4 ms·

If you read that Wikipedia page, under the Scholarly debates section, the existence of a "Southern Strategy" at all is debated. Nixon never claimed to have a So

by qtt 5y ago

If you read that Wikipedia page, under the Scholarly debates section, the existence of a "Southern Strategy" at all is debated. Nixon never claimed to have a Southern Strategy - he was focused on a national strategy that included the South. Notably, in his 1972 election, he carried 49 states - indicating that he did indeed have an inclusive national strategy. The more likely explanation to contemporary GOP success is that Nixon (& others) were very effective appealing to suburban demographics (where the top issue was the economy). It took decades after for the South to gradually become a GOP stronghold, and it is very debatable which specific policies were the cause of that. People point to figures like Strom Thurmond as evidence of a Southern Strategy, but there were several Democrats who did things like filibuster the civil rights act & endorse segregation. Prominent Democrats such as Robert Byrd & Richard Russell Jr. were fighting Nixon's party at the time. It's safe to say that at the very least, the existence of a "southern strategy" is not something that can be accepted at face value.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jolux 5y ago
You should look at the political career of Lee Atwater if you haven’t, he was a Republican political consultant who was uncharacteristically candid about his methodology. At the very least, he thought Southern Strategy-style tactics were politically successful, and he may have been mistaken, but I think it’s hard to argue they didn’t exist.
- gustavo-fring 5y ago
  He's famous for spreading racist rumors about McCain (he had adopted a darker-skinned girl) during the 2000 primaries. There's a documentary about him. Boogeyman? Something like that.
  - gustavo-fring 5y ago
    ...that was actually Karl Rove, his protege.
efitz 5y ago
I find the idea of the “Southern Strategy” to be counter-intuitive as well as self-serving for its proponents. First, under what circumstances would you swap political parties? This is an exceptionally rare circumstance; I don’t see how it could ever happen in any kind of significant way. People change to third parties (eg whigs to Republicans) but leftists and rightists rarely “switch sides”. Party affiliations are a big basket of beliefs, not just single issue. It’s self serving in that the popular narrative is all the “bad” Democrats (southern racists who blocked school integration, civil rights, etc) all left for the Republican Party, leaving the Democrats racist-free. Pretty convenient. In reality I think that there was very little party switching; racism just became politically anathema in the civil rights era (which is one of the greatest things about America) and all the OG racists - the Robert Byrds etc. - had to stop being publicly racist. This and shifting cultural norms meant that Boomers were much less racist than previous generations and Gen X even more so.
- js2 5y ago
  The parties did not used to be as polarized. Many southern white Democrats moved to the Republican party. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats#1933%E2%80%931980 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats#1933%E2%80%... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond is very notable example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond
  - js2 5y ago
    Ronald Reagan, famously, too.
js2 5y ago
> IN another area it is clear that the Republicans will raise to the surface the resentments that many white Americans have over Negroes’ moves for social equality. The San Francisco convention was blatant in its proclamation that one of our parties intended to be nothing less than lily‐white. The nation is now faced with a major candidate who feels no need of Negro votes; he is willing to stand or fall on the gains he can make within the 90 per cent of the population that is white. > While a President of the United States can, under our Federal system, do little or nothing about street violence, the Arizona Senator will predictably call attention to such lawlessness. While earlier Republican candidates doubtless realized that white Americans have no great affection for their Negro fellow‐citizens, they refrained from exploiting those antipathies. This restraint was, indeed, part of the “Establishment” agreement on how elections were to be conducted. > This year's experiment, then, is betting that there are many Americans — among them many who have hitherto voted Democratic — who are willing to give their votes to a man who promises to keep Negroes in their place. https://www.nytimes.com/1964/09/06/archives/whats-the-mainstream-who-is-in-it-it-is-a-time-for-definitions-when.html https://www.nytimes.com/1964/09/06/archives/whats-the-mainst...

by qtt 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

jolux 5y ago

You should look at the political career of Lee Atwater if you haven’t, he was a Republican political consultant who was uncharacteristically candid about his methodology. At the very least, he thought Southern Strategy-style tactics were politically successful, and he may have been mistaken, but I think it’s hard to argue they didn’t exist.

gustavo-fring 5y ago
He's famous for spreading racist rumors about McCain (he had adopted a darker-skinned girl) during the 2000 primaries. There's a documentary about him. Boogeyman? Something like that.
- gustavo-fring 5y ago
  ...that was actually Karl Rove, his protege.

efitz 5y ago

I find the idea of the “Southern Strategy” to be counter-intuitive as well as self-serving for its proponents. First, under what circumstances would you swap political parties? This is an exceptionally rare circumstance; I don’t see how it could ever happen in any kind of significant way. People change to third parties (eg whigs to Republicans) but leftists and rightists rarely “switch sides”. Party affiliations are a big basket of beliefs, not just single issue. It’s self serving in that the popular narrative is all the “bad” Democrats (southern racists who blocked school integration, civil rights, etc) all left for the Republican Party, leaving the Democrats racist-free. Pretty convenient. In reality I think that there was very little party switching; racism just became politically anathema in the civil rights era (which is one of the greatest things about America) and all the OG racists - the Robert Byrds etc. - had to stop being publicly racist. This and shifting cultural norms meant that Boomers were much less racist than previous generations and Gen X even more so.

js2 5y ago
The parties did not used to be as polarized. Many southern white Democrats moved to the Republican party. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats#1933%E2%80%931980 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats#1933%E2%80%... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond is very notable example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond
- js2 5y ago
  Ronald Reagan, famously, too.

js2 5y ago

> IN another area it is clear that the Republicans will raise to the surface the resentments that many white Americans have over Negroes’ moves for social equality. The San Francisco convention was blatant in its proclamation that one of our parties intended to be nothing less than lily‐white. The nation is now faced with a major candidate who feels no need of Negro votes; he is willing to stand or fall on the gains he can make within the 90 per cent of the population that is white. > While a President of the United States can, under our Federal system, do little or nothing about street violence, the Arizona Senator will predictably call attention to such lawlessness. While earlier Republican candidates doubtless realized that white Americans have no great affection for their Negro fellow‐citizens, they refrained from exploiting those antipathies. This restraint was, indeed, part of the “Establishment” agreement on how elections were to be conducted. > This year's experiment, then, is betting that there are many Americans — among them many who have hitherto voted Democratic — who are willing to give their votes to a man who promises to keep Negroes in their place. https://www.nytimes.com/1964/09/06/archives/whats-the-mainstream-who-is-in-it-it-is-a-time-for-definitions-when.html https://www.nytimes.com/1964/09/06/archives/whats-the-mainst...