No Southern Strategy- do the Dixiecrats become a permanent regional party?

Suppose the Republicans never adopt the Southern Strategy to pander to the Old South. Party of Lincoln, the establishment decides that states' rights cannot be supported (pulling out that Goldwater plank), and so the South remains un-catered to by both parties (maybe some southern factions exist, but they do not shape party policy as a whole). Do the Dixiecrats become a third party permanently, sort of like the Bloc Québécois or the SNP?

Yes, yes first past the post and all that prevent third parties in America from forming. But if there's a regional party that dominates the south, what if they found ways around it?
 
They'd never win the Presidency, but they could form a important block in the house and senate.
And, of course, dominate in Southern governorships and legislatures.
 
Suppose the Republicans never adopt the Southern Strategy to pander to the Old South. Party of Lincoln, the establishment decides that states' rights cannot be supported (pulling out that Goldwater plank), and so the South remains un-catered to by both parties (maybe some southern factions exist, but they do not shape party policy as a whole). Do the Dixiecrats become a third party permanently, sort of like the Bloc Québécois or the SNP?

Yes, yes first past the post and all that prevent third parties in America from forming. But if there's a regional party that dominates the south, what if they found ways around it?
It would be highly unusual for a big chunk of electoral college votes and seats in congress to be up for grabs and neither big party wants them.
I suppose if that did take place in some highly unlikely scenario, the Dixiecrats might be able to a number of congressional seats and governorships in the South, but since they would be unable to win the presidency, it might discourage voters from taking them seriously, and just see them as a party of protest. Although it could go the other way, and Dixiecrat votes hold the balance in the electoral college on occasion, and so they can claim to be fighting for southern influence.
 
It would be highly unusual for a big chunk of electoral college votes and seats in congress to be up for grabs and neither big party wants them.
I suppose if that did take place in some highly unlikely scenario, the Dixiecrats might be able to a number of congressional seats and governorships in the South, but since they would be unable to win the presidency, it might discourage voters from taking them seriously, and just see them as a party of protest. Although it could go the other way, and Dixiecrat votes hold the balance in the electoral college on occasion, and so they can claim to be fighting for southern influence.
Yeah, if they get a couple elections where they manage to force the vote to the House and get concessions from the main parties, especially if they do so with a Democratic President one time and a Republican president another time, Southern Whites could support the party as a way of getting the President to bargain with them. Note that until Carter was elected in 1976, no Southerner had been elected directly to the Presidency since Zachary Taylor in 1848, so having influence over the non-Southern president was what they were used to.
 
It would be very implausible for both major parties to reject the South outright, true, I know it's too much to ask for the better angels of men's natures to ignore the opportunity. But listen to Nelson Rockefeller at the 1964 RNC:

The time has come for the Republican party to face this issue realistically and take decisive action. It is essential that this Convention repudiate here and now any doctrinaire, militant minority, whether Communist, Ku Klux Klan or Bircher which would subvert this party to purposes alien to the very basic tenets which gave this party birth.

Precisely one year ago today on July 14, 1964, I issued a statement wherein I warned that:

"The Republican party is in real danger of subversion by a radical, well-financed and highly disciplined minority."

At that time I pointed out that the purpose of this minority were "wholly alien to the sound and honest conservatism that has firmly based the Republican party in the best of a century's traditions, wholly alien to the sound and honest Republican liberalism that has kept the party abreast of human needs in a changing world, wholly alien to the broad middle course that accommodates the mainstream of Republican principles."

Our sole concern must be the future well-being of America, and of freedom and respect for human dignity - the preservation and enhancement of these principles upon which this nation has achieved its greatness.

Let's just say for whatever reason, the Republicans decide not to stoop to something as blatant as the Southern Strategy, and instead of trying to tap into southern votes gradually, to try to pick up white moderates there, maybe even compete for the black vote as the Party of Lincoln. Remember, there were pro-civil rights mainstream Republicans like Dewey and as far back as Teddy. Maybe southern voters themselves reject overtures from the GOP in the first place, which led to this.

