Did Nixon ruin the Republican party?
I was having a conversation this morning with an avowed Bush style Republican, and he made an interesting comment, (paraphrased) "with the current demographic trends, with blacks and Hispanics out reproducing whites, the Republicans are in long term trouble as Democrats are going to be getting more and more voters." Now, let me say that, despite the obvious worry in his voice, within the context of this wide ranging conversation of politics and party support, this was not a racist comment. But it certainly got me thinking.
My mind went back to the infamous "Southern Strategy" that Nixon used to win the 1968 election. With the Democrats embracing and supporting nationwide civil rights laws and enforcement to ensure an end to segregation, the Nixon camp made a carefully couched appeal for those southern democrats who were against the Civil Rights movement. And to some degree it worked, Nixon was reelected with significant support in the south. This was also the beginning of the inversion of the parties, where the Democrats and Republicans switched regional constituencies from the North to the South and vice versa. And with this inversion, the Republicans also shifted their base from the relatively shrinking populations of the north to the booming bible belt.
And for the next thirty years or so, the Republicans broadened their strength in the South by modulating their message away from direct racial issues, (Willie Horton, Welfare Queens, and Equal Opportunity aside) more towards a religious basing. It is still, in many respects, the same strategy, "those Ivy League liberals are trying to tell us what to do," "the gay agenda to take over the country," "they're trying to kill Christmas," etc. It is what I would refer to as a "People Like Us," strategy. The idea being to create a sense of siege of values to stir up the base and keep them active and voting.
The problem with this, I would argue, is that once the Republicans attracted these voters who tend to be on the right side of racial issues, they created a situation where that portion of the party has a place at the platform table. I'm not saying that the Republicans are trying to reverse civil rights, but there are forms of what I call soft bigotry throughout the party. (again, voting rights, social programs, equal opportunity, and many other examples.)
And from that, logically, blacks in the US largely don't support the Republican party.
But the thing of this is, that this section of the (we'll call them) nativist base, is now starting to hurl rhetoric regarding immigration and illegal immigrants. And some of it, I'm looking at you Tancredo, is beginning to get pretty ugly. The example I keep coming back to is Tancredo testing the phrase "preserve our national identity" in his campaign against illegals. Couple that with the effort overcome a Constitutional Amendment to remove citizenship from people born in the US to illegal parents, also Tancredo, and you begin to see how the "nativist" element of the Republican party could cost them the Hispanic vote for generations to come. (And this isn't just Tancredo, that second item has 77 Republican cosponsors in the House.)
And that brings us back to the comment my friend made this morning. If the Republicans have sufficiently alienated the Black and Hispanic communities, they could be in significant trouble in the long, long term. That's why Bush was making such an effort to bridge into Hispanic voters in 2004. I would guess that the Republicans no longer even expect to pick up any significant portion of the black vote, so that leaves only the Hispanic vote to stem the tide.
Look at the relative turnout rates of the white, southern, christian Republican base versus the much lower voting rates among Democrat supporting minorities. With the Presidential race as a guideline, just how many more votes are left out there for the Republicans among that base?
And as an editorial aside, let me say that I couldn't be happier that the remnants of the cynical racist Southern Strategy look to be coming back to bite the Republicans on the ass.
There are better more balanced and complete discussions of the Southern Strategy out there, and if you're interested in this, I would encourage you to do some looking. For the single point of this blog entry, I have focused specifically on the racial component.
There aren't many hardcore Republicans that visit here, but if you disagree, or find this offensive, please comment. If you make a good, logical, supported argument, I am capable of changing my mind. All I ask is no obscenity. I will delete comments that I deem obscene or racist.
(Also, I want to credit Sini for this post. We've been having a back and forth on issues around this for months.)
My mind went back to the infamous "Southern Strategy" that Nixon used to win the 1968 election. With the Democrats embracing and supporting nationwide civil rights laws and enforcement to ensure an end to segregation, the Nixon camp made a carefully couched appeal for those southern democrats who were against the Civil Rights movement. And to some degree it worked, Nixon was reelected with significant support in the south. This was also the beginning of the inversion of the parties, where the Democrats and Republicans switched regional constituencies from the North to the South and vice versa. And with this inversion, the Republicans also shifted their base from the relatively shrinking populations of the north to the booming bible belt.
