The Southern Strategy

[A18]

Would the south have still become Republican if Nixon won in 1960?

[dazzleman]

Maybe not.  Nixon was a supporter of civil rights, and may have ultimately pushed through the same types of laws that LBJ did.

If that were the case, we might have seen black allegiance to the Republican Party, and the south remaining Democratic.  The political alignments today would be a little different in that case.

That may have been better, because I think the Republicans would have taken a sounder view ultimately toward race relations and the methods and means used to improve life for blacks than the Democrats did, and I think that overall, we'd be in a better position today if that had happened.

[A18]

Nixon was a supporter of civil rights

Are we talking about the same Nixon here?

[Redefeatbush04]

Nixon was a supporter of civil rights

Are we talking about the same Nixon here?

Wasn't he responcible for establishing racial quotas (affirmative action)....or some sh**t like that?

[Rob]

Nixon was a supporter of civil rights

Are we talking about the same Nixon here?

He ran a liberal campaign in 1960, and that included civil rights- basically, he ran as a Dewey Republican. It was only later, during the backlash, that Nixon swung to the right on race relations.

In response to the question, the GOP would have collapsed in the South had Nixon won, since he would have pushed through civil rights legislation. The GOP would still have had some suburban and urban strongholds in the "New South", such as Northern Virginia and Houston; and of course the ancestral Republican strongholds like eastern Tennessee would have stayed with the GOP until hell froze over, but statewide success? No way.

Nixon's 1960 loss was a blessing in disguise for the GOP.

[minionofmidas]

The 1960 liberal-ish platform was not really of Nixon's making, though. It was the result of a deal with Nelson Rockefeller, who didn't run, sparing Nixon a destructive primary and convention fight that Rockefeller likely couldn't have won.

[dazzleman]

Nixon was a supporter of civil rights

Are we talking about the same Nixon here?

He ran a liberal campaign in 1960, and that included civil rights- basically, he ran as a Dewey Republican. It was only later, during the backlash, that Nixon swung to the right on race relations.

In response to the question, the GOP would have collapsed in the South had Nixon won, since he would have pushed through civil rights legislation. The GOP would still have had some suburban and urban strongholds in the "New South", such as Northern Virginia and Houston; and of course the ancestral Republican strongholds like eastern Tennessee would have stayed with the GOP until hell froze over, but statewide success? No way.

Nixon's 1960 loss was a blessing in disguise for the GOP.

Yes, you may very well be right.  Just as Gerald Ford's loss was a blessing in disguise for the GOP.  Kind of ironic since Nixon was ultimately responsible for Ford being in office.

I wonder if, with a Republican president in office pushing civil rights that were favored by northern Democrats and violently opposed by southern Democrats, the Democratic party might have split.

It would have been a very hairy situation politically.  Southern Democrats largely agreed with Republicans on economic issues other than civil rights, while northern Democrats agreed with Republicans on civil rights, but not other domestic policy.  At the time, there was general agreement about foreign policy between the two parties.

I don't know if the Democratic party of the time, which was really two parties, could have withstood the pressure of a Republican president pushing an issue that divided the party so strongly.

Would the northern Democrats ended up joining up with northern Republicans, producing the geographic split in parties that we see today several decades earlier?  It's interesting to speculate.  We could have ended up with a solidly Democratic south, and a solidly Republican north, with the Republican party the more liberal of the two.

I think it's safe to say that the long-term effects of the closely fought 1960 election were seminal from a political perspective.

[WilliamSeward]

The southern strategy was effective, but unfortunately it's put into this party some elements which are quite radical and which threaten to undermine the gains of the southern strategy.

[A18]

The southern strategy was effective, but unfortunately it's put into this party some elements which are quite radical and which threaten to undermine the gains of the southern strategy.

What do you mean by that?

[WilliamSeward]

The southern strategy was effective, but unfortunately it's put into this party some elements which are quite radical and which threaten to undermine the gains of the southern strategy.

What do you mean by that?

I support the southern strategy. Without the southern strategy, the Democrats might have been able to get away with trying to give everything to the labor unions and southern Democrats at the same time. BUT, in the past 10 years or so, the southerners have completely taken over the Republican party. This has been a detriment to moderates who the party needs to win majorities in the future. Last year, Bush's biggest bounce in polls by far came after the Republican Convention. Who spoke at that convention? Moderates, great leaders, like Rudy Giuliani, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John McCain and the like. But now southerners still have control of the party and are driving out some moderate members. I will always be a Republican, but as a moderate I feel that in 2008, if the southerners have absolute control, we won't be moderate enough to win any more. And this is the problem. The Republican party needs to stay a national party. Right now, we are winning, and not seeing the problems, but they are underneath the surface. Yes, I do blame it all on the southerners. In years past, the southern strategy was great for this party. But recently it has been going too far, and they are ruining it for Republicans everywhere else.

[dazzleman]

The southern strategy was effective, but unfortunately it's put into this party some elements which are quite radical and which threaten to undermine the gains of the southern strategy.

What do you mean by that?

I support the southern strategy. Without the southern strategy, the Democrats might have been able to get away with trying to give everything to the labor unions and southern Democrats at the same time. BUT, in the past 10 years or so, the southerners have completely taken over the Republican party. This has been a detriment to moderates who the party needs to win majorities in the future. Last year, Bush's biggest bounce in polls by far came after the Republican Convention. Who spoke at that convention? Moderates, great leaders, like Rudy Giuliani, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John McCain and the like. But now southerners still have control of the party and are driving out some moderate members. I will always be a Republican, but as a moderate I feel that in 2008, if the southerners have absolute control, we won't be moderate enough to win any more. And this is the problem. The Republican party needs to stay a national party. Right now, we are winning, and not seeing the problems, but they are underneath the surface. Yes, I do blame it all on the southerners. In years past, the southern strategy was great for this party. But recently it has been going too far, and they are ruining it for Republicans everywhere else.

