No Southern Strategy in 1968

[Michael E Johnson]

A good one for MLK day.



From: AK47 (catsjnobrien@dogs.erols.com)
Subject: No Southern Strategy in 1968
This is the only article in this thread
View: Original Format
Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if
Date: 2004-01-18 11:43:15 PST


Suppose that in 1968, Richard Nixon, instead of pandering to the
neo-segregationists with his “Southern Strategy” as in OTL (“clear it
with Strom”), he had taken the position that Brown vs. Board of
Education and its progeny are now law, and that the Republican Party,
would support school integration and the entire civil-rights agenda.

[PM Nixon]

Very good topic, and as you said, appropriate for MLK Day. If this happens, then expect more support for George Wallace. The Republicans will lose ALOT of Southern support, and I think Humphrey wins in 1968. Of course, I expect someone to totally shatter this opinion, so we'll see who's next. :)

[David Howery]

well, it seems that the Republicans would have the moral high ground, but it would also cost them big in political base; the Democrats would likely dominate politics for some time. Or would the southern conservatives form their own party, perhaps?

[Beck Reilly]

It would cost Nixon the states of Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Florida, and (at the very VERY most) Virginia. Wallace would control all the ex-Confed states, with the exception of Texas, which Humphrey won anyways. It would give Wallace an extra 57 electoral votes, leaving the final tally at:

Nixon - 244
Humphrey - 191
Wallace - 103

OTOH, the swaying of Nixon towards a more liberal standpoint may steal Washington, Connecticut, New York and Pennsylvania away from Humphrey as all that's needed in those four states is a 3% sway to Nixon. This would leave the final total at:

Nixon - 333
Wallace - 103
Humphrey - 102

Now, this would be disastrous for Humphrey and the Democratic Party. It would be the first time since 1912 that a third party has out-totalled either the Democratic or Republican parties. Even then, the Progressive Party was no longer able to continue because it had lost A) its charismatic leader and B) its support base rejoined the Republicans. The American Independent Party would have A) Wallace back and more powerful in 1972 and B) no great rush to rejoin either party.

However, I believe it's best to be conservative here. So we'll give Wallace Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Florida and give Nixon only Washington and New York. The final tally:

Nixon - 308
Humphrey - 139
Wallace - 91

Still a Nixon victory, but a greater win for Wallace. He is most likely to stay as a third party and run again in 1972, where he is almost certain to beat the Democratic candidate. After all, he led the Democratic candidates in the northern caususes until he was shot. And, don't forget, a healthy, charasmatic George C. Wallace has a good five tries at the Presidency (1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, and 1984). He didn't retire as Governor of Alabama until 1987. Could the United States finally see a lasting third party?

[Michael E Johnson]

From: niteowlned (nedk@infionline.net)
Subject: Re: No Southern Strategy in 1968


View this article only
Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if
Date: 2004-01-19 22:43:39 PST


"AK47" <catsjnobrien@dogs.erols.com> wrote in message
news:400ae1d2$0$6075$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
> Suppose that in 1968, Richard Nixon, instead of pandering to the
> neo-segregationists with his “Southern Strategy” as in OTL (“clear it
> with Strom”), he had taken the position that Brown vs. Board of
> Education and its progeny are now law, and that the Republican Party,
> would support school integration and the entire civil-rights agenda.
> --
> To e-mail me get rid of the cats and dogs.


You would have a GOP with much broader appeal today. When the power in
the party shifted to the Southern Conservatives over the Nixon-to-Reagan
period it lost a major part of its constituency in the Northeast. The
Republicans would have a better grip on what used to be called the
Rockefeller-Republican wing of the party but are now called Democrats. They
would have a much better grip on suburbanized states like NJ, Conn, a better
presence in Pennsy and a hell of a lot better chance of winning NY and
California.
As for what would have happened to the Stroms and Newts of the world,
maybe Wallace's third party sticks around for a few years more or develops
into a successful regional party in the South

[gianluca790]

As for what would have happened to the Stroms and Newts of the world,
maybe Wallace's third party sticks around for a few years more or develops
into a successful regional party in the South[/quote]

What if strom and newt had supported wallace?

