If Civil Rights Act got passed under a Republican president in the 1960s, would this butterfly away the party platform switching?

[Conster]

If Nixon/Lodge/Rockefeller/Scranton/Smith/etc. passed the CRA in the 60s, would this have prevented the platform switching we saw since the early 70s?
Would the Republicans in the West have ran third party campaigns?
And this might be a stretch, but what would a generic presidential election map look like in the present day?

 

[David T]

If a civil rights bill is passed under a Nixon administration in 1964, most northern Democrats--and the Democratic presidential nominee of 1964--will support it. And African Americans will continue to vote Democratic. They had been doing so ever since the New Deal, based not on the notion that the Democrats were superior on civil rights but for economic reasons. (George Wallace or someone else will no doubt run a third party campaign in 1964 which will win most of the states that went for Thurmond in 1948, Goldwater in 1964 and Wallace in 1968.)

Note that Nixon took a stronger stand on the civil rights bill of 1957 than JFK but still overwhelmingly lost the Illinois First Congressional District--77.4%-22.0%--and New York's 16th Congressional District.--77.1%-22.2%--in 1960. https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...up-in-american-politics.454831/#post-17809925 (These were easily the most heavily African American districts in the country, one being the heart of Chicago's South Side "black belt", the other being most of Harlem.)

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . And African Americans will continue to vote Democratic. They had been doing so ever since the New Deal, . . .

But didn’t Eisenhower get a fair number of African-American votes in ‘52 and ‘56?

 

[David T]

But didn’t Eisenhower get a fair number of African-American votes in ‘52 and ‘56?

Less in 1952 than in 1956. And even in 1956, which due to special circumstances was easily the GOP's best presidential year among African Americans since the New Deal. the Democrats had a majority. To quote an old post of mine at https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...up-in-american-politics.454831/#post-17809925

***

I have been doing some research lately on the 1952, 1956, and 1960 elections, focusing on the two nearly all-African American congressional districts that existed at that time: IL-01 (the heart of the "black belt" on Chicago's South Side) and NY-16 (Harlem, excluding East Harlem which was largely Puerto Rican--with some Italians remaining--and was in another district). IL-01 was listed as 91.7% Negro in the 1960 US Census, 91.0 in the 1960 one. NY-16 was listed as 86.8% Negro in 1950, 88.0% in 1960. Both districts were represented throughout the decade by African American Congressmen (William Dawson for IL-01, Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. for NY-16). Here are maps of the districts:

Here are the figures for how these districts voted in the presidential elections of 1952, 1956, and 1960. (I am omitting minor party candidates, who got very few votes in these districts.)

IL-01

1952

D (Stevenson) 99,224 74.6%
R (Eisenhower) 33,805 25.4%

1956

D (Stevenson) 68,266 63.7%
R (Eisenhower) 38,827 36.3%

1960

D (Kennedy) 81,399 77.4
R (Nixon) 23,109 22.0

****

NY-16

1952

D (Stevenson) 82,882 81.2%
R (Eisenhower) 17,497 17.0%


1956

D (Stevenson) 62,004 66.4%
R (Eisenhower) 31,325 33.6%

1960

D (Kennedy) 58,192 64.9
Liberal (Kennedy) 11,364 12.1 JFK total: 77.1
R (Nixon) 19,902 22.2

Now it is possible that the vote from big northern African American communities like those of Chicago and New York understate the Republican vote among African Americans in the nation as a whole--for example, the relatively few African Americans who voted in the South seem to have retained their Republican loyalty longer than those in the North. Nevertheless, even looking at the northern big city African American vote, one can say that it was not quite a bloc in the sense of the 90% plus percentages for Democratic presidential candidates we are used to since 1964--or the Republican percentages before the New Deal. Except for Eisenhower in 1952 in NY-16, the Republican presidential presidential candidate in these years always got at least 22 percent of the vote. 1956 was easily the GOP's best year among African American voters. Stevenson took a "moderate" stand on civil rights to get southern white votes; Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. openly endorsed Eisenhower, supposedly on civil rights (cynics suggested it might also have something to do with the administration dropping an income tax charge against Powell). Anyway, Ike got 33.6% of the vote in the Harlem district and 36.3% in the Chicago South Side one.

 

[Bob in Pittsburgh]

I remember an interview after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed by the political correspondent of the Chicago Daily News asking Senator Everett Dirksen ""Why? You know you will not get 10% of the vote in the 2nd Ward." His answer was "Because sometimes you have to do what is right for the country." They used to call such men statemen. I haven't seen any around lately; I think they are extinct.