And for the next thirty years or so, the Republicans broadened their strength in the South by modulating their message away from direct racial issues, (Willie Horton, Welfare Queens, and Equal Opportunity aside) more towards a religious basing. It is still, in many respects, the same strategy, "those Ivy League liberals are trying to tell us what to do," "the gay agenda to take over the country," "they're trying to kill Christmas," etc. It is what I would refer to as a "People Like Us," strategy. The idea being to create a sense of siege of values to stir up the base and keep them active and voting.
The problem with this, I would argue, is that once the Republicans attracted these voters who tend to be on the right side of racial issues, they created a situation where that portion of the party has a place at the platform table. I'm not saying that the Republicans are trying to reverse civil rights, but there are forms of what I call soft bigotry throughout the party. (again, voting rights, social programs, equal opportunity, and many other examples.)
And from that, logically, blacks in the US largely don't support the Republican party.
But the thing of this is, that this section of the (we'll call them) nativist base, is now starting to hurl rhetoric regarding immigration and illegal immigrants. And some of it, I'm looking at you Tancredo, is beginning to get pretty ugly. The example I keep coming back to is Tancredo testing the phrase "preserve our national identity" in his campaign against illegals. Couple that with the effort overcome a Constitutional Amendment to remove citizenship from people born in the US to illegal parents, also Tancredo, and you begin to see how the "nativist" element of the Republican party could cost them the Hispanic vote for generations to come. (And this isn't just Tancredo, that second item has 77 Republican cosponsors in the House.)
And that brings us back to the comment my friend made this morning. If the Republicans have sufficiently alienated the Black and Hispanic communities, they could be in significant trouble in the long, long term. That's why Bush was making such an effort to bridge into Hispanic voters in 2004. I would guess that the Republicans no longer even expect to pick up any significant portion of the black vote, so that leaves only the Hispanic vote to stem the tide.
Look at the relative turnout rates of the white, southern, christian Republican base versus the much lower voting rates among Democrat supporting minorities. With the Presidential race as a guideline, just how many more votes are left out there for the Republicans among that base?
And as an editorial aside, let me say that I couldn't be happier that the remnants of the cynical racist Southern Strategy look to be coming back to bite the Republicans on the ass.
There are better more balanced and complete discussions of the Southern Strategy out there, and if you're interested in this, I would encourage you to do some looking. For the single point of this blog entry, I have focused specifically on the racial component.
There aren't many hardcore Republicans that visit here, but if you disagree, or find this offensive, please comment. If you make a good, logical, supported argument, I am capable of changing my mind. All I ask is no obscenity. I will delete comments that I deem obscene or racist.
(Also, I want to credit Sini for this post. We've been having a back and forth on issues around this for months.)
posted by mikevotes at
5:03 PM
8 Comments:
Very good post. Your assessment is dead on. they have become experts at dividing the nation with these "culture wars"
they are coming out to vote in full force and barely winning.(the White house anyway) now to figure out how to get the non-voters to vote for dems or better yet, in my opinion, third parties.
Excellent post
By
Graeme, at 12:34 AM
Not long ago an African American Republican young lady who has some prominence as a writer and lecturer, visited my blog and left a lot of annoying and nonsensical comments.
I pointed out to her the Southern Strategy as basically a cynical and racist strategy to gain GOP votes. She refused to recognize that it was basically a way to wage political war on African Americans. I just couldnt get through to her on this issue.
It reminded me of the way so many middle class people vote for Republicans who wage war on the middle class.
By
NEWSGUY, at 1:20 AM
Graeme, I am a huge third party supporter. And quite frankly, it doesn't matter to me too much which third party, although I do have my favorite. I think even a small minority party would significantly change the dynamics of both elections and the Congress forcing much more compromise which would tend to find more of the American center. That's one of the real problems with the current regime is that controlling everything, there are no investigations and no compromises which has led to the excesses we've seen.
And, Newsguy, one of my great fascinations is people who vote against their own interests. Someday, I intend to write a post about a distant relative from Texas who has gone bankrupt twice, has had a couple strokes, has no money, no healthcare, and looks to be a financial drain on his children for the rest of his life.
