With Teddy as VP, can Humphrey win 68?

Nixon may have despised the open racism of Wallace. But Nixon's whole "Southern strategy" was to appeal to these same thoughts and feelings using code phrases such as "law and order."
 
Nixon may have despised the open racism of Wallace. But Nixon's whole "Southern strategy" was to appeal to these same thoughts and feelings using code phrases such as "law and order."

Nixon did nothing during his Presidency to roll back civil rights enforcement in the South. Nothing.

The "Southern strategy" was to emphasize the broad differences between the national Democratic party and Southerners. These differences included the race issue, and that was the wedge that separated the "Solid South" from the Democratic Party, but Nixon did not need to talk about it explicitly or even pander substantively.

The Southern/Democrat link in the Jim Crow era was unnatural in many ways. The South was conservative, rural, anti-Catholic, practically devoid of immigrants, anti-union... Yet Southerners voted in lockstep for the liberal party, the party of urban Catholics, immigrants, Jews, intellectuals, and labor unions. In return, northern Democrats protected the Jim Crow regime from any Federal intervention. (Not that Republicans ever seriously pushed the issue.)

When "northern" (i.e. non-Southern) Democrats took up the civil-rights banner in 1948, they broke that link. All that Republicans needed to do was hold out a bucket, and most of the South fell into it. That is, avoid offending Southerners by rubbing their noses in civil-rights issues, or sneering at "rednecks" and "hillbillies", and emphasize the other things that Southerners disagreed with northern Democrats about.

For instance, in 1972, the Nixon campaign labelled Democrat George McGovern as the candidate of "acid, amnesty, and abortion". Over the next generation, the old yellow-dog Democrat voters died off, the old Democrat officeholders retired, and the South switched over. This process was assisted by the general shift of the Democratic party to the left. (Don't tell me that never happened. The incumbent Democrat President launched his political career in the living room of his close friend, an unrepentant '60s bombthrower; the current Secretary of State was an "anti-war" radical; the current "moderate" contender for the Democrat nomination was an ally of the Black Panthers.)

I won't deny that there was some pandering to Southern racism, notably the way Goldwater used his vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. (I truly believe that his vote was mainly a matter of libertarian principle, but Goldwater tacitly let it look like sympathy for Southern racism.)
 
Nixon talked a bunch of crap.

And that's significant in and of itself, even though per the recent biography by Evan Thomas, his justice department went forward with desegregating schools. A commission(?) from a southern state would visit the White House, meet with low level officials in the morning, in early afternoon Attorney General John Mitchell would pop his head in and as he casually smokes a pipe say the Justice Department will be enforcing the law. And then late afternoon, President Nixon himself would make an appearance and also say that the Justice Department will be enforcing the law. It sounds like a masterful performance and a very skillful playing of a hand of cards.

But, it's a shame Nixon reduced this by publicly talking so much crap and giving succor to those who did not want to see African-Americans treated as first-class citizens.
 
and alright, point conceded that some elected officials explored left-wing radicalism as young people. But how much of that translated into policy? And to me, not very much.

Foreign policy, we still have the idea we're smarter than other people. And even when true, that's no way to play the hand.

With globalism and trade, I understand it's been a big winner for poorer countries and has lifted a hell of lot of people out of poverty. I'd add that it would work even better if good investigative journalism held companies to a higher standard. But even without that, it's still been a big winner.

But, we in the U.S. have kind of lost out. It's like our standards of living between first world and third are in the process of meeting in the middle. For example, if we ask how have Americans in the broad middle, say with income from the 30 to 70 percentile, done over the last 20 years? I suspect flat at best.

When Governor Bill Clinton ran for the presidency in 1992, he talked about how we're working longer for less and how people who play by the rules seem to be sliding behind. He struck a very responsive chord. But other than getting lucky, he wasn't really able to do much. These are very difficult problems. Whatever else the solutions going to be, I think it has to involve medium step, feedback, medium step, feedback.
 
Last edited:
This process was assisted by the general shift of the Democratic party to the left.

I think that's a bit of a generalization. While the Democrats moved to the left socially, they moved to the right economically.

(Don't tell me that never happened. The incumbent Democrat President launched his political career in the living room of his close friend, an unrepentant '60s bombthrower; the current Secretary of State was an "anti-war" radical; the current "moderate" contender for the Democrat nomination was an ally of the Black Panthers.)

I know nothing about Obama, but as for Kerry, being anti-war was hardly a radical opinion in the Vietnam War era. Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater supporter in '64; Goldwater wanted to nuke Vietnam and pandered to Southern racism during his '64 campaign. If anything, Hillary Clinton was a right-wing radical as a young person, not a left-wing one.
 
Even on social issues, Democrats have only moved left in the last ten to fifteen years.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Nixon did nothing during his Presidency to roll back civil rights enforcement in the South. Nothing.

The "Southern strategy" was to emphasize the broad differences between the national Democratic party and Southerners. These differences included the race issue, and that was the wedge that separated the "Solid South" from the Democratic Party, but Nixon did not need to talk about it explicitly or even pander substantively.

