LBJ's Prediction Concerning the South

[The Man From G.O.P.]

After glancing over everyones statements you all are making predictions based on the facts that party platforms and agendas will be unchanged in 20 years.

Sillyness, the ultimate answer is that nobody has any clue or more than half guess at what a map will look like in 20-30 years.

[memphis]

It doesn't make any sense that the South would turn Republican in the 60s out of support for the Vietnam War. Nixon, from the very beginning, pledged to end the war. What did help Nixon in the South (and elsewhere) was that he drew a line against the excesses of Civil Rights. He was strongly against busing, extending the voting rights act, and nominated strict constuctions to the Courts.

I think its dangerous to focus on Presidential candidates.  There's a lot more to party affiliation that which Presidential candidate a person votes for.  And even so, Nixon's pledge to end the war was couched with veiled references to a secret plan for victory.

And Nixon's opposition to busing wasn't just popular in the south, it was popular almost everywhere.  Busing was a stupid idea that only liberals liked.  No sane middle class parent in this country wanted their kids forced to go to a crummy school when it made no geographic sense for them to go there.

I'm also going to be nice enough to pretend you didn't just accuse politicans who nominate strict constructionists to the bench of being closet racists.

And even after all of the cunning strategy you accuse Nixon of, all of the traingulating brilliance you attribute to him, look at the map of the 1968 Presidential election!



Nixon has to share the south with George Wallace, loses Texas to Humphrey, loses four out of five of the deep southern states, and Nixon comes in third place behind Wallace and Humphrey in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi.

Back to my central point which is this:  The Republican party did make general gains in the south because of the war, and really didn't make general gains because of civil rights.  The Republicans overwhelmingly backed the war while Democrats overwhelmingly did not.  Civil Rights was not the cause, and it makes no sense that it would be the cause.  The Republican Party overwhelmingly backed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.  Not only did Republicans back those laws, they backed them more than did the Democrats.  It simply makes no sense for southerners to react to Lyndon Johnson's signing the Civil Rights Act by voting for a party that also favored the Civil Rights Act!  It mkes much more sense to become Republicans on an issue where, you know, southerners generally agreed with Republicans.  Those issues would be Vietnam and the culture wars.

You want to ignore presidential races, which is fine with me. Again, the problem with your arguement is that in Southern Congressmen (as illustrated by your maps) didn't become predominently Republican until many years after Vietnam was over. I think it's fair to say that busing was a stupid idea (it really messed up Memphis City Schools) and that Civil Rights was not part of the Republican Southern Congressional takeover in the 1990s (especially because of the increased black voting in the 1960s). Neither Civil Rights (even fairly liberally descrbed) nor Vietnam were issues by the 1990s.

[Nym90]

I think John Ford makes some excellent points here. Civil rights certainly wasn't the only thing by any means that made the South Republican. A fundamental cultural divide on issues such as the Vietnam War was a big part. I haven't seen any polls broken down by region, but I'm sure Iraq has a similar divide; I'm sure a solid majority of Southerners still support the war, and believe the same thing about it as Vietnam, that we would've easily won if only those damn liberals had kept their mouth shut.

One thing that I think is worth noting, however, is that when you speak of radical changes being proposed by the left that cultural conservatives in the South were uncomfortable with, be aware that civil rights and equality for blacks was one of those changes.

Another key point is that Democrats from the South voting against the Civil Rights act did so largely because that's what their constituents wanted them to do, and the same is true for Republicans from the North who voted for it. It's not necessarily a relfection of their personal views, although of course many of those northern Republicans were much more liberal than the southern Democrats were overall. The fact that a higher percentage of Republicans voted yes on the bill than Democrats doesn't necessarily mean that conservatives were more supportive of the legislation than liberals; quite the contrary. Both parties were much more diverse in their range of views in those days than they are today, of course.

[memphis]

I'm sure a solid majority of Southerners still support the war.

Don't be so sure. Support for the war is low even down here. It's really funny to watch Senator Corker squirm over it.