 

[TastySpam]

The party switching narrative is vastly overrated. The Dixiecrats didn't party switch - they just died out (either from old age or just plain-switching their political opinions - even George Wallace eventually became a normal Democrat lol). The Republicans didn't really change their platform from Hoover to Reagan (really, Hoover's "rugged individualism" could come out the mouth of Reagan.") Similarly, Northern Democrats were generally pretty consistently progressive on both economic issues and civil rights. Northern Republicans and Northern Democrats both voted almost entirely in favor of the Civil Rights Acts.

Plus, you can reach some pretty silly conclusions with the party-switch narrative. Like FDR = Reagan.

 

[Red_Neptune]

The party switching narrative is vastly overrated. The Dixiecrats didn't party switch - they just died out (either from old age or just plain-switching their political opinions - even George Wallace eventually became a normal Democrat lol). The Republicans didn't really change their platform from Hoover to Reagan (really, Hoover's "rugged individualism" could come out the mouth of Reagan.") Similarly, Northern Democrats were generally pretty consistently progressive on both economic issues and civil rights. Northern Republicans and Northern Democrats both voted almost entirely in favor of the Civil Rights Acts.

Plus, you can reach some pretty silly conclusions with the party-switch narrative. Like FDR = Reagan.

I think you're exaggerating it a bit. Hoover and Reagan had a similar economic philosophy in that they were both pro-business, but in terms of other issues they were very different. Abortion? Hoover would have considered that a Catholic peculiarity. The religiosity of the Reagan coalition? He would have been horrified; evangelicals were relatively sidelined during the 1920s, and where they did exist they were Democrats (see: WJB). Increased defense spending? Hoover's entire foreign policy was one of disarmament and non-interventionism! Free trade? Hoover raised tariffs, even against the advice of economic advisors. Dismissive stances towards the environment? As Commerce Sec., Hoover was a noted conservationist. Of course, some of this is the sheer time difference - the political conditions in 1928 and 1980 were a lot different - but I still don't think it's accurate to say Reagan was a neo-Hoover.

 

[GeographyDude]

IL-01

1952

D (Stevenson) 99,224 74.6%
R (Eisenhower) 33,805 25.4%

1956

D (Stevenson) 68,266 63.7%
R (Eisenhower) 38,827 36.3%

1960

D (Kennedy) 81,399 77.4
R (Nixon) 23,109 22.0

Okay, so 1960 was basically just things going back to 1952.

Let me ask this. Around the time of the 1960, MLK was in jail. I think Bobby Kennedy called the actual sheriff’s office where he was being held. Jack Kennedy respectfully called Mrs. King and told her he thought the situation would soon be okay. And then, “Daddy” King ( MLK, Sr.) spread the word through flyers distributed at African-American churches that last Sunday before the election, I think calling JFK the candidate with the heart.

What if Nixon had beaten Kennedy to the punch?

 

[Nagisaki]

What if Nixon had beaten Kennedy to the punch)

He might do about as well as Eisenhower did in '56.

 

[GeographyDude]

Northern Republicans and Northern Democrats both voted almost entirely in favor of the Civil Rights Acts.

. . . Abortion? Hoover would have considered that a Catholic peculiarity. The religiosity of the Reagan coalition? He would have been horrified; evangelicals were relatively sidelined during the 1920s, and where they did exist they were Democrats (see: WJB). Increased defense spending? Hoover's entire foreign policy was one of disarmament and non-interventionism! Free trade? . . .

I had a poli sci professor way back in 1991 who said American political parties are not class-based.

At first I thought he was crazy.

Or that he was giving a weird academic definition, kind of like physicists define ‘work’ in a funny way. But the more I thought about it, and all the other issues voters latch onto, and that the Republicans are a mix of fat cats and evangelicals (and remembering that the Democrats in the South used to be a mix of fat cats and low-income racists), the more I thought, he might have a point.

Economics with any kind of yeah-or-nay clear policy proposal maybe is lucky to get to 3rd place in an average presidential election, and even less in a congressional election.

 

[David T]

He might do about as well as Eisenhower did in '56.

One big difference: 1956 was a year of prosperity, 1960 was a recession year. A mild recession, to be sure, but even mild recessions had a disproportionate impact on African Americans.

 

[bguy]

Okay, so 1960 was basically just things going back to 1952.

