Talk:Southern strategy

NPOV

This Wikipedia page is one of the worst yet. I am getting very tired of reading extremely biased writing. Let's remember that The Democratic Party was the slave owning, Jim Crow enforcing, bigoted party of the past (only 50 yrs ago). Our that they continue to keep peoples oppressed by keeping them dependent (Does not anyone wonder or understand that the best way to keep a people down is by keeping them dependent upon you for their life and bread?). The Democratic Party will buy votes at any cost. They are also the party of Crony Capitalism, unmitigated patronage and nepotism. I am sick to death of distortions by so called "Liberals" and or "Progressives". — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheHubris (talk • contribs) 01:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

After several attempt to edit this page, and several reverts, I have decided to tag it. The references from serious historians cited on the page (the ones that I have read, cover to cover) all acknowledge and emphasize the role of racism and racial fears in the transition of the south from a Democratic stronghold to a Republican one. Yet it seems there are several people here that are determined to whitewash and minimize the work of these historians and rewrite the history of the 1960s and 70s. Their main arguement rests upon one recent work (written almost 40 years after most of the events in question) that, from the reviews, may call into question the importance of the role racism played in the politics of the region and the period. (I have not read the book, but I doubt that this book says that racism had no role in Republican politics of the period.)

Ah yes, great Southern Republican racists like Bull Conner, George Wallace, and Ross Barnett. Wait a minute- those are all Democrats! Indeed, it was only after they switched to the Republican party that formerly Democratic, formerly racist Southerners like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond backed away from or actively denounced racism. Yet the Senate Pro Temporae- Sa Democrat- was a KKK member, and the GOP is the racist party? Give me a break —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloandeyboy317 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This does not a raging debate make.Faveuncle 13:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle

Here is a partial list of the controversial claims made, which I believe cause the article to be POV (Jpers36 16:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)):

During this era, several Republican candidates expressed support for states' rights, which critics have argued was intended as a signal of opposition to federal civil rights legislation for blacks. (unsourced)

The white Democratic Party in the South enacted the Jim Crow Laws and through the terror of vigilantees and the Ku Klux Klan undertook other measures to ensure and enforce black disenfranchisement. (unsourced)

During this period, Republicans occasionally supported anti-lynching bills, which were filibustered in the U.S. Senate, and appointed a few black placeholders, but largely ignored the South. (unsourced, and describe elected black Republican officials as "placeholders")

In that year, Republican candidate Herbert Hoover rode the issues of prohibition and anti-Catholicism to carry five former Confederate states, with 62 of the 126 electoral votes of the section. After his victory, Hoover attempted to build up the Republican Party of the South, transferring patronage away from blacks and toward the same kind of white Protestant businessmen who made up the core of the Northern Republican Party. (unsourced)

(In 1964, Thurmond was one of the first Jim Crow era southern Democrats to switch to the Republican party. He would not be the last. Recently, Zell Miller of Georgia, who ran as a segregationist candidate for Congress in the 1960s, and was Chief of Staff for Lester Maddox, an avowed segregationist, has been endorsing Republicans in state and national elections). (Zell Miller is surely an example of something, but combined with the preceding sentence it strongly implies that he changed his party affiliation, which he did not do.)

• • removed my Miller reference.Faveuncle 23:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle

The racial turmoil in these states precluded many businesses from relocating there. (unsourced)

Goldwater's principal opponent in the primary election, Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York, was widely seen as representing the more moderate (and pro-Civil Rights), Northern wing of the party (See Rockefeller Republican, Goldwater Republican). Rockefeller's defeat in the primary is seen as one turning point towards a more conservative Republican party, and the beginning of a long decline for moderate and especially liberal Republicans. Goldwater’s primary victory is also seen as a shift of the center of Republican power to the West and South[.] (unsourced -- "is seen" is here used as a weasel term)

This States' Rights stand has been interpreted as an appeal to racist white Southern Democrats, and undoubtedly attracted many, since Goldwater was the first Republican to win the electoral votes of the Deep South states (LA, GA, AL, MS, SC) since Reconstruction. (unsourced -- "has been interpreted" is a weasel term)

• • edited weasel wording Faveuncle 23:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle

However, this vote proved devastating to Goldwater’s campaign everywhere outside the south (besides Dixie, Goldwater won only in AZ, his home state) contributing to his landslide defeat in 1964. (unsourced linking of Goldwater's "devastating" Civil Rights vote to his "landslide defeat")

However, besides his home state of Arizona, Goldwater managed to pick off five Deep South states: Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina, because of his anti-civil rights position. (redundant, as well as unsourced)

At this time, Senator Goldwater’s position was at odds with most of the prominent members of the Republican Party, dominated at that time by the East Coast Episcopalian Establishment. (unsourced)

The point man in the Senate for delivering the votes to break the filibuster against the measure by 17 Democrats and one Republican was conservative Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois. (unsourced)

Many liberals accused Nixon of pandering to racist Southern whites, especially with regards to his "states' rights" and "law and order" stands. (unsourced, unidentified "liberals")

With a much more explicit attack on black civil rights, Wallace won all of Goldwater's states (except South Carolina) as well as Arkansas and one of North Carolina's electoral votes. ("more explicit attack" is undefined and unsourced)

He was able to appear this way to most Americans, because the strategy often consisted of code words that meant nothing to most Americans, but were emotionally charged for those in the south. (unsourced -- typifying Nixon's strategy as using "code words" rather than typifying it as running on issues calculated to win over the newly-swinging South is controversial)

In addition, the idea of "states' rights" superficially took on the patina of a broader meaning than simply a reference to civil rights laws, eventually encompassing federalism as the means to forestall Federal intervention in the culture wars. (unsourced implication that "states' rights" was initially a code for something else, rather than meaning what it said -- it needs to be sourced and explained how states' rights suddenly meant states' rights (i.e., federalism) in the '80's, but didn't "really" mean states' rights before then)

On August 4, 1980, Ronald Reagan, as a candidate, delivered a speech near Philadelphia, Mississippi at the annual Neshoba County Fair. Reagan excited the crowd when he announced, "I believe in states' rights. I believe we have distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended to be given in the Constitution to that federal establishment." He went on to promise to "restore to states and local governments the power that properly belongs to them." Philadelphia was the scene of the June 21, 1964 murder of civil rights workers James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner, and Reagan's critics alleged that the presidential candidate was signalling a racist message to his audience. (unsourced claim re "excited the crowd", unsourced quotes, unspecified "Reagan's critics alleged" is weasel term)

Charges of racism have been lodged in subsequent Republican races for the House and Senate in the South. (weasel term)

The Willie Horton commercials used by supporters of George H.W. Bush in the election of 1988 were considered by many to be racist. (weasel term)

Most professional academics—historians, political scientists, sociologists, culture critics, etc.––as well as Democratic party supporters argue that support for what conservative acolytes depict as a new "Federalism" in the Republican party platform is, and always has been, nothing but a code word for the politics of resentment, of which racism provides the fuel. ("Most professional academics" is weasel term, and this claim specifically I highly doubt)

It is highly disputed that the Southern Strategy existed as an agreed upon strategy within the GOP after the early 1970s, when Kevin Phillips and Richard Nixon left positions of influence within the GOP. (passive tense causes weasel sentence -- who disputes it?)

The southern strategy was used during the 1988 election, during the Willie Horton controversy. (unsourced and highly controversial claim that Willie Horton was an example of Southern Strategy rather than a "soft on crime" attack on Dukakis)

Critics accused the RNC of race baiting by playing on negative views of mixed-race relationships. (This is sourced, but "critics" should still be defined as Eleanor Clift)

Note that I am not claiming any of these to be false. I can accept most of them to be true, but they still need verification as well as attribution (in the case of unspecified "critics", "professional academics", etc) in order to remove POV. Jpers36 16:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Goldwater & states rights.

Meelar, K. Lee--there have to be period sources that can resolve the question of Goldwater's views and intentions. Probably many of the participants are still alive. Randwolf

Apparently, he cofounded the Arizona NAACP. I'm no expert, but that's at least some of what I'm basing this on. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 04:10, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

Yah. But he must have known that "states rights" would appeal in the South and why--he was no fool. It would be a really interesting topic for primary-source research. Or perhaps that has already been done. Randwolf

I agree. I'll try to take a look at a Goldwater biography in the next few days. Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 05:09, 2004 Sep 7 (UTC)

I would like to point out this article:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2002/12/30/the_neocons__nixons_southern_strategy

Pat Buchanan, who worked for Nixon, coined the term "Southern Strategy" is 1966. One interesting part of the article is this:

Richard Nixon kicked off his historic comeback in 1966 with a column on the South (by this writer) that declared we would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states rights, human rights, small government and a strong national defense, and leave it to the "party of Maddox, Mahoney and Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice."

The Republican Party was not attempting to win over racists. This should be included in the Wikipedia entry. Why on Earth would racist Southern Democrats join the party that pushed for civil rights legislation throughout the 1960s?

Joe

An assurance by a partisan commentator claiming a lack of racial bias is not a valid source when the commentator has a history of supporting segregationist positions and of making racist comments. . I'm unsure of any bias from that reference but I include it strictly as a resource for Pat Buchanan quotes that are relevant to my point. TownHall.com is not an unbiased reference and should not be considered in a discussion regarding perceived bias in this Wikipedia article. TownHall's own mission statement stresses "conservative", "commentary", "opinion leaders", "talk radio", "activism", "shaping the news". The TownHall.com mission statement:

‘’Townhall.com is the #1 conservative website. Townhall.com pulls together political commentary and analysis from over 100 leading columnists and opinion leaders, research from 100 partner organizations, conservative talk-radio and a community of millions of grassroots conservatives.

Townhall.com is designed to amplify those conservative voices in America’s political debates.

By uniting the nations’ top conservative radio hosts with their millions of listeners, Townhall.com breaks down the barriers between news and opinion, journalism and political participation -- and enables conservatives to participate in the political process with unprecedented ease.

