The Southern Strategy: then....and now

[Correll]

Yup interesting how they can claim Nixon courted racist southerns when he sped up desegregation busing and open support for blacks in all walks of life.

when i was growing up in the 70s, it was taught to me as historical fact. i did not question it.

it was only when i was older, that i began to wonder what exactly he did, to pander for those racist votes.


i was unable to find anything.


the older i got, and more i got to see liberals lying, i slowly came to realize, that is was just not true.


since then, i've seen excerpts from more academic research, on what actually happened to the south.

I think I understand your confusion. You are thinking of it only as it relates to Nixon. The sources I quoted from are a bit broader.

nixon was supposed to be the one that made it all come together. if the historical record shows him NOT pandering for racist voters, then the theory is false.

 

[Correll]

4. What names have I called you?

the entire southern strategy conspiracy theory is nothing but calling republicans racist.

You talk about nuance as if you practice it. Your posts have been anything but. Broadbrushing the entire left.

For example, this statement. The Dems are certainly guilty of racist policies in the past, but you, and your cohort of Republicans are busy trying to erase your own party’s problematic history by calling the Southern Strategy (a long recognized and documented bit of history) a myth. In fact, while you are up in arms about the left toppling confederate statues you are busy rewriting your own history: what was right is now left, what history is now a hoax. It is a bit unreal.

And again, your lack of nuance. When the Republican Party adopted the strategy, they took on the racist mantle that tbe Democrats abandoned when Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights. You insist tbe Democrats need to acknowledge their past...but give a free pass here for Republicans?

Where the nuance problem comes in is here. ”You are calling Republicans racist”. No. First, Republicans are INDIVIDUALS. Second, like the Democrats, the Republican Party was split on this issue. And third, it was increasing political power as much if not more than the personal beliefs of politicians.

You are pushing the lie....and you have been exposed pushing the lie..........you can't lie without being called out on the lie....the parties did not switch, the democrat party simply accepted racists of all skin colors into their party......

So...the southern racists magically transformed their culture when they started voting Republican. That is a special kind of stupid.

Racial reconcilation in the SOUTH (outside of politics) progressed more rapidly here than in the North.. The southern "racists" were your people. If flying the Confederate flag and donating to Daughter of Confederacy are the marker for racist.. Once the schools got integrated, -- sports, music, southern cooking, RELIGION and regional culture were so much more common value between races here - it was FASTER to realize how MANY Southern values and traditions the races had in common.. Not the same regional culture dynamic as in the more amorphically north...

First of all, I want to clarify something. I am an independent who caucuses with Dems when it comes to USMB. You are a libertarian who caucuses with the Pubs, when it comes to USMB. If you are going to refer the Dems as “my people” then I will refer to the Pubs as “your people”. Fair enough?

The other is that in broadbrushing the parties you ignore the divisions that existed. The Dems were divided on Civil Rights, but Southern Block was so powerful, FDR and his Democrats were unable to make any inroads in regards to segregation, Jim Crowe, or lynchings. The Republican Party was divided on the Southern Strategy. BOTH parties were a lot more diverse ideologically THEN than they are now.

When it comes to the Republicans taking on racism to gain the South...yes. They did. It wasn’t fast process. It took a long time. Two examples exist today that show exactly how Republicans are willing to tolerate, even fight for racist policies or heritage in order to maintain political power.

The first is in the issue of felons voting rights. The second is the issue of confederate memorials.

The history of removing voting rights from felons is one of racism.

.....

ok, you have finally made an actual attempt to support your conclusion. good work.


1. felon voting loss. potentially a significant issue, though i've don't think i have ever heard it discussed in a campaign. so, can you demonstrate any evidence that it was a politically significant force in the goldwater or nixon campaigns in the south?

2. confederate memorials were not an issue until very recently. the southern strategy, if it has any weight to it, would have been a long done deal by the time it became an issue.




and seriously. i am glad that you have finally tried to make a supporting argument. but, it seems plain that the more you try, the more you will realize why you did not do so before.


the normal thing for a human to do at that point, is to double down on their beliefs and become more radicalized and even a troll.


i've done that to rightwinger and to mac1958. i hope you bounce better. though the science says you will not.

Lol she haS no argument.. there was no Southern strategy.. Nixon told democrat run unions HIRE BLACKS! Real racist.. She’s just continuing with stupid fake Democrat narrative of racism

The Southern Strategy had nothing to do with what individual politicians believed. For example I don’t think there is any evidence that Goldwater or Nixon, were themselves racist and, concurrently while Johnson was much applauded for his stancesand legislation on Civil Rights, he himself held racist attitudes. It is about the politics of party Power, and even though it was associated with Nixon, it started well before Nixon. Interestingly, it also was not simply north/south, the west played a role (Which I had not realized).

The Western Origins of the “Southern Strategy”

The untold story of the ideological realignment that upended the nation

newrepublic.com

Unlike Eastern Republicans, whose history was defined by opposition to slavery, Western Republicans had long held racial views toward Asians and Native Americans similar to those of Southern Democrats toward African Americans. For example, Republican Governor Leland Stanford of California had this to say in his 1862 Inaugural Address:

To my mind it is clear, that the settlement among us of an inferior race is to be discouraged, by every legitimate means. Asia, with her numberless millions, sends to our shores the dregs of her population.… There can be no doubt but that the presence of numbers among us of a degraded and distinct people must exercise a deleterious influence upon the superior race, and, to a certain extent, repel desirable immigration. It will afford me great pleasure to concur with the Legislature in any constitutional action, having for its object the repression of the immigration of the Asiatic races.

Discrimination against Asians culminated in enactment of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 under Republican President Chester A. Arthur, which formed the basis for all subsequent efforts to restrict immigration based on race and ethnicity. The 1888 Republican platform, in fact, said this was just the first step: “We declare our hostility to the introduction into this country of foreign contract labor and of Chinese labor, alien to our civilization and constitution; and we demand the rigid enforcement of the existing laws against it, and favor such immediate legislation as will exclude such labor from our shores.”

Thus by 1890, “the West had an ideology more in common with that of the South than that of the North,” Richardson writes.

Further bringing the Westerners and Southerners together was a shared attitude toward the federal government on economic issues. Southerners had long favored small government in Washington to keep it from interfering with segregation. This meant keeping taxes and spending low and unions out. Westerners shared this libertarian philosophy because they glorified the idea of “rugged individualism” that emanated from myths about the settlement of the frontier.

You were shown in the New York Times Article where it stated that the Southern Strategy was dismissed and not adopted...yet you persist in lying about it...you are vile....




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


Ken Raymond
Jun 2011

Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”, which the democrats say is the reason black people had to support them during the 1960′s–is a lie.

And it’s probably the biggest lie that’s been told to the blacks since Woodrow Wilson segregated the federal government after getting the NAACP to support him.
After talking with black voters across the country about why they overwhelmingly supports democrats, the common answer that’s emerges is the Southern Strategy.

I’ve heard of the Southern Strategy too. But since it doesn’t make a difference in how I decide to vote, I never bothered to research it. But apparently it still influences how many African Americans vote today. That makes it worth investigating.

For those that might be unfamiliar with the Southern Strategy, I’ll briefly review the story. After the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, most blacks registered as democrats and it’s been that way ever since.

And that doesn’t make any sense when you consider the fact that it was the democrats that established, and fought for, Jim Crow laws and segregation in the first place. And the republicans have a very noble history of fighting for the civil rights of blacks.

The reason black people moved to the democrats, given by media pundits and educational institutions for the decades, is that when republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon ran for president in 1968, he employed a racist plan that’s now infamously called the Southern Strategy.

The Southern Strategy basically means Nixon allegedly used hidden code words that appealed to the racists within the Democrat party and throughout the south. This secret language caused a seismic shift in the electoral landscape that moved the evil racist democrats into the republican camp and the noble-hearted republicans into the democrat camp.

And here’s what I found, Nixon did not use a plan to appeal to racist white voters.