[Max Sinister]

Well, MEJ won't answer you, since he's left the site. Beck Reilly also doesn't come anymore. Next time you might check before bumping.

[Wendell]

As for what would have happened to the Stroms and Newts of the world,
maybe Wallace's third party sticks around for a few years more or develops
into a successful regional party in the South

What if strom and newt had supported wallace?[/QUOTE]

I don't think that Newt was a factor in those days.

[Tgibbs]

Someone has speculated that a pro-civil rights Nixon might lose support in the South but gain it in the North -- and thus win anyway.

I'm sure Nixon crunched the numbers at the time, and concluded that it wasn't likely to work, which is why he went with the Southern strategy in the first place.

I agree with the thinking that if Nixon runs a pro-civil rights campaign, Tennessee, North Carolina, and South Carolina go to Wallace. No one gets a majority of Electoral votes, and the election goes to the House of Representatives -- where Humphrey wins. (With more Nixon votes going to Wallace, HHH wins the popular vote too. It's legally meaningless, I know, but it gives Humphrey more moral authority to govern.)

If Nixon had opted against the Southern strategy, he also wouldn't have picked Spiro Agnew as his running mate. The decision to pick Agnew was based on Agnew's appeal in the border states -- like Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, and North Carolina. If Nixon decides against the Southern strategy, he probably picks someone else.

[Wendell]

Someone has speculated that a pro-civil rights Nixon might lose support in the South but gain it in the North -- and thus win anyway.

I'm sure Nixon crunched the numbers at the time, and concluded that it wasn't likely to work, which is why he went with the Southern strategy in the first place.

I agree with the thinking that if Nixon runs a pro-civil rights campaign, Tennessee, North Carolina, and South Carolina go to Wallace. No one gets a majority of Electoral votes, and the election goes to the House of Representatives -- where Humphrey wins. (With more Nixon votes going to Wallace, HHH wins the popular vote too. It's legally meaningless, I know, but it gives Humphrey more moral authority to govern.)

If Nixon had opted against the Southern strategy, he also wouldn't have picked Spiro Agnew as his running mate. The decision to pick Agnew was based on Agnew's appeal in the border states -- like Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, and North Carolina. If Nixon decides against the Southern strategy, he probably picks someone else.

Even without a formal "Southern Strategy" approach, Nixon will want a balanced ticket. If we have Howard Baker win the 1964 Senate race, then we could see him as Nixon's VP choice in 1968.

[Tgibbs]

Howard Baker is certainly a fine man and probably an excellent vice president, or president. But I have to think if Nixon decided to run on a pro-civil rights platform, he'd be conceding the "Upper South" (to coin a phrase) to Wallace. That would include Tennessee. I doubt Baker's presence on the ticket would persuade people from Tennessee or the Carolinas to vote for Nixon, if Nixon is using the same pro-civil rights language he used in 1960. (In 1960, Nixon even used the word "liberal" to describe his position on civil rights.)

With Wallace winning at least eight states, Nixon has to challenge Humphrey in the northeast in order to get 270 Electoral votes. I think he picks a northeasterner. The most obvious choice is Rockefeller, if he'll do it. My memory is fuzzy on this, but I think the governor of Massachusetts at the time was John Volpe, and he was considered. Is William Scranton still governor of Pennsylvania at this point? Even if he's not, he's a former governor.

[Wendell]

Howard Baker is certainly a fine man and probably an excellent vice president, or president. But I have to think if Nixon decided to run on a pro-civil rights platform, he'd be conceding the "Upper South" (to coin a phrase) to Wallace. That would include Tennessee. I doubt Baker's presence on the ticket would persuade people from Tennessee or the Carolinas to vote for Nixon, if Nixon is using the same pro-civil rights language he used in 1960. (In 1960, Nixon even used the word "liberal" to describe his position on civil rights.)
Fair enough. That said, I think Nixon on his own would be liberal enough to do well in the Northeast on his own. If he is going to win as the Richard Nixon of 1960, he needs someone to win him the South.