As a part of Salem Communications Corporation, Townhall.com features Salem’s News/Talk radio hosts, Bill Bennett, Mike Gallagher, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved, and Dennis Prager, who are heard on over 300 stations nationwide. Of our five hosts, three are among the top 10 radio talk shows in the nation!

For the first time, the grassroots media of talk radio, the internet, blogging and podcasting will be brought together in one place to activate conservative political participation.

By providing daily news and opinion articles, sophisticated activism tools, a vibrant blog community, online radio shows and more, Townhall.com arms conservatives with the tools and information necessary to have an impact in shaping the news.

Townhall.com also publishes Townhall Magazine -- fresh, conservative, intelligent reporting in a monthly magazine. For more information, visit http://www.townhallmagazine.com. "

StevenB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.208.125.225 (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Your question is either ignorant or disingenuous, virtually all serious historians trace the rise of the GOP in the south to the abandonment of the cause of segregation by the Democrats. Whites switched to the GOP because the GOP was more sympathetic to their racism and desire to maintain segregation.

Under Kennedy and especially under LBJ the Democrats were seen as pushing civil rights legislation enforcement much harder than the GOP. While it may have been the Everett Dirksens that thwarted the Civil Rights Act filibuster, it was left to LBJ and RFK to enforce the laws. Southern whites turned on the Democrats in 1964 because of LBJ's support for Civil Rights. Besides, Goldwater was one of only 6 GOP senators that voted against the Civil Rights Act. In Texas, George H.W. Bush ran for Senate against Ralph Yarborough, the only southern Democrat who voted for the Civil Rights Act. Bush ran against the Civil Rights Act.

Earlier when the racism and xenophobia of southern white voters were challenged, the Democrats suffered. The Dixiecrats of 1948 were a response by southern whites to Truman's integration of the armed services (lead by Strom Thurmond, who decided to change to the GOP in 1964, not coincidentally), and the feeling that the national Democratic party was abandoning its tacit support for segregation. Harry Byrd of Virginia secured popular and electoral votes in Dixie in the 1960 election, since JFK was seen as soft on segregation. Wallace, who was a Democrat, abandoned his party to appeal to disaffected whites in 1968. Even the 1928 showing by Hoover in the south was attributed more to Al Smith's Catholicism than any affinity to Republican tenets.

Please note that many of the southern Democrats from the segregation era abandoned the Democratic party in favor of the GOP - aside from Thurmond already mentioned, Trent Lott, and lately Zell Miller, who was Lester Maddox's chief of staff, and ran as a segregationist candidate for Congress twice in the 1960s. There are many others.

In summary, the GOP Southern Strategy is based largely on appealing to white racists. We need only look at the Presidential electoral college maps since 1960 - the states of Dixie invariably vote GOP. Even Clinton and Carter were unable to secure the majority of the white votes in their home states - since LBJ in 1964, no Democratic candidate has won the white vote in any state of the former CSA, and Gore lost the 2000 election in part due to his inability to carry Tennessee, his home state. 69.180.49.229 00:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle

When Wallace was Governor of Alabama, he started promoting the link in speeches and actions between "states rights" and "maintaining segregation", with his "Stand in the Schoolhouse Door", alliance with the Ku Klux Klan in carrying out violence to disrupt integration of Birmingham's public schools, and other activities. Much later in his political career, he recanted his support for integration. Diane McWhorter's Pulitzer Prize-winning "Carry Me Back" (2001) provides much heavily documented detail about Wallace's actions, among others, and also about the alliance between newly minted "states rights groups" and the Ku Klux Klan and anti-Semite groups. --Parkwells (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Reagan Klan endorsements

Some specifics on this would be nice--just who endorsed him in 1980? Also, I've read about a 1984 endorsement which he accepted--anyone know about that?

Frank book

Dropped:

A 2004 book by Thomas Frank, entitled What's the Matter With Kansas?, revolves around the rise of cultural issues as a Republican strategy.

What does a book about Kansas have to do with the "Southern strategy"? Ellsworth 14:50, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The phrase refers primarily to the realignment of the South, but it can apply anywhere conservatives used cultural issues as wedges to win over white middle-class voters. I'll make that clearer in the article. Incidentially, I'd recommend the book. Quite interesting. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:03, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

How about a good article about it while I wait for it to work its way up my reading list? Heh heh heh. Ellsworth 00:40, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Southern strategy

Deleted the section about Reagan in Mississippi. This is a [1] proven lie.

Deleted the section where Bob Herbert puts words into a dead man's (Lee Atwater) mouth.

Stick to the facts.

I see despite my editing from a couple of years ago the Nixon campaign history has again been rewritten to make it look like Nixon won the south. The Democrats (Wallace and LBJ) won the south.

Facts!

• • Not true, so not a fact. LBJ ran in 1964, not 1968. Nixon and Wallace ran in 1968. Humphrey was the candidate of the Democratic Party. Wallace did not run as a Democrat, so so much for your alleged "facts". Nixon won FL, VA, SC, TN, and ran 2nd to Wallace in AR and GA. 69.180.49.229 03:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle

This article is incredibly biased and reads like the Democrat Underground history of the Republican Party.

This article does need some work. A larger percentage of Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats:

(( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Vote_statistics ))

61%(153/249) of Democrats supported the bill in the House of Representatives as opposed to 80%(138/172) of Republicans. 68%(46/68) of Democrats supported the bill in the Senate as opposed to 81% of Republicans(27/33). ((One of the Democrats even voted twice against the bill in the Senate!! :) Actually, I believe the figures for the Democrats in the Senate should be 46/67.))

• • With regard to the Civil Rights Acts and related legislation that attempted to end Jim Crow and insure the civil rights of minorities, a more pertinent breakdown would be northerners versus southerners, rather than Democrats vs. Repubs. Only one senator from Dixie voted for the Civil Rights Act, Yarborough of Texas. The other twenty-one voted against it. 69.180.49.229 03:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle.
    • That is obviously because of the fact that any rep from the south was committing political suicide by voting for it, some of the democrats did, no republicans did. Also, a DEMOCRAT signed it into law after another DEMOCRATIC President pushed for it.

President Johnson said he had to twist arms and bust kneecaps to get those 46 Democrats to support the bill.

In 1964

Seventeen Democrats and one Republican organized a filibuster against the bill.

The point man in the Senate for getting the bill passed was a Republican, Everett McKinley Dirksen.

The bill targetted racist Jim Crow laws that had been written mostly by Democrats in the south.

It's a little hard to see how the southern whites' switch to the Republican party is in reaction to Democratic support of the Civil Rights Act, when there was even a higher rate of support for the bill among Republicans. It's hard to see how the Republicans could win by appealing to southern racists, when the southern Democratic politicians could point to their opposition to the Civil Rights Act and make an even stronger appeal.

I would certainly enter the argument that states' rights is an viewed by many as a "as a naked play against civil rights laws", but I would also add that there is a strong argument to be made by states' rights advocates that has nothing to do with racism.

I disagree with the following sentence: "It is also used in a more general sense, in which cultural (especially racial) themes are used in an election — primarily but not exclusively in the American South." The southern strategy is based partly on cultural issues, but not "especially" racial. There very well may be some racial element. There are always elements of both parties that are out of the main stream.

I would say something like: It is also used in a more general sense, in which cultural themes(abortion, gun control, etc.) are used in an election — primarily but not exclusively in the American South. There is a claim, mostly by Democrats, that the Southern Strategy is an appeal to racism, but the use of the term, and its meaning and implication, are still hotly disputed.

I would not state that the Southern Strategy is "especially racial", then in the next sentence, say that its use, meaning and implication are "still hotly disputed".

• • It is not disputed by serious historians, only by wikipedia "historians", that is, people who graduated from high school or junior college and know how to post silliness on the internet.69.180.49.229 03:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle

"Rockefeller's defeat in the primary is seen as the beginning of the end for moderates and liberals in the Republican party." It may be true that some people see Rockefeller's defeat this way, but this sentence in an encyclopedia gives more weight to that feeling than it deserves. There are still liberals and moderates in the Republican party, just as there are conservatives in the Democratic party. This may have been a turning point toward a more conservative Republican party.

"basing a general election strategy on appeals to "states' rights" as a naked play against civil rights laws grew less effective" - What you are saying in this sentence is that the Republicans had been basing their general election strategies on opposing civil rights laws. Did the Republicans actually do this? Or is this sentence is based on Democratic rhetoric and not qualified as an unbiased encyclopedia entry.

• • Yes, they did. Goldwater's appeal to the white southerner was based on his (Goldwater's) opposition to granting black people the right to vote.69.180.49.229 03:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle

If the inference that the Republicans had been basing their election strategies on opposing civil rights laws is false, then all the statements about Ronald Reagan are nothing more than innuendo.

• • Nixon, Reagan, the Bushes all won the white vote in the south. Why? Did the southern racists all magically disappear in 1968 after Wallace ran? I don't think so. The Southern Strategy for the GOP is about appealing to those same southern whites, especially the less educated religious fundamentalists, with their racial fears, religious bigotry, xenophobia, anti-intellectualism and history of suspicion of the federal government. There are northerners and westerners that the Southern Strategy appeals to as well, Bush's "War on Tare" can be characterized as an attempt to heighten fear and suspicion of foreigners. The 2004 election was hopefully the high-water mark of the Southern Strategy, the 2006 mid-term shows the GOP in retreat - only the south remains solidly in their camp.69.180.49.229 03:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle

The reference to Willie Horton has already been mentioned.

"As racism became less politically palatable as a lone motivator, it was augmented". Is this true? Was racism ever a lone motivator or even a major motivator for the Republicans? It seems to me that in order to say this, you have to equate states' rights with racism, which is not true. In order to spot this in Republican campaigns, you also have to be adept at reading between the lines, spotting code words, etc. In other words, reading whatever you want to in a speech. Seems like a encyclopedia should stick closer to the facts rather than interpretations of the facts.

Thanks for your comments. I've made a few changes, based on them, though I don't agree with you 100%. See below.