I agree with much of what you say, though I wouldn't view it as exclusively a Republican problem.  Like the gender gap, both parties have a problem, just with different constituencies.

The Democrats aren't really a national party either, since they do so badly in the south, the Great Plains states, and the west, except for the coast.

There has been a general pulling apart that took place during the Clinton years, but the full magnitude did not become apparent to me until the results of the 2000 election were clear.  It is not a welcome development, as far as I'm concerned.  I'd love to go back to the days of the 1984 election, or the 1988 election even, when Republicans were competitive in most states.

As an example of how the landscape has shifted, compare the results of the 1976 election, the last close election prior to 2000, to the 2000 and 2004 results.  While the national spread in the popular vote was about the average of 2000 and 2004, on a state-by-state basis, there were many more states that were competitive, and were won by small margins.

We are also in a situation, which did not exist in the 1980s, in which the congressional election results are in line with the presidential election results.  No longer do we see states, for the most part, voting solidly for a Republican president and on that very same day electing a liberal Democratic senator.  There seems to be a return to party line voting.

I agree that the Republicans should try to broaden their base by becoming a little more moderate, but we have to be careful not to alienate our base.  The Democrats have the same problem.  It is hurting them more right now, but that could change.

[A18]

Bush is the first southern Republican president ever.

Reagan was a radical conservative, and he carried 49 states. Bush is no moderate, and he did fine in every state.

Why pick a moderate who can win in a landslide and get nothing done? Our coalition works. Certainly we need to grow it, but there are other ways to do that than just giving up our ideals.

The sunbelt continues to grow in population and influence. Let's get a lock on it.

[dazzleman]

Bush is the first southern Republican president ever.

Reagan was a radical conservative, and he carried 49 states. Bush is no moderate, and he did fine in every state.

Why pick a moderate who can win in a landslide and get nothing done? Our coalition works. Certainly we need to grow it, but there are other ways to do that than just giving up our ideals.

The sunbelt continues to grow in population and influence. Let's get a lock on it.

Oh, I don't think we should give up our ideals.  That's why I say we have to be careful to keep our ideals as we seek to expand the party's base.

A Reagan-type landslide is impossible today.  And it makes me nervous that some once solidly Republican states are now carried by smaller margins.  The northeast is obviously a throwaway, but Northern Virginia is becoming Democratic, and Florida is a lot closer than I would like.  California is gone for the time being, a major pickup for the Democrats.

We have been winning, but by narrow margins that might not hold if we have to run under moderately poor conditions.  Without the national security issue, the Democrats probably would have won in 2004.

[A18]

Virginia as a whole is becoming more Republican, as seen in the last few presidential elections.

I point you to Bush's relative success among Hispanic voters, winning 35% of their vote in 2000 and 44% in 2004. I also point you to Republican strength in quickly growing exurbs and in the booming metropolitan areas of the South.

A Reagan-type landslide is impossible today, because there's no presidential election today. As for November 2008, that's another matter entirely. No incumbent, so no Reagan-type landslide, but certainly a landslide is possible.

California could easily go Republican some time in the near future, just like West Virginia could easily go Democratic.

A good, right-wing extremist would be a refreshing candidate for the country to vote for. I think ideas like a flat tax and Social Security reform make sense to most Americans. They just want to know how it's going to work.

[J. J.]

Nixon was a supporter of civil rights

Are we talking about the same Nixon here?

In 1960, Nixon had about half of the Black vote.  What really cost the GOP the Black vote was Goldwater in 1964.

In many ways, Wallace in 1968 the heir to Goldwater's constituency.

Basically, the Democratic Party went so far left in 1972 with McGovern, that it the Goldwater/Wallace voters to Nixon.  

[MaC]

here's one, if the GOP is recovering from the new deal, would it be more wise to get the southern vote or the black vote?  There're definite advantages to both...

[Redefeatbush04]

How effective was "the southern strategy". Lets look at two southern states - Mississippi and Alabama. Before Nixon only one republican won these states. After Nixon only one democrat won these states.

It was FDR's new deal coalition that united the traditional democratic voters (white farmers in the "solid south"), with immigrants, blacks, union workers, and so on. The reason that he could keep these voters together is that they were fighting for a common cause - they were all hit hard by the depression and FDR brought hope. Once the depression ended - the focus was on the war, and the traditionally anti-war, isolationistic northern great plains states started pulling away from the coalition. Once the war ended the democratic party had to choose between the blacks/immigrants/union members, and the ol' reliable blue coller southern white democratic voters. The party was torn. They couldn't make up their mind. This resulted in many divides within the party (dixiecrats, Wallace) and a divided party (just like today) usually does poorly. It was only in 1960 when a young energetic voice from the new northern/urban democratic party (kennedy) met with a voice from the old southern democratic party (johnson) that the democrats were able to regain the white house. The democrats took the southern vote for granted and the republicans saw the great opportunity and ran with it. Nixon had a lot to do with it. He formed his own coalition - a coalition that the democrats still have not been able to shatter. The only democrats to get elected since Nixon have been southerners - a small burst of what used to be - what is no longer - and what will never again be - the new deal coalition.