First, let’s look at the presidential candidates of 1968. Richard Nixon was the republican candidate; Hubert Humphrey was the democrat nominee; and George Wallace was a third party candidate.

Remember George Wallace? Wallace was the democrat governor of Alabama from 1963 until 1967. And it was Wallace that ordered the Eugene “Bull” Connor, and the police department, to attack Dr. Martin Luther King

Jr. and 2,500 protesters in Montgomery , Alabama in 1965. And it was Governor Wallace that ordered a blockade at the admissions office at the University of Alabama to prevent blacks from enrolling in 1963.

Governor Wallace was a true racist and a determined segregationist. And he ran as the nominee from the American Independent Party, which was he founded.

Richard Nixon wrote about the 1968 campaign in his book RN: the Memoirs of Richard Nixon originally published in 1978.

In his book, Nixon wrote this about campaigning in the south, “The deep south had to be virtually conceded to George Wallace. I could not match him there without compromising on civil rights, which I would not do.”

The media coverage of the 1968 presidential race also showed that Nixon was in favor of the Civil Rights and would not compromise on that issue. For example, in an article published in theWashington Post on September 15, 1968 headlined “Nixon Sped Integration, Wallace says” Wallace declared that Nixon agreed with Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren and played a role in ”the destruction of public school system.” Wallace pledged to restore the school system, in the same article, by giving it back to the states ”lock, stock, and barrel.”

This story, as well as Nixon’s memoirs and other news stories during that campaign, shows that Nixon was very clear about his position on civil rights. And if Nixon was used code words only racists could hear, evidently George Wallace couldn’t hear it.

Among the southern states, George Wallace won Arkansas , Mississippi , Alabama , Georgia and Louisiana . Nixon won North Carolina , South Carolina , Florida , Virginia , and Tennessee . Winning those states were part of Nixon’s plan.

“I would not concede the Carolina ‘s, Florida , or Virginia or the states around the rim of the south,”Nixon wrote. ”These states were a part of my plan.”

At that time, the entire southern region was the poorest in the country. The south consistently lagged behind the rest of the United States in income. And according to the

“U.S. Regional Growth and Convergence,” by Kris James Mitchener and Ian W. McLean, per capita income for southerners was almost half as much as it was for Americans in other regions.

Nixon won those states strictly on economic issues. He focused on increasing tariffs on foreign imports to protect the manufacturing and agriculture industries of those states. Some southern elected officials agreed to support him for the sake of their economies, including South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond.

“I had been consulting privately with Thurmond for several months and I was convinced that he’d join my campaign if he were satisfied on the two issues of paramount concern to him: national defense and tariffs against textile imports to protect South Carolina ‘s position in the industry.”Nixon wrote in his memoirs.

In fact, Nixon made it clear to the southern elected officials that he would not compromise on the civil rights issue.

“On civil rights, Thurmond knew my position was very different from his,” Nixon wrote. “I was for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and he was against it. Although he disagreed with me, he respected my sincerity and candor.”

The same scenario played out among elected officials and voters in other southern states won by Nixon. They laid their feelings aside and supported him because of his economic platform’”not because Nixon sent messages on a frequency only racists can hear.

And yet I can find plenty of articles supporting The Southern Strategy. Which I posted. What is your point?

that the myth is widely believed, is not evidence it is true.

That applies to your claim as well.

i have not used that claim to bolster my argument.

my argument is based on the lack of pandering by past republican candidates for racist southern votes.

it is generally just presented as a premise. at best, we get vague references to "code words" or something like that.


the historical record does not support the claim that the gop pandered to racist voters to flip the south.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

4. What names have I called you?

the entire southern strategy conspiracy theory is nothing but calling republicans racist.

You talk about nuance as if you practice it. Your posts have been anything but. Broadbrushing the entire left.

For example, this statement. The Dems are certainly guilty of racist policies in the past, but you, and your cohort of Republicans are busy trying to erase your own party’s problematic history by calling the Southern Strategy (a long recognized and documented bit of history) a myth. In fact, while you are up in arms about the left toppling confederate statues you are busy rewriting your own history: what was right is now left, what history is now a hoax. It is a bit unreal.

And again, your lack of nuance. When the Republican Party adopted the strategy, they took on the racist mantle that tbe Democrats abandoned when Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights. You insist tbe Democrats need to acknowledge their past...but give a free pass here for Republicans?

Where the nuance problem comes in is here. ”You are calling Republicans racist”. No. First, Republicans are INDIVIDUALS. Second, like the Democrats, the Republican Party was split on this issue. And third, it was increasing political power as much if not more than the personal beliefs of politicians.

You are pushing the lie....and you have been exposed pushing the lie..........you can't lie without being called out on the lie....the parties did not switch, the democrat party simply accepted racists of all skin colors into their party......

So...the southern racists magically transformed their culture when they started voting Republican. That is a special kind of stupid.

Racial reconcilation in the SOUTH (outside of politics) progressed more rapidly here than in the North.. The southern "racists" were your people. If flying the Confederate flag and donating to Daughter of Confederacy are the marker for racist.. Once the schools got integrated, -- sports, music, southern cooking, RELIGION and regional culture were so much more common value between races here - it was FASTER to realize how MANY Southern values and traditions the races had in common.. Not the same regional culture dynamic as in the more amorphically north...

First of all, I want to clarify something. I am an independent who caucuses with Dems when it comes to USMB. You are a libertarian who caucuses with the Pubs, when it comes to USMB. If you are going to refer the Dems as “my people” then I will refer to the Pubs as “your people”. Fair enough?

The other is that in broadbrushing the parties you ignore the divisions that existed. The Dems were divided on Civil Rights, but Southern Block was so powerful, FDR and his Democrats were unable to make any inroads in regards to segregation, Jim Crowe, or lynchings. The Republican Party was divided on the Southern Strategy. BOTH parties were a lot more diverse ideologically THEN than they are now.

When it comes to the Republicans taking on racism to gain the South...yes. They did. It wasn’t fast process. It took a long time. Two examples exist today that show exactly how Republicans are willing to tolerate, even fight for racist policies or heritage in order to maintain political power.

The first is in the issue of felons voting rights. The second is the issue of confederate memorials.

The history of removing voting rights from felons is one of racism.

.....

ok, you have finally made an actual attempt to support your conclusion. good work.


1. felon voting loss. potentially a significant issue, though i've don't think i have ever heard it discussed in a campaign. so, can you demonstrate any evidence that it was a politically significant force in the goldwater or nixon campaigns in the south?

2. confederate memorials were not an issue until very recently. the southern strategy, if it has any weight to it, would have been a long done deal by the time it became an issue.




and seriously. i am glad that you have finally tried to make a supporting argument. but, it seems plain that the more you try, the more you will realize why you did not do so before.


the normal thing for a human to do at that point, is to double down on their beliefs and become more radicalized and even a troll.


i've done that to rightwinger and to mac1958. i hope you bounce better. though the science says you will not.

When you post in this manner, I have no desire to engage. Try again If you really want to discuss the points you brought up.

When the Southern Strategy included as it’s focus a newly conceived post-segregation emphasis “states rights”...what do you suppose that was a code word for?

1. when your goal is to paint me and mine as "racist" i tend to get defensive. that is normal in our society. if you want more civil discussions, don't make you goal, to define your discussion partners as what is in our culture, are seen as terrible people.
[


2. at worse, might have been code for against desegregation. at best, symbolic push back against insulting federal intrusion. either way, small potatoes, especially considering the lack of movement over generations.


3. are you aware that george wallace ran for office after renouncing segregation and begging for forgiveness from a black church?

Yup interesting how they can claim Nixon courted racist southerns when he sped up desegregation busing and open support for blacks in all walks of life.

It didn't start with Nixon, though he got associated with it.

Again slowly for the class, EXPLAIN how if Nixon actively worked to increase Busing and employment of blacks and the civil rights act that would encourage racist whites to join his party. Be specific now and explain it so everyone can understand.