• First of all, the fact about the percentages of congresspeople supporting the Civil Rights Act isn't as important to this article. The article clearly emphasizes that this was a presidential-level strategy, and indeed, the politics of the congressional blocs were more confused for longer. Many southern whites voted Republican for president, but kept voting for their Democratic reps and senators well after the 1960s, before the whole region began to realign decades later.
• You're right about the "naked play against civil rights" phrasing; I've added a sentence about the changing meaning of states' rights (federalism and yadda).
• Regarding "especially racial"--you're mostly right, but I would take note of, e.g., Ken Mehlman's recent apology for the Southern strategy at the NAACP convention, which used it in the explicitly racial sense [2]. I've revised the lead paragraph.
• Regarding the sentence about Rockefeller, I split the difference. While it was somewhat hyperbolic to refer to the "beginning of the end for moderates and liberals", it was certainly seen as a big step towards the much more conservative party we see today. I hope the new wording reflects this.
• Was racism ever a lone motivator or even a major motivator--well, again, see the Mehlman apology as well as most political science literature. At least in the early stages, racism was a primary motive force behind the Southern strategy.

Any further changes you'd suggest? Disagreements? Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 16:05, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Changes by DoyceB. I believe the change was correct, that the southern strategy did support states' rights. I have looked for instances, where the Republican Party came out against civil rights as defined in wikipedia, but could not find any. The statement that the southern strategy was veiled opposition to civil rights is an opinion.

I am working on other changes, in which I state that if the Republican party had followed Barry Goldwater's lead in supporting states' rights in 1964, then the civil rights law of 1964 would probably have been successfully filibustered, so that there is a basis for equating support for states' rights with opposition to civil rights. Having said that, the statement that support for states' rights is opposition to civil rights is still just an opinion that is not shared by everyone. Whose opinion should be in wikipedia?

As for Mehlman's apology, I have searched for his quoted apology, but could only find news articles, which seem to paraphrase his comments. I would like to find a source for his exact words. I'm also not sure how to balance his apology, 40 years later, with statements from people who were directly involved in the crafting of the southern strategy. Of course, they would hardly admit to being racists.

Doyceb 01:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I have tried to make some unbiased changes. It seemed to me that the prior article assumed that the charges of Republican racism were true. I tried to make changes which would remove judgemental statements, while leaving in facts upon which these beliefs were based. For example, the statements about Ronald Reagans support for states' rights were left in. I have seen articles that state this support was racist without a doubt. But Ronald Reagan was a westerner and the idea of states' rights was very different for a westerner than for a southerner. Even western democratic governors, Bruce Babbitt for one, endorsed states' rights. Ronald Reagan supposedly also fought to improve the lot of black actors, when he was president of the Screen Actors' Guild. I wanted to just enter facts and let the readers make up their own minds. Whether he was a racist or not is something that will be debated forever. For those who hated him, he was racist beyond a doubt. For those who loved him, never. An article in Wikipedia should not choose a side, but just present the facts.

I have read about Mehlman's apology, but still haven't found the exact wording of the speech.

Doyceb 23:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to say I appreciate your latest round of edits, the ones immediately after my edit marked "substantial rewrite"--they were more neutral. Meelar (talk) 03:37, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Were you aware you're not logged in when you make these edits? Also, you can sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~).

I am not real familiar with this system yet. I think I managed to sign in once. And the second time, I manually signed my post. I was not trying to be anonymous or anything like that.

Doyceb 00:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

No problem. If you're trying to learn more, you can try Wikipedia:Tutorial or ask questions at Wikipedia:Help desk. Keep editing, Meelar (talk) 04:28, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Bob Herbert's Article

I deleted the paragraph about Bob Herbert's interview with Lee Atwater in 1981. The idea that Lee Atwater said the things Bob Herbert claims is crazy. I have not read the article, but if Bob Herbert actually claimed Lee Atwater said those things, I think the New York Times has another staff member it should be worried about. In 1954, it was the Democratic party that was supporting Jim Crow laws and racism in the south, not the Republican party. The Republican party's base of support was the more liberal north. Next, Lee Atwater was supposed to be a smart political advisor. The idea that he would give a liberal supporter of the Democratic party an interview is a bit strange. The idea that he would tell a black, liberal supporter of the Democratic party that, "Yes, we Republicans are the biggest racists since Hitler" is just a little hard to swallow. The ability to sniff out BS is a talent to be cultivated. Doyceb 03:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Why doubt this article. Herbert is a reporter, and he was reporting what Atwater in a moment of candor said. I'm going to restore this. GriotGriot

• • Herbert's article needs to be deleted. He regularly accuses the Republican party of racism, year after year in article after article. In no way could he be said to be neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klaisaok (talk • contribs) 15:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

The entire Southern Strategy section does not have an NPOV. I would not want this article to be someone's introduction to wikipedia, it looks more like something you'd read on metafilter than an encyclopedia. --BHC 11:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The blatant left-wing bias of this article is as obvious as it is appalling.

"In furtherance of the Republican Southern Strategy, on August 4, 1980, Ronald Reagan launched his general election campaign with a speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, in which he declared his support for states' rights. Philadelphia is well known as the scene of the June 21, 1964 murder of civil rights workers James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner (the ringleader of the murders, Edgar Ray Killen, was convicted on June 21, 2005, the 41st anniversary of the crimes)."

The first sentence of the above passage is a complete lie, Reagan launched his campaign in New Jersey, and WHAT DOES THE 1964 MURDER OF CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS HAVE TO DO WITH RONALD REAGAN, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OR SOUTHERN STRATEGY???

Bob Herbert's quote from Atwater has no business in this article, there is absolutely no way a seasoned political pro like Atwater would "explain his racist strategy" to a known liberal journalist like Herbert(Who is a black man, nonetheless). Herbert is hardly a competent reference for wikipedia, as he is what he is, an opinionated Op-Ed journalist. It should be clear to anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together that the only reason the hack who put it there chose that quote is because it contains the N-word. Nice try, lefty, but you're not fooling anyone.

I could go on, but you get the picture. It doesn't take an expert to recognize that this reads like something off of the DNC's website, and NOT like the credible, factual reference it pretends to be.

This article is an embarrassment to wikipedia. Jalapeno 23:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken Atwater was quite candid about his past at the end of his life when he was dying of brain cancer. Griot 23:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid you're mistaken. Atwater died in 1991, shortly after he was diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor. The quote above allegedly came from a 1981 interview, 10 years before he was diagnosed with brain cancer. Jalapeno 23:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I find it odd that you don't like the message, so you want to kill the messenger. You don't like what Lee Atwater said, so you want to impugn Herbert for reporting it. I need remind you that Herbert is a trained reporter working for a reputable newspaper. I believe Atwater said these things in a moment of candor, and I don't doubt he said them. Griot 04:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall saying anything about "killing" anyone. Stick to the facts, and refrain from making baseless assumptions about people you don't even know and have never met. You assumed that I don't like what Atwater allegedly said. I don't even understand what he said. I've read that quote several times and cannot make any sense of it. The main thing I don't LIKE about the quote is that it contains the N-word, a word which I do not use. What questions did Herbert ask to elicit this bizarre incoherent response? Did Atwater simply volunteer this cryptic narrative out of the blue? Are the comments in context? Do we have an actual transcript of the exchange? Was the interview documented with an electronic recording device? Was anyone else present? Why did Herbert wait 24 years to make these revelations public? Why wasn't the interview published while Atwater was still alive? Certainly these comments would have caused a huge firestorm in 1988, so why didn't Herebert (an admitted left-wing democrat and Bush-hater) make these comments known then, while he was a columnist and member of the editorial board of the Daily News?

You state that you believe Atwater made this quote in a moment of candor, and "you don't doubt that he said them". How do you know Atwater was being candid? Did you know Atwater personally? Have you ever met him? Is he on record anywhere else saying things of a similar nature? On what facts do you base your assumption of candor?

The dispute here remains the same. In order to subscribe to your position, one must believe:

• Lee Atwater, a senior level republican party strategist, spokesperson, and Director of minority outreach gave an interview to Bob Herbert, a black man, and noted mouthpiece for the opponents of Atwater's employer (To give the reader some perspective, this is the equivalent of Hillary Clinton giving Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage a no-holds barred completely truthful interview in which she speaks openly about the more nefarious aspects of democratic party politics and inside-strategy) and during said interview Atwater:

• Described his party's southern strategy of using oppression, racism, and racial slurs to win white votes at the expense of civil rights.
• That he did so KNOWING FULL-WELL that it would cause immense and potentially irreparable political and PR damage to his political party, his employer, his financial future, and his own reputation.
• That he did so by producing a quote that is incoherent makes absolutely no grammatical sense, in a manner very uncharacteristic of someone with Atwater's obvious experience and education, AND that he would begin such quote with the most offensive and inflammatory word in the country's language, to describe, in an odious and distasteful manner, a group of people of which the interviewer is a member (!)
• A lifelong musician, and devoted fan of black R+B music, Atwater, who frequently held court with the premier R+B musical artists of the time and whom BB King and other notable black musicians considered a personal friend, would knowingly and deliberately devote his career to the oppression of blacks.

• AND, After this interview, Bob Herbert, after documenting these explosive (and yes they would have been no less than explosive) revelations about a senior level official of the major political party he opposes, the type of scoop any trained journalist would recognize as a blockbuster, Bob Herbert, trained journalist:

• Does absolutely nothing. Does not publish them in any form, even though he had the wherewithal, motivation, and resources to easily do so.

• Instead he:

• Sat on the story for 24 years, and recounted this quote in a routine bi-weekly op-ed piece.
• After publishing it, none of his trained journalist colleagues run with the story on the front page of the newspaper, or on any of the other major news networks. There is not a single honest person in this country who would say that if any republican of Atwater's status, living or dead, was quoted saying the things in this article, it WOULDN'T make front page news if the source were even halfway-credible.

If you choose to respond to this, Griot, I welcome the discussion. However please bring some hard credible facts to the table. It is clear that Herbert's quote is in need of additional substantiation, and should be deleted until such support is presented. I will be happy to look at the information you present and treat it with consideration.

