Ancestry and political attitudes

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Dutch-Americans are some of the most heavily Republican of any ancestry, aside from Cuban-Americans.  This is evidenced by election results in much of West Michigan, especially Ottawa county.  My hometown is predominantly German Lutheran, and very big on family values, but has always seemd to lean Republican from the historical models I've seen.  In a good election for the GOP (which doesn't necessarily mean winning, but it could be a close race), it usually votes about 70-80% for the Republican candidate.  Interestingly, it probably would have leaned Dem in the years leading up to the Civil War if what I've read about the history of the two parties is true.  Until about 1912, German-Americans' votes were typically split by religion, with Catholics predominantly Democrat, Jews predominantly Republican, and Protestants about even.  And as for Jews, I believe that Republicans today are probably more pro-Israel and less anti-Semitic than Democrats.
Personally, I have a little German ancestry (in the form of Pennsylvania Dutch).  But for the most part, my ancestry is about half Scottish and half Irish, and I, of course, am a Republican.  I don't think that really says much about how my ancestry votes or is aligned politically, but it's how I feel.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I'm pretty sure that New Englanders of Yankee ancestry were the most Republican ethnic voting bloc in the party's first century. When you consider that many New England towns that were in the 70 to 80 percent GOP range in the 40's and 50's had sizeable Catholic populations, Yankee support for Republicans may have easily approached - or even surpassed - 90 percent.

*Sigh* if only it still did.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I've wondered about this for a long time as well. The area in which I live in Southeast Missouri is predominantly of German American heritage. In my county alone, there is a tiny community of Dutch-German Catholics and this is one of the most staunchly Republican precincts in the county. The "town's" baseball field is littered in pro-life banners.

Osage County, Missouri is also strongly Republican and heavily of German American lineage; in fact, I think they even have some of their street signs in Germanic names. This is a part of the state that is included in the Missouri Rhineland.

That sounds a lot like my hometown.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I've wondered about this for a long time as well. The area in which I live in Southeast Missouri is predominantly of German American heritage. In my county alone, there is a tiny community of Dutch-German Catholics and this is one of the most staunchly Republican precincts in the county. The "town's" baseball field is littered in pro-life banners.

Osage County, Missouri is also strongly Republican and heavily of German American lineage; in fact, I think they even have some of their street signs in Germanic names. This is a part of the state that is included in the Missouri Rhineland.

My mom's side of the family has roots in SE Missouri. They were of Swiss/German Protestant origin. But my maternal grandmother's family were liberal Republicans (pro-New Deal and, later, pro-ERA and pro-civil rights). I don't know how unusual that was.

I have a feeling that was pretty common.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

In other words, he would be rather working-class than middle-class, and as such quite likely to be a staunch democrat (until when? Wilson entering WWI against Germany? Hoover/ Eisenhower, American Germans both becoming US Presidents on a Republican ticket? Post-Kennedy / Civil Rights party realignment in the US?).

The party realignment dodn't occur over civil rights, it wasn't until 1980 that the South became strongly Republican and not until 1992 that the Dems' current areas or strength started consistently voting that way.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

In other words, he would be rather working-class than middle-class, and as such quite likely to be a staunch democrat (until when? Wilson entering WWI against Germany? Hoover/ Eisenhower, American Germans both becoming US Presidents on a Republican ticket? Post-Kennedy / Civil Rights party realignment in the US?).

The party realignment dodn't occur over civil rights, it wasn't until 1980 that the South became strongly Republican and not until 1992 that the Dems' current areas or strength started consistently voting that way.

The South was Goldwater's best region in 1964, and it's almost impossible to argue that wasn't because of his opposition to the Civil Rights Act.  (Even if his opposition was more principled than your average Southerner's.)  At a presidential level, 1964 is in fact the signal turning point, with Carter being an aberration which can be attributed to his blatantly evangelical campaign.  Obviously, local elections were a lagging indicator, and took longer to switch.

It would be most accurate that the realignment took a very long time, as it started all the way back with Al Smith and took until the 1994 midterms to really resolve itself. 

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/300432/party-civil-rights-kevin-d-williamson

Read this.  Goldwater may have done well in the South because of civil rights in that election (which is ironic because he was a founding member of the Arizona NAACP, was instrumental in integrating his family's department stores, and voted in favor of the 1957 and 1960 CRAs.)  But in 1968, Wallace split the Democratic vote over civil rights.  In all likelihood, the South would have flipped back to the Dems that year were it not for that (remember the "Yellow Dog" Democrats).  Nixon carried the South in 1972 the same way he carried nearly every other state: by portraying McGovern as a left-wing extremist (and don't give my any of this Southern strategy garbage: http://www.wnd.com/2002/12/16477/)  And even when the real realignment took place in 1980, most of the closest states were in the South.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

WND and National Review?  Nice unbiased, intellectually honest sources you got there.

1980 had Carter at the top of the ticket (as well as John Anderson to slow the flight of moderate northerners to the Democratic Party, in a counterpoint to Wallace), and as I already mentioned, he ran the most Southern and evangelical candidacy probably ever.  Any other Dem candidate, and the patterns would likely have emerged eight years sooner- and they already had started emerging in the Northeast, he mainly just held onto the South at the expense of not taking the West Coast.

And, of course, the Southern Strategy is undisputed fact.

No, it's not.  Nixon trying to pander to racists with Wallace in the race would be like a Republican presidential canidate campaigning in California or a Democrat in Texas today.  The Southern strategy was about winning the pro-civil rights moderates who had moved to the South after WWII as a protest against the segregationist Democrats.