CDZ Myth of the Racist Southern Strategy by Nixon in 1972

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by JimBowie1958, Jul 23, 2016.

  1. JimBowie1958
    Offline

    JimBowie1958 Old Fogey

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    48,335
    Thanks Received:
    7,360
    Trophy Points:
    1,870
    Location:
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Ratings:
    +32,113
    Nixon won re-election in a landslide in 1972, and the myth spun by Democrats is that this was the result of the white racists of the South swinging over in a Great Reversal to the Republican PArty.

    But this is simply something that did not happen. The growing Support in the South for the GOP came from Suburban and urban whites many of whom were migrants from outside the South or Southern whites who were indoctrinated in college to see racism as a stain on the South's culture.

    The Myth of Republican Racism, by Mona Charen, National Review
    The “solid south” Democratic voting pattern began to break down not in the 1960s in response to civil rights but in the 1950s in response to economic development and the Cold War. (Black voters in the north, who had been reliable Republicans, began to abandon the GOP in response to the New Deal, encouraged by activists like Robert Vann to “turn Lincoln’s picture to the wall. That debt has been paid in full.”)

    In the 1940s, the GOP garnered only about 25 percent of southern votes. The big break came with Eisenhower’s victories. Significant percentages of white southerners voted for Ike even though the Democratic party remained firmly segregationist and even though Eisenhower backed two civil-rights bills and enforced the Brown decision by federalizing the National Guard. They also began to send GOP representatives to the House.

    These Republican gains came not from the most rural and “deep south” regions, but rather from the newer cities and suburbs. If the new southern Republican voters were white racists, one would have expected Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia to be the first to turn. Instead, as Gerard Alexander notes in “The Myth of the Racist Republicans,” the turn toward the GOP began in Virginia, North Carolina, Texas, Tennessee, and Florida. Eisenhower did best in the peripheral states.

    Alexander concludes: “The GOP’s southern electorate was not rural, nativist, less educated, afraid of change, or concentrated in the . . . Deep South. It was disproportionately suburban, middle-class, educated, young, non-native southern, and concentrated in the growth points that were the least ‘Southern’ parts of the south.


    And blacks had begun to move into the Democratic Party well before the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which was mostly supported by the GOP and most strongly opposed by Democrats.

    Politics of the United States of America: When did African American voters primarily switch from supporting Republicans to supporting Democrats? - Quora

    The election of Roosevelt in 1932 marked the beginning of a change. He got 71 percent of the black vote for president in 1936 and did nearly that well in the next two elections, according to historical figures kept by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. But even then, the number of blacks identifying themselves as Republicans was about the same as the number who thought of themselves as Democrats.

    It wasn’t until Harry Truman garnered 77 percent of the black vote in 1948 that a majority of blacks reported that they thought of themselves as Democrats. Earlier that year Truman had issued an order desegregating the armed services and an executive order setting up regulations against racial bias in federal employment.


    [​IMG]

    Aside from these overall statistics of white southern voting patterns, the set of who is and is not a Southern Racist can be ambiguous and generate more heat than light.

    So I looked up the biographies of the signatories of the 1956 Southern Manifesto that specifically rejected racial integration. EVERY SIGNATURE was a white Southern Democrat. Everyone of those signers remained a Democrat until the day they died. And most of them had plenty of time to switch to the GOP in response to the 1972 Southern Strategy but none did except Strom Thurman.

    Signed Southern Manifesto (with date of death and political affiliation at time of death, bold was alive in 1972)
    1956 objecting to the SCOTUS decisions to end segregation in the educational system
    MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE
    Walter F. George, d.64 a Democrat Walter F. George - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Richard B. Russell, d.71 a Democrat Richard Russell Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
    John Stennis, d.95 a Democrat John C. Stennis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Sam J. Ervin, Jr., d.85 a Democrat Sam Ervin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Strom Thurmond, d.03 a Republican Strom Thurmond - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Harry F. Byrd, d.66 a Democrat Harry F. Byrd - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    A.Willis Robertson, d.71 a Democrat Absalom Willis Robertson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    John L. McClellan, d.77 a Democrat John Little McClellan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Allen J. Ellender, d.72 a Democrat Allen J. Ellender - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Russell B. Long, d.03 a Democrat Russell B. Long - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Lister Hill, d.84 a Democrat J. Lister Hill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    James O. Eastland, d.86 a Democrat James Eastland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    W. Kerr Scott, d.58 a Democrat W. Kerr Scott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    John Sparkman, d.85 a Democrat John Sparkman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Olin D. Johnston, d.65 a Democrat Olin D. Johnston - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Price Daniel, d.88 a Democrat Price Daniel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    J.W. Fulbright, d.95 a Democrat J. William Fulbright - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    George A. Smathers, d.07 a Democrat George Smathers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Spessard L. Holland, d.71 a Democrat Spessard Holland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    Alabama:

    Frank W. Boykin, d.69 a Democrat Frank W. Boykin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    George M. Grant, d.82 a Democrat George M. Grant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    George W. Andrews, d.71 a Democrat George W. Andrews - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Kenneth A. Roberts, d.89 a Democrat Kenneth A. Roberts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Albert Rains, d.91 a Democrat Albert Rains - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Armistead I. Selden, d.85 a Democrat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armistead_I._Selden_Jr.
    Carl Elliott, d.99 a Democrat Carl Elliott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Robert E. Jones, d.97 a Democrat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Jones,_Jr.
    George Huddleston, Jr. d.60 a Democrat George Huddleston - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Arkansas:
    E.C. Gathings, d.79 a Democrat Ezekiel C. Gathings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Wilbur D. Mills, d.92 a Democrat Wilbur Mills - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    James W. Trimble, d.72 a Democrat James William Trimble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Oren Harris, d.97 a Democrat Oren Harris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Brooks Hays, d.81 a Democrat Brooks Hays - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    W.F. Norrell, d.61 a Democrat William F. Norrell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Florida:
    Charles E. Bennett, d.03 a Democrat Charles Edward Bennett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Robert L.F. Sikes, d.94 a Democrat Robert L. F. Sikes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    A.S. Herlong, Jr., d.95 a Democrat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_S._Herlong_Jr.
    Paul G. Rogers, d.08 a Democrat Paul Rogers (politician) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    James A. Haley, d.81 a Democrat James A. Haley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    D.R. Matthews, d.97 a Democrat Donald Ray Matthews - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Georgia:
    Prince H. Preston, d.61 a Democrat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Hulon_Preston_Jr.
    John L. Pilcher, d.81 a Democrat J. L. Pilcher - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    E.L. Forrester, d.70 a Democrat FORRESTER, Elijah Lewis - Biographical Information
    John James Flynt, Jr., d.07 a Democrat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_James_Flynt,_Jr.
    James C. Davis, d.81 a Democrat James C. Davis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Carl Vinson, d.81 a Democrat Carl Vinson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Henderson Lanham, d.57 a Dem Henderson Lovelace Lanham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Iris F. Blitch, d.93 a Democrat Iris Faircloth Blitch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Phil M. Landrum, d.90 a Democrat Phillip M. Landrum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Paul Brown, d.61 a Democrat Paul Brown (Georgia politician) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Louisiana:
    F. Edward Hebert, d.79 a Dem Felix Edward Hébert - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Hale Boggs, d.72 a Democrat Hale Boggs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Edwin E. Willis, d.72 a Democrat Edwin E. Willis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Overton Brooks, d.61 a Democrat Overton Brooks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Otto E. Passman, d.88 a Democrat Otto Passman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    James H. Morrison, d.00 a Democrat James H. Morrison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    T. Ashton Thompson, d.65 a Democrat T. Ashton Thompson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    George S. Long, d.58 a Democrat George S. Long - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Mississippi:
    Thomas G. Abernathy, d.98 a Democrat Thomas Abernethy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jamie L. Whitten, d.95 a Democrat Jamie L. Whitten - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Frank E. Smith, d.97 a Democrat Frank E. Smith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    John Bell Williams, d.97 a Democrat John Bell Williams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Arthur Winstead, d.95 a Democrat W. Arthur Winstead - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    William M. Colmer, d.80 a Democrat William M. Colmer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    North Carolina:
    Herbert C. Bonner, d.65 a Dem Herbert Covington Bonner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    L.H. Fountain, d.02 a Democrat Lawrence H. Fountain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Graham A. Barden, d.67 a Democrat Graham Arthur Barden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Carl T. Durham, d.74 a Democrat Carl T. Durham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    F. Ertel Carlyle, d.60 a Democrat Frank Ertel Carlyle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Hugh Q. Alexander, d.89 a Democrat Hugh Quincy Alexander - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Woodrow W. Jones, d.02 a Democrat Woodrow W. Jones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    George A. Shuford, d.62 a Democrat George A. Shuford - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    South Carolina:
    L. Mendel Rivers, d.70 a Democrat L. Mendel Rivers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    John J. Riley, d.62 a Democrat John J. Riley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    W.J. Bryan Dorn, d.05 a Democrat William Jennings Bryan Dorn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Robert T. Ashmore, d.89 a Democrat Robert T. Ashmore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    James P. Richards, d.79 a Democrat James P. Richards - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    John L. McMillan, d.79 a Democrat John L. McMillan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Tennessee:
    James B. Frazier, Jr., d.78 a Democrat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_B._Frazier_Jr(.)
    Tom Murray, d.71 a Democrat Tom J. Murray - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jere Cooper, d.57 a Democrat Jere Cooper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Clifford Davis, d.70 a Democrat Clifford Davis (politician) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Nonsignatory Racist Prominent Southern Democrats:
    George Wallace, d.98 Democrat George Wallace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Robert C. Byrd, d.10 Democrat Robert Byrd - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    There is no significant evidence to support this myth that the racist pro-segregation Southern white vote went Republican in response to Nixon's Southern Strategy or that the Southern Strategy was designed in any way to lure racist Southerners to the GOP.
     