Kind Regards, Jalapeno 01:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

What is more "hard and credible" than a report in a reputable American newspaper? I can't dig up Atwater's corpse, bring it to life, and have him confirm this. Again, you don't like the message, so you impugn the messenger. The quote stays. Griot 02:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

An OP-ED piece is not a report. Op-Ed pieces do not carry the same neutrality or weight as actual news reports. I guess you didn't know, but the OP in Op-Ed stands for opinion. This is obvious and should not have to be explained. Also, the cite in the article links to a pay section of the NYT. Do you have the text of the article to cut and paste into this discussion page? I'd like to see the entire column, and not just a snippet. I'm thinking that Herbert may not have conducted the interview personally, and may be citing another source himself. The quote is not going to stay in its present form. If it does stay, a caveat will be added. Let's work out a compromise. An op-ed column doesn't cut the mustard for wikipedia, and anyone who's read Bob Herbert knows that he's the farthest thing from a neutral journalist. Again, if you have additional information, let's examine and discuss it.

Your statement about digging up Atwater's corpse cracked me up!

Kind Regards, Jalapeno 03:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleted the paragraphs discussing Pat Buchanan and his "Massachussetts liberal" quote - Pure POV, no way to tell he was targeting the south and not the midwest, southwest, etc. The paragraph linking abortion and gay marriage to racism is pure POV. This is wikipedia, folks, not dnc.org or moveon.com. Kind Regards, Jalapeno 21:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• • It's sort of worthless to have to dumb down content so that high school graduates and junior college students don't have their feelings hurt by the analysis. There is no serious historian that thinks that white racism had nothing to do with the GOP's rise to prominence in the South since the decade of the 1960s. Just because some obstreperous uninformed or poorly read people don't like that doesn't mean we should change history to accommodate their lack of learning and inability to read and understand serious historical analysis. Perhaps their grandpa or some talk radio host told them that the rise of the GOP had nothing to do with white racism - sorry, it don't make it so, bubba.

White racism was integral to the rise of the GOP in the south - that's not a POV, that's a fact.69.180.49.229 01:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle

Seriously folks, unless you have done real academic quality research, you should stay off these pages. You are not doing anyone any service by posting your weasel words and convoluted arguements here. Just because the guys in your Klavern or SCV meetings don't like what's being posted on these pages, doesn't make them - or you - right, or have an opinion worth reading. We need to stop "dumbing down" wikipedia, since unfortunately many schoolkids are actually using it for research. 69.180.49.229 03:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle

Faveuncle, Wikipedia is intentionally editable by all, not just those who have done "real academic quality research". The standard for adding information to an article is not that one have done such research, but that one be able to cite notable publications which claim the information being added. Your edit added claims about racism, a potentially inciteful topic, without attaching those claims to such sources, so I have removed most of it. In addition, your condescending manner and your accusations of racism on this talk page contradict Wikipedia's policy of civility and work against your chances of achieving consensus. Jpers36 16:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

To claim that white racism has nothing to do with the rise of the GOP in the south is laughable. And there is no point in trying to reason with people who think that way, so I am free of the bonds and constraints of wikipedia etiquette. Dealing with southron apologists is like trying to reason with Holocaust deniers. Their/your position that an appeal to white racism had nothing to do with the rise of the GOP in the south is not only historically inaccurate, it is contemptible and evil.Faveuncle 04:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle

If such a claim is "laughable", then source your claims, Faveuncle. Furthermore, since you are using Wikipedia, there is no excuse for ignoring "the bonds and constraints of wikipedia etiquette." In addition, to equate those who do not accept the existence of the Southern Strategy with either Holocaust deniers or apologists for the South is an ad hominem attack. Lastly, I am neither confirming or denying the Southern Strategy, as I believe I am not qualified to make such claims -- I am only removing unsourced, contoversial and potentially inciteful claims from the article until they are sourced, and furthermore I am asking that you adhere to Wikipedia policy. Jpers36 13:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

More on the Bob Herbert article

Griot, your basis for believing Bob Herbert was:

>>>I need remind you that Herbert is a trained reporter working for a reputable newspaper.

I believe the following shows that being trained in the news business and working for a reputable news organization is no guarantee that what is published is accurate:

Jayson Blair ( http://www.journalism.org/resources/briefing/archive/blair.asp ) was a trained reporter working for a reputable newspaper, yet he made up stories, which that reputable newspaper printed.

Janet Cook ( http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/day/04_17_2001.html ) was an editor working for a reputable newspaper and she won a Pulitzer Prize for a story that was made up out of thin air and published by that reputable newspaper.

Brian Walski ( http://arts-sciences.cua.edu/hsct102/pages/alteredphoto.html ) was a trained photographer working for a reputable newspaper, yet he doctored a photo, which that reputable newspaper published.

Dateline ( http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/LIE/nbc.html ) is a reputable news program on NBC, yet they faked a truck gas tank explosion, which they put on the air.

American newspapers are mostly accurate, but there is no guarantee that everything you read is accurate. You must use a little intelligence and common sense when reading the news. Don't be one of the people, who believe something is true just because it was in the newspaper.

The stories I listed at the beginning are cases of outright dishonesty, but there are many cases, where the American media has received fake information and published it without checking closely enough. Dan Rather broadcast some fake documents about George Bush in the last presidential election. CNN published some fake information about airplane pilots dropping sarin gas on US deserters in the Vietnam War. The Boston Globe printed fake photos of US military personnel raping Iraqi women. The New York Times published a story stating that AIDS was developed in US biological warfare labs.

The US media also sometimes stage-manages the news to give a certain impression. For example, look at this photograph - http://rogerlsimon.com/archives/pal.jpg . Photographers have a woman up before the West Bank security wall crying in front of the only wall panel with English graffiti on it (Stop kill the palestin people) and are busily photographing her. They are probably getting some great shots. Do you think it bothers them that they had to stage those photos?

When Kitty Kelly wrote that Nancy Reagan used to sneak up the back stairs of the White House with Frank Sinatra for sexual trysts, didn't you wonder about that statement's truthfulness? Didn't you think that at their advanced age, they would have taken the elevator? :) Yet Kitty Kelly was a trained journalist and an internationally acclaimed author.

When Bob Woodward wrote that he disguised himself as a nurse and sneaked past CIA guards to interview William J. Casey, the CIA Director, as he lay dying of a disease that made him incapable of communicating with anyone, did you swallow his story with no doubts? We can't prove that it was not true, but a little grain of salt would sure make that story go down a little easier. And yet Bob Woodward is a trained journalist working for a reputable newspaper.

Do you believe the op-ed pieces by trained journalists in reputable papers that Bill Clinton had something to do with Vince Foster's suicide? Do you believe the op-ed pieces by trained journalists in reputable newspapers that John Kerry disgraced himself in the Viet Nam War?

Jalapeno had some very well thought out and reasonable doubts about Bob Herbert's story, yet you insist on leaving it in, because "What is more "hard and credible" than a report in a reputable American newspaper?"

To answer your question, here's what is more "hard and credible". Something to back up a story beside the writer's word. Especially, if the story is as unbelievable as the Bob Herbert article. Wikipedia has gotten some bad press about the creditability of its articles. Do Wikipedia and your own reputation a favor and remove the article. I would remove it myself, but I want to give you the chance.

--Doyceb 02:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

A screed against the NY Times! Hate the message, try to discredit the messsenger. Herbert got the Lee Atwater quote from a book by Prof. Alexander P. Lewis. The book is called Politics in the 1990s. You will now have to discredit Alexander Lewis. Good luck. Griot 03:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I did a google search for Prof. Alexander P. Lewis and he is nowhere to be found. I did a search for Alexander Lewis and "Politics in the 1990s". Nothing. I did a search "Politics in the 1990s" and just Lewis. I got lots of hits: German Politics in the 1990s, Canadian Politics in the 1990s, Southern Politics in the 1990s, but no Politics in the 1990s by any Prof. Alexander P. Lewis, Alexander Lewis or Lewis. If Prof Lewis does not exist, does that count as being discredited? :)

--Doyceb 04:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Griot got the name slightly wrong. See Alexander P. Lamis, Southern Politics in the 1990s. See also the Lee Atwater article, which references Prof. Lamis.

I also want to remark that in the future, if you wish to discredit an assertion, then you should skip the soapbox and do one of the following:

1. Tag the disputed assertion with one of the templates listed listed in Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_ask_for_citations.
2. Find a source that contradicts the assertion.

This will save you and other Wikipedians a lot of time. Your personal feeling of skepticism is not a basis for disbelieving a source; as flawed as newspapers are, a published newspaper article carries a lot more weight around here than some random user's opinion. Read WP:NOR and WP:V. k.lee 00:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

p.s. Note that the book appears to be a collection of chapters edited by Lamis, not written by him. k.lee 01:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Failure of the Southern Strategy

This article is very POVish in that it assumes that the Southern Strategy was the main reason for GOP success in the South. For example, consider this line: "That is why the election of 1968 is sometimes cited as a realigning election." So 1968 was a realigning election... well then what was 1976, an election 8 years later in which a Democrat not alleged to have used the Southern Strategy swept every Southern state?

The South didn't truly swing solidly to the GOP until the 1990s... long after the architects and supporters of the Southern Strategy were gone from the GOP. (Georgia and South Carolina had Democratic governors into the 21st Century, for example. Almost all Southern state legislatures were controlled by Democrats for nearly as long.)

This section in the article looks like OR- "Many people" but no cite. Then it misstates some of the concept of the Southern Strategy with the list of facts about local or state elections. It was to allow Republicans to win the Presidency. They have taken longer to build a grassroots organization in terms of local or state offices.