But he proudly voted for "no nationalized healthcare," "change the bankruptcy laws," "expensive drug benefit" George Bush because he was incensed that gays might be able to marry. I am not exaggerating.
And, now, as an ironic example, he came down for thanksgiving with a condition, painful but not dangerous, that can be significantly mediated by a $150/mo. drug that he can't afford. And he was still talking about gay marriage!
I want to write that post someday, but I just can't figure out the morality of using a family member as a counter example.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 7:30 AM
There's a reason we see poorer whites acting against their material interests. This country has a secret history, one which ties together race, class, and property. The shortest way I can explain it is to describe an event in colonial times.
In 1676, excess English nobles owned Virginia, and all the work was done by indentured servants - a few captured blacks, but largely resentful Scots. One noble named Bacon got clever and tried to seize Virginia for himself by fomenting a class uprising. He lost, but the grandpappies of our founding fathers had to deal with the servants. They freed them, even gave them land. They then imported thousands of black slaves to take over their work. So at that moment, those poor whites knew the only thing keeping them from the bottom of the pyramid was the presence of blacks under them. They came to side with the vastly wealthier plantation owners on every issue because they shared religion, skin color, and land ownership. They refused to align by class. They loved up and hated down. And thus were the Rednecks born.
This story is the Genesis of America's state religion, a shapeshifting blend of racism, classism and greed. It certainly explains Southern history appalingly well. But maybe all non-elite whites are a product of this cunningly designed social engineering project to produce the perfect stooge. Some of us try to overcome it, but we now officially all reject racism, so we don't see how Redneckism endures as long as we can define some Other as the bottom of the pyramid. And what scares me, maybe the entire success of American capitalism was the marginal extra profit that US businessmen could extract from a workforce played off black against white, while Europe's radical all-white proletariat cost their bosses a competitive edge. Even worse, maybe 1676 was the very moment when "America" first created a national identity, and it's never gone away.
Super390, descendant of TX & TN rednecks
By
Anonymous, at 3:14 PM
Dude(or Dude-ess), that's a phenomenal comment.
Do you blog? I would love more of this. Not specifically on this topic, but it's a beautiful blend of history and present as well as a clever alternation between formal and familiar writing styles.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 8:34 PM
I posted this last month on my blog. Seems appropriate to attach it as a comment here.
I am reading A New American History, by W. E. Wood which was written in about 1939. In the section on President Grant, just after the Civil War, it quotes from another book called 'The Passing of the Idle Rich', written in 1911 by Frederick Townsend Martin, a rich Manhattan socialite himself. In describing the power of the rich he says, "It matters not one iota what political party is in power or what president holds the reins of office. We are not politicians or public thinkers; we are the rich; we own America; we got it, God knows how, but we intend to keep it if we can by throwing all the tremendous weight of our support, our influence, our money, our political connections, our purchased senators, our hungry congressmen, our public-speaking demagogues into the scale against any legislature, any political platform, any presidential campaign that threatens the integrity of our estate."
The book then continues, "All the financial pirates stood solidly behind the Grant administration. The Republican Party, which was founded on a liberal policy in the 1850's, had become, before the end of the next decade, the defender of predatory wealth and privileged interests.
By
expatbrian, at 11:22 PM
I have always wondered why socialism didn't catch on much in the US. You would think, especially during the great depression when capitalism wasn't looking so hot, it would have caught on.
Your theory made me think. Racism definitely built America, maybe it is ingrained so far into society that it allows us ( us being middle class to lower) to concentrate on our differences rather than our overwhelming economic similarites. This allows the top 1 percent to own 40 percent of all wealth in America. That has grown in leaps and bounds the last two or three decades.
By
Graeme, at 12:41 AM
Brilliant work, Mike.
I, too, think that immigrants will be the bogeypeople of 2008. You correctly note, though, that demonizing growing demographic groups is not wise longterm strategy.
I also believe that the racist right serves the GOP well by making conservatives look more moderate. Some pundits claim that there is a money trail between the social conservatives and the racist right; I remain skeptical but vigilant.
By
historymike, at 4:12 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home