Did the US have a 3 party system between 1932 and 1994?

[buritobr]

Is it possible to say that there were 3 different parties in the US Congress between 1932 and 1994: the northern democrats, the southern democrats and the republicans?
Could we say that the southern democrats were the party of the middle, which could build a democratic majority with the northern democrats and a conservative majority with the republicans?

[SInNYC]

Although dixiecrats were often labeled conservative democrats, I always hated this classification since it was trying to forcefit a linear liberal-conservative scale onto something that isnt linear. It made sense only if middle means a mix of hard right and left rather than moderation.

Dixiecrats were consistently bigger spenders than both northern Ds and Rs, since they wanted to spend on both defense and social spending (as long as it didnt go to the 'wrong people'). They were with Ds on infrastructure spending (they benefited from it), but with Rs on military spending and wars. They of course hated civil rights, which both [northern] Ds and Rs mostly accepted back then.

But to answer the original question, yes it was effectively a 3 party system.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Not every Southern Democratic was like Larry McDonald or whatever that GA guy's name was. You had a spectrum of ideologies in Southern Democrats based on their location, their base and their economic profile.

Across the board, most supported Segregation. About 85 to 90%, though there were some who were either willing to challenge it, outright against it or silent on the matter.

Beyond that you have split between Truman and Thurmond in 48. A large number of Thurmond's support were actual Conservatives and would go on to join the Republicans over the twenty years until 1968. However notice that Thurmond got 70% in SC, whereas Republicans were lucky to tie it in the decade or two following, and thus not every Thurmond voter even was a "conservative". Those that were conservative though would become, along with transplants and "traditional bastions", the Republican base in the South by 1968. There were exceptions by state of course and in select areas down ballot because of inertia that took something like the 1990s to finally break down even in some suburban areas.

There were a large number of people who were very to militant racists, but were strong New Deal supporters. Theodore Bilbo comes to mind, but he died before 1948. There were a large number of people in that category. Bilbo often clashed with the conservative and pro-business wing of the MS Democratic Party, led by Pat Harrison. Both men were staunch segregationists as would any MS politicians of this period be. These people would have divided between Truman and Thurmond, but few of this group would support the Republicans in coming years, with exceptions being 72 and 84 you might get a split ticket among a good number of them. This would have been George Wallace's base vote in 68.

Next you have passive racists, but ardent New Dealers. These are people in the TVA region, and similar regions that directly benefited from the New Deal, farmers benefiting from the various assistance programs, social security dependent retirees etc. This was Truman's base in the South in 1948 and these people would largely remain Democrats until they died. Some of these people may have voted for Wallace, though a number of stuck with Humphrey (especially in TX).

It really emphasizes how much the Republicans depended on historic bastions (mountain vote), the  metropolitan support (with a large chunk of transplants and wealthy retirees from the North augmenting their support in such places) until generational change could remove the Depression from the rear view mirror and leave only people who remembered the Civil Rights Movements and were animated by the social and cultural issues of the 1980s to 2000s.


No, I would not say that there was a three party system. I would say that you had a one party region degrade into a two party region over the course of the stated period.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Snip

Sure not every democrat was like Larry McDonald but there is a reason Reagan was able to have a defacto trifecta in the first two years of both of his terms and that’s because there was like 40-45ish southern conservative democrats who would go along with him on most of his agenda .

It’s the same reason FDR was unable to pass much of his agenda post 1938 and the same is true for Truman and the fair deal and LBJ post 1966. It’s cause conservatives had defacto control of the house from 1938-1946 , 1950-1952,  1954-1958 , 1966-1970 , 1981-83, 1985-87 despite democrats having a majority in all these cases. So  the conservative coalition had a majority 22 of those 62 years and republicans had actual majorities for 4 so you could say that liberals had a majority for 36 years while conservatives had for 26 which is still a advantage to liberals but not as profound as 58 vs 4


It certainly wasn’t all southern democrats but there were a good deal that went along with republicans much of the time

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Snip

Sure not every democrat was like Larry McDonald but there is a reason Reagan was able to have a defacto trifecta in the first two years of both of his terms and that’s because there was like 40-45ish southern conservative democrats who would go along with him on most of his agenda .

It’s the same reason FDR was unable to pass much of his agenda post 1938 and the same is true for Truman and the fair deal and LBJ post 1966. It’s cause conservatives had defacto control of the house from 1938-1946 , 1950-1952,  1954-1958 , 1966-1970 , 1981-83, 1985-87 despite democrats having a majority in all these cases. So  the conservative coalition had a majority 22 of those 62 years and republicans had actual majorities for 4 so you could say that liberals had a majority for 36 years while conservatives had for 26 which is still a advantage to liberals but not as profound as 58 vs 4


It certainly wasn’t all southern democrats but there were a good deal that went along with republicans much of the time

As I said, there was a spectrum of views across the Southern Democrats and Vote View backs that up with the DW Nominate data.

Generally speaking you had Southern Democrats fall into three groups

Conservatives/Dixiecrats (whose scores were out of line with the bulk of their party) almost invariably represented urban areas or the black belt where the racial divide created a simultaneous wealth skew (since most down market jobs were held by blacks who couldn't vote prior to the VRA), or historically Republican/competitive areas.
Party Line Democrats (whose scores were in line with most of the Democrats voting wise) typically were more upcountry or down market whites with much less diversity.
Those in between - right on the tin, middling scores from either area.

The combination of the first and some of third group, plus the block voting that Fuzzy Bear has referenced (seen as essential to preserve the South's relevance within the Democratic Party) is the source of the votes for the Boll Weevil Coalitions that you describe.

However, there was massive support for various New Deal programs in many poorer parts of the South, while the more racially polarized and wealthy dominated areas lacked this dynamic. However, programs that overlapped with Civil Rights (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and similar programs) and anything that could be seen as pro-Communist would naturally unify the South in opposition.