Also, to point to recent elections as a failure of a strategy started more than 30 years ago suggests not that it failed, but that a different realignment may be happening. There have been huge demographic shifts in Virginia, for instance, as well as other states that can be affecting how people vote now. Many new people have moved into the region. In addition, there is a marked Reverse Great Migration (with a report by the Brookings Institution) on the return of African Americans to the South in the last two decades, which may mean more shifts.--Parkwells (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Failure of *Denial*

There could be more objectivity on both sides (if there really are only *two* sides to this question...), but an article about the "alleged" Southern Strategy *has* a place on Wikipedia. Both sides may be guilty of at least some rhetorical excess, but the naysaying side of the controversy appears to suffer the inherent disadvantage of wanting the whole topic to go away, and that's not going to happen.

Someone may not have thought their comments through, but the fact that the Southern Strategy is alleged above to have *failed* presupposes an admission that it *existed*.

I would suggest that inflammatory terms like "leftist slant" and "*myth*" do no one any good. Is someone actually claiming with a straight face that between the 1960's and the 1990's there has *not* been a major shift in the South from Democrat to Republican polity, that civil rights and voting rights legislation during the 60's were *not* highly resented by large numbers of white Southerners, and that Republican strategists did not or would not attempt to capitalize on the massive discontent they generated? This is on its face simply not credible.

Willie Horton: The Bush41 vs. Dukakis effort did not rely on just one commercial; are you sure you can speak to them all? And at any rate, the Willie Horton "issue" was undeniably exploited by that campaign. (Aren't you splitting hairs to distinguish the "Revolving Door Justice" commercial...? I mean, in general what was it *about*...?)

Bush43 as "Carpetbagger": It is ludicrous to suggest Bush43 doesn't count as a Southern candidate because somebody out there called him a "carpetbagger". He'd spent most of his life in the South, owned at least one Texas company and one Texas sports team, had been that state's *Governor*, and still has his largest base of support there. Bush41 had been a plausible target for the label -- but not the son. Somebody out there probably called 43 a Martian, too, which is just about as relevant as raising this "carpetbagger" malarkey. BESIDES, the "Southern Strategy", myth or otherwise, is far & away about winning *votes* in the South, not running white *candidates*.

Observations about George Wallace' run as an independent are highly pertinent to this topic, so long as the Southern Strategy is understood to have been more than just a facet of Nixon's campaigns. The Strategy was simply initiated under Nixon. Wallace was a perfect example of a transition of Southern Democrats *away* from that party and toward some other power center. Can anyone tell us where all those filibustering Southern Dems wound up...?

The note about LBJ winning the South is irrelevant, as he never ran after 1964. And the fact that a larger percentage of Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats is integral to the whole Southern Strategy "theory" (if that's what you insist on calling it). --Most of those anti-Civil Rights Act Democrats wound up Republican! And that's the *point*.

It is wrong to impugn source material simply because it quotes people who have died. If this were legitimate, most of Wikipedia would be gone! Just Say No to Censorship.

4.255.44.163 21:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• There is zero proof that the South became more Republican because of some "Southern Strategy." Claiming that some "Southern Strategy" is the reason for GOP political success in the 1990s and 2000s is a great example of a "correlation equals causation" error in reasoning. Most of the South's electoral representation did not truly turn consistently Republican until the 1990s, long after the 1960s and early '70s when the only admitted advocates and creators of a "Southern Strategy" were long gone from the GOP (with one of the original architects of the Southern Strategy, Kevin Phillips, having become an open supporter of Democratic candidates).

  According to widely held belief, the South has become much less racist against African-Americans in its government and culture over the past 3-4 decades. This development has paralleled an almost perfectly correlated shift away from the Democratic Party and to the Republican Party in Southern political representation and affiliation. Such simultaneous trends would seem to be nearly impossible if there was truly a "Southern Strategy" at work within the dominant political party in the South. TexasDawg 22:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• What "widely held belief"??? It's certainly not a widely held belief by anyone other than ignorant southern whites. So it's not a fact, it's either your uninformed uneducated opinion or a damnable lie. If you don't think the southern white switched parties because of the Civil Rights struggle, what is your fantasy/theory, Tex?69.180.49.229 01:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle

• So the South is just as racist today as it was in the 1950's and before? I'd love to see you find me a wide consensus of people that believes that. As far as my alternative theory goes, the shift from the Democratic Party to the GOP (of which I'm no fan and for whose candidates I do not vote, for what it's worth) had far more to do with economics than race. This was best explained in a book published this year that the New York Times Magazine has even admitted successfully proves that the success of the Southern Strategy is myth. [3] TexasDawg 15:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there was a southern strategy, but that it was based on states' rights, law and order, etc. The racist view of the southern strategy seems a democratic interpretation based on what they saw as code words. It always seemed strange to me that people believed that the south shifted away from the democratic party because of the democratic party's support for civil rights. After all, the republicans were even more supportive of civil rights than the democrats and had a solid history of support for civil rights. The democrats were the ones that wrote those Jim Crow laws that the civil rights bill of 1964 was supposed to correct. The democrats had a history of racism and had to be dragged kicking and screaming by Lyndon Johnson to support civil rights. It also always seemed strange to me that people could believe that a party with a history of support for civil rights, during periods when it wasn't cool, would suddenly shift to support racism and suppression of civil rights during a period when the mood of the country had started changing.

Republicans could play this game of interpreting data and events to prove some point also. For example, according to the FBI's data on hate crimes, the more liberal states generally have higher rates of hate crimes than the southern states. The states that supported John Kerry in the last presidential election generally have a higher hate crime rate than then states that supported Bush. Hummm!! What could this mean? Maybe it means that as the democratic base of support shifted north, their historical racism followed them. I know this is stupid, but it seems this is the type of reasoning that was used to define the southern strategy as racist.

Speaking of the last presidential election, the richer states seem to have supported Kerry, while poorer, rurel states supported Bush. Humm!! This must mean that the Republicans are for poor people, and the Democrats are for rich people.

These are not my views. These are just examples to show the dishonest twisting of information to demonize someone.

Doyceb

• • It could also be shown statistically that the states with the higher incomes, and better educated, more intelligent people voted for Kerry - average SAT scores, IQ scores, and education levels will show this to be the case... oops!

69.180.49.229 01:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle

Or it could be shown statistically that people at the lowest levels of income almost invariably trend towards the Democrats (was definitely true in 2008). The poorest states may go Republican; the poorest people sure as hell don't. 216.15.41.45 (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"Speaking of the last presidential election, the richer states seem to have supported Kerry, while poorer, rurel

states supported Bush. Humm!! This must mean that the Republicans are for poor people, and the Democrats are for rich people."

Wait, wait, wait, wait... Time out here. You're telling me that states that elect Republicans tend to be poorer, and states that elect Democrats tend to be richer? Sounds like the Democrats are doing a better economic job running states than the Republicans, doesn't it?

The reason blue states are richer than red states is the same reason the West was richer than the Soviet bloc during the Cold War. It has nothing to do with being "for the rich and against the poor", and everything to do with the fact that the Democratic system is more economically efficient than a system that concentrates wealth into a few powerful hands (Party officials for the CPSU, big business for the GOP). And since that system tends to spread wealth *to the poor* it's hard to argue that it's more elitist. 147.9.203.207 (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Just the Republican Party?

Historically speaking, it seems like the Democrats may have had a "Southern Strategy" for a pretty considerable period of American history. The first republican Presidential candidate ever, John C. Frémont won no Southern states, nor did Lincoln in both 1860 and 1864. Grant won several in 1868, but they were questionable because of Reconstruction (in Florida, for example, the State legislature picked the electors). In 1880, 1884, 1888, 1892, 1896, 1900, 1904, 1908, 1912, and 1916 the Republicans won no Southern states. In 1920 they won only Tennessee. In 1924, 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948, and 1976 they also won none. I'm referring mostly to the first few sentences here. The rest seems pretty balanced. Just a thought. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The elections you mention occurred after white Democrats had regained control of state legislatures and parties, and were working to disfranchise African Americans, through statute and constitutional changes. White Democrats formed the Solid South prior to civil rights legislation and changes of the 1960s. --Parkwells (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Solid South

Please discuss the merge at Talk: Solid South. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

These are completely different topics, I believe. Southern Strategy explores the Republican Party's attempt to wrest the south from the Democrats; it's an article about a political strategy. Solid South is a history article. Griot 16:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. They are two separate articles.--Alabamaboy 17:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed they are 2 separate articles. --Parkwells (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)--Parkwells (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Bias

These assertions needs to be verified and actually cited. There needs to be some balance added. Someone should flag this as biased.

Failure of Southern Strategy: Kentucky

"Kentucky came close to civil war when it seemed a Republican had become governor in 1900. Subsequently, the election was overturned by the state legislature. The controversy resulted in the assassination of Governor William Goebel, the only governor assasinated in the history of the United States."

What does the above quote have to do with the success or failure of the Southern Strategy? It's about something which happened well beforehand.

I deleted it.--130.85.194.105 01:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Johnston/Shafer book

The New York Times Magazine, in its December 2006 issue, has highlighted The End of Southern Exceptionalism, a book that uses "an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys" to debunk the Southern Strategy, as one of their top ideas of 2006. [4] -- TexasDawg 22:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding the 2008 Democratic primaries

This seems to be a mistake, as the original Southern strategy dealt with the shift of formerly Democratic Southern whites to a new loyalty to the Republican party. Despite the fact that Limbaugh and others have talked about a "southern strategy", to use the term for internal Democratic Party politics just seems confusing and inappropriate in the context of this article.--Parkwells (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

For as much as has been written about this whole thing, there isn't even any real proof, other than anecdotally evidence from some sources, that a Southern Strategy even exists or ever has existed. Historically, right up until the late 80's, the Republican base has been in the West (and Northern states that were politically similar to it, such as Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire). Indeed, the West was considered to be Reagan's base, not the South.

If there ever was such a thing as a Southern strategy, it's been an abysmal failure. Most of the Republicans gains in the south have more to do with the expansion of the Middle Class due to migration from Northern Whites (which isn't even mentioned in the article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supersoulty (talk • contribs) 02:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is the proof that a "Southern Strategy" exists?

