Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is recent (last 30-50 years), but it is more of a change in party platforms that led to the switch rather than a change in the attitudes/culture of the residents of the South, (although these are in a constant slow evolution). Once the Democratic party under Kennedy and Johnson started pushing for civili rights, there were a lot of disaffected segregationist Democrats in the South. Starting with Nixon's Southern Strategy, the Republicans focused on picking up these conservative southerners. They did it by changing the Republican's platform to include "States Rights (less aggressive federal enforcement of civil rights laws)," and "Religious issues," namely anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, and a focus on the free exercise clause while ignoring the establishment clause. It was a highly effective strategy, and now the South is strongly Republican.
None of this is true ...it is an assertion made by partisan Democrats.
Nixon was for civil rights and forced desegregation of schools. Only one Democrat senator switched to the GOP.
Abortion isn't a religious issue, that's your characterization of it.
If the two parties switched platforms, then Republicans should view FDR as one of the greatest presidents. That's not the case.
Democrats struggle in the south for a wide range of issues, from taxes, to gun rights, to immigration and energy and healthcare policy. None of these are religious issues but you didn't mention them.
You try to associate racism with the GOP but provide zero evidence of it. People like you are constantly trying to associate the modern south with the Old South when they could not be more different.
You also try to associate pro life and other issues with racist people. I would argue most pro life people would also be anti-racism.
Last edited by ClemVegas; 10-27-2019 at 01:57 PM..
There tends to be lower turnout in local elections when a president, governor, senator race is not on the ballot.
I don’t know about SC, but NC’s General Assembly elections are on the same election-cycle as the federal elections. A lot of people only voted Republican at the top of the ticket, and stayed home with the Democrats lower down. In 2000, 51% of North Carolinians were registered Dems as opposed to 34% that were Republican. As with most Southern states, the truth is a little more complicated than the talking heads seem to suggest every 4 years during a presidential election.
I agree with you the rural areas of the south tended to stay Democrat longer. This is one of the data points that contradicts the southern strategy political theory.
The New South cities were the first in the south to flip Republican as industrialization brought in more transplants but many of them have moved back toward Democrat in the recent decades due to liberal transplants.
Well.....the GOP has an interesting history in the south. It was the party of Lincoln and very dominant during the reconstruction era - when quite a few black republicans were elected to public office in the south. Then it died out for awhile and now is the considered the popular party of the south again. So - these things ebb and flow and don't remain stagnant.
As a Northerner, I know when I've hit the south because there are just a lot of the cultural markers in the south that just aren't in the north. And I still can't wrap my head around the fact that people keep trying to offer me sweet tea when I order iced tea at the local fast food/fast casual places up here - even though it's been a thing for the past 10 years. I just don't get it and just stopped ordering iced tea after having my order screwed up one too many times - a lot of people just couldn't wrap their head around the fact that I really didn't want their newest and great product, sweet tea. Seriously?
Yeah - I get that I haven't contributed much to the actual topic of the tread (sorry), but I lament that some of these cultural distinctions between regions are becoming fewer and far between.
If iced tea sweet or not sweet is your idea of The South - I survived quite a few years without tea.
It is recent (last 30-50 years), but it is more of a change in party platforms that led to the switch rather than a change in the attitudes/culture of the residents of the South, (although these are in a constant slow evolution). Once the Democratic party under Kennedy and Johnson started pushing for civili rights, there were a lot of disaffected segregationist Democrats in the South. Starting with Nixon's Southern Strategy, the Republicans focused on picking up these conservative southerners. They did it by changing the Republican's platform to include "States Rights (less aggressive federal enforcement of civil rights laws)," and "Religious issues," namely anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, and a focus on the free exercise clause while ignoring the establishment clause. It was a highly effective strategy, and now the South is strongly Republican.
Correct. That’s the part that southerners leave out
I agree with you the rural areas of the south tended to stay Democrat longer. This is one of the data points that contradicts the southern strategy political theory.
The "southern strategy" was mostly driven by racial politics and the democratic legislation beginning in the 1960s that was seen as favorable to blacks and other minorities more than any particular platform "flipping."
