Southern Strategy

[Jollybear]

The South is a conservative stronghold. And trump is trying to appeal to those conservatives whites with racism. The conclusion is clear: White identity and issues surrounding it can play a big role in electoral outcomes. That helps explain why Trump became president in the first place. All his dog whistles about making America great again (by perhaps reverting to a time when white people held a much stronger grip of government),

This assumes most conservatives are racists. How do you know this?

 

[Prometheus85]

This assumes most conservatives are racists. How do you know this?

I never assumed anything. I said trump is trying to appeal to them. Trump is the one that assumes they are racist. Also its important to understand this to understand how identity politics works. It’s a two-sided debate: One side wants to preserve a status quo that has historically protected a white identity that many white, straight, cisgender (non-trans), Christian Americans identify with. The other side wants to carve out an opening for other groups to be more accepted in mainstream America: black people, Latino immigrants, LGBTQ individuals, and Muslim Americans, to name a few. Notably, this debate is NOT NEW. While the term “identity politics” rose to prominence in the past few years, it is really a broader national conversation that has been going on since the country was founded

 

[shunyadragon]

Donald Trump wants to rally his corp faithful (Evangelical Christians and the Extreme Right) particularly the South and Midwest. in 2020, and banking on the bet that enough other voters will vote for hm because of the good economy.

 

[Stevicus]

I asked someone on this thread, this question already. But now I’m asking you it.

Are u aware that the parties switched?

They changed and evolved over time. It wasn't like it was a sudden switch.

Some views of the Republicans have been the same since the Civil War. They were always pro-capitalist, pro-business - yet more favorable to Northern industry rather than Southern agrarianism. But they were still staunchly socially conservative, which gave them their strength in the central and northern Bible Belt regions, where they still dominate today. They were also ardently patriotic, as was the period between the Civil War and WW1.

The Democrats were in a weakened position after the Civil War, although in the North, the Republican-dominated industries were starting to face opposition from organized labor and others who had a more progressive view of the world. The cities in that time were in pretty rough shape - crowded tenements, horrid living conditions, raw sewage running down the streets, rats, disease, crime. There were also plenty of new immigrants who didn't fit in to the "wasp" image that the Republicans presented. So, the Democrats gained greater strength in the North.

The Republicans also faced a minor rift when Teddy Roosevelt ran as a Progressive in 1912, which split the Republican vote and led to Wilson's election. Wilson's and Roosevelt's platforms were actually not that much different from each other. But the major shift occurred at the onset of the Great Depression, which was blamed on the Republicans and led to a 20-year period of mostly Democratic rule.

So, the Republicans had to reinvent themselves, at least in some ways. Isolationism (as it was called) was at an end. Republicans in the post-war era tended more towards an internationalist view, similar to what FDR and Truman were supporting. However, they went even more intense when it came to anti-communism, criticizing the Democrats for being "too soft" on communism. This also led to a certain level of alienation of various progressive and liberal Democrats whose views seemed a little too "socialistic" for the right-wingers' taste.

And this is also the same time that the Dixiecrats started to make louder noises as they split from the party. But one thing to keep in mind is that the South was/is not a monolithic region. They weren't all such fans of George Wallace, although their last gasp might have been in '68, when the Democrats were teetering on self-destruction. Not just due to the Dixiecrats, but also due to the internal schisms between the anti-war progressives and the pro-war moderates.

But either way, Wallace and the overtly racist agenda of the Dixiecrats was at an end. Anyone who had such an agenda would no longer find a home in the Democratic Party. The new southern Democrats would be moderates like Carter and Clinton.

The Republicans maintained their ultra-patriotic, god-fearing bent and attracted many in the southern Bible Belt. They were also more pro-war, while the Democrats were associated with being anti-war. However, both parties fostered similar perceptions of the world and held similar foreign policy goals - even if there has been slight disagreement over how to achieve those goals.

The Democrats also shifted somewhat, moving away from being the party of the working man. They also moderated their anti-war viewpoints they were often associated with. On economic issues, they're more like the Republicans than they're different - only slight shades of difference between them.