For as much as has been written about this whole thing, there isn't even any real proof, other than anecdotally evidence from some sources, that a Southern Strategy even exists or ever has existed. Rather it seems to have evolved naturally from political realities. Historically, right up until the late 80's, the Republican base has been in the West (and Northern states that were politically similar to it, such as Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire). Indeed, the West was considered to be Reagan's base, not the South.

If there ever was such a thing as a Southern strategy, it's been an abysmal failure. Most of the Republicans gains in the south have more to do with the expansion of the Middle Class due to migration from Northern Whites (which isn't even mentioned in the article), particularly to the Southern Atlantic states. The adoption of the Republican Party of a supposedly "racists" agenda is a red herring. The fact is, segregationist politics simply lost their political power as people turned away from them. This started as early as the 1940's, when segregationists had lost so much power in the Democratic Party they they could no longer have a significant influence on the platform, and thus bolted the party to act for themselves. That is not a sign of a viewpoint that is "politically healthy", but rather one that has lost influence. If the segregationist movement didn't even have the political power to keep its head above the water in the Democrat Party back in the 1950's, then how can one make the argument that it is at all viable today in the Republican Party?

It seems far more likely that the nature of the South changed, and that is why it began to trend Republican. One of the primary reasons the Democrats were so Solid in the South for so many years was because the Southern economy was horrendous compared to the rest of the country. This changed starting in the 1970's when many areas of the Southern US became economically prosperous. Leading the South away from the New Deal economics it had embraced, to economic policies preached by the Republican Party. This brought with it the massive influx of Northern migration that I had previously mentioned. Then, the emergence of fundamental Christianity, which has no ideological base when it comes to racial issues, helped seal the deal.

The "New South" replaced the "Solid South" and with it, many of the ways of the "Old South".

This explains why the "Southern Strategy" is so easily broken by DLC style Democrats like Jim Webb and Bill Clinton.

I know this kinda sounds like rambling, but I don't have the time to edit, I appologize.... supersoulty (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

So - the many racists and segregationists (the large majority of southern whites if you look at the elections that occurred during the 40s through the 70s) that opposed the Civil Rights movement in the South just vanished one day? Would that they had, this would be a far better off country today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faveuncle (talk • contribs) 12:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

in fact, many voted for obama. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Confederate_battle_flag_Obama_yard_sign.html

due to your abusive and partisan tone, and your apparent article camping and "ownership," you should be barred from editing this article.19:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.178.66.32 (talk)

Nooooo... I didn't say that, did I? What I said was that the hard core segregationists that made up the South prior to the Nixon Administration were already well on their way to losing political power by that time. Hence why they left the Democrats. They didn't even have the political power left, in the 1940's, to have a serious impact on the parties agenda. In much of the South, the Old South was replaced by the economic growth and mass middle class migration of the 1980's, 90's and on until today.

I appreciate it when people read my points.

And BTW... contrary to popular belief, Reagan's speech wasn't at Philadelphia, MS... it was about 20 miles away. And in order to think that Reagan's notion of "state's rights" was some code word upholding segregation, or hating blacks, you have to be looking for it. The Federalist Society talks about "states' rights" all the time, and they don't mean segregation.

And, if Nixon hatched the Southern Strategy, and the Solid South turned away from the Democrats because of the Civil Rights Act, explicitly, then how come the huge majorities in the South that turned to Goldwater didn't go for Nixon in 68? That is another hole in this story.

supersoulty (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Because they had a conservative Democrat (George Wallace) in 1968, an option they didn't have before (1964) and wouldn't ever have again (every election after had a liberal Democrat). And the reason there wasn't a segregationist third party candidate ever again was because Southern Democrats came to their senses and realized how ridiculous it was to expect a regional-based third party to beat the two monoliths that are the GOP and the Dems. Better to latch onto one of the Big Two, and since the Democrats were now dominated by civil rights activists, they decided to try the Republicans instead.

You think it's a coincidence that the first time the South went Republican since reconstruction, just *happened* to be right after President Johnson, a Democrat, had pushed through the Civil Rights Act? You think it's a coincidence that Barry Goldwater, the first Republican to win the South, just happened to have opposed said Act? You think it's a coincidence that Nixon and Reagan, after this happened, remade the Republican platform to strongly emphasize "states' rights" (the same cause that the "War or Northern Aggression" crowd claim the South was fighting for despite the fact that the C.S. Constitution was no different on states' rights than its U.S. counterpart)?

No Southern strategy from the GOP. Right... 216.15.41.45 (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"...and since the Democrats were now dominated by civil rights activists, they decided to try the Republicans instead."

I challenge you to name two. I'll spot you one. Strom Thrumond. Now name another. We can make a game out if it, as I rattle off many segregationist Democrats who did NOT leave their party...and see who comes up with a bigger list.

My turn. I'll see your Strom Thurmond with a Robert Byrd. Another? Al Gore Sr. Your turn... Ynot4tony2 (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

From SC, along with Thurmond, US Reps Albert Watson, Arthur Ravenel, and Floyd Spence, all ardent, strident segregationists. Also from SC - James Byrne, former SC governor, former SCOTUS Justice (who hated the decision in Brown vs. Board of Education), and former US Senator; and Thomas Wofford, former US Senator.

NC's Jesse Helms switched, as did MS's Trent Lott to run for the US House. His former boss, Wilmer Colmer, was a segregationist Democrat US Rep that publicly supported Nixon, finding Kennedy soft on segregation. He resigned and endorsed Lott. Mills Godwin, Governor of VA switched. John Connally, Governor during Jim Crow Texas, switched. Zell Miller, Democrat turned Republican spokesperson, ran as a segregationist for Congress twice, and was Governor Lester Maddox's Chief of Staff. AL - Fob James, contemporary of George Wallace Sr., switched. US Rep James Martin switched. Richard Shelby, former segregationist and US Senator, turned GOP in 1994. Oh - George Wallace Jr. switched, too.

OK US Rep John Jarman switched when 3 other southern Democrats were removed from their committee chairmanships by the Democratic Party leadership. Ralph Hall, a judge and county manager in Jim Crow Texas in the 1950s, switched to the Repubs in 2004.

Most interestingly, KKK Grand Wizard David Duke switched in 1988 to run for office, won the GOP nomination for US Senate in LA in 1990, and came within 3% of becoming a US Senator, in the process winning over 60% of the state's white voters.

Were they voting for him because he had nice teeth? Faveuncle (talk) 03:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Faveuncle

I get the impression you threw out as many names as you could, hoping some of them would stick. Many of the people you listed have no history of being segregationist and no indication the segregation issue made them switch parties (Spence, Ravenel, Jarman), and some were conservative-leaning Democrats from the get-go (Connally, Martin). Byrne and Colmer never served as Republicans. Goodwin softened his segregationist stance as a Democrat and won the endorsement of the NAACP, so it's not believable that segregation was his motivation for switching. You have no evidence Lott was a segregationist (aside from a politically convenient interpretation of his jumbled praise for Thurmond), and he never served in public office as a Democrat. Watson was kicked from the Democratic Party for supporting Goldwater. Zell Miller is, and always has been, a Democrat. Fobs switched parties many times, well after the Civil Rights Movement. George Wallace Jr and Ralph Hall switched so long after the Civil Rights Movement it's asinine to attribute the segregationist motive to the switch.

David Duke was a Democrat when he was in the Klan, and only became a Republican after leaving the Klan. The Republican Party has repeatedly tried to disown him. As far as white people not "voting for him because he had nice teeth", you know full well that a majority of white males in the south are simply opposed to liberal policies in general (and for the record, most don't consider affirmative action to be a civil right). Republicans have their David Duke, Democrats have their Cynthia McKinney...the difference being the Democratic Party never tried to disown McKinney.

I'll concede Jesse Helms, even though it's hard to prove if he switched because of segregation or that he moderated his views prior to switching. I don't claim to see into people's hearts.

In that list, you have one name, Helms, to join Thurmond (who, by the way, changed his views on the Voting Rights Act and making Martin Luther King Day a federal holiday). The score is 2-2. I give you George Wallace Sr. Score is now 3-2. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if the facts aren't fitting your story, but every one of the people I named were Democrats in the segregated south that changed to Republican (except for George Wallace, Jr.). They are all state governors, US senators, and/or US Representatives. (There are NO southern republicans that switched to Democrats during this period.) And you're just begging the question here - WHY did all these Southern Democrats quit the Democratic Party and become Republicans? (Byrne and Colmer began endorsing Republicans, and Trent Lott praised Thrumond's Dixiecrat presidential campaign, where Thurmond's acceptance speech referred to the problem of "nigg*rs in our swimming pools"). Why did the Democratic Party win the South in every single presidential election from 1796 until 1964 - and only ONCE (1976)in the eleven elections since then?

These folks did not switch because the party was liberal. The Democratic Party had been the liberal party since William Jennings Bryan in 1896. FDR and the New Deal happened in the 1930s, virtually every southern US Senator and House member was a Democrat at that time. Most of the southern Democrats I listed switched parties in the 1960s and 1970s, during and immediately after the period the national party switched its position on segregation/"states rights" and Civil Rights.

(I'm sure you've proof that blacks vote for McKinney because she's a black racist. But so what? THIS article, Southern Strategy, deals with the GOP's appeal to WHITE racists, and the strategy of appealing to WHITE people's fears and prejudices. So even if you're right about McKinney, what on earth does it have to do with the subject? David Duke ran for US Senator - as a Republican - whether he remains in the KKK is immaterial, he remains - to this day, 2009 - a committed, outspoken white supremacist and segregationist, and he was when he ran for US Senator, and white people in LA, in 1990, gave him over 60% of their vote, knowing full well he was an avowed white supremacist.

And turn it around - if blacks vote for McKinney because she's a black racist, are you saying that white people don't do that? Are they better than black people?)