I don’t think I can dumb it down enough for you. Did you read the post you responded to before nattering on about Nixon?

LOL you haven't explained anything just made blanket statements devoid of facts and evidence. Just admit you are stupid, Nixon did NOT embrace racist and the facts are there was no southern strategy. The South changed over time and has less racist now then it ever had.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yup interesting how they can claim Nixon courted racist southerns when he sped up desegregation busing and open support for blacks in all walks of life.

It didn't start with Nixon, though he got associated with it.

Again slowly for the class, EXPLAIN how if Nixon actively worked to increase Busing and employment of blacks and the civil rights act that would encourage racist whites to join his party. Be specific now and explain it so everyone can understand.

What was Nixon's position on civil rights?

• Nixon as Vice President on Civil Rights. The Eisenhower administration accomplished much in the area of Civil Rights. It was President Eisenhower who integrated the armed forces, promoted more blacks into the federal bureaucracy than his predecessors, and appointed federal judges, and lawyers in his justice department, who supported racial justice.

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrEeCvtfjBfugIAgQwPxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTEyOTEwMHF1BGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDQzAxNTdfMQRzZWMDc2M-/RV=2/RE=1597042542/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.nixonfoundation.org%2f2017%2f08%2fnixons-record-civil-rights-2%2f/RK=2/RS=hwDPcqOOi.PUypn8TLA62xDqwKU-

The Southern Strategy did not rely on Nixon and started prior to him And continued after him. His record on Civil Rights was good (agree with you there).

The Western Origins of the “Southern Strategy”

The untold story of the ideological realignment that upended the nation

newrepublic.com

When Goldwater captured the Republican nomination in 1964, he knew perfectly well that his best hope of getting electoral votes lay in the South. As he put it, he would “go hunting where the ducks are.” Aside from his home state, all of Goldwater’s electoral votes came from states that had belonged to the Confederacy, making him the true implementer of the Southern strategy. (Tellingly, the old Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond formally became a Republican in 1964.)

Ironically, Nixon really did almost nothing to appeal to Southern racists in 1968, for an obvious, but frequently forgotten, reason: Alabama Governor George Wallace, who ran as a third-party candidate, had all their votes in his pocket and made blatant racial appeals the foundation of his campaign. Even as president, Nixon did very little, substantively, to appeal to the South. On the contrary, he moved rapidly to desegregate the schools and established affirmative action programs to aid black workers and businesses. It is now largely forgotten, but the reason Nixon made Spiro Agnew his running mate is because he had a reputation for being good on civil rights, having pushed for open housing laws as governor of Maryland. On balance, Nixon’s record on civil rights is pretty good, according to historians.

Of more importance to the Southern strategy is that Nixon, like Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and the two Bush presidents, was from the West. The similar worldviews of Western individualists and Southern conservatives is what ultimately drew the South permanently into the Republican orbit.

Which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with racism. Or racists.

 

[Correll]

Yup interesting how they can claim Nixon courted racist southerns when he sped up desegregation busing and open support for blacks in all walks of life.

It didn't start with Nixon, though he got associated with it.

Again slowly for the class, EXPLAIN how if Nixon actively worked to increase Busing and employment of blacks and the civil rights act that would encourage racist whites to join his party. Be specific now and explain it so everyone can understand.

What was Nixon's position on civil rights?

• Nixon as Vice President on Civil Rights. The Eisenhower administration accomplished much in the area of Civil Rights. It was President Eisenhower who integrated the armed forces, promoted more blacks into the federal bureaucracy than his predecessors, and appointed federal judges, and lawyers in his justice department, who supported racial justice.

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrEeCvtfjBfugIAgQwPxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTEyOTEwMHF1BGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDQzAxNTdfMQRzZWMDc2M-/RV=2/RE=1597042542/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.nixonfoundation.org%2f2017%2f08%2fnixons-record-civil-rights-2%2f/RK=2/RS=hwDPcqOOi.PUypn8TLA62xDqwKU-

The Southern Strategy did not rely on Nixon and started prior to him And continued after him. His record on Civil Rights was good (agree with you there).

The Western Origins of the “Southern Strategy”

The untold story of the ideological realignment that upended the nation

newrepublic.com

When Goldwater captured the Republican nomination in 1964, he knew perfectly well that his best hope of getting electoral votes lay in the South. As he put it, he would “go hunting where the ducks are.” Aside from his home state, all of Goldwater’s electoral votes came from states that had belonged to the Confederacy, making him the true implementer of the Southern strategy. (Tellingly, the old Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond formally became a Republican in 1964.)

Ironically, Nixon really did almost nothing to appeal to Southern racists in 1968, for an obvious, but frequently forgotten, reason: Alabama Governor George Wallace, who ran as a third-party candidate, had all their votes in his pocket and made blatant racial appeals the foundation of his campaign. Even as president, Nixon did very little, substantively, to appeal to the South. On the contrary, he moved rapidly to desegregate the schools and established affirmative action programs to aid black workers and businesses. It is now largely forgotten, but the reason Nixon made Spiro Agnew his running mate is because he had a reputation for being good on civil rights, having pushed for open housing laws as governor of Maryland. On balance, Nixon’s record on civil rights is pretty good, according to historians.

Of more importance to the Southern strategy is that Nixon, like Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and the two Bush presidents, was from the West. The similar worldviews of Western individualists and Southern conservatives is what ultimately drew the South permanently into the Republican orbit.

tellingly, you focus on the one dixicrat that became a republican, and ignore all the others that returned to the democrat party.

are you aware that george wallace repudiated and apologized for his segregationists politics, going so far as to beg forgiveness in a black church?

 

[Coyote]

Yup interesting how they can claim Nixon courted racist southerns when he sped up desegregation busing and open support for blacks in all walks of life.

when i was growing up in the 70s, it was taught to me as historical fact. i did not question it.

it was only when i was older, that i began to wonder what exactly he did, to pander for those racist votes.


i was unable to find anything.


the older i got, and more i got to see liberals lying, i slowly came to realize, that is was just not true.


since then, i've seen excerpts from more academic research, on what actually happened to the south.

I think I understand your confusion. You are thinking of it only as it relates to Nixon. The sources I quoted from are a bit broader.

nixon was supposed to be the one that made it all come together. if the historical record shows him NOT pandering for racist voters, then the theory is false.

Perhaps so, but it was In process before Nixon. Goldwater was part of it. And remember, Nixon DID promise to oppose busing (hugely contentious) and not to “ram anything down their throats”. He did, in fact work to avoid alienating them by letting the courts take most of the flack.

Presidency of Richard Nixon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Nixon years witnessed the first large-scale efforts to desegregate the nation's public schools.[89] Seeking to avoid alienating Southern whites, whom Nixon hoped would form part of a durable Republican coalition, the president adopted a "low profile" on school desegregation. He pursued this policy by allowing the courts to receive the criticism for desegregation orders, which Nixon's Justice Department would then enforce.[90] By September 1970, less than ten percent of black children were attending segregated schools.[91] After the Supreme Court's handed down its decision in the 1971 case of Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, cross-district school busing emerged as a major issue in both the North and the South. Swann permitted lower federal courts to mandate busing in order to remedy racial imbalance in schools. Though he enforced the court orders, Nixon believed that "forced integration of housing or education" was just as improper as legal segregation, and he took a strong public stance against its continuation.

If the Southern Strategy was a myth....why did the RNC apologize for it?

 

[Coyote]

4. What names have I called you?

the entire southern strategy conspiracy theory is nothing but calling republicans racist.

You talk about nuance as if you practice it. Your posts have been anything but. Broadbrushing the entire left.

For example, this statement. The Dems are certainly guilty of racist policies in the past, but you, and your cohort of Republicans are busy trying to erase your own party’s problematic history by calling the Southern Strategy (a long recognized and documented bit of history) a myth. In fact, while you are up in arms about the left toppling confederate statues you are busy rewriting your own history: what was right is now left, what history is now a hoax. It is a bit unreal.