On paper, there's nothing inherent in either party, not in their actual names or anything, that makes them what they are. If all the Republicans and Democrats suddenly changed places and switched, it would be kind of weird, but I think both sides would adjust to their new names rather quickly.

 

[shunyadragon]

This assumes most conservatives are racists. How do you know this?

Most? this is at present unknown, but . . .
It is obvious by their own words and actions that many conservatives are indeed racist, and many more are tolerant of Trump's racism to get their agenda controlling the USA.

 

[Enoch07]

I see some people on this thread are straight up trolls or just don’t know sh*t about American History.

Nope that's you.

The South is a conservative stronghold. And trump is trying to appeal to those conservatives whites with racism. The conclusion is clear: White identity and issues surrounding it can play a big role in electoral outcomes.

Majority of African Americans Live in 10 States; New York City and Chicago Are Cities With Largest Black Populations - Census 2000 - Newsroom - U.S. Census Bureau

54% of all African Americans live in the South.

Regions

• Of all the people who reported as Black in Census 2000, 54 percent lived in the South, 19 percent lived in the Midwest, 18 percent lived in the Northeast and 10 percent lived in the West.
• The region with the highest proportion of people reporting Black as a percentage of its total population was the South (20 percent), followed by the Northeast (12 percent), the Midwest (11 percent), and the West (6 percent).

States

• In each of 10 southern states -- Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Maryland, Louisiana, Virginia, South Carolina, Alabama and Mississippi -- more than 1 million people reported as Black.
• New York was the state with the largest number of people reporting as Black in 2000 (3,014,385).

So much for your "facts".

 

[David1967]

Is Donald Trump using the southern strategy to get re-elected?

Yes. (Note, this is neither an endorsement nor criticism, but Trump does know how to play to his intended audience.)

 

[Stevicus]

Most? this is at present unknown, but . . .
It is obvious by their own words and actions that many conservatives are indeed racist, and many more are tolerant of Trump's racism to get their agenda controlling the USA.

I think Trump's appeal might be more towards those who look back and idolize the late 40s and 1950s as some kind of idyllic, innocent time, back when America was truly great. And yes, during those times, much of mainstream white America was indeed racist - and not just in the South either.

However, many would prefer to not remember that part of it, and to be sure, it wasn't even a central part of the image America wanted to convey at that point. They tried to hide it behind pretenses like "separate but equal." That gave them a certain degree of "plausible deniability" which eventually fell by the wayside.

Of course, Trump denies that he's racist, as well as his supporters - and they accuse their opponents of being racists.

 

[PureX]

In American politics, the “southern strategy” refers to efforts by the Republican Party and its candidates to win presidential elections since 1964 by appealing to conservative whites (especially white racist southerners) today trump is using it to appeal to racist period!

Republicans can't win elections based on their total allegiance to the wealthy elite (which, of course, they are). So they have to somehow get people they DON'T serve to vote for them. They do this by stirring up ignorance and prejudice against their opponents, so as to gain votes for themselves that they would not otherwise get. And they've been doing this for a long time (Carl Rove and "W"). They use race, religion, homophobia, xenophobia, whatever form of bias and bigotry they can stir up and exploit to turn people so against their fellow citizens that they will blindly vote for republican candidates that have no intention of serving their best interests. And it's been working. This strategy of stirring up bigotry to gain votes, and the strategy of cheating the election process by any means possible has kept them "winning" elections. But the downside is that they have to keep pandering to these ugly inclinations in their "base". And it causes the whole party to behave increasingly insane and mean-spirited, to the point of supporting someone as wildly incompetent and destructive as Donald Trump.

Their strategy worked, but it was much like making a deal with the devil, and now that devil has come back to lay waste to their souls.