The actual "platform flipping" thing happened at the beginning of the 20th century with McKinley and Mark Hanna who helped align the party with powerful corporatists and began embracing a "small government" philosophy. Even then it is pretty simplistic to say that this was just a "switch" of platforms.
The important thing about the Republican party emergence in the south (as you mentioned) is that it helped drive the evolution of the economy away from what it had been to what it is now.
Small government is consistent with abolition of slavery and laws that prohibited white business owners from serving black customers. There's nothing more anti-racism than capitalism.
Lincoln's argument against slavery is similar to conservative's case against high taxes, it is somebody stealing the fruits of a person's labor.
There are no doubt some racists that came over to Republican party once segregation was taken off the table in a country with only two viable parties. It isn't because the GOP appealed to them with racism.
Racists have views on issues with no relation to race.
A lot of people will say Greenville SC is the buckle of the Bible belt but if you look at the mayors the past 70 years, they have been business people who focused on economic growth to include an Austrian immigrant, not politicians focused on religion.
Last edited by ClemVegas; 10-27-2019 at 05:01 PM..
None of this is true ...it is an assertion made by partisan Democrats.
Nixon was for civil rights and forced desegregation of schools. Only one Democrat senator switched to the GOP.
Abortion isn't a religious issue, that's your characterization of it.
If the two parties switched platforms, then Republicans should view FDR as one of the greatest presidents. That's not the case.
Democrats struggle in the south for a wide range of issues, from taxes, to gun rights, to immigration and energy and healthcare policy. None of these are religious issues but you didn't mention them.
You try to associate racism with the GOP but provide zero evidence of it. People like you are constantly trying to associate the modern south with the Old South when they could not be more different.
You also try to associate pro life and other issues with racist people. I would argue most pro life people would also be anti-racism.
If abortion rights has nothing to do with religion when what is the impetus for being against it?
GOP and racism. Here's MY understanding. For years you had Dixiecrats like Jesse Helms, George Wallace and Strom Thurmond who were segregationists. They changed parties when the Civil Rights movement gained momentum in the 1960s with help from JFK and LBJ. They also found comfort in Richard Nixon who used his "southern strategy" to enhance his popularity amongst blue collar southern whites. Those new 20th century southern Republicans have expressed regularly to desire to fight affirmative action, school busing, and finding ways to gerrymander districts to the detriment of minority voters (North Carolina is a great example).
We can talk about those who want to celebrate Civil War history of those who rebelled against the U.S. with monuments when in reality Jeff Davis et.al. were no better than the Nazis we fought in WWII. Why is there such vitriol when people want sculptures to those who committed treason against the USA? Why is it when polls are taken its those who support the GOP who want monuments to remain, monuments to those who sought to maintain the institution of slavery? This is NOT in dispute.
Most Democrats politicians didn't change parties. You are trying to use the exception to the rule to argue for a big party switch.
Only one Dixiecrat/Democrat Senator, Strom Thurmond, changed parties and that was because SC had shifted Republican and he was more aligned with GOP on foreign policy and taxes. Most racist Democrats/ Dixecrats were fiscal FDR style liberals and didn't have a conservative view on foreign policy.
If you look at views of a old school racist Democrat like Ben Pitchfork Tillman, there is no way they would have switched to GOP. He was big into class envy.
I don't think Wallace switched but if he did, he didn't win as a Republican. Wallace ran as Dixiecrat against Nixon in 1968, 4 years after civil rights legislation. He served as governor of Alabama as a Democrat through January of 1987.
The notion that pro civil rights Nixon won the racist vote in the south vs Wallace doesn't make sense. Nixon won the southern states with more industrialization and transplants at the time.
It is hard to understand how you can't see why people would be against abortion for non religious reasons. The issue doesn't have anything to do with views on the afterlife. That's not a debate that I want to get into on this topic though.
Last edited by ClemVegas; 10-27-2019 at 05:24 PM..
A lot of people will say Greenville SC is the buckle of the Bible belt but if you look at the mayors the past 70 years, they have been business people who focused on economic growth to include an Austrian immigrant, not politicians focused on religion.
Greenville has been nicknamed such due to the heavy presence of conservative evangelical Protestantism within the region, not because of any especially religious mayors the city may have elected. It's a cultural descriptor first and foremost.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