And again, your lack of nuance. When the Republican Party adopted the strategy, they took on the racist mantle that tbe Democrats abandoned when Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights. You insist tbe Democrats need to acknowledge their past...but give a free pass here for Republicans?

Where the nuance problem comes in is here. ”You are calling Republicans racist”. No. First, Republicans are INDIVIDUALS. Second, like the Democrats, the Republican Party was split on this issue. And third, it was increasing political power as much if not more than the personal beliefs of politicians.

You are pushing the lie....and you have been exposed pushing the lie..........you can't lie without being called out on the lie....the parties did not switch, the democrat party simply accepted racists of all skin colors into their party......

So...the southern racists magically transformed their culture when they started voting Republican. That is a special kind of stupid.

Racial reconcilation in the SOUTH (outside of politics) progressed more rapidly here than in the North.. The southern "racists" were your people. If flying the Confederate flag and donating to Daughter of Confederacy are the marker for racist.. Once the schools got integrated, -- sports, music, southern cooking, RELIGION and regional culture were so much more common value between races here - it was FASTER to realize how MANY Southern values and traditions the races had in common.. Not the same regional culture dynamic as in the more amorphically north...

First of all, I want to clarify something. I am an independent who caucuses with Dems when it comes to USMB. You are a libertarian who caucuses with the Pubs, when it comes to USMB. If you are going to refer the Dems as “my people” then I will refer to the Pubs as “your people”. Fair enough?

The other is that in broadbrushing the parties you ignore the divisions that existed. The Dems were divided on Civil Rights, but Southern Block was so powerful, FDR and his Democrats were unable to make any inroads in regards to segregation, Jim Crowe, or lynchings. The Republican Party was divided on the Southern Strategy. BOTH parties were a lot more diverse ideologically THEN than they are now.

When it comes to the Republicans taking on racism to gain the South...yes. They did. It wasn’t fast process. It took a long time. Two examples exist today that show exactly how Republicans are willing to tolerate, even fight for racist policies or heritage in order to maintain political power.

The first is in the issue of felons voting rights. The second is the issue of confederate memorials.

The history of removing voting rights from felons is one of racism.

.....

ok, you have finally made an actual attempt to support your conclusion. good work.


1. felon voting loss. potentially a significant issue, though i've don't think i have ever heard it discussed in a campaign. so, can you demonstrate any evidence that it was a politically significant force in the goldwater or nixon campaigns in the south?

2. confederate memorials were not an issue until very recently. the southern strategy, if it has any weight to it, would have been a long done deal by the time it became an issue.




and seriously. i am glad that you have finally tried to make a supporting argument. but, it seems plain that the more you try, the more you will realize why you did not do so before.


the normal thing for a human to do at that point, is to double down on their beliefs and become more radicalized and even a troll.


i've done that to rightwinger and to mac1958. i hope you bounce better. though the science says you will not.

Lol she haS no argument.. there was no Southern strategy.. Nixon told democrat run unions HIRE BLACKS! Real racist.. She’s just continuing with stupid fake Democrat narrative of racism

The Southern Strategy had nothing to do with what individual politicians believed. For example I don’t think there is any evidence that Goldwater or Nixon, were themselves racist and, concurrently while Johnson was much applauded for his stancesand legislation on Civil Rights, he himself held racist attitudes. It is about the politics of party Power, and even though it was associated with Nixon, it started well before Nixon. Interestingly, it also was not simply north/south, the west played a role (Which I had not realized).

The Western Origins of the “Southern Strategy”

The untold story of the ideological realignment that upended the nation

newrepublic.com

Unlike Eastern Republicans, whose history was defined by opposition to slavery, Western Republicans had long held racial views toward Asians and Native Americans similar to those of Southern Democrats toward African Americans. For example, Republican Governor Leland Stanford of California had this to say in his 1862 Inaugural Address:

To my mind it is clear, that the settlement among us of an inferior race is to be discouraged, by every legitimate means. Asia, with her numberless millions, sends to our shores the dregs of her population.… There can be no doubt but that the presence of numbers among us of a degraded and distinct people must exercise a deleterious influence upon the superior race, and, to a certain extent, repel desirable immigration. It will afford me great pleasure to concur with the Legislature in any constitutional action, having for its object the repression of the immigration of the Asiatic races.

Discrimination against Asians culminated in enactment of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 under Republican President Chester A. Arthur, which formed the basis for all subsequent efforts to restrict immigration based on race and ethnicity. The 1888 Republican platform, in fact, said this was just the first step: “We declare our hostility to the introduction into this country of foreign contract labor and of Chinese labor, alien to our civilization and constitution; and we demand the rigid enforcement of the existing laws against it, and favor such immediate legislation as will exclude such labor from our shores.”

Thus by 1890, “the West had an ideology more in common with that of the South than that of the North,” Richardson writes.

Further bringing the Westerners and Southerners together was a shared attitude toward the federal government on economic issues. Southerners had long favored small government in Washington to keep it from interfering with segregation. This meant keeping taxes and spending low and unions out. Westerners shared this libertarian philosophy because they glorified the idea of “rugged individualism” that emanated from myths about the settlement of the frontier.

And again..... The actual New York Times article that you morons use to create your lie about the Southern Strategy.....you can't lie about this anymore..

see page 4, bottom of first column...

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/books/phillips-southern.pdf

==========
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.



********

Your mistake is that you think that one article is what started the southern strategy idea. It didn‘t, it preceded Nixon, Nixon simply popularized it.


And...if it was fictional, why did the RNC apologiz?

 

[Coyote]

Yup interesting how they can claim Nixon courted racist southerns when he sped up desegregation busing and open support for blacks in all walks of life.

It didn't start with Nixon, though he got associated with it.

Again slowly for the class, EXPLAIN how if Nixon actively worked to increase Busing and employment of blacks and the civil rights act that would encourage racist whites to join his party. Be specific now and explain it so everyone can understand.

What was Nixon's position on civil rights?

• Nixon as Vice President on Civil Rights. The Eisenhower administration accomplished much in the area of Civil Rights. It was President Eisenhower who integrated the armed forces, promoted more blacks into the federal bureaucracy than his predecessors, and appointed federal judges, and lawyers in his justice department, who supported racial justice.

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrEeCvtfjBfugIAgQwPxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTEyOTEwMHF1BGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDQzAxNTdfMQRzZWMDc2M-/RV=2/RE=1597042542/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.nixonfoundation.org%2f2017%2f08%2fnixons-record-civil-rights-2%2f/RK=2/RS=hwDPcqOOi.PUypn8TLA62xDqwKU-

The Southern Strategy did not rely on Nixon and started prior to him And continued after him. His record on Civil Rights was good (agree with you there).

The Western Origins of the “Southern Strategy”

The untold story of the ideological realignment that upended the nation

newrepublic.com

When Goldwater captured the Republican nomination in 1964, he knew perfectly well that his best hope of getting electoral votes lay in the South. As he put it, he would “go hunting where the ducks are.” Aside from his home state, all of Goldwater’s electoral votes came from states that had belonged to the Confederacy, making him the true implementer of the Southern strategy. (Tellingly, the old Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond formally became a Republican in 1964.)

Ironically, Nixon really did almost nothing to appeal to Southern racists in 1968, for an obvious, but frequently forgotten, reason: Alabama Governor George Wallace, who ran as a third-party candidate, had all their votes in his pocket and made blatant racial appeals the foundation of his campaign. Even as president, Nixon did very little, substantively, to appeal to the South. On the contrary, he moved rapidly to desegregate the schools and established affirmative action programs to aid black workers and businesses. It is now largely forgotten, but the reason Nixon made Spiro Agnew his running mate is because he had a reputation for being good on civil rights, having pushed for open housing laws as governor of Maryland. On balance, Nixon’s record on civil rights is pretty good, according to historians.