    • Winner Winner x 4
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  2. guno
    Offline

    guno BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2014
    Messages:
    21,556
    Thanks Received:
    4,835
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    NYC and NC
    Ratings:
    +16,100
    the proof, in addition jim crow in the south


     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. 320 Years of History
    Offline

    320 Years of History Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Messages:
    6,060
    Thanks Received:
    810
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Washington, D.C.
    Ratings:
    +2,550
    I think it's irrelevant which party the majority of racists join. What matters more to and dismays me is that neither party has expressly stated, "We'd sooner lose than win using your racist votes. Vote for the "other guy" or don't vote, but don't vote for us for you will get nothing you desire from us, and you may get plenty that you don't." That neither party has done that is part of why I am not a member of either party. There is nothing about racism that I find acceptable or rational.

    The history of the ebb and flow of racists between the two major parties is interesting academically, but of little use otherwise. You see, racists are like everyone else in that they can look at each party's (candidate's) proposals and determine whether those ideas are going to succor racist ideals. At the moment, it seems the racists are more solicitous of GOP policies/candidates than of Democratic policies/candidates.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. jwoodie
    Offline

    jwoodie Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,068
    Thanks Received:
    1,514
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,197
    How would you define a "racist" and how do you identify them? White privilege? Microagression? Opposition to racial preferences? How about a belief that certain racial groups are born with disabilities that can never be overcome, absent permanent government intervention? Just wondering...
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. JimBowie1958
    Offline

    JimBowie1958 Old Fogey

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    48,335
    Thanks Received:
    7,360
    Trophy Points:
    1,870
    Location:
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Ratings:
    +32,113
    You may find it irrelevant, but the Democratic Party rhetoric makes frequent use of this 1972 Great Switch myth, and I wanted to set the record straight.

    I Totally disagree as the Democratic PArty still has the policies most harmful to blacks and their local communities.

    I refer to policies like cops being hindered from enforcing the law and protecting law abiding blacks. The use of Affirmative Action in college admissions harms blacks as it puts them in with other students from other ethnicities that had to perform at a higher level to get entrance, and this re-enforces the lie that blacks are not up to the standards of other races/ethnicities as they perform less well. The Democratic Party's acceptance and promotion of self destructive life styles that they then use to keep black single moms dependant on government for a father and resulting 80% illegitimacy rates in many cities, is all far more harmful to blacks, the black family and the black communities across the nation than the KKK ever was.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. 320 Years of History
    Offline

    320 Years of History Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Messages:
    6,060
    Thanks Received:
    810
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Washington, D.C.
    Ratings:
    +2,550
    You know, as much as I am keen to share my thoughts on this highly hackneyed general race and discrimination/racism topic, the reality is that I've done so multiple times, and I'm bored with the idea going down that road again.