Let me ask this. Around the time of the 1960, MLK was in jail. I think Bobby Kennedy called the actual sheriff’s office where he was being held. Jack Kennedy respectfully called Mrs. King and told her he thought the situation would soon be okay. And then, “Daddy” King ( MLK, Sr.) spread the word through flyers distributed at African-American churches that last Sunday before the election, I think calling JFK the candidate with the heart.

What if Nixon had beaten Kennedy to the punch?

IIRC there was also an incident in the campaign where Henry Cabot Lodge promised (without consulting with Nixon) that there would be an African-American appointed to Nixon's Cabinet. Nixon then backtracked from Lodge's pledge which probably didn't endear him to African-American voters either.

 

[TastySpam]

I think you're exaggerating it a bit. Hoover and Reagan had a similar economic philosophy in that they were both pro-business, but in terms of other issues they were very different. Abortion? Hoover would have considered that a Catholic peculiarity. The religiosity of the Reagan coalition? He would have been horrified; evangelicals were relatively sidelined during the 1920s, and where they did exist they were Democrats (see: WJB). Increased defense spending? Hoover's entire foreign policy was one of disarmament and non-interventionism! Free trade? Hoover raised tariffs, even against the advice of economic advisors. Dismissive stances towards the environment? As Commerce Sec., Hoover was a noted conservationist. Of course, some of this is the sheer time difference - the political conditions in 1928 and 1980 were a lot different - but I still don't think it's accurate to say Reagan was a neo-Hoover.

All fair points, though I'd quibble on three.

First, the Republican Party has always been exceedingly religious. The evangelical phenomenon is new - but there also used to be an era where Mainline Protestants displayed comparable levels of religiosity - or even higher as modern evangelicals. The whole Third Great Awakening, the Prohibition Movement, many of the abolitionists, etc. etc. American missionaries basically crisscrossed the entire world in the 19th and early 20th century - and this was predominantly a Republican voter bloc (and also Northeastern and Mainline Protestant). In a lot of ways, George W. Bush's religiosity was a remarkable throwback to the Republican Party of the past (since he was also a Mainline Protestant with family roots in Connecticut).

Second, yeah, I think a lot of that is just the times changing. I don't think Hoover would have approved of the EPA existing.

Third, Reagan himself was less a free trader than people remember. Reagan regularly applied tariffs (on Japan/Germany) to protect American manufacturers. The Plaza Accords in 1983 was basically Reagan threatening Germany/Japan with massive tariffs unless they valuated their currency higher. Donald Trump's US Trade Representative...was Ronald Reagan's Deputy US Trade Representative.

Anyways, even not counting those three though, I think it overall holds that the ideological continuity between Herbert Hoover and Ronald Reagan is far closer than the continuity between FDR and Reagan.

 

[Father Maryland]

I have trouble seeing anybody other then LBJ passing as expansive civil rights legislation in the early 1960's. LBJ had just the right combination of massive ego, a semblance of a conscious, literally knowing where all of the bodies were buried, and willingness to bribe, blackmail, extort, intimidate, or outright threaten Congress critters into passing the civil rights legislation he did. As a comedy writer once wrote LBJ didn't just want to be POTUS. He wanted to be the best motherfucking POTUS and singlehandedly erase racism and poverty. In a lot of ways that was a good thing. The problem is that same insane ego and drive also led him to want to win the Cold War by himself by intervening full score in Indochina.

I just don't think anyone else has the skills, drive, knowledge, and semi amoral morality that LBJ did. Maybe you'd see something similar getting passed in the late 1960's/early 1970's when the clamor gets too high and when whoever in charge has no real other option.

As to directly replying to the OP. I think that the New Deal Coalition is pretty much dead on it's feet by then. African American voters had been trending more and more Democratic in the North for a while by then.

 

[Bob in Pittsburgh]

I have trouble seeing anybody other then LBJ passing as expansive civil rights legislation in the early 1960's. LBJ had just the right combination of massive ego, a semblance of a conscious, literally knowing where all of the bodies were buried, and willingness to bribe, blackmail, extort, intimidate, or outright threaten Congress critters into passing the civil rights legislation he did. As a comedy writer once wrote LBJ didn't just want to be POTUS. He wanted to be the best motherfucking POTUS and singlehandedly erase racism and poverty. In a lot of ways that was a good thing. The problem is that same insane ego and drive also led him to want to win the Cold War by himself by intervening full score in Indochina.