Of more importance to the Southern strategy is that Nixon, like Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and the two Bush presidents, was from the West. The similar worldviews of Western individualists and Southern conservatives is what ultimately drew the South permanently into the Republican orbit.

tellingly, you focus on the one dixicrat that became a republican, and ignore all the others that returned to the democrat party.

are you aware that george wallace repudiated and apologized for his segregationists politics, going so far as to beg forgiveness in a black church?

yup...like Robert Byrd, they deeply regretted their former attitudes.

 

[Correll]

Yup interesting how they can claim Nixon courted racist southerns when he sped up desegregation busing and open support for blacks in all walks of life.

when i was growing up in the 70s, it was taught to me as historical fact. i did not question it.

it was only when i was older, that i began to wonder what exactly he did, to pander for those racist votes.


i was unable to find anything.


the older i got, and more i got to see liberals lying, i slowly came to realize, that is was just not true.


since then, i've seen excerpts from more academic research, on what actually happened to the south.

I think I understand your confusion. You are thinking of it only as it relates to Nixon. The sources I quoted from are a bit broader.

nixon was supposed to be the one that made it all come together. if the historical record shows him NOT pandering for racist voters, then the theory is false.

Perhaps so, but it was In process before Nixon. Goldwater was part of it. And remember, Nixon DID promise to oppose busing (hugely contentious) and not to “ram anything down their throats”. He did, in fact work to avoid alienating them by letting the courts take most of the flack.

Presidency of Richard Nixon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Nixon years witnessed the first large-scale efforts to desegregate the nation's public schools.[89] Seeking to avoid alienating Southern whites, whom Nixon hoped would form part of a durable Republican coalition, the president adopted a "low profile" on school desegregation. He pursued this policy by allowing the courts to receive the criticism for desegregation orders, which Nixon's Justice Department would then enforce.[90] By September 1970, less than ten percent of black children were attending segregated schools.[91] After the Supreme Court's handed down its decision in the 1971 case of Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, cross-district school busing emerged as a major issue in both the North and the South. Swann permitted lower federal courts to mandate busing in order to remedy racial imbalance in schools. Though he enforced the court orders, Nixon believed that "forced integration of housing or education" was just as improper as legal segregation, and he took a strong public stance against its continuation.

...

and here we see how much nixon was willing to do to "pander" for the racist votes.


he was willing to ram the policy down their throats, enforcing desegregation and he tried to put the blame on the courts.


that is not the type of strong action, that is normally required to flip millions of votes, and multiple states.


are you aware that george wallace apologized to a black church for his actions?

 

[Coyote]

4. What names have I called you?

the entire southern strategy conspiracy theory is nothing but calling republicans racist.

You talk about nuance as if you practice it. Your posts have been anything but. Broadbrushing the entire left.

For example, this statement. The Dems are certainly guilty of racist policies in the past, but you, and your cohort of Republicans are busy trying to erase your own party’s problematic history by calling the Southern Strategy (a long recognized and documented bit of history) a myth. In fact, while you are up in arms about the left toppling confederate statues you are busy rewriting your own history: what was right is now left, what history is now a hoax. It is a bit unreal.

And again, your lack of nuance. When the Republican Party adopted the strategy, they took on the racist mantle that tbe Democrats abandoned when Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights. You insist tbe Democrats need to acknowledge their past...but give a free pass here for Republicans?

Where the nuance problem comes in is here. ”You are calling Republicans racist”. No. First, Republicans are INDIVIDUALS. Second, like the Democrats, the Republican Party was split on this issue. And third, it was increasing political power as much if not more than the personal beliefs of politicians.

You are pushing the lie....and you have been exposed pushing the lie..........you can't lie without being called out on the lie....the parties did not switch, the democrat party simply accepted racists of all skin colors into their party......

So...the southern racists magically transformed their culture when they started voting Republican. That is a special kind of stupid.

Racial reconcilation in the SOUTH (outside of politics) progressed more rapidly here than in the North.. The southern "racists" were your people. If flying the Confederate flag and donating to Daughter of Confederacy are the marker for racist.. Once the schools got integrated, -- sports, music, southern cooking, RELIGION and regional culture were so much more common value between races here - it was FASTER to realize how MANY Southern values and traditions the races had in common.. Not the same regional culture dynamic as in the more amorphically north...

First of all, I want to clarify something. I am an independent who caucuses with Dems when it comes to USMB. You are a libertarian who caucuses with the Pubs, when it comes to USMB. If you are going to refer the Dems as “my people” then I will refer to the Pubs as “your people”. Fair enough?

The other is that in broadbrushing the parties you ignore the divisions that existed. The Dems were divided on Civil Rights, but Southern Block was so powerful, FDR and his Democrats were unable to make any inroads in regards to segregation, Jim Crowe, or lynchings. The Republican Party was divided on the Southern Strategy. BOTH parties were a lot more diverse ideologically THEN than they are now.

When it comes to the Republicans taking on racism to gain the South...yes. They did. It wasn’t fast process. It took a long time. Two examples exist today that show exactly how Republicans are willing to tolerate, even fight for racist policies or heritage in order to maintain political power.

The first is in the issue of felons voting rights. The second is the issue of confederate memorials.

The history of removing voting rights from felons is one of racism.

.....

ok, you have finally made an actual attempt to support your conclusion. good work.


1. felon voting loss. potentially a significant issue, though i've don't think i have ever heard it discussed in a campaign. so, can you demonstrate any evidence that it was a politically significant force in the goldwater or nixon campaigns in the south?

2. confederate memorials were not an issue until very recently. the southern strategy, if it has any weight to it, would have been a long done deal by the time it became an issue.




and seriously. i am glad that you have finally tried to make a supporting argument. but, it seems plain that the more you try, the more you will realize why you did not do so before.


the normal thing for a human to do at that point, is to double down on their beliefs and become more radicalized and even a troll.


i've done that to rightwinger and to mac1958. i hope you bounce better. though the science says you will not.

Lol she haS no argument.. there was no Southern strategy.. Nixon told democrat run unions HIRE BLACKS! Real racist.. She’s just continuing with stupid fake Democrat narrative of racism

The Southern Strategy had nothing to do with what individual politicians believed. For example I don’t think there is any evidence that Goldwater or Nixon, were themselves racist and, concurrently while Johnson was much applauded for his stancesand legislation on Civil Rights, he himself held racist attitudes. It is about the politics of party Power, and even though it was associated with Nixon, it started well before Nixon. Interestingly, it also was not simply north/south, the west played a role (Which I had not realized).

The Western Origins of the “Southern Strategy”

The untold story of the ideological realignment that upended the nation

newrepublic.com

Unlike Eastern Republicans, whose history was defined by opposition to slavery, Western Republicans had long held racial views toward Asians and Native Americans similar to those of Southern Democrats toward African Americans. For example, Republican Governor Leland Stanford of California had this to say in his 1862 Inaugural Address:

To my mind it is clear, that the settlement among us of an inferior race is to be discouraged, by every legitimate means. Asia, with her numberless millions, sends to our shores the dregs of her population.… There can be no doubt but that the presence of numbers among us of a degraded and distinct people must exercise a deleterious influence upon the superior race, and, to a certain extent, repel desirable immigration. It will afford me great pleasure to concur with the Legislature in any constitutional action, having for its object the repression of the immigration of the Asiatic races.

Discrimination against Asians culminated in enactment of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 under Republican President Chester A. Arthur, which formed the basis for all subsequent efforts to restrict immigration based on race and ethnicity. The 1888 Republican platform, in fact, said this was just the first step: “We declare our hostility to the introduction into this country of foreign contract labor and of Chinese labor, alien to our civilization and constitution; and we demand the rigid enforcement of the existing laws against it, and favor such immediate legislation as will exclude such labor from our shores.”

Thus by 1890, “the West had an ideology more in common with that of the South than that of the North,” Richardson writes.

Further bringing the Westerners and Southerners together was a shared attitude toward the federal government on economic issues. Southerners had long favored small government in Washington to keep it from interfering with segregation. This meant keeping taxes and spending low and unions out. Westerners shared this libertarian philosophy because they glorified the idea of “rugged individualism” that emanated from myths about the settlement of the frontier.