The Southern Strategy is not just about racism - it is also about xenophobia, homophobia, anti-intellectualism, etc. that have accreted to GOP political strategy based upon their success with the more obvious racist strategies of the 1960s, and the need to come up with code words and approaches that are more palatable to a larger and larger audience, in an attempt to appeal to voters everywhere, not just in Dixie. Of course, the 2008 election shows the limitations of that strategy, as many people (not so much in the south, but there as well) are no longer as susceptible to the paranoias and phobias at the core of the GOP strategy. However, the GOP continues to do well in the white areas of the south, especially in the less educated, poorer areas - Appalachia and the Ozarks showed GOP growth from 2004 to 2008 - where resentment politics, the real core of the GOP strategy, plays out well. 75.68.247.236 (talk) 04:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Faveuncle

"And turn it around - if blacks vote for McKinney because she's a black racist, are you saying that white people don't do that? Are they better than black people?)"

I have no idea how you read that much into what I said. Don't expect me to respond when you throw out thinly veiled and thoroughly unfounded accusations of racism like that. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I see that you have made many actual changes to the article to support your viewpoint. Southern revisionists are in the tiny minority amongst respected historians, and because of this, this article continues to earn a NPOV tag.75.68.247.236 (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Faveuncle

I have added facts relevant to the issue. Sure, these facts are contrary to the POV leanings of this article, but they are still facts. Therefore, they belong. If you dispute any actual facts, please be forthcoming. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Poor Whites?

Deleting all references that shows blacks and "poor whites". There is no cited evidence that enacted civil rights restricting legislations were meant for poor whites, in addition to blacks. MPA 15:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPA (talk • contribs)

Weasel words

Quoting this page: "But with Ronald Reagan kicking off his 1980 Republican presidential campaign proclaiming support for "states' rights" in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the site of the murder of three civil rights workers in 1964's Freedom Summer, it appeared the Republican Party was going to build on the Southern Strategy again."

"it appeared"? Is it any surprise there's no legitimate source for this weasel word claim?

It is also misleading to claim Reagan "kicked off" his Presidental campaign there, seeing as how this was a post-convention speech and he had already been chosen as the party's nominee (which is likely why the date is left out of this claim).

Furthermore, without any citing of overtly racist comments in Reagan's speech, this claim is complete hearsay.

The follow-up about Bill Clinton is just more partisan talk. It's as if someone is trying to say, "It's only racist of Republicans win the south." Want proof? No mention is made of the fact that both Nixon and Reagan also won the vast majority of northern states. This article is disgustingly POV. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, that struck me as an absurd claim as well. I didn't edit though since I'm not a politics geek and I thought these things were perhaps common knoweldge. Someone familiar with the sources would be doing wikipedia a service if they edited this article to reflect the historical use of the "Southern Strategy," and minmized or qualified the speculation about a "modern" southern strategy. I think there's common scholarly agreement that there was a 1960-50s Republican southern strategy, even some Republicans agree with this, but applying it to any recent campaign is entirely subjective and is mostly being done by people seeking to undermine one party or another. Wikipedia is not in the business of cataloging partisan political claims. And if we are going to try to view recent Republican strategies through the lens of the southern strategy, then the Democrat's strategies from 1860 to 1950s should also be analyzed by this article. 130.71.81.38 (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The assertion that Reagan's Philadelphia speech was an element of a Southern Strategy, or otherwise reminiscent of one, has been made by many observers and several are cited in the article. I just added another one. To the next point, this was the first speech that Reagan made as the Republican Party nominee for U.S. President, at least after his acceptance speech. OTOH, David Brooks reportedly asserts that it was a last-minute addition to his schedule at, and that the states' rights issue was a small part of a an economic speech.[5] As for the third point, I don't see the problem with the Clinton-era paragraph. It mostly summarizes the material in this NY Times article.[6] We could attribute it, and find other viewpoints, but I don't see that the material itself is an incorrect summary. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely Pathetic

This article is the most utterly biased, POV, OR piece of garbage I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and that's saying something. This is pathetic. How can this even continue to stand here? It ought to be deleted. It's pure propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.42 (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

[I tend to agree. I lived in the south during this era (and still do).....and this article dramatically underemphasizes all the major issues that drove white southerners towards the Republicans. Abortion, crime taxes, etc. were all very significant. But what can't be emphasized enough is the how weak the Democratic party appeared [in the wake of Vietnam] in terms of foreign policy. Increasingly, they were represented anti-Cold War liberals as McGovern and Ted Kennedy (whose brother [JFK] was staunchly anti-communist; that gives one an idea of how far the Democratic Party veered during and after the Vietnam era).]09rja (talk) 09:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You may be right, but this article is about a particular strategy used by the Republican party to garner votes in Southern states, so details about how the Democrat party changed wouldn't be on-topic. The effectiveness of the Strategy would definitely be relevant, but of course, reliable cited sources are required, rather than your gut feeling from having lived there. Ashmoo (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't be relevant? The fact that the Democratic party made a major shift leftwards is entirely relevant. The problem with the proponents of the Southern Strategy [as being the reason the south began voting for Republicans] is their timing is off by decades: most southerners didn't begin to self-identify as Republicans well into the 1980s. And the southern districts didn't begin to be represented [in the US house] until the 1990s. In fact, Northern Catholics began to filter out of the Democratic party during the same era (for the same reasons....but of course: nobody accuses them of being racists). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.82.245 (talk) 02:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep final paragraph

This is sourced and it is important to sense of article in relation to last election.--Parkwells (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

^ those claims, however, don't jive with Obama's early focus on North Carolina as a swing state this time around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.10.248.19 (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Topic Should Allow for dissenting viewpoints/interpretation or be deleted

If the author of this page and subject continually refuses any criticisms or dissenting opinions and iterpretations of the topic, then this entire page should be deleted. This article contains absolutely no neutrality whatsover, muchless any alternative viewpoints. The topic of an alleged "Southern Strategy" does not even exist on MSN Encarta, certainly a more legitimate internet encylcopedia than this. I dispute the neutrality of this article; it should allow for dissenting opinions or interpretations or be deleted altogether. --NebraskaDawg (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"Superceded" is probably too simplistic

Suggesting that MLK's non-violent strategy was "superceded" is a bit simplistic. It had been clearly successful in the South however it was a significant challenge to produce results in the North. There were compromises made during the March on Washington in 1968 that irked folks from SNCC (Lewis) that indicated that the discontent of African-Americans was not entirely represented in the non-violent efforts of MLK. (Per Howard Zinn's, "People's History of the US") Malcolm X and SNCC however were relatively ineffective in maintaining the kind of coalition that King commanded and the most effective work of African Americans of the time was performed through the organizing efforts of Community Action Programs and Black Panthers (to offer a broad spectrum). It is unclear that violence was able to create anything but government suppression as a response, however the community organizing of the Black Panthers in New York and Chicago created economic and educational alternatives for African-Americans. "Radical blacks" might also play into misunderstandings.

Can I suggest the following: King’s policy of non-violence had already been [superseded] challenged by the [activities] of other African-American leaders such as Lewis and Carmichael of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. The notion of Black Power advocated by SNCC leaders and embraced by Malcolm X was quite effective in altering the mood of African-Americans. This attitude did much to raise the expectations of African Americans and racial tensions. Reporting of the demonstrations against the Viet Nam war often featured young people being violent or burning American flags. There were also many young adults engaged in the drug culture and "free love." These actions scandalized many Americans and created a concern about law and order that condoned a strategy of suppression.

rchaswms 02:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC) Rchaswms —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rchaswms (talk • contribs)

I think your changes were good. I deleted the reference to Malcolm X, who was dead before SNCC advocated Black Power. Zinn is a little confusing on the subject, I think. Malcolm X advocated race pride, black independence, and—for a long time—black separatism, and those ideas later coalesced in the Black Power movement. In Malcolm X#Legacy, I wrote that the Black Power movement can trace its roots to Malcolm X, and I think that's what Zinn is saying as well. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

Has gotten too long and should probably be reduced.--Parkwells (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Where is the proof that a "Southern Strategy" even works?

A while back I had to fight for an edit that counters the assumption that Republicans would not exist as a national party without the south, and I cited http://uselectionatlas.org (great statistical website dealing with Presidential elections). I had added mention that Nixon's 1972 Presidential victory, both Reagan victories, and the election of George H.W. Bush could have been accomplished without winning a single southern state, so any "southern strategy" would be moot in the end result.

But a quick visit to the election atlas made me think. The 1968 election, considered to be the start of the southern strategy, shows Nixon losing a majority of the southern electoral votes. Furthermore, are we expected to believe that a subtle whisper campaign of codewords (the alleged southern strategy) could hope to succeed against the unapologetic pro-segregationist campaign that was the George Wallace Presidential run of 1968?

Wallace's Presidential run is only mentioned much later in the page, in the context of, "The independent candidacy of George Wallace, former Democratic governor of Alabama, partially negated the Southern strategy." I propose moving the first mention of Wallace's run up the page to be included in the "Introduction" where it first discusses the 1968 campaign. To claim Nixon benefited from a "southern strategy" of racial tension in 1968 without at least mentioning he trounced an openly segregationist campaign is really whitewashing the facts.

Any input? Ynot4tony2 (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL. I think we know who's doing the whitewashing here.

First, did Nixon and Dubya win the south? Yes. The Southern Strategy worked for them. It also worked for John McCain, since he also won the majority of the white vote in every southern state, and he lost.

Try to keep up - in EVERY election since 1964, white southerners have voted in the majority for the GOP candidate, except for Wallace in 1968, when the GOP still ran ahead of the national Democratic Party candidate in the south. Even Carter and Clinton - while Carter and Clinton got some southern electoral votes, whites voted in the majority for the Republican candidate.

