How do you stop the Southern Stratagy in the United States?.

How do you stop the Southern Strategy in the United States?.


And if the Southern Strategy was killed off at birth, what would the United States be like today?.


A Few ideas......

Bobby Kennedy or Hubert Humphrey are elected in 1968 and move aggressively in the direction of Civil Rights and labor Legislation, then followed by another Democrat.

Supreme Court stays "liberal" for a lot longer..
 
Nixon winning in 1960 could help. I feel like Nixon was bitter that the majority of black voters voted for JFK, driving him to adopt the southern strategy in 1968.
 
Like most people, you don't understand what the "Southern Strategy" was. The extreme alignment of white Southerners with the Democratic Party was unnatural. There were liberal white Southerners (including many of the white supremacists), but white Southerners in general were more conservative than average. Yet they voted overwhelmingly for Democrats, especially in the Deep South.

This was due to the fallout of the Civil War and Reconstruction, and the willingness of northern Democrats to protect white supremacy in return for the support of the Solid South.

By the 1920s this was starting to fade; then the Depression and Roosevelt's landslides gave the Solid South another generation. Then in 1948, the non-Southern Democrats repudiated that devil's bargain. Over the next 50 years, that reflexive loyalty to Democrats crumbled away, as old "yellow-dog" Democrats died off. Most of the next two generations of white Southerners became Republicans.

It wasn't because Nixon or any other Republicans pandered to the white supremacists. Nixon enforced the civil rights acts rigorously. He just didn't annoy white Southerners by flaunting it.

On other issues of social conservatism, Nixon definitely slanted his appeal for Southerners. The civil rights battle was over, and the white supremacists had lost. That left the field clear for Republicans to appeal them on other issues. In 1972, Republicans pilloried national Democrats as "the party of acid, amnesty, and abortion", while Republicans were the party of "law and order".

It took, as noted, two generations for the habitual loyalty and institutional power of Democrats to fade in the South. The first election where Texas sent mostly Republicans to the U.S. House was 2004. It should also be noted that with the exception of Strom Thurmond, none of the white-supremacist old bull Dixiecrats actually changed parties; they all died as Democrats.
 
1976.jpg


http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelection.php?year=1976

Carter beats Ford in the 1976 election. Notice that the South went with Carter.

============

Basically, Carter needs to beat stagflation. And heck, it could happen. Afterall, the Mets won the 1969 World Series. Plus, you had the example of stagflation following the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo to learn from.

Personally, I think GDP growth is the single most economic important number, and the most important concept is how to combine this with wise stewardship of the environment. And I think the second most important number is unemployment, although if I were in Congress I'd be happy to make common cause and pass legislation where unemployment and inflation are treated as equally important.
 
. . . It should also be noted that with the exception of Strom Thurmond, none of the white-supremacist old bull Dixiecrats actually changed parties; they all died as Democrats.
Similar to one of Thomas Kuhn's main ideas in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

But all the same, give me 8 years of a successful Carter presidency and we'll see where we stand ;)
 
Last edited:

RousseauX

Donor
Like most people, you don't understand what the "Southern Strategy" was. The extreme alignment of white Southerners with the Democratic Party was unnatural. There were liberal white Southerners (including many of the white supremacists), but white Southerners in general were more conservative than average. Yet they voted overwhelmingly for Democrats, especially in the Deep South.
The alignment of southern whites with the Democratic party goes back to Andrew Jackson, southern whites are the natural constituency for populist economic political coalitions opposed to banks and Northeastern business interests and this goes back to before the new deal. The south was the original core of the democratic coalition going back to the early 1800s. You had people like Andrew Jackson and William Jenning Bryan running populist economic platforms as democrats decades before FDR. There was no reason for poor white southerners to alignment themselves with northeastern business interests and banks: it's no accident that some of the most populist anti-business congressmen were pro-segregationists from the deep south.

Southerners are only more conservative before the 1980s in terms of social and racial issues and you are right that was what cleaved the new deal coalition asunder in the 70s-80s. But even then the Republicans can only go so far right on economic issues before pissing them off: it's a major factor for which why GWB and Reagan can't touch social security: their own base are poor white people who revolts against them every time they tried.

Take away race and "god guns gays" and the south is the natural constituency for the democrats. 'Welfare for white people" is pretty much the perfect slogan to run on.
 
Last edited:

RousseauX

Donor
On other issues of social conservatism, Nixon definitely slanted his appeal for Southerners. The civil rights battle was over, and the white supremacists had lost. That left the field clear for Republicans to appeal them on other issues. In 1972, Republicans pilloried national Democrats as "the party of acid, amnesty, and abortion", while Republicans were the party of "law and order".
"Law and Order" pretty explicitly meant letting the police beat up black "criminals" in the American south, something which continues to exist to this day
 

RousseauX

Donor
@Haddock123

The New Deal Coalition retained TL describes perfectly how a US without southern strategy would go: the Democrats are socially conservative but economically liberal: while the Republicans are socially liberal and economically conservative: kinda like what the libertarian party aspires to be
 
@RousseauX

southern whites are the natural constituency for populist economic political coalitions
Economic conservatives have tried to do their own coalition building by linking resentment on civil rights to the economic positions they advocate.

Plus, as people get richer, they get more conservative.
 
The Democrats have to embrace their white southern wing, so I'd say have the moderate "eastern establishment" win out in the GOP.

