“Southern Dems”

[smoltchanov]

Generally agree with detailed post above. Will only add, that most of the southern Democrats were relatively "progressive" on "nonideological" questions like transportation, agriculture, trade, and, to some extent, even education (yes, mostly for whites, but, for some periods, when "separate, but equal" seemed possible, for Black schools too), while being mostly hawkish, anti-labor and, of course, obligatory, 100% for segregation too. So, even most conservative of them were seldom as far right as ultraconservative Republicans, people like Larry McDonald or John Rarick being closer to exception, then rule. Conservative - yes, frequently, reactionary - rather seldom. Remember, that many northern Democrats of that time were pro-life and, surely, against "gay marriage" (which wasn't even "the problem" then)

[smoltchanov]

^ Much less predictable, and - much more interesting, then now. Many moderates in both parties, some conservative-leaning Democrats, some almost liberal Republicans. Now it's absolutely predictable and boring...

[smoltchanov]

The more I read about it. The more it seems like their used to be 3 parties Dems, Southern Dems and Republicans.

Without disagreeing with what others have written, this is an entirely valid way of looking at the parties from the 1930s to the 1970s (so long as you understand that we're talking about how groups acted, and not about formal political affiliation). During the 1950s, some academics contended that the United States had a "four party system":
1)the presidential wing of the Democratic Party (controlled by northern liberals)
2)the congressional wing of the Democratic Party (controlled by southern conservatives)
3)the presidential wing of the Republican Party,
4)the congressional wing of the Republican Party

Because the two wings of the Republican Party had fewer differences than the two wings of the Republican Party, I tend to think of it as a three-party system. Northern Democrats, who were generally more liberal than Northern Republicans, generally got to choose the party's presidential nominee. Southern Democrats generally made up a huge portion of the Democratic congressional caucuses, and by virtue of their seniority often chaired the important committees. Congressional Republicans often allied with Southern Democrats (an alliance known as the conservative coalition) to block liberal legislation (especially during the presidencies of FDR, Truman, and JFK), while Republican presidential candidates were more conservative than their Democratic opponents but less conservative than the occasional Southern third party presidential candidate.

Even prior to the 1930s, the Democratic Party was kind of a weird alliance of Southerners and Northern hyphenated-Americans (e.g. Irish-Americans).

Mostly agree. Will add only, that almost until Truman (FDR was too busy with economic recovery and war) South was, essentially, left to itself in internal policy matters, and could do almost all it wanted to preserve it's "lifestyle": mostly agrarian, with strong segregation system, and so on. As long as it was so - South was generally content to stay Democratic, and decide it's problems in Democratic primaries (white Democratic, of course). Al Smith candidacy in 1928 was almost sole exception. When South began to change demographically, becoming much more urban, and attempts to apply general law in the South on par with other parts of US became more persistent - Southern transformation in direction to "the most conservative (at least - socially, but - not only) party", i.e. - Republicans - began. It was predictably slow in state legislatures, where going from Democrat to Republican meant going to dire minority for a long time, but it finally happened. Now, with Republican majorities in almost all southern state legislatures, it makes very little sense for conservative-leaning person to go Democratic (except, in some cases, very local offices)