 

[Stevicus]

Republicans can't win elections based on their total allegiance to the wealthy elite (which, of course, they are). So they have to somehow get people they DON'T serve to vote for them. They do this by stirring up ignorance and prejudice against their opponents, so as to gain votes for themselves that they would not otherwise get. And they've been doing this for a long time (Carl Rove and "W"). They use race, religion, homophobia, xenophobia, whatever form of bias and bigotry they can stir up and exploit to turn people so against their fellow citizens that they will blindly vote for republican candidates that have no intention of serving their best interests. And it's been working. This strategy of stirring up bigotry to gain votes, and the strategy of cheating the election process by any means possible has kept them "winning" elections. But the downside is that they have to keep pandering to these ugly inclinations in their "base". And it causes the whole party to behave increasingly insane and mean-spirited, to the point of supporting someone as wildly incompetent and destructive as Donald Trump.

Their strategy worked, but it was much like making a deal with the devil, and now that devil has come back to lay waste to their souls.

One thing, though, is that the Democrats have been unwittingly helping the Republicans by shamelessly sucking up to the wealthy classes. The Republicans may be pandering to certain ugly inclinations within their base, but then, so are Democrats.

If the Democrats are seen as sell-outs where the working class will be screwed no matter what, then the only thing left to do is vote along the lines of identity politics. The Republicans may be pandering to that element, but the Democrats set it up that way once they sold out to big business and had no other principles to stand for.

 

[Prometheus85]

Nope that's you.



Majority of African Americans Live in 10 States; New York City and Chicago Are Cities With Largest Black Populations - Census 2000 - Newsroom - U.S. Census Bureau

54% of all African Americans live in the South.

Regions

• Of all the people who reported as Black in Census 2000, 54 percent lived in the South, 19 percent lived in the Midwest, 18 percent lived in the Northeast and 10 percent lived in the West.
• The region with the highest proportion of people reporting Black as a percentage of its total population was the South (20 percent), followed by the Northeast (12 percent), the Midwest (11 percent), and the West (6 percent).

States

• In each of 10 southern states -- Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Maryland, Louisiana, Virginia, South Carolina, Alabama and Mississippi -- more than 1 million people reported as Black.
• New York was the state with the largest number of people reporting as Black in 2000 (3,014,385).

So much for your "facts".

What is this supposed to mean?

 

[Prometheus85]

They changed and evolved over time. It wasn't like it was a sudden switch.

Some views of the Republicans have been the same since the Civil War. They were always pro-capitalist, pro-business - yet more favorable to Northern industry rather than Southern agrarianism. But they were still staunchly socially conservative, which gave them their strength in the central and northern Bible Belt regions, where they still dominate today. They were also ardently patriotic, as was the period between the Civil War and WW1.

The Democrats were in a weakened position after the Civil War, although in the North, the Republican-dominated industries were starting to face opposition from organized labor and others who had a more progressive view of the world. The cities in that time were in pretty rough shape - crowded tenements, horrid living conditions, raw sewage running down the streets, rats, disease, crime. There were also plenty of new immigrants who didn't fit in to the "wasp" image that the Republicans presented. So, the Democrats gained greater strength in the North.

The Republicans also faced a minor rift when Teddy Roosevelt ran as a Progressive in 1912, which split the Republican vote and led to Wilson's election. Wilson's and Roosevelt's platforms were actually not that much different from each other. But the major shift occurred at the onset of the Great Depression, which was blamed on the Republicans and led to a 20-year period of mostly Democratic rule.

So, the Republicans had to reinvent themselves, at least in some ways. Isolationism (as it was called) was at an end. Republicans in the post-war era tended more towards an internationalist view, similar to what FDR and Truman were supporting. However, they went even more intense when it came to anti-communism, criticizing the Democrats for being "too soft" on communism. This also led to a certain level of alienation of various progressive and liberal Democrats whose views seemed a little too "socialistic" for the right-wingers' taste.

And this is also the same time that the Dixiecrats started to make louder noises as they split from the party. But one thing to keep in mind is that the South was/is not a monolithic region. They weren't all such fans of George Wallace, although their last gasp might have been in '68, when the Democrats were teetering on self-destruction. Not just due to the Dixiecrats, but also due to the internal schisms between the anti-war progressives and the pro-war moderates.

But either way, Wallace and the overtly racist agenda of the Dixiecrats was at an end. Anyone who had such an agenda would no longer find a home in the Democratic Party. The new southern Democrats would be moderates like Carter and Clinton.