Or better yet, give the GOP Congress for long enough during Eisenhower's term that they pursue extensive civil rights legislation. That'll make the GOP firmly the party of civil rights.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Economic conservatives have tried to do their own coalition building by linking resentment on civil rights to the economic positions they advocate.
Correct, which is why the democrats would have to take the social conservative positions (incl the ones otl held by post-nixon GOP) to retain the new deal coalition.
Plus, as people get richer, they get more conservative.
I think that's only true in relative and not absolute terms, which basically means even if everyone is richer poor white southerners stuck the 25% quartile are still gonna vote for welfare

I know this because the Republican base: the white working and middle classes strongly rejected changes to benefits they are receiving (medicare/social security) otl
 

samcster94

Banned
The alignment of southern whites with the Democratic party goes back to Andrew Jackson, southern whites are the natural constituency for populist economic political coalitions opposed to banks and Northeastern business interests and this goes back to before the new deal. The south was the original core of the democratic coalition going back to the early 1800s. You had people like Andrew Jackson and William Jenning Bryan running populist economic platforms as democrats decades before FDR. There was no reason for poor white southerners to alignment themselves with northeastern business interests and banks: it's no accident that some of the most populist anti-business congressmen were pro-segregationists from the deep south.

Southerners are only more conservative before the 1980s in terms of social and racial issues and you are right that was what cleaved the new deal coalition asunder in the 70s-80s. But even then the Republicans can only go so far right on economic issues before pissing them off: it's a major factor for which why GWB and Reagan can't touch social security: their own base are poor white people who revolts against them every time they tried.

Take away race and "god guns gays" and the south is the natural constituency for the democrats. 'Welfare for white people" is pretty much the perfect slogan to run on.
One way to do this is for Ford to win in 1976 against a different Dem(maybe Ted Kennedy if he runs a very bad campaign). Reagan is diagnosed with Alzheimer's and decides to never run for President and some other Dem becomes Pres. in 1980.
 
The alignment of southern whites with the Democratic party goes back to Andrew Jackson...

There were plenty of Southerners who voted Whig in Jackson's time, and right up to the Civil War (de facto Whig John Bell got substantial votes in the South).

What happened after the Civil War and Reconstruction, especially in the Deep South, was absolute domination of the Deep South (and Arkansas) by the Democratic Party - majorities of 75% to 90%, and the almost complete absence of Republicans at the state level. I don't have access to state legislature standings before the modern era, but I strongly suspect there was a long period when there were zero Republicans in the legislatures of at least six states (TX, LA, MS, GA, FL, SC), and only a handful in AR, AL, NC, and VA. (TN was actually fairly competitive, electing Republican governors in 1910, 1912, and 1920.)

It was that extremely lopsided state that was unnatural, and certain to collapse once the issues that propped it up went away - provided Republicans didn't gratuitously offend white Southerners.
 
. . . Or better yet, give the GOP Congress for long enough during Eisenhower's term that they pursue extensive civil rights legislation. . .
Or, one of my favorite timelines, just have civil rights a little bit earlier, so that military units are desegregated on the early side of WWII.

Then, much of the moral case in favor of segregation just evaporates. I may be overly optimistic regarding this, but there were racially liberal politicians such as Gov. "Big Jim" Folsom (1947-51 and 55'-59, Alabama).

And perhaps grad school education could have been started to be opened up before and during the War, college shortly afterwards. And the idea that southern states prefer to do it on their own, rather than have courts clumsily impose it.

And please remember, southern states didn't really de facto desegregate schools until around 1969, '70, '71. Yes, really, look it up.
 
Two things here. First, do keep in mind that when you look at the voting records of Southern Senators during the New Deal Era, except for issues of race they were about as liberal as their Northern counterparts. The South prior to the mid-late 20th century was very much underdeveloped, meaning that prior to then an ideology that viewed it as anathema to have the federal government engaged in rural electrification simply wouldn't fly except among the Southern elites. Second off, as a more philosophical question, for those who say that the Democratic Party could retain the solid south by remaining socially conservative but fiscally liberal, I'm wondering what positions would fall under being "socially conservative"? Were race to be one of those issues, I'd imagine that'd cause all sorts of problems for the Party in Northern cities, such then we'd end up with cities like Chicago and New York being Republican strongholds. As of 2010, New York was only ~44% white and only 33% non-Hispanic white, Chicago meanwhile by 1990 was 45.5% white and only 37.9% non-Hispanic white. In short, if this is a scenario where the Democratic Party effectively casts itself as a "national white peoples party", unless the demographic development of major urban areas changes drastically, it'll get demolished in municipal elections. Which, while acceptable for the Southern branch of the Party, is more than slightly problematic from the standpoint of the large Democratic machines that have traditionally existed in urban areas, meaning that more likely than not the Democratic Party would get pushed into moderating those positions so that Northern bosses can remain bosses as opposed to seeing their cities become one party Republican governments. I'd imagine this issue would be far more limited if race didn't fall under the rubric of "socially conservative", but then the question is again, in mid-20th century America what exactly qualifies as "socially conservative"
 
Maybe Carter *losing* in 1976 (or not being nominated in the first place), meaning that the late '70s economic mess occurs under a Ford Administration and the GOP aren't able to formulate a coherent response because the Reaganite "government *is* the problem" wing is still getting noisier and more recalcitrant. Dole runs in 1980 but by then the GOP is thoroughly unpopular, and Democrats nominate either somebody who proclaims a "truce" on social and cultural issues unrelated to race (abortion, guns, etc.). Either way, the party is defined primarily by economic interventionism and neither party's members of Congress really have a "party line" to tow on cultural issues. Enough white southerners perceive that they didn't get much out of 12 years of Republican presidents and go back to voting Democratic. The result is that Congress has its share of socially conservative rural Democrats and socially liberal suburban Republicans, while the cities stay strongly Democratic due to the party's stances on civil rights and anti-poverty initiatives.
 
Top