You were shown in the New York Times Article where it stated that the Southern Strategy was dismissed and not adopted...yet you persist in lying about it...you are vile....




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


Ken Raymond
Jun 2011

Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”, which the democrats say is the reason black people had to support them during the 1960′s–is a lie.

And it’s probably the biggest lie that’s been told to the blacks since Woodrow Wilson segregated the federal government after getting the NAACP to support him.
After talking with black voters across the country about why they overwhelmingly supports democrats, the common answer that’s emerges is the Southern Strategy.

I’ve heard of the Southern Strategy too. But since it doesn’t make a difference in how I decide to vote, I never bothered to research it. But apparently it still influences how many African Americans vote today. That makes it worth investigating.

For those that might be unfamiliar with the Southern Strategy, I’ll briefly review the story. After the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, most blacks registered as democrats and it’s been that way ever since.

And that doesn’t make any sense when you consider the fact that it was the democrats that established, and fought for, Jim Crow laws and segregation in the first place. And the republicans have a very noble history of fighting for the civil rights of blacks.

The reason black people moved to the democrats, given by media pundits and educational institutions for the decades, is that when republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon ran for president in 1968, he employed a racist plan that’s now infamously called the Southern Strategy.

The Southern Strategy basically means Nixon allegedly used hidden code words that appealed to the racists within the Democrat party and throughout the south. This secret language caused a seismic shift in the electoral landscape that moved the evil racist democrats into the republican camp and the noble-hearted republicans into the democrat camp.

And here’s what I found, Nixon did not use a plan to appeal to racist white voters.

First, let’s look at the presidential candidates of 1968. Richard Nixon was the republican candidate; Hubert Humphrey was the democrat nominee; and George Wallace was a third party candidate.

Remember George Wallace? Wallace was the democrat governor of Alabama from 1963 until 1967. And it was Wallace that ordered the Eugene “Bull” Connor, and the police department, to attack Dr. Martin Luther King

Jr. and 2,500 protesters in Montgomery , Alabama in 1965. And it was Governor Wallace that ordered a blockade at the admissions office at the University of Alabama to prevent blacks from enrolling in 1963.

Governor Wallace was a true racist and a determined segregationist. And he ran as the nominee from the American Independent Party, which was he founded.

Richard Nixon wrote about the 1968 campaign in his book RN: the Memoirs of Richard Nixon originally published in 1978.

In his book, Nixon wrote this about campaigning in the south, “The deep south had to be virtually conceded to George Wallace. I could not match him there without compromising on civil rights, which I would not do.”

The media coverage of the 1968 presidential race also showed that Nixon was in favor of the Civil Rights and would not compromise on that issue. For example, in an article published in theWashington Post on September 15, 1968 headlined “Nixon Sped Integration, Wallace says” Wallace declared that Nixon agreed with Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren and played a role in ”the destruction of public school system.” Wallace pledged to restore the school system, in the same article, by giving it back to the states ”lock, stock, and barrel.”

This story, as well as Nixon’s memoirs and other news stories during that campaign, shows that Nixon was very clear about his position on civil rights. And if Nixon was used code words only racists could hear, evidently George Wallace couldn’t hear it.

Among the southern states, George Wallace won Arkansas , Mississippi , Alabama , Georgia and Louisiana . Nixon won North Carolina , South Carolina , Florida , Virginia , and Tennessee . Winning those states were part of Nixon’s plan.

“I would not concede the Carolina ‘s, Florida , or Virginia or the states around the rim of the south,”Nixon wrote. ”These states were a part of my plan.”

At that time, the entire southern region was the poorest in the country. The south consistently lagged behind the rest of the United States in income. And according to the

“U.S. Regional Growth and Convergence,” by Kris James Mitchener and Ian W. McLean, per capita income for southerners was almost half as much as it was for Americans in other regions.

Nixon won those states strictly on economic issues. He focused on increasing tariffs on foreign imports to protect the manufacturing and agriculture industries of those states. Some southern elected officials agreed to support him for the sake of their economies, including South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond.

“I had been consulting privately with Thurmond for several months and I was convinced that he’d join my campaign if he were satisfied on the two issues of paramount concern to him: national defense and tariffs against textile imports to protect South Carolina ‘s position in the industry.”Nixon wrote in his memoirs.

In fact, Nixon made it clear to the southern elected officials that he would not compromise on the civil rights issue.

“On civil rights, Thurmond knew my position was very different from his,” Nixon wrote. “I was for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and he was against it. Although he disagreed with me, he respected my sincerity and candor.”

The same scenario played out among elected officials and voters in other southern states won by Nixon. They laid their feelings aside and supported him because of his economic platform’”not because Nixon sent messages on a frequency only racists can hear.

And yet I can find plenty of articles supporting The Southern Strategy. Which I posted. What is your point?

that the myth is widely believed, is not evidence it is true.

That applies to your claim as well.

i have not used that claim to bolster my argument.

my argument is based on the lack of pandering by past republican candidates for racist southern votes.

it is generally just presented as a premise. at best, we get vague references to "code words" or something like that.


the historical record does not support the claim that the gop pandered to racist voters to flip the south.

Lack of pandering? No...just more subtle pandering through use of code words, and a deliberately softened strategy after Goldwater won significant southern victories but lost the rest of the US.

American crossroads: Reagan, Trump and the devil down south

How the Republican party’s dog-whistle appeal to racism, refined by Richard Nixon and perfected by Ronald Reagan, led inexorably to Donald Trump

www.theguardian.com

The transformative chemistry went by various names. “White backlash.” “Racial conservatism.” Or the old standby, “states’ rights”, a political term of art that presumed wide latitude on the part of individual states to regulate provincial society, which included, it hardly need be said (though plenty of hot-blooded segs yelled it anyway), the power to grind black people down to the legal and economic equivalent of inmates on a Louisiana prison farm. As channelled by Goldwater, this new force in the Republican party was a disaster. He may have won white southerners, but he was drubbed in the overall popular vote, and Republicans lost more than 40 seats in the House. His support from Wall Street was tepid at best, and he was deserted by establishment Republican constituencies throughout the north-east and midwest.

Clearly, the situation called for serious soul-searching in the GOP. One might have expected the party to reject Goldwater’s white-backlash strategy and return to establishment Republican conservatism. But party pros, and in particular that political genius Richard Nixon, saw in Goldwater’s defeat the makings of an extraordinary coalition. A compact. A combination. A deal.

What was needed was white backlash with a kinder, gentler face. Years later, the Republican strategist Lee Atwater, by then an operative in the Reagan White House, would explain the essence of the “southern strategy” to an academic researcher:

You start out in 1954 by saying ‘******, ******, ******’. By 1968, you can’t say ‘******’ – that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced bussing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me – because obviously sitting around saying ‘We want to cut this’ is much more abstract than even the bussing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than ‘******, ******’.

 

[Coyote]

Yup interesting how they can claim Nixon courted racist southerns when he sped up desegregation busing and open support for blacks in all walks of life.

when i was growing up in the 70s, it was taught to me as historical fact. i did not question it.

it was only when i was older, that i began to wonder what exactly he did, to pander for those racist votes.


i was unable to find anything.


the older i got, and more i got to see liberals lying, i slowly came to realize, that is was just not true.


since then, i've seen excerpts from more academic research, on what actually happened to the south.

I think I understand your confusion. You are thinking of it only as it relates to Nixon. The sources I quoted from are a bit broader.

nixon was supposed to be the one that made it all come together. if the historical record shows him NOT pandering for racist voters, then the theory is false.

Perhaps so, but it was In process before Nixon. Goldwater was part of it. And remember, Nixon DID promise to oppose busing (hugely contentious) and not to “ram anything down their throats”. He did, in fact work to avoid alienating them by letting the courts take most of the flack.