I just think that the South is as breakaway and distinct place as Quebec, Scotland, Catalonia, and all of these other separatist regions. So what if they tried to express it politically as well?
 
Suppose the Republicans never adopt the Southern Strategy to pander to the Old South. Party of Lincoln, the establishment decides that states' rights cannot be supported (pulling out that Goldwater plank), and so the South remains un-catered to by both parties (maybe some southern factions exist, but they do not shape party policy as a whole). Do the Dixiecrats become a third party permanently, sort of like the Bloc Québécois or the SNP?

Yes, yes first past the post and all that prevent third parties in America from forming. But if there's a regional party that dominates the south, what if they found ways around it?

There was never any organized "Dixiecrat" Party. Strom Thurmond in 1948 usurped the Democrat ballot position in the states he carried. Thurmond's followers made no attempt to compete with the Democrats for any state or local offices, including U.S. Senator and Representative.

The white supremacists in the South exercised their control through the Democratic party organizations in their states. With the Federal interventions of the 1960s, their control was cracked - but bolting the party would have shattered it. And they had way too much invested in the political situation - they held lots of offices, controlled appropriations and agencies which had nothing to do with race. Why burn all that down for a quixotic fight they couldn't win?

Also recall that by 1972, much of the South was already voting Republican at least some of the time. There had been Republican governors in Florida and Arkansas, Republican Senators from Tennessee and Texas.

Some facts:

  • Republicans were never completely shut out of the South. Even at the height of Jim Crow, Tennessee was a swing state, electing a Republican governor in 1910, 1912, and 1920. A Republican was elected to the House from Texas all through the 1920s.
  • The single-minded attachment of Southerners to the Democrats was an unnatural alliance. Outside the South, the Democrats were the party of big-city machines, immigrants, Catholics, unions, and liberals. The South was rural, devoid of immigrants, anti-Catholic, anti-union, and conservative. What created and sustained that alliance was their mutual opposition to the Republicans. The Jim Crow regime was maintained by force: black disfranchisement enforced by Klan terror including lynchings. Republicans made a few feeble efforts to break up the Jim Crow regime, but these were blocked by Southern Democrats in Congress supported by Northern Democrats. When Northern Democrats ended that alliance in 1948, the reason for absolute Southern loyalty to the Democrats ended. After that, it was inevitable that the South would revert toward its natural state, with both parties being competitive.
  • In 1972, the Democrats turned sharply to the left. In 1968, there was a left insurgency against the Democrat mainstream, which was turned back at the convention with much bitterness. In 1972, the insurgents took control. Note the position of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. In 1968, Chicago police drove left-wing demonstrators off the streets, and IIRC Daley helped silence dissenters on the floor. In 1972, he and the rest of the Illinois delegation were removed from the convention for being insufficiently "diverse" (to use the current coinage). The previous six years had seen a wave of cultural radicalism, accompanied by political radicalism. The drug culture. "Free love." "Off the pigs." The "anti-war" movement's attacks on the honor of the U.S. armed forces (Southerners are very pro-armed forces). In 1972, it appeared that these forces were now in command of the Democrats. This was an exaggeration, but a useful one, as Republicans labelled the Democrats the party of "Acid*, amnesty**, and abortion." (* "Acid" was a slang term for LSD. ** "Amnesty" for Vietnam-era draft evaders and deserters.)
Nixon's "Southern strategy" was to attack the national Democrats on these grounds, say nothing about race, and refrain from challenging Southern Democrat incumbents down the ticket. It allowed him to sweep the South in 1972, though it gained almost nothing for Republicans downticket.
 
I'm just sort of making it up with random ideas, but I was thinking what if some sort of Southern identity political movement ("I'll take my stand" but with elections) created a "shadow party", a para-party of Southern voters who would vote as a bloc between specific candidates/policies who favored them. Which is probably the state of affairs of the South, but I mean somewhat formalized. "Dixiecrat" doesn't become an official registered party that shows up on ballots, at least not all of the time, but it becomes an identity they use to show they're distinct from both parties, because in this timeline Rockefeller and the NE establishment and the anti-racists win out. Let's say a prominent pro-civil rights Republican (George Romney?!) gets assassinated or an attempt is made upon him, leading to the GOP establishment officially disavowing any approach to pander to racists in the south. So Dixiecrats, realizing they can't rely on either party, decide they have to form their own bloc, even if it's not an official third party.
 
There was never any organized "Dixiecrat" Party. Strom Thurmond in 1948 usurped the Democrat ballot position in the states he carried. Thurmond's followers made no attempt to compete with the Democrats for any state or local offices, including U.S. Senator and Representative.

The white supremacists in the South exercised their control through the Democratic party organizations in their states. With the Federal interventions of the 1960s, their control was cracked - but bolting the party would have shattered it. And they had way too much invested in the political situation - they held lots of offices, controlled appropriations and agencies which had nothing to do with race. Why burn all that down for a quixotic fight they couldn't win?

Also recall that by 1972, much of the South was already voting Republican at least some of the time. There had been Republican governors in Florida and Arkansas, Republican Senators from Tennessee and Texas.

Some facts:

  • Republicans were never completely shut out of the South. Even at the height of Jim Crow, Tennessee was a swing state, electing a Republican governor in 1910, 1912, and 1920. A Republican was elected to the House from Texas all through the 1920s.
  • The single-minded attachment of Southerners to the Democrats was an unnatural alliance. Outside the South, the Democrats were the party of big-city machines, immigrants, Catholics, unions, and liberals. The South was rural, devoid of immigrants, anti-Catholic, anti-union, and conservative. What created and sustained that alliance was their mutual opposition to the Republicans. The Jim Crow regime was maintained by force: black disfranchisement enforced by Klan terror including lynchings. Republicans made a few feeble efforts to break up the Jim Crow regime, but these were blocked by Southern Democrats in Congress supported by Northern Democrats. When Northern Democrats ended that alliance in 1948, the reason for absolute Southern loyalty to the Democrats ended. After that, it was inevitable that the South would revert toward its natural state, with both parties being competitive.
  • In 1972, the Democrats turned sharply to the left. In 1968, there was a left insurgency against the Democrat mainstream, which was turned back at the convention with much bitterness. In 1972, the insurgents took control. Note the position of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. In 1968, Chicago police drove left-wing demonstrators off the streets, and IIRC Daley helped silence dissenters on the floor. In 1972, he and the rest of the Illinois delegation were removed from the convention for being insufficiently "diverse" (to use the current coinage). The previous six years had seen a wave of cultural radicalism, accompanied by political radicalism. The drug culture. "Free love." "Off the pigs." The "anti-war" movement's attacks on the honor of the U.S. armed forces (Southerners are very pro-armed forces). In 1972, it appeared that these forces were now in command of the Democrats. This was an exaggeration, but a useful one, as Republicans labelled the Democrats the party of "Acid*, amnesty**, and abortion." (* "Acid" was a slang term for LSD. ** "Amnesty" for Vietnam-era draft evaders and deserters.)
Nixon's "Southern strategy" was to attack the national Democrats on these grounds, say nothing about race, and refrain from challenging Southern Democrat incumbents down the ticket. It allowed him to sweep the South in 1972, though it gained almost nothing for Republicans downticket.


Nixon also moved very aggressively on forcing desegregation in an attempt to resolve the issue quickly so that it would not be an issue in the 72 election.


Very good post, BTW.
 
See:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=379473&page=22




Dixie carts:
.... make Agreement with either Republicans or Democrats for non competition in southern states Exchange for non competition elsewhere.
This works well in Germany with CDU and CSU where in Bavaria CDU does not fill candidates in Bavaria and CSU in rest of Germany.
Or they could just have such strong regional identity that they could make with out any deal like SNP so they would run only candidates in deep south.

USA will not get rid off first past the post any time soon and this creates two party competition unless you have strong regional party like in Scotland to represent local interests. And south has potential to do that.

Negotiation stick is that they could deny either republicans or democrats seats by taking sizeable voting share in districts. Essentially MAD scenario.
Which is realistic any-time 3rd party emerges it hurts the party it is close to.

This party would run for every election beside presidential where it would be prohibited to issue recommendation for its voters. It is dead hand move. Another game theory move. If they back one side say Republicans then Republicans could get branded as "Racist" or "Neo confederates" but main problem is that they would organise other party against "southern agenda". By no recommendation you can not label any party... And then competition for votes would kick in... Win - Win.

This party would be more centralized then Republicans or Democrats since its regional function would not limit centralized agenda. More akin to European Parties then American ones. Also it could be more nimble one.

Question is if they take it from Right or Left spectrum of vote.
If they go for FDR: "Muh Jobs"
Or right wing: "Muh Taxes"
 
There was never any organized "Dixiecrat" Party. Strom Thurmond in 1948 usurped the Democrat ballot position in the states he carried. Thurmond's followers made no attempt to compete with the Democrats for any state or local offices, including U.S. Senator and Representative.

The white supremacists in the South exercised their control through the Democratic party organizations in their states. With the Federal interventions of the 1960s, their control was cracked - but bolting the party would have shattered it. And they had way too much invested in the political situation - they held lots of offices, controlled appropriations and agencies which had nothing to do with race. Why burn all that down for a quixotic fight they couldn't win?

Also recall that by 1972, much of the South was already voting Republican at least some of the time. There had been Republican governors in Florida and Arkansas, Republican Senators from Tennessee and Texas.

Some facts:

  • Republicans were never completely shut out of the South. Even at the height of Jim Crow, Tennessee was a swing state, electing a Republican governor in 1910, 1912, and 1920. A Republican was elected to the House from Texas all through the 1920s.
  • The single-minded attachment of Southerners to the Democrats was an unnatural alliance. Outside the South, the Democrats were the party of big-city machines, immigrants, Catholics, unions, and liberals. The South was rural, devoid of immigrants, anti-Catholic, anti-union, and conservative. What created and sustained that alliance was their mutual opposition to the Republicans. The Jim Crow regime was maintained by force: black disfranchisement enforced by Klan terror including lynchings. Republicans made a few feeble efforts to break up the Jim Crow regime, but these were blocked by Southern Democrats in Congress supported by Northern Democrats. When Northern Democrats ended that alliance in 1948, the reason for absolute Southern loyalty to the Democrats ended. After that, it was inevitable that the South would revert toward its natural state, with both parties being competitive.
  • In 1972, the Democrats turned sharply to the left. In 1968, there was a left insurgency against the Democrat mainstream, which was turned back at the convention with much bitterness. In 1972, the insurgents took control. Note the position of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. In 1968, Chicago police drove left-wing demonstrators off the streets, and IIRC Daley helped silence dissenters on the floor. In 1972, he and the rest of the Illinois delegation were removed from the convention for being insufficiently "diverse" (to use the current coinage). The previous six years had seen a wave of cultural radicalism, accompanied by political radicalism. The drug culture. "Free love." "Off the pigs." The "anti-war" movement's attacks on the honor of the U.S. armed forces (Southerners are very pro-armed forces). In 1972, it appeared that these forces were now in command of the Democrats. This was an exaggeration, but a useful one, as Republicans labelled the Democrats the party of "Acid*, amnesty**, and abortion." (* "Acid" was a slang term for LSD. ** "Amnesty" for Vietnam-era draft evaders and deserters.)
Nixon's "Southern strategy" was to attack the national Democrats on these grounds, say nothing about race, and refrain from challenging Southern Democrat incumbents down the ticket. It allowed him to sweep the South in 1972, though it gained almost nothing for Republicans downticket.

Just one nitpick - "amnesty, acid and abortion" was a label cooked up by the initial Democratic VP nominee in 1972, Thomas Eagleton.
 
Top