With Wallace winning at least eight states, Nixon has to challenge Humphrey in the northeast in order to get 270 Electoral votes. I think he picks a northeasterner. The most obvious choice is Rockefeller, if he'll do it. My memory is fuzzy on this, but I think the governor of Massachusetts at the time was John Volpe, and he was considered. Is William Scranton still governor of Pennsylvania at this point? Even if he's not, he's a former governor.
Scranton was governor of Pennsylvania between 1963 and 1967. He certainly is a possibility. Rocky was then the sitting governor of New York and had been for nearly a decade.

[Seandineen]

I heard rumors the man from Yorba Linda offered a cabinet post to Senator Brooke. What if he accepted along with Whitney Young as viceroy on the black captalism idea? What would happen then, my follow experts?

[Wendell]

I heard rumors the man from Yorba Linda offered a cabinet post to Senator Brooke. What if he accepted along with Whitney Young as viceroy on the black captalism idea? What would happen then, my follow experts?

I'm not sure that Young would have gone for that. He seems to have disagreed with Nixon over Vietnam, and likely other issues as well.

[nunya]

A good one for MLK day.



From: AK47 (catsjnobrien@dogs.erols.com)
Subject: No Southern Strategy in 1968
This is the only article in this thread
View: Original Format
Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if
Date: 2004-01-18 11:43:15 PST


Suppose that in 1968, Richard Nixon, instead of pandering to the
neo-segregationists with his “Southern Strategy” as in OTL (“clear it
with Strom”), he had taken the position that Brown vs. Board of
Education and its progeny are now law, and that the Republican Party,
would support school integration and the entire civil-rights agenda.
School integration already happened,almost twenty years before then.;) Opposed by the Democratic Governor of Arkansas,supported by the Republican President.Dont you think its a little unfair and biased to think "Southern Strategy" means nothing more than pro-segregration?

[Ghost 88]

School integration already happened,almost twenty years before then.;) Opposed by the Democratic Governor of Arkansas,supported by the Republican President.Dont you think its a little unfair and biased to think "Southern Strategy" means nothing more than pro-segregration?
Nunya,it was 14 years since "Brown", Intergration was not complete as the "Negro" High School in one Tennessee town graduated its last class in 1970. The Little Rock incident was only one of many, Ike would not have sent the 101st to LR if the Gov of Ark had not called out the NG to keep 7 teenagers out of Central High.

[Wolf]

Humphrey would win, beacuse untill Barry Goldwater in 1964 and Nixon in 1968. The Denicrats always won the south, except of course when a southern third party emerged 1948, 1968. In 1928 for instance all the states Al Smith, a catholic New Yoker won were in the old South. Without Goldwater's Souther Strategy the Republicans can't win the south

1928: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1928-Large.png


1948:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1948-Large.png


1964:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1964-Large.png


1968:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1968-Large.png

In '68 the Republicans actually win South Carolina something that would havebeen unimaginabe just 5 years before.

[Electric Monk]

Humphrey would win, beacuse untill Barry Goldwater in 1964 and Nixon in 1968. The Denicrats always won the south, except of course when a southern third party emerged 1948, 1968. In 1928 for instance all the states Al Smith, a catholic New Yoker won were in the old South. Without Goldwater's Souther Strategy the Republicans can't win the south

Actually the primary reason for the South drifting away from the Democrats is that the Old Confederacy was basically conservative, and the Democratic Party was basically liberal. The Civil War and the New Deal obscured this reality (as did the conservative Dixiecrat wing of the Democratic Party) but Civil Rights pretty much finished off the weakening Democratic hold on the South.

Therefore Humphrey was certainly not assured of the South, especially given his own liberalness.