Presidency of Richard Nixon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Nixon years witnessed the first large-scale efforts to desegregate the nation's public schools.[89] Seeking to avoid alienating Southern whites, whom Nixon hoped would form part of a durable Republican coalition, the president adopted a "low profile" on school desegregation. He pursued this policy by allowing the courts to receive the criticism for desegregation orders, which Nixon's Justice Department would then enforce.[90] By September 1970, less than ten percent of black children were attending segregated schools.[91] After the Supreme Court's handed down its decision in the 1971 case of Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, cross-district school busing emerged as a major issue in both the North and the South. Swann permitted lower federal courts to mandate busing in order to remedy racial imbalance in schools. Though he enforced the court orders, Nixon believed that "forced integration of housing or education" was just as improper as legal segregation, and he took a strong public stance against its continuation.

...

and here we see how much nixon was willing to do to "pander" for the racist votes.


he was willing to ram the policy down their throats, enforcing desegregation and he tried to put the blame on the courts.


that is not the type of strong action, that is normally required to flip millions of votes, and multiple states.


are you aware that george wallace apologized to a black church for his actions?

Except he didn’t. He let those controversial issues be determined by the courts first, then the DoJ simply followed the law.

 

[lennypartiv]

So it's okay to have a northern strategy but not a southern strategy?

 

[Jitss617]

She ever find evidence of the SS? Lol

 

[flacaltenn]

First of all, I want to clarify something. I am an independent who caucuses with Dems when it comes to USMB. You are a libertarian who caucuses with the Pubs, when it comes to USMB. If you are going to refer the Dems as “my people” then I will refer to the Pubs as “your people”. Fair enough?

You don't read enough of my stuff.. Just yesterday I went after the Troll in Chief for his bloody overreaching exec order on TAX POLICY and PRIVATE PROPERTY... Didya miss it?

The problem is -- the Dems are self-destructing.. And they are CONDONING a bunch of shit that needs calling out.. They're condoning SERIOUS VIOLATIONS of trust and chaos nationwide.. I can't help it.. It's just the times..

The other is that in broadbrushing the parties you ignore the divisions that existed. The Dems were divided on Civil Rights, but Southern Block was so powerful, FDR and his Democrats were unable to make any inroads in regards to segregation, Jim Crowe, or lynchings.

Oh no no no... FDR had ENTIRE SEGREGATED CITIES built for blacks during the New Deal... It was in FULL play and HE wasn't even a SOUTHERN Democrat...

A 'Forgotten History' Of How The U.S. Government Segregated America

Author Richard Rothstein says the housing programs begun under the New Deal were tantamount to a "state-sponsored system of segregation," in which people of color were purposely excluded from suburbs.

www.npr.org

Hundreds of affordable apartments planned for where Black people were once segregated

The housing will be built on former Navy property in Alameda near the Oakland Estuary

www.mercurynews.com

NOT FAIR to pick on FDR for this since his entire admin was focused on Economic recovery and War projects -- so Social policy was put into storage.. But STILL --- he MADE IT WORSE.. It backfired because the WW2 itself was a catalyst for racial change.. The segregation of the military was soon seen as a horrific miscarriage of American values by folks that served with blacks and folks that saw the "short straw" those soldiers saw when they came back.. But nothing really happened AFTER the war and peace broke out for another 2 or 3 decades...

When it comes to the Republicans taking on racism to gain the South...yes. They did. It wasn’t fast process. It took a long time. Two examples exist today that show exactly how Republicans are willing to tolerate, even fight for racist policies or heritage in order to maintain political power.

The POLITICS were slower than the changes of heart... Because of the power of the INCUMBENCY.. These seats STAYED "blue" until almost the start of 21st century... And I DOUBT that Republican policies are racist.. That's an gross exaggeration.. Republicans focus on fixing problems without fixing them DIFFERENTLY by race/sex... Not the immense pandering and promises that almost never come true.. BECAUSE -- IMO -- the MAJORITY of political "systemic racism" issues ARE systemic -- but they are NOT ENTIRELY racial.. They affect all colors and genders.. Like justice reform or even police killing unarmed persons -- WHITE people are involved in these poor policies as much as anyone else.. By NUMBERS (eg) -- more unarmed whites killed by police.. More whites killed in "no knock raids" for the madness of the Drug War...

 

[flacaltenn]

4. What names have I called you?

the entire southern strategy conspiracy theory is nothing but calling republicans racist.

You talk about nuance as if you practice it. Your posts have been anything but. Broadbrushing the entire left.

For example, this statement. The Dems are certainly guilty of racist policies in the past, but you, and your cohort of Republicans are busy trying to erase your own party’s problematic history by calling the Southern Strategy (a long recognized and documented bit of history) a myth. In fact, while you are up in arms about the left toppling confederate statues you are busy rewriting your own history: what was right is now left, what history is now a hoax. It is a bit unreal.

And again, your lack of nuance. When the Republican Party adopted the strategy, they took on the racist mantle that tbe Democrats abandoned when Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights. You insist tbe Democrats need to acknowledge their past...but give a free pass here for Republicans?

Where the nuance problem comes in is here. ”You are calling Republicans racist”. No. First, Republicans are INDIVIDUALS. Second, like the Democrats, the Republican Party was split on this issue. And third, it was increasing political power as much if not more than the personal beliefs of politicians.

You are pushing the lie....and you have been exposed pushing the lie..........you can't lie without being called out on the lie....the parties did not switch, the democrat party simply accepted racists of all skin colors into their party......

So...the southern racists magically transformed their culture when they started voting Republican. That is a special kind of stupid.

Racial reconcilation in the SOUTH (outside of politics) progressed more rapidly here than in the North.. The southern "racists" were your people. If flying the Confederate flag and donating to Daughter of Confederacy are the marker for racist.. Once the schools got integrated, -- sports, music, southern cooking, RELIGION and regional culture were so much more common value between races here - it was FASTER to realize how MANY Southern values and traditions the races had in common.. Not the same regional culture dynamic as in the more amorphically north...

First of all, I want to clarify something. I am an independent who caucuses with Dems when it comes to USMB. You are a libertarian who caucuses with the Pubs, when it comes to USMB. If you are going to refer the Dems as “my people” then I will refer to the Pubs as “your people”. Fair enough?

The other is that in broadbrushing the parties you ignore the divisions that existed. The Dems were divided on Civil Rights, but Southern Block was so powerful, FDR and his Democrats were unable to make any inroads in regards to segregation, Jim Crowe, or lynchings. The Republican Party was divided on the Southern Strategy. BOTH parties were a lot more diverse ideologically THEN than they are now.

When it comes to the Republicans taking on racism to gain the South...yes. They did. It wasn’t fast process. It took a long time. Two examples exist today that show exactly how Republicans are willing to tolerate, even fight for racist policies or heritage in order to maintain political power.

The first is in the issue of felons voting rights. The second is the issue of confederate memorials.

The history of removing voting rights from felons is one of racism.

.....

ok, you have finally made an actual attempt to support your conclusion. good work.


1. felon voting loss. potentially a significant issue, though i've don't think i have ever heard it discussed in a campaign. so, can you demonstrate any evidence that it was a politically significant force in the goldwater or nixon campaigns in the south?

2. confederate memorials were not an issue until very recently. the southern strategy, if it has any weight to it, would have been a long done deal by the time it became an issue.




and seriously. i am glad that you have finally tried to make a supporting argument. but, it seems plain that the more you try, the more you will realize why you did not do so before.


the normal thing for a human to do at that point, is to double down on their beliefs and become more radicalized and even a troll.


i've done that to rightwinger and to mac1958. i hope you bounce better. though the science says you will not.

When you post in this manner, I have no desire to engage. Try again If you really want to discuss the points you brought up.

When the Southern Strategy included as it’s focus a newly conceived post-segregation emphasis “states rights”...what do you suppose that was a code word for?