The Republicans maintained their ultra-patriotic, god-fearing bent and attracted many in the southern Bible Belt. They were also more pro-war, while the Democrats were associated with being anti-war. However, both parties fostered similar perceptions of the world and held similar foreign policy goals - even if there has been slight disagreement over how to achieve those goals.

The Democrats also shifted somewhat, moving away from being the party of the working man. They also moderated their anti-war viewpoints they were often associated with. On economic issues, they're more like the Republicans than they're different - only slight shades of difference between them.

On paper, there's nothing inherent in either party, not in their actual names or anything, that makes them what they are. If all the Republicans and Democrats suddenly changed places and switched, it would be kind of weird, but I think both sides would adjust to their new names rather quickly.

Everything you said is some revisionist bull jive

https://www.history.com/news/how-the-party-of-lincoln-won-over-the-once-democratic-south

 

[Stevicus]

Everything you said is some revisionist bull jive

https://www.history.com/news/how-the-party-of-lincoln-won-over-the-once-democratic-south

That's all you have to say?

 

[Prometheus85]

That's all you have to say?

Yes. Because you presented a revisionist thesis and focusing on the plight of the. "Working Class" while ignoring the REASON the parties switched.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes. Because you presented a revisionist thesis and focusing on the plight of the. "Working Class" while ignoring the REASON the parties switched.

Your "REASON" is one-dimensional and misses the forest through the trees.

 

[Prometheus85]

One thing, though, is that the Democrats have been unwittingly helping the Republicans by shamelessly sucking up to the wealthy classes. The Republicans may be pandering to certain ugly inclinations within their base, but then, so are Democrats.

If the Democrats are seen as sell-outs where the working class will be screwed no matter what, then the only thing left to do is vote along the lines of identity politics. The Republicans may be pandering to that element, but the Democrats set it up that way once they sold out to big business and had no other principles to stand for.

What ugly inclinations are the democrats pandering to in their base?

And democrat party is the party of big business? Uh the Republican Party is led by the boss of a kleptocratic family business who presides over a scandal-ridden administration, that many of his closest advisers are facing prison time.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Is Donald Trump using the southern strategy to get re-elected?

He is taking advantage of it for sure. The SS was a way to get the south to be GOP, but now that is is, he can't use it as much as benefit from it.

 

[Prometheus85]

Your "REASON" is one-dimensional and misses the forest through the trees.

No. The MAIN reason was over civil rights issues (it’s well documented)

The story of the last half-century (1968-2016) will be the tale of how the GOP systematically turned white working-class voters against the Democrats

First it was the Southern Strategy with race, then the evangelical movement with abortion, and now it's blue-collar whites with nativist populism.

 

[Stevicus]

What ugly inclinations are the democrats pandering to in their base?

Well, for one, their Russia-bashing is reminiscent of McCarthyite xenophobia. They also pejoratively talk of "flyover country" and denigrate large sections of Americans. I see a lot of blanket statements about "whites" and "males," which makes them no better than the white nationalists they claim to be against.

And democrat party is the party of big business?

Yes.

Uh the Republican Party is led by the boss of a kleptocratic family business who presides over a scandal-ridden administration, that many of his closest advisers are facing prison time.

Yes, but that doesn't change what the Democrats have done.

 

[Stevicus]

No. The MAIN reason was over civil rights issues (it’s well documented)

The story of the last half-century (1968-2016) will be the tale of how the GOP systematically turned white working-class voters against the Democrats

First it was the Southern Strategy with race, then the evangelical movement with abortion, and now it's blue-collar whites with nativist populism.

I'm not denying that it was certainly an issue, but you're still missing the bigger picture of what led us to that point.

Besides, even the article you linked clearly points out at the beginning that it was LBJ's signing of the Civil Rights Act is what caused him to lament that the South would be lost to the Republicans. You make the "southern strategy" sound as if it was something the Republicans did intentionally, but in fact, it was what the Democrats did that caused it to turn out that way.

The Republicans didn't really even have to do anything, except just sit back and watch the Democrats self-destruct.