anti-busing, anti-federal government platform to pry low- and middle-income whites from the Democratic New Deal coalition."Dan Carter, a professor of history at Emory University in Atlanta, added: "George Wallace laid the foundation for the dominance of the Republican Party in American society through the manipulation of racial and social issues in the 1960s and 1970s. He was the master teacher, and Richard Nixon and the Republican leadership that followed were his students."

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace

  11. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Blue Ridge
    Posts
    37,741
    Thanks
    21,918
    Thanked 12,581 Times in 9,703 Posts
    Groans
    4,312
    Groaned 1,312 Times in 1,210 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Then how do you explain Wallace's success running as an independent in 1968 carrying the Deep South? Your explanation predates the actual "Southern Strategy"



    "Democrats feared Wallace's appeal to organized blue-collar workers would damage Humphrey in northern states such as Ohio, New Jersey, and Michigan. Wallace ran a "law and order" campaign similar to Nixon's, further worrying Republicans."

    "In Wallace's 1998 obituary, The Huntsville Times political editor John Anderson summarized the impact from the 1968 campaign: "His startling appeal to millions of alienated white voters was not lost on Richard Nixon and other Republican strategists. First Nixon, then Ronald Reagan, and finally George Herbert Walker Bush successfully adopted toned-down versions of Wallace's anti-busing, anti-federal government platform to pry low- and middle-income whites from the Democratic New Deal coalition."Dan Carter, a professor of history at Emory University in Atlanta, added: "George Wallace laid the foundation for the dominance of the Republican Party in American society through the manipulation of racial and social issues in the 1960s and 1970s. He was the master teacher, and Richard Nixon and the Republican leadership that followed were his students."

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace
    Try another source, as wiki can never be considered accurate on political issues.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to MAGA MAN For This Post:

    Русский  (10-18-2017)

  13. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    20,584
    Thanks
    5,584
    Thanked 2,435 Times in 2,073 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 172 Times in 170 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Then how do you explain Wallace's success running as an independent in 1968 carrying the Deep South? Your explanation predates the actual "Southern Strategy"

    Why would I need to explain an independents' purported "success", anchovies? Especially since Wallace failed to gain the presidency.

    Please, prove that "my explanation" - which clearly is not mine - "predates the actual Southern Strategy", if you can, anchovies.

  14. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Blue Ridge
    Posts
    37,741
    Thanks
    21,918
    Thanked 12,581 Times in 9,703 Posts
    Groans
    4,312
    Groaned 1,312 Times in 1,210 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    The tiniest cracks in the Democrats’ southern bloc began to appear with the backlash to FDR’s court-packing scheme and the recession of 1937.
    Republicans would pick up 81 House seats in the 1938 election, with West Virginia’s all-Democrat delegation ceasing to be so with the acquisition of its first Republican.
    Kentucky elected a Republican House member in 1934, as did Missouri, while Tennessee’s first Republican House member, elected in 1918, was joined by another in 1932.
    Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, the Republican Party, though marginal, began to take hold in the South — but not very quickly: Dixie would not send its first Republican to the Senate until 1961, with Texas’s election of John Tower.
    At the same time, Republicans went through a long dry spell on civil-rights progress.
    Many of them believed, wrongly, that the issue had been more or less resolved by the constitutional amendments that had been enacted to ensure the full citizenship of black Americans after the Civil War, and that the enduring marginalization of black citizens, particularly in the Democratic states, was a problem that would be healed by time, economic development, and organic social change rather than through a second political confrontation between North and South.
    As late as 1964, the Republican platform argued that “the elimination of any such discrimination is a matter of heart, conscience, and education, as well as of equal rights under law.”
    The conventional Republican wisdom of the day held that the South was backward because it was poor rather than poor because it was backward.
    And their strongest piece of evidence for that belief was that Republican support in the South was not among poor whites or the old elites — the two groups that tended to hold the most retrograde beliefs on race.
    Instead, it was among the emerging southern middle class.
    This fact was recently documented by professors Byron Shafer and Richard Johnston in The End of Southern Exceptionalism: Class, Race, and Partisan Change in the Postwar South (Harvard University Press, 2006).
    Which is to say: The Republican rise in the South was contemporaneous with the decline of race as the most important political question and tracked the rise of middle-class voters moved mainly by economic considerations and anti-Communism.
    The South had been in effect a Third World country within the United States, and that changed with the post-war economic boom.
    As Clay Risen put it in the New York Times: “The South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class.
    This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the GOP. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats.
    This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.” The mythmakers would have you believe that it was the opposite: that your white-hooded hillbilly trailer-dwelling tornado-bait voters jumped ship because LBJ signed a civil-rights bill (passed on the strength of disproportionately Republican support in Congress). The facts suggest otherwise.
    http://blackrepublican.blogspot.com/...y-kevin-d.html

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to MAGA MAN For This Post:

    Русский  (10-18-2017)

  16. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    41,960
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 22,041 Times in 13,848 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 3,042 Times in 2,838 Posts

    Default

    What your point is missing, and the Narional Review article doesn't point out, is that Southern Democrats, especially post Civil War, were conservative Democrats, and the exact opposite for most Republicans, George Rommey and the Radical Republicans were not conservatives

  17. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    41,960
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 22,041 Times in 13,848 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 3,042 Times in 2,838 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Right View Post
    Try another source, as wiki can never be considered accurate on political issues.
    Don't need Wikileaks, the 1964, especially the 1968, and 1980 elections on prove my point

    Before you ask 1972 and 1976 don't count since Nixon carried the country and in 1976 the Democrats ran Carter

  18. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    20,584
    Thanks
    5,584
    Thanked 2,435 Times in 2,073 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 172 Times in 170 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anchovies View Post
    Don't need Wikileaks, the 1964, especially the 1968, and 1980 elections on prove my point
    Before you ask 1972 and 1976 don't count since Nixon carried the country and in 1976 the Democrats ran Carter
    He didn't mention Wikileaks, and the rest of your "rebuttal" lacks supporting documentation that would validate your assertions about the events you cited, anchovies.

  19. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    41,960
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 22,041 Times in 13,848 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 3,042 Times in 2,838 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by God bless America View Post
    Why would I need to explain an independents' purported "success", anchovies? Especially since Wallace failed to gain the presidency.

    Please, prove that "my explanation" - which clearly is not mine - "predates the actual Southern Strategy", if you can, anchovies.
    Because the 1968 election doesn't fit your model, even the 1964 election makes it questionable, and every election after 1976 raises doubts

    Your study is based upon election results in the 1950s up to mid 1960's, learning from the 1968 election, the election you can't explain, Nixon bought the Southern Strategdy to the Republican Party

    For anymore deflections? Maybe a grammar or spelling error?

Similar Threads

  1. APP - The Myth of the Southern Strategy II
    By midcan5 in forum Above Plain Politics Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-24-2017, 11:22 AM
  2. APP - The Myth of the Southern Strategy
    By canceled.2021.3 in forum Above Plain Politics Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-22-2017, 06:52 AM
  3. Southren Strategy Myth: Not a Myth
    By Amadeus in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-21-2017, 09:35 AM
  4. Southern Man
    By ib1yysguy in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-10-2008, 08:08 PM
  5. How Come Southern Democrats are Just as Bad as Southern Republicans?
    By CanadianKid in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-27-2007, 06:28 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •