Richard Osborne
Banned
It could possibly lead to the most terrifying American political arrangement. Socially liberal fiscal conservatives vs socially conservative economic populist.
WI: Civil Rights Act Passed Under GOP Presidency
- Thread starter Tresckow
- Start date
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
I remember reading about one of the post-Civil War elections in which poor southern whites voted race, not class. Yeah, it was just one election, but kind of shook me up, and made me significantly less hopeful.
And then there's the 1968 election in which George Wallace got almost two-third majorities in Mississippi and his home state of Alabama, and pluralities in three other southern states. And '68 had a good economy! So, I can't just say it was scapegoating and a protest vote. No, it was anti-Civil Rights, and truth be told, a fair degree of just flat-out anti-African American vote. These were southern whites rich, poor, and in-between. And they voted race, in a damn knee-jerk fashion.
Yes, I understand what you're saying about whites (European-Americans) migrating from the Rust Belt to the Sun Belt. Yes, significant numbers. But we'd need to see a graph comparing these numbers to the baseline over time, and that's going to take some doing.
Thomas1195
Banned
You actually have similar parties in several European countries. The likes of German/Swiss FDP or Dutch VVD are pretty much "socially liberal, fiscally conservative". Meanwhile, Christian parties can be economically interventionist. We may have Religious Left instead of Religious Right.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
in that Republicans with a veneer of socially liberal are even more successful with the rich pulling away and in some cases directly pushing down the poor. And the socially conservative “populist” are even more poor and more angry.
Doesn’t mean it has to be this way, and certainly doesn’t mean socially conservative people have to be angry.
But is one scary possibility.
No. Blacks in the South didn't vote. Not by choice, of course.
There were a few exceptions, as in Memphis, for example. But despite some African American newspapers endorsing Al Smith in 1928, and despite African American suspicion of Hoover's courting of southern white racists, Hoover won the African American vote in Memphis as elsewhere. Robert Church, Jr. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Church_Jr. explained his backing of Hoover as follows:
"Church considered the 1928 campaign the bitterest one in his memory. Both the Hoover campaign and that of Democratic candidate, Al Smith, engaged in race baiting in an effort to attract white votes. The factionalism of black Republicans had perhaps never been stronger, and Hoover’s southern reform policy alienated blacks. Church initially did not endorse Hoover and hardly campaigned for him. Though Hoover wanted to remain distant from blacks during the campaign, he could not afford to ignore Church’s influence or to lose his support. He called Church to Washington D.C. for a personal meeting, heard his grievances against lily whites, and spoke a few soothing words. He told Church that, contrary to perception, his administration would respect black leadership and black concerns and white and black Republican leaders would work together in the South. The candidate assured him that his southern campaign manager, Horace Mann, had misled southerners in thinking that Hoover promoted lily whitism.560
"As a result of Hoover’s courting, Church supported him more fervently in the last days of the campaign. According to Time magazine, all but six of the leading twenty-five black newspapers supported Al Smith, but “most of the rebellious journals, at Church’s command, changed front and Hooverized vociferously” during the last week of the campaign.561 Church also released an open letter to the Chicago Defender backing Hoover that was published three days before the election. It was by no means a wholehearted endorsement, however. Church acknowledged that countless blacks had asked him, “Why, if things are as they seem to be, do you support Hoover for president?” He said that they had “every right to halt and question” him and that he had “neither fault to find nor criticism to bestow” in regard to those leaving the Republican Party. Admitting his confusion about the “undeserved indifference of the party of our love and hope,” he made clear that he did not “wish the ascendancy of the Republican [P]arty as we have it now,” and he expressed his belief that Republican black leadership would not be destroyed.562
"Church framed the election as a choice between two bad options: “The Republican [P]arty offers us little. The Democratic [P]arty offers us nothing.” He chose the Republican Party “because its history is a better assurance of justice to us, while the history of the Democratic [P]arty is a guaranty of injustice to all of us.” “If I err, I err in thoughts of you,” he said about his decision. “Long have I waged war in your name and for our children . . . . I have known deadly and unrelenting fire. I have fled from no battle . . . . My contests have been waged with a support from people among whom I was born and as loyal as man ever knew in any cause.”
"When election day arrived, Hoover swept Tennessee and four other southern states in his successful bid for the presidency. Church saw not only Hoover win but also Oscar DePriest of Chicago, a former member of the Lincoln League of America [which Church had founded in 1919 to mobilize black voters throughout the country] ]DePriest was elected as the first black congressman since the turn of the century and became a leading spokesman for black rights nationally and in the House of Representatives. In Shelby County, Hoover captured the black vote, and Smith received the white vote. Local whites turned to Smith in part because of their dislike of the anti-lynching plank in the Republican Party platform. Although Hoover had sought to distance himself from the black vote, he had been forced to cultivate it; this strategy backfired among whites as he had feared. Many local white Democrats feared any kind of alliance between local blacks and national political figures as in the case of Church and Hoover.564 They thought that it would lead to “negro bossism” in West Tennessee, resulting in the everlasting “humiliation of the white man.” In addition, they feared that a Republican administration would place local blacks in positions of political power--primarily postmasterships--over white citizens. It was assumed, for example, that Church would be rewarded for his campaign work by becoming the local postmaster [though in fact neither Church not any other African American got the job--DT] https://books.google.com/books?id=zpb3AgAAQBAJ&pg=PT110#
Hoover proved a disappointment to African Americans, not just because of the Great Depression but also for more specifically "racial" reasons, like his attempted appointment of John Parker to the Supreme Court and his favoritism toward "lily white" over "black and tan" Republicans in the South. Nevertheless, even in 1932 he won a majority of the black vote. African Americans did not cast a majority of their votes for the Democratic presidential candidate until 1936.
(Church had already shown his political power in 1920 when due in part to his mobilization efforts 170,000 African American voters in Tennessee voted the straight Republican ticket. Not only did Harding carry Tennessee but the state elected a Republican governor and five Republican congressmen. https://books.google.com/books?id=_PTkAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA65 In 1928 the Memphis Commercial Appeal was to write of Church that "His influence in the Republican party is more extensive in the south than any other man white or black.” https://books.google.com/books?id=_PTkAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA103)
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/the-american-middle-class-is-losing-ground/
The slow erosion of the American middle class still happens.
I think because other countries got good enough at manufacturing, as the largest factor. You might wish to attribute it to additional factors.
The erosion of the middle class would happen in most recognizable timelines diverging post-1945 due to baby boomer personality combined with growing up being told that America is superior because of how christian/capitalist it is.