The Southern Strategy: then....and now

[2aguy]

I've lived in the south my entire life,,well up until 20 years ago until I went SOUTH south. Southerners are far less racist than yankees or westerners. We schooled with blacks, played sports with blacks, partied with blacks, went to Pink Floyd concerts with blacks,hunted with them, boyscouted with them, bluegrass festivals had plenty, racetracks even had their share."Dating"---not so much. The old black parents and us whiteys had the same ideas on that one.We'd go to weddings together as friends but the bride and groom were always the same blood..........and DIFFERENT sexes ! I can't recall hardly any of the "wrong side of the tracks" other than after midnight and the cops rightfully knew some assholes of any color out at that hour were out looking for trouble of some sort.They'd whoop us long haired white boys just as quick as a bro.

I think it depends on where you live and who you are. I can only speak from the perspective of a white person, would curious to hear from a black person growing up in the south as well. Racist attitudes are by no means limited to the South (and if you look at the sudden surge in racially targeted felony disenfranchise laws post Civil War, they cover a variety of states across the US, including northern states like NY.) But the Southern Strategy targeted southern states, as a coherent, culturally unified voting block. That was over 60 years ago...and a lot of things have changed in the meantime.

You were shown that the "Southern Strategy," was a myth, perpetuated by the New York times that lied about Nixon.....it was given to you with actual links to the actual story in the New York Times with other links to facts about voting patterns....that show you are lying........why you continue to do it is just you being crazy.

 

[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.

 

[2aguy]

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.

 

[2aguy]

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.



********

 

[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?

 

[Jitss617]

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.

Stop reading bullshit provide us what they did.. if not go away.. nixon helped blacks

 

[bripat9643]

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?

The Federal Constitution you moron.......the 10th Amendment in particular....we have a federal system.....that means the states have power equal to the federal government.....when the states were in the hands of the democrat party they misused that power to enact jim crow...when the republicans took power back we had equal rights for all Americans....

But we have a federal system to disperse the accumulation of too much power in too few hands....checks against the federal government and checks against the states....

You moron.

That's the theory, but the reality is that the federal government dictates to the states.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Of course you can. There are a million Marxist propagandists on the government payroll pumping out such trash every day.

 

[Correll]

tom paine 1949, if you disagree, you are welcome to offer what "evidence" you can, of the infamous Southern Strategy Conspiracy Theory.

That you call it an “infamous Conspiracy Theory” already shows how useless it would be for me to try having a serious discussion with you. The fact is Republican efforts to fundamentally transform voter preferences and “win” the white South was hugely successful.

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. You remind me of PoliticalChic when she talks ridiculously about “Enlightenment Conspiracy“ or “Evolution Conspiracy Theory.” I am as uninterested in debating with her as I am with you, because I have learned neither of you are interested in a serious discussion.

well over 100 posts in this thread, and no liberal has been able to support the claim of those supposed "efforts" by republicans to win the white South.


other than coyote's unsupported assertions of "coded language" and "symbols".


It is a Big Lie.

 

[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.

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?

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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-

 

[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.

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?

 

[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.