    Your point about the events of 1972 is interesting somewhat, but, as I said, I don't care pragmatically what the history is, or what anyone says the history is. I care what attitudes and expressed views and approbation I see (tacitly inferred via cogent/coherent inference or overtly observed) coming today from the leaders of the two major parties.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. JimBowie1958
    Offline

    JimBowie1958 Old Fogey

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    48,335
    Thanks Received:
    7,360
    Trophy Points:
    1,870
    Location:
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Ratings:
    +32,113
    Well I think that having an accurate grasp of historical events is a very useful thing, if not crucial.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. 320 Years of History
    Offline

    320 Years of History Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Messages:
    6,060
    Thanks Received:
    810
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Washington, D.C.
    Ratings:
    +2,550
    In general I agree that understanding and knowing the facts of history is useful. I just don't see much use for one's crystalline understanding of this particular snippet of history. I don't because what matters right now is the makeup and aspirations of the parties right now. How they got to this point is surely relevant to some practical purposes -- for example, developing a strategy for altering the makeup of a political party -- but at the level of you, I and other voters who aren't per se "movers and shakers" in either major party, it doesn't really matter. Hell, citing the historic events, be they accurately or inaccurately represented, citing them as part of an argument that one should prefer one party over the other is a fallacious line of persuasion to begin with for it's nothing but a "flavor" of an argumentum ad antiquitatem merged, depending on how it's presented, with greater or lesser bits of the historical fallacy, an appeal to accomplishment/consequences, and presentism.

    Were it so that the present day platforms be based on valid extant history, sure the history you've opened this thread to correct would matter. But they aren't. The policies each major party espouses now are aimed not at resolving the key issues that existed as they did some 40-50 odd years ago; they are intended to address today's problems as they manifest themselves today.

    Thus what matters is discerning objectively where bigots find a political home today, in what party they find succor. The other thing that matters is what one does upon objectively determining what party that be. If one concludes the role and prevalence of racism in American society/culture is a big enough ill, one will deny one's vote to the party in which the racists take the most comfort. It may be for some folks that the discord deriving from racial distrust among the citizenry doesn't rank high enough in their list of political problems to be solved that the parties' stances on that matter will drive their vote. (Of course, it may also be that one doesn't actually conduct a critically objective examination of anything, or some things, having to do with the matter of racism and its effects.)

    Objective, confirmational or anecdotal, critical or cursory, at the end of the day, as goes considering the remarks about how either party arrived where it now stands, intellectual integrity requires the same thing of us all. Advocates for the Democrats' or Republicans' platforms and candidates may utter fluff about the evolution of a party;however, such statements are merely ones that intelligent observers discount/ignore regardless of whether they are true or false. Those facts or falsehoods have bearing on neither the current merit of either party's platform nor the current merit of any candidate's proposed course of action.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2016
  9. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    54,884
    Thanks Received:
    9,500
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +37,413
    And the truth about the Southern Strategy lie......

    Nixon’s Southern Strategy: The Democrat-Lie Keeping Their Control Over the Black Community | Black Quill and Ink

    Believe it or not, the entire myth was created by an unknown editor at the New York Times who didn’t do his job and read a story he was given to edit.

    On May 17, 1970, the New York Times published an article written by James Boyd. The headline, written by our unknown editor, was “Nixon’s Southern Strategy: It’s All in the Charts.”

    The article was about a very controversial political analyst named Kevin Phillips. Phillips believed that everyone voted according to their ethnic background, not according to their individual beliefs. And all a candidate had to do is frame their message according to whatever moves a particular ethnic group.

    Phillips offered his services to the Nixon campaign. But if our unknown editor had bothered to read the story completely, he would’ve seen that Phillip’s and his theory was completely rejected!

    Boyd wrote in his article, “Though Phillips’s ideas for an aggressive anti-liberal campaign strategy that would hasten defection of the working-class democrats to the republicans did not prevail in the 1968 campaign, he won the respect John Mitchell.” (Mitchell was a well-known Washington insider at the time).

    A lazy, negligent editor partially read the story. And wrote a headline for it that attributed Nixon’s campaign success–to a plan he rejected.

    In fact, Phillips isn’t even mentioned in Nixon’s memoirs.

    Is all of this the result of a negligent copy editor at the New York Times? Or did they purposely work with the Democrat Party to create this myth? That has crossed my mind and it’s certainly not beyond the realm of possibility.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. JimBowie1958
    Offline

    JimBowie1958 Old Fogey

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    48,335
    Thanks Received:
    7,360
    Trophy Points:
    1,870
    Location:
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Ratings:
    +32,113
    The New York Times has a long history of lies to smear good Christians, defend murderous atheists like Stalin and being a partisan hack source of disinformation for the Democrats.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1

Share This Page