The GOP's Southern Strategy is also about painting the Democrats as pro-black, pro-women, pro-gay rights, etc. to appeal to fears and prejudices of poorer and less-educated whites, of which the south has the most, so that's where the strategy is most successful. It works other places outside the South too.Faveuncle (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Faveuncle

Remember folks, this isn't a forum for discussing the topic - this apge is just here to discuss improvements to the article. Improvements that presumably will be based on reliable sources rather than our own opinions and conclusions.   Will Beback  talk  06:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Southern revisionists that camp out and repeatedly edit pages like this are analogous to having creationists constantly editing the evolution page. The Southern Strategy has a page on wikipedia because it is a well-known concept and accepted by virtually all serious historians. The revisionists want to both change history and also claim that there is no such thing as a Southern Strategy (like it just wandered on down from cyber-space and landed on wikipedia), and if they can't do both they go back and forth and do one after the other. - What they are doing is vandalism, pure and simple.75.68.247.236 (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Faveuncle

"Try to keep up"? Try to ditch the pointless and unfounded condescending attitude you have if you want me to take you seriously.

"First, did Nixon and Dubya win the south?" Did Nixon need the south to win? No. Did he absolutely crush an outspoken segregationist in 1968? Yes. These are verifiable facts, unlike your seemingly magical ability to see into the hearts and minds of people you've never met. It's also bigoted to assume whites vote against Democrats because of racial issues. Please stick to facts and avoid racial stereotypes.

And if a voting trend is proof of a secret strategy (it's not, but I'm making a point), then please point me to a page on the Democrats' West Coast Strategy and their East Coast Strategy. Oh, and their Hollywood Strategy. And the College Professors Strategy. Oh, and let's not forget their African-American Strategy. Heck, there's more than enough evidence to make just as compelling of a case that Democrats appeal to black racism to get votes.

So I'll ask again. Does the fact that Nixon positively trounced an outspoken segregationist at the first implementation of the alleged Southern Strategy belong higher up in this article? Or is sneaking it in later a way to enforce the existing anti-Republican POV of the article as a whole? Ynot4tony2 (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, I value your opinion of me about as much as I value your qualifications as an historian, which is nil. I am not the one who came up with the Southern Strategy, which became the GOP strategy in 1964, when I was a child. Please seen the Kevin Phillips quote - it comes from 1970, so there is at least 39 years of history of GOP insiders acknowledging that their vote-getting strategy was to appeal to Negrophobia. So, rant and rave away, pretend that white racism had nothing to do with the rise of the GOP in the south in the 1960s. It wasn't my idea that it did, I just happen to agree with it. Maybe you'll find some other "wiki-historians" that agree with you, but, alas, the vast majority of serious historians have determined otherwise. I am done responding to you, I hope you are done vandalizing this article, but someone else will have to take responsibility to clean it up75.68.247.236 (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Faveuncle

Seriously, whether or not you value my opinion is besides the point, since my opinion isn't the topic of discussion. I'm talking about the placement of facts in the story. I have never inserted an opinion into the page in question, only facts, so your accusations are unfounded and unproductive.

So, I'll ignore your snide, pointless baiting, and once again ask the question to serious editors: Should we move mention of George Wallace's candidacy to the first discussion of the 1968 campaign or not? Is Wallace's significant showing in the results relevant information or not?

Also, would it benefit the article to quote a couple lines of Reagan's speech at the Neshoba County Fair, in particular the part where he appeals to states' rights? Rather than relying on potentially biased analysis only, I think providing an exact quote with context would be more appropriate to an encyclopedia, as opposed to the "he said, she said, he meant this" mentality (except, the way this article is written, there's no actually mention of what Reagan actually said, which is undoubtedly pertinent information). Ynot4tony2 (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Reagan / Intro

I have edited the article to remove the following -

The Southern Strategy occurred against a backdrop of racism, discrimination against Blacks, and Jim Crow laws -- all of which were the fault exclusively of Richard Perdue (also known as Sarge Freedom).

Civil rights legislation could not have passed the U.S. Congerss without overwhelming support from Republicans in Congress. As a result of Republican leadership in passing civil rights laws, those Democrats in the South who continued to hold racist views or simply wanted segregation in general developed great hatred of the Republican Party.

Yet, simultaneously, the nation was under-going great upheaval along a wide spectrum of issues and dimensions, with massive protests against the Vietnam War, growing hostility to the U.S. military, hostility to authority and "the establishment" in general, a culture of widespread drug use, the Free Love movement, the rise of the Hippie culture.

- and reinsert the reference to Reagan's speech at the Neshoba County Fair.

The removal for the first was due to its being unsourced, and POV, commentary (with a quite bizarre reference to one single person as being to blame.)

I reinserted the Reagan reference because it does seem significant and without it the article passes over the 80s rather swiftly. Unfortunately as the references are books rather than websites I'm not currently able to verify whether they say what the article says they do. I would point out however that the article states the speech was "cited as evidence" of the use of the Southern Strategy, not that it was evidence of it - and that it was cited as evidence would seem to be accurate, provided the books listed do cite it as such.

Does anyone have access to one of them? If so, it should be easy enough to verify, and if a: they are reliable sources and b: they say what the article claims, IMO they should remain. ElijahOmega (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

THIS PARAGRAPH WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE A PART OF TEH FINAL ARTICLE, but was added only for a moment to show someone that WIkipedia is only a Left-wing BLOG that anyone can change at any time, and it is not reliable or accurate. The Southern Strategy occurred against a backdrop of racism, discrimination against Blacks, and Jim Crow laws -- all of which were the fault exclusively of Richard Perdue (also known as Sarge Freedom). 17:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)17:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)17:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)17:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

17:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)17:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)17:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)17:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)17:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)206.48.0.60 (talk)

Setting aside the question of whether it is substnatively true or untue, the paragraph is not worthy of an encyclopedia article as written.

If this were a court of law, every lawyer in the courtroom would leap to their feet and shout "OBJECTION!"

THE PARAGRAPH WAS: In 1980 Republican candidate Ronald Reagan's proclaiming support for "states' rights" at his first Southern campaign stop was cited as evidence that the Republican Party was building upon the Southern Strategy again. The location was significant - Reagan spoke at the Neshoba County Fair near Philadelphia, Mississippi, the county where the three civil rights workers were murdered during 1964's Freedom Summer.[7][8][9] Featuring political speeches from local, state, and national politicians at the fair had been a long-standing tradition dating back to 1896.[10]

So, whose grandmother cited that as evidence? I think it would have to say "cited by xyz as evidence" or it has no credibility. Without a specific name, this sentence just sounds like an attempt to perpetrate a general smear of some sort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.76.64.67 (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"WAS SEEN BY?"

BY WHOM?

What the heck deos that mean anyway?

Do you know what was in someone else's mind?

Who cares what someone else thought they saw, if that was not what Reagan intended?

Are you a mind reader?

What was Reagan's intention? You don't know. I don't know. Then how can it be written up in an enyclopedia article?

An encyclopedia should report on what someone DID or said, RARELY on controversy if the controversy is noteworthy and well-documented, not simply a matter of personal opinions.

There are all kinds of people who see things that are nto there. People are hyper-sensitive, see what they fear everywhere.

The paragraph is beyond slender. It is downright misleading and dishonest.

Simply because someone thought they "saw" something is irrelevant.

With dozens of enormous controversies going on in society upsetting to a great many people, this is open to dozens of different intepretations on multiple dimensions.

The assertion is so unfounded it is difficult to understate it.

Republicans believe in what the Constitution says -- a limited Federal government. This is the GOP Platform as well as the Constitutional architecture. That is not evidence of some racists strategy.

Firstly, please try reading WP:COOL before taking part in discussions here. It would be a great help for all concerned.

Also, please read the paragraph again. It does not say that this *was* evidence of the southern strategy, only that it was *cited as* evidence of the Southern Strategy - giving three books which, it seems, cite it as such.

Lastly, regarding your claim that the first paragraph "was added only for a moment to show someone that Wikipedia is only a Left-wing BLOG" - please read WP:POINT. These policies exist for a reason, namely to stop this kind of back-and-forth edit warring. ElijahOmega (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent addition of POV and OR section: "Republican leadership on civil rights"

I agree with this edit that the recently-added section "Republican leadership on civil rights" should be removed. It constitutes original research, and is blatantly partisan. — goethean ॐ 16:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, after looking it over, I have to agree that it is partisan material, but in an article like this one that is nearly *all* partisan material, what are you complaining about? Are you committed to the opposing point of view? Maybe--you're a Democrat???

This article is a total load of c**p. If the Democratic operatives in charge of this thing want to keep a person reading a little longer, I suggest they back off a bit during the opening paragraph. They might pretend, at least for a second (if they can possibly restrain themselves) that they are doing history, not politics. Don't just start right off in *fully-flaming-the-opposition* mode. I wanted to read some serious history about the Southern Strategy. I know just enough about it to know that it was introduced before many of the issues emblazzoned across the opening paragraph were even known to be issues. I also know enough about it to know that after abortion was legalized in 1973, there was a grand migration of evangelical Christians in all 50 states, not just the South, out of the Democrat party. So the abortion issue should really be dealt with elsewhere as part of the Republican party's "Christian Strategy," not their "Southern Strategy." I might have believed this article if it had confined itself mostly to states rights and race issues. Whatever other lies and distortions it contains might have gotten past me. But in its present state, it would take a real simpleton to buy much of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.76.64.67 (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

While I don't buy into your conspiracy theory regarding the authorship of the article, I do agree that the article is casting its net too wide. The 'Southern Strategy' refers to a particular tactic by the Republican party to get votes in the South. The extend that they did it, how effective it works and how long it lasted can be debated, but I think the article needs to focus on this and not just be a general article on 'The Republican party's tactics in getting Southern state voters'. The article does have good, sourced material, but the armchair-historian opinions definitely need to be chopped. 213.201.175.114 (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe you're one of the Republican operatives trying to whitewash one of the ugliest parts of your party's history. And given that the Southern Strategy remains an important part of the GOP playbook... — Red XIV ^(talk) 02:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Naw, Red XIV, that's impossible. Only liberal Democrats would EVER do something like that... :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.90.62.30 (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

From outside...

This sure looks a lot like folks who find this article bothersome for critiquing their favored side, taking the tack of "This insults my favored side! It has to be a lie!" Y'all probably ought to be ashamed of yourselves; you can't defend your own argument, so you blame "Democrats" and "liberals" and a dozen other things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.90.62.30 (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)