[The Duke]

You want to ignore presidential races, which is fine with me. Again, the problem with your arguement is that in Southern Congressmen (as illustrated by your maps) didn't become predominently Republican until many years after Vietnam was over. I think it's fair to say that busing was a stupid idea (it really messed up Memphis City Schools) and that Civil Rights was not part of the Republican Southern Congressional takeover in the 1990s (especially because of the increased black voting in the 1960s). Neither Civil Rights (even fairly liberally descrbed) nor Vietnam were issues by the 1990s.

I didn't say to ignore Presidential races.  I just said it leads to faulty conclusions to focus only on Presidential races.  I think we ought to look at a broad range of elections to get the best possible feel for how people aligned politically.

This conversation started when someone said that Civil Rights created a Republican "solid south".  But Civil Rights did not create a "solid south" at all.  The solid south did not emerge until much later, which is why I posted the maps of congressional seats.

Again, I have to reitereate because apparently I haven't made it clear to you:

1. I did not say that Vietnam led to a solidly Republican south.  I said it contributed to Republican gains in the south in the late 60s and early 70s to a greater degree than any other single issue, even more than civil rights.

2. The "solid south" did not emerge until the 1990s, and therefore its creation cannot be attributed to civil rights (Which is the actual topic of the thread).  You're going to respond that it also did not have anything to do with Vietnam which is a non sequitor since I never said Vietnam did create the "solid south" (see #1).  Then we'll go around in circles again and cover the same ground a fourth time.

[7,052,770]

63% of people under 30 in Mississippi voted for Kerry in 2004.   This fact fills me with joy and tells me that there is hope for the future.

[memphis]

John Ford, I'm sorry I failed to see your argument which is not that Vietnam created a solid R South, but rather that it cracked the old solid D one. I took a look at the individual states, and this does not seem to be the case either, however. The Deep South  (AL, GA, MS, SC) saw its Dem locks broken in the 1964 elections (when the Dems gained 36 seats!), before opposition to the war in Vietnam was an issue. This was largely on the tails of Barry Goldwater, who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Upper South saw minor cracks in 1966 election (when the Dems lost 48 seats), when there still wasn't yet much opposition to Vietnam or a visible counterculture.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think people need to be careful before making sweeping generalisations about what is a very large, and actually quite diverse, geographical area.

Though here are two things that should have been mentioned, but for some reason haven't:

1. This:



2. The massive demographic changes seen in much of the South in recent decades.

Example:

[Democratic Hawk]

63% of people under 30 in Mississippi voted for Kerry in 2004.   This fact fills me with joy and tells me that there is hope for the future.

Yep, the most of any southern state. 18 to 29 year old voters voted for Kerry in Florida (58%), North Carolina (56%), Virginia (54%) and Arkansas (51%). They voted for Bush in Texas (59%), Alabama (57%), Louisiana (53%), Tennessee (53%), Georgia (52%) and South Carolina (51%)

Assuming attitudes and values don't change there is certainly optimism fro Democrats in some southern states

However, younger voters tend to be the smallest age group in terms of engagement with they comprising only 14% of those who voted in North Carolina to a high of 20% in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas

In the 2004 House election, southern 18 to 29 year olds favored Democrats 50% to 49%; while, in 2006, they favored Democrats 51% to 48%. They remained the only age demographic to favor Democrats, but there was movement towards the Democrats among all age groups

Nevertheless, most southern states, as of now, certainly favor Republicans at the congressional level. Applying the "Jesus formula" [one point for each of the following] or:

1. 2004 Presidential winner
2. Senior senator
3. Junior senator
4. Majority of House delegation
5. Governor
6. State Senate
7. State House

The raw partisan scores are:

Arkansas: Democratic 6
Louisiana: Democratic 4
North Carolina: Democratic 4
Tennessee: Republican 4
Mississippi: Republican 4.5
Alabama: Republican 5
Virginia: Republican 5
Florida: Republican 6
Georgia: Republican 7
South Carolina: Republican 7
Texas: Republican 7

We can all safefully conclude that the South will never be as solidly Republican as it was once solidly Democratic

Dave