The Southern/Democrat link in the Jim Crow era was unnatural in many ways. The South was conservative, rural, anti-Catholic, practically devoid of immigrants, anti-union... Yet Southerners voted in lockstep for the liberal party, the party of urban Catholics, immigrants, Jews, intellectuals, and labor unions. In return, northern Democrats protected the Jim Crow regime from any Federal intervention. (Not that Republicans ever seriously pushed the issue.)

When "northern" (i.e. non-Southern) Democrats took up the civil-rights banner in 1948, they broke that link. All that Republicans needed to do was hold out a bucket, and most of the South fell into it. That is, avoid offending Southerners by rubbing their noses in civil-rights issues, or sneering at "rednecks" and "hillbillies", and emphasize the other things that Southerners disagreed with northern Democrats about.

For instance, in 1972, the Nixon campaign labelled Democrat George McGovern as the candidate of "acid, amnesty, and abortion". Over the next generation, the old yellow-dog Democrat voters died off, the old Democrat officeholders retired, and the South switched over. This process was assisted by the general shift of the Democratic party to the left. (Don't tell me that never happened. The incumbent Democrat President launched his political career in the living room of his close friend, an unrepentant '60s bombthrower; the current Secretary of State was an "anti-war" radical; the current "moderate" contender for the Democrat nomination was an ally of the Black Panthers.)

I won't deny that there was some pandering to Southern racism, notably the way Goldwater used his vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. (I truly believe that his vote was mainly a matter of libertarian principle, but Goldwater tacitly let it look like sympathy for Southern racism.)
Do NOT drag current politics into a discussion about 48 years ago again.

You get one bite of this apple and you just got your's.
 
While the Democrats moved to the left socially, they moved to the right economically.

Somewhat true. IIRC, Ted Kennedy helped deregulate the airlines. And in the last 35 years, many of the officially "socialist" countries repudiated state ownership of industry and prospered mightily thereby, which shifted the ground.

Also, the most "right-wing" policy taken up by Democrats was free trade. That is actually a traditional "liberal" (if not socialist) position, opposed by many conservatives until after WW II. Churchill changed parties in the 1900s over free trade.

I know nothing about Obama...
You could look it up.
but as for Kerry, being anti-war was hardly a radical opinion in the Vietnam War era.
Kerry was part of the radical end of the anti-war movement; his claim to fame was as an organizer of the "Winter Soldier" movement, which presented testimony about alleged American atrocities.

Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater supporter in '64; Goldwater wanted to nuke Vietnam and pandered to Southern racism during his '64 campaign. If anything, Hillary Clinton was a right-wing radical as a young person, not a left-wing one.

Clinton was briefly involved with the Goldwater campaign when she was 17, and living with her Republican parents in the then-Republican suburb of Park Ridge. When she went off to college, she went over to the Left. In 1971, she did her law-school internship with Robert Treuhaft, formerly a prominent Communist, and still very active in far-left causes.

This is not about current-day politics. It is about what happened to the Democrats after 1970. Obama, Clinton, and Kerry are just examples.

Clinton was First Lady of Arkansas by 1979; Kerry was Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts by 1983. There were many similar stories. And this had a direct effect on Southerners abandoning their previous allegiance to the Democrats across that period. Yes, the radicals moderated their views. But their hearts stayed on the Left, and they pulled the Democratic party with them. Other Democrats were discomforted by this, and some of them (especially Southerners) went over to the Republicans.

At the same time, of course, the Republican Party embraced "social conservatism", and some liberal Republicans went over to the Democrats (e.g. John Lindsay). If one examines the conservative/liberal ratings if Representatives and Senators over this period (I have), one finds a decline in centrists from both parties and separation into a two-humped division. (I could construct an index. For each year from 1971 through 2010, add up the number of Republicans to the left of each Democrat, and the number of Democrats to the left of each Republican. The total would be the "centrism" index. Taking an estimate - in 1971, this index would have been in the thousands, but it might be less than 100 today.)

Southerners were not happy with being on the left half of this division; those that were not Democrats by ingrained habit became Republicans, including many, eventually most new voters. This process began around 1970. Nixon's "Southern strategy" was to stay out of the way and let it happen.

I doubt if Nixon was prescient enough to see how far this process would go. But even in 1972, the conflict between Southern attitudes and the national Democrats was clearly visible, and the shift was already in progress.

It should be noted that race was a factor. Black southerners moved en masse to the Democratic side. Some Southern whites trying to preserve white supremacy went Republican. (Hello, David Duke.) Southern Republicans didn't tell them off (usually) because their votes were useful.

But still - at no point did the Republican Party ever directly appeal to Southern voters with a race-based message.
 
This is not about current-day politics. It is about what happened to the Democrats after 1970. Obama, Clinton, and Kerry are just examples.

If so, you should have better examples of this at work. You know, maybe some politicians that people actually cared about in the 1970's. Obscure state-level figures like what Clinton or Kerry started out as don't matter to this narrative and you know it.
 
If so, you should have better examples of this at work. You know, maybe some politicians that people actually cared about in the 1970's. Obscure state-level figures like what Clinton or Kerry started out as don't matter to this narrative and you know it.

Was Kerry not high profile for his anti-war stance as a decorated veteran? Genuine question
 
Top