[Michael E Johnson]

Actually the primary reason for the South drifting away from the Democrats is that the Old Confederacy was basically conservative, and the Democratic Party was basically liberal. The Civil War and the New Deal obscured this reality (as did the conservative Dixiecrat wing of the Democratic Party) but Civil Rights pretty much finished off the weakening Democratic hold on the South.

Therefore Humphrey was certainly not assured of the South, especially given his own liberalness.

Wow.You are one of the few people I have seen post on this subject here that gets what happened!

[Electric Monk]

Wow.You are one of the few people I have seen post on this subject here that gets what happened!

Aw shucks, my blushes.

Thanks :). I want to run political campaigns, so I consider knowing this stuff part of the job.

[Calgacus]

Actually the primary reason for the South drifting away from the Democrats is that the Old Confederacy was basically conservative, and the Democratic Party was basically liberal. The Civil War and the New Deal obscured this reality (as did the conservative Dixiecrat wing of the Democratic Party) but Civil Rights pretty much finished off the weakening Democratic hold on the South.

Therefore Humphrey was certainly not assured of the South, especially given his own liberalness.

What you mean is that the Democratic party moved to the liberal wing, while the South stayed conservative.

[Michael E Johnson]

while the South stayed conservative.


This maybe an historic moment! So are you acknowledging that oppostion to civil rights is a "conservative" viewpoint?

[Dean_the_Young]

This maybe an historic moment! So are you acknowledging that oppostion to civil rights is a "conservative" viewpoint?

That's pretty close to being an ass, MEJ. The word conservative in this context means something entirely different than in the modern political usage.

[Michael E Johnson]

The word conservative in this context means something entirely different than in the modern political usage.

I disagree completely. If the broad defintion of being conservative means being against change or if the more "modern political usage" of being conservative means being for limited government ( which is why Barry Goldwater and others in the GOP said they were against Civil Rights :rolleyes:) the South was conservative in every sense of the word and it did oppose Civil Rights-which the GOP pandered too and which is why the GOP is now dominant in the South.

[Wendell]

I disagree completely. If the broad defintion of being conservative means being against change or if the more "modern political usage" of being conservative means being for limited government ( which is why Barry Goldwater and others in the GOP said they were against Civil Rights :rolleyes:) the South was conservative in every sense of the word and it did oppose Civil Rights-which the GOP pandered too and which is why the GOP is now dominant in the South.

Look at Goldwater's record on civil rights, and then roll your eyes;)

[Dave Howery]

If the broad defintion of being conservative means being against change or if the more "modern political usage" of being conservative means being for limited government ( which is why Barry Goldwater and others in the GOP said they were against Civil Rights :rolleyes:.

'Conservative' outside of politics does mean being against change. When referring to politics, it means a POV that favors smaller government, fewer foreign entanglements, fiscal responisibility (i.e., lower federal debt)... it does NOT mean 'against civil rights'... Don't start up that nonsense again of equating Conservative with racist...

[Michael E Johnson]

Many conservatives are quite fond of profiling. One of their favorites is that not all Muslims are terrorists but most terrorists are Muslim. Well I have learned one of my own- not all conservatives are racist but most racists are conservatives. Opposition to the civil rights movement and moves against racism didnt(and still dont) come from liberals .

[Amerigo Vespucci]

To get back on topic here, I rather like Beck's solution to the POD. It's elegant and seems to play relatively realistically.

My personal view about the end result of that situation is that you'll see a third "Southern" party stick around for much longer than OTL -- possibly into the mid-1980s. By that time, the segregation issue will have faded to the point that the issues dividing the three parties will be much less polarized -- unless you posit the Equal Rights Amendment and abortion rights to step right in and replace segregation as the leading controversy splitting the three parties.

If that's the case, I could see the "Southern" party as the reactionary/strong conservative party, the Republicans as the moderate/light conservative party, and the Democrats as the liberal/moderate party. It'd be an interesting situation.

[Dave Howery]

Well I have learned one of my own- not all conservatives are racist but most racists are conservatives .

for you to admit that not all conservatives are racist is actually a stunning change of heart for you.... I'm shocked...