For the right of States to openly PROTEST the presence of Federal marshalls sent in to quell riots and rebellion?? Been done for decades.. Portland and Seattle are NOW big "State Rights" advocates -- or didn't ya notice.. States RIGHTS are ALWAYS a good idea -- because that's how the Constitution reads.... California uses State Rights more and more as the one party state that they've become..

You just think that it's misused when Republicans are the ones sending in the Nat Guard... or Protesting the PRESENCE of those forces...

 

[flacaltenn]

Do you call it a freak accident? Whatever you call it — a fully conscious strategy, the result of “social evolution” with roots in the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement, an act of “intelligent design” by Republicans and/or Democrats — it happened.

And failed to PRODUCE POLITICAL results in terms of REAL representation swings for at LEAST another 20 years... It was a theory.. The evidence that it was actually "rolled out" is virtually none existent when you look at Congress seats or Governorships..

 

[flacaltenn]

The first is in the issue of felons voting rights. The second is the issue of confederate memorials.
The history of removing voting rights from felons is one of racism.

1) The civil war was not ab out racism, so your claim that that is an example of Republican racism is horse manure.

2) Voting rights and being a valid member of the force manpool eligable to serve in the draft have long been tied together. Since a Felon cannot own a gun, they were not considered eligible to vote. Again, not linked to racism.

You kind of miss the point Jim.

The Civil War absolutely was about the preservation of slavery...which was a racist institution. Hell, it was abundantly clear in the 1820 Missouri Compromise, which mandated that for every new free state admitted to the union there had to be a slave state, so yes it was about slavery. But that is not what I am using as an example of Republicans.....so I am not sure where you derived that.

As far as denying ex felons the right to vote, you missed the point I was making. Various states have long had laws disenfranchising those who have committed certain crimes (usually heinous) from voting. Following the Civil War however, that changed, and a host of new laws were passed pinpointing minor crimes, that they figured a black man could easily be convicted of, and changing them to felonies under the state code.

So it’s now petty theft or perjury, for example, is felony alongside murder and armed robbery.

The fact that racist law and justice by the Dems in the South could INCREASE crimes to felonies for blacks stands on it own.. The LAW SAYS FELONS... The registrars MUST enforce it under penalty of Federal law...

So TODAY -- you think removing felons from voting roles is STILL RACIST because charges are being accelerated for blacks because of race? Sure.. In some cases like 3 strikes, or the Drug Laws. But in general, most of it is increased because of longer rap sheets and more history of interactions with the law..

Voting roles should be PERFECT in this day and age.. Mastercard/Visa could do that job to 99.99% accuracy.. The government can not... AGAIN -- a "systemic race" problem that is not RACIAL because you cant fix BAD GOVT accounting on voter rolls ONE RACE AT A TIME... That's stupid..

 

[flacaltenn]

Where were those monuments erected?
There are over 1,700 Confederate monuments, memorials and symbols (far more than the Union side) spread over 31 states, far in excess of the 13 states of the Confederacy. In contrast to earlier monuments commemorating the dead, these glorified Confederate leaders: Stonewall Jackson, Jefferson Davis, Robert E Lee. Earlier monuments were also typically placed in cemeteries and memorial sites, these were placed in city squares, in front of public buildings like courthouses.

You're not reading my arguments.. Why are ALL THE CONFEDERATE monuments of Democrats? I don't believe this 31 states business either.. SURE -- Manassas, Gettysburg, Bull Run, maybe even Missouri.. The war was not played out just in the Confederacy.. It's probably a very meaningless point as to the states they are in.. Lee spent most of his life in the North.. Has a freaking university named after him.. Are they counting the military bases named after Confeds.. Roadside posting of where some Confederate was born??? This is just smoke.

Vast majority of monuments and statues that SUDDENLY piss people off are OF Democrats, commissioned and dedicated BY Democrats and FOR the cultural history of their allegiance to the Dem party..

Local talk show host has a wife from Mississippi.. ALL Huge Dems.. Attended a tailgate football party with them at U of Mississippi where Johnny Reb rode out on a horse with a Stars and Bars.. This guy ASKED the family why this was still necessary in the 1990s.. Marriage almost did not happen... This is NOT anecdotal.. The South is STILL 40% Democrat.. Probably because 1/2 of those folks VOTE Dem because the great grand and grand and pappies did... When I saw a Rebel flag down there as there as kid -- probably a 50/50 chance it was from either party...

Evidently, this talk show host's in-law didn't get the memo about "the Southern Strategy"...

 

[flacaltenn]

Did your random internet stat take into account the 1300 or so monuments JUST AT Gettysburg?

Confederate Monuments - Gettysburg National Military Park (U.S. National Park Service)

Confederate Monuments

www.nps.gov

The wiki lists all Confed monuments/memorials.. Some of these have NOTHING to do with the Confederacy.. Only the WORD...

Confederate monuments and memorials - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Alaska
Yukon–Koyukuk Census Area: "Confederate Gulch"[75] and "Union Gulch" both drain the side of a mineralized mountain mass northeast of Wiseman. Gold was discovered in both gulches in the early 20th century, though only Union Gulch was mined.[76]


Go waste your time with this 31 states business at this Wiki .. MOST of them are cemeteries where Confed soldiers are BURIED... NOT BECAUSE OF POLITICS. Even California and Arizona had volunteers for the Confederacy... Wonder why THEY fought and died if the Civil War was SOLELY about slavery...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yup interesting how they can claim Nixon courted racist southerns when he sped up desegregation busing and open support for blacks in all walks of life.

It didn't start with Nixon, though he got associated with it.

Again slowly for the class, EXPLAIN how if Nixon actively worked to increase Busing and employment of blacks and the civil rights act that would encourage racist whites to join his party. Be specific now and explain it so everyone can understand.

What was Nixon's position on civil rights?

• Nixon as Vice President on Civil Rights. The Eisenhower administration accomplished much in the area of Civil Rights. It was President Eisenhower who integrated the armed forces, promoted more blacks into the federal bureaucracy than his predecessors, and appointed federal judges, and lawyers in his justice department, who supported racial justice.

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrEeCvtfjBfugIAgQwPxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTEyOTEwMHF1BGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDQzAxNTdfMQRzZWMDc2M-/RV=2/RE=1597042542/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.nixonfoundation.org%2f2017%2f08%2fnixons-record-civil-rights-2%2f/RK=2/RS=hwDPcqOOi.PUypn8TLA62xDqwKU-

The Southern Strategy did not rely on Nixon and started prior to him And continued after him. His record on Civil Rights was good (agree with you there).

The Western Origins of the “Southern Strategy”

The untold story of the ideological realignment that upended the nation

newrepublic.com

When Goldwater captured the Republican nomination in 1964, he knew perfectly well that his best hope of getting electoral votes lay in the South. As he put it, he would “go hunting where the ducks are.” Aside from his home state, all of Goldwater’s electoral votes came from states that had belonged to the Confederacy, making him the true implementer of the Southern strategy. (Tellingly, the old Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond formally became a Republican in 1964.)

Ironically, Nixon really did almost nothing to appeal to Southern racists in 1968, for an obvious, but frequently forgotten, reason: Alabama Governor George Wallace, who ran as a third-party candidate, had all their votes in his pocket and made blatant racial appeals the foundation of his campaign. Even as president, Nixon did very little, substantively, to appeal to the South. On the contrary, he moved rapidly to desegregate the schools and established affirmative action programs to aid black workers and businesses. It is now largely forgotten, but the reason Nixon made Spiro Agnew his running mate is because he had a reputation for being good on civil rights, having pushed for open housing laws as governor of Maryland. On balance, Nixon’s record on civil rights is pretty good, according to historians.

Of more importance to the Southern strategy is that Nixon, like Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and the two Bush presidents, was from the West. The similar worldviews of Western individualists and Southern conservatives is what ultimately drew the South permanently into the Republican orbit.

You're retarded the democrats strategy was laid out by LBJ the democrats knew those darkies were uppity and had gained new power so they had to give some concessions to keep them darkies on the plantation
LBJ once said I'll have those N!g@ers voting democrat for 200 years