I agree with you that without LBJ as President there would not have been a Civil Rights Act of 1964 or a Voting Rights Act of 1965. I do not, however, share your cynicism about Johnson. Johnson had the ability to work Congress that Kennedy did not have. I do believe that Johnson genuinely believed in education and in civil rights. He considered and called Franklin Roosevelt his "political daddy" and was determined to complete Roosevelt's work. Kennedy, in no small measure influenced by his biological father, had no commitment to either education or civil rights. LBJ had a great ally in Everett Dirksen in getting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed. I believe both men deeply believed in the righteous of what they were doing. Dirksen explained his position " I come of immigrant German stock. My mother stood on Ellis Island as a child of 17, with a tag around her neck directing that she be sent to Pekin, Illinois. Our family had opportunities in Illinois, and the essence of what we're trying to do in the civil rights bill is to see that others have opportunities in this country." There were others who played a role. Senator Engle of California was wheeled into the Senate Chamber on a stretcher for the vote on cloture. When they called his name he could not speak but he pointed to his right eye, Three weeks later he was dead.
As to Vietnam I am convinced LBJ went to his grave not understanding what happened to him and where the antiwar people came from. LBJ had no real interest in foreign affairs. He was, in my view, poorly served by his advisors.

 

[Father Maryland]

I agree with you that without LBJ as President there would not have been a Civil Rights Act of 1964 or a Voting Rights Act of 1965. I do not, however, share your cynicism about Johnson. Johnson had the ability to work Congress that Kennedy did not have. I do believe that Johnson genuinely believed in education and in civil rights. He considered and called Franklin Roosevelt his "political daddy" and was determined to complete Roosevelt's work. Kennedy, in no small measure influenced by his biological father, had no commitment to either education or civil rights. LBJ had a great ally in Everett Dirksen in getting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed. I believe both men deeply believed in the righteous of what they were doing. Dirksen explained his position " I come of immigrant German stock. My mother stood on Ellis Island as a child of 17, with a tag around her neck directing that she be sent to Pekin, Illinois. Our family had opportunities in Illinois, and the essence of what we're trying to do in the civil rights bill is to see that others have opportunities in this country." There were others who played a role. Senator Engle of California was wheeled into the Senate Chamber on a stretcher for the vote on cloture. When they called his name he could not speak but he pointed to his right eye, Three weeks later he was dead.
As to Vietnam I am convinced LBJ went to his grave not understanding what happened to him and where the antiwar people came from. LBJ had no real interest in foreign affairs. He was, in my view, poorly served by his advisors.

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying LBJ was without morality. His Civil Rights efforts were motivated by a combination of moral outrage and ego. But the measures and methods LBJ used to get his civil rights efforts passed would fall more on the more amoral side of the scale. Namely more or less outright bribing, buying, intimidating, blackmailing, and outright threatening Congress Critters. No one else had his skills in manipulating congress and no one else (Bar maybe J Edgar Hoover) had as much Dirt on other politicians or knew where as many skeletons were buried.

AKA what you might call Moral Amorality. Someone motivated by moral desires but willing to do deepy immoral and illegal things in order to achieve those moral goals. If anything those amoral methods might have been required.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

AKA what you might call Moral Amorality. Someone motivated by moral desires but willing to do deepy immoral and illegal things in order to achieve those moral goals. If anything those amoral methods might have been required.

IIRC, a contemporary made a similar comment about how Lincoln got Congress to pass the 13th Amendment in late 1864. (It was the lame-duck Congress elected in 1862, which had been a rebound year for the Democrats; thus Lincoln had to pull every string he could grab.)

 

[GeographyDude]

. . As to Vietnam I am convinced LBJ went to his grave not understanding what happened to him and where the antiwar people came from. LBJ had no real interest in foreign affairs. He was, in my view, poorly served by his advisors.

I think Vietnam is aptly described as a “quagmire.”

Once you are past a surprisingly early threshold, there is a big loss of face if you then reverse course.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

Eh, anyone besides any of the kennedys or a southerner would have likely gotten it through roughly on schedule. Probably easier with LBJ in the senate to pull the needed strings.

 

[Father Maryland]

Eh, anyone besides any of the kennedys or a southerner would have likely gotten it through roughly on schedule. Probably easier with LBJ in the senate to pull the needed strings.

I think you're right in the sense that it's likely a civil rights bill would get passed by most theoretical POTUSes at the time. But without LBJ in the White House it's likely to be a much more limited small scope bill (much like most of the last few Civil Rights bills before it). I think only LBJ would have fought for and managed to get passed such an extensive bill. And only LBJ (and maybe Scoop Jackson) would have tried as extensive anti poverty measures at the time.