Talk:Southern strategy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Massive Corrections Needed[edit]

The 'Southern Strategy' as described here has never been used by Republicans, and as such, the page needs either deletion or a drastic re-write. I would undertake this effort myself, however, major changes like this are almost always rolled back if they don't come with a proper talk page discussion on it.

The Southern Strategy relies on a set of Myths.

The First Myth: In order to be competitive in the south, Republicans started to pander to white racists in the 1960s.

Refutation: Republicans actually became competitive in the south as early as 1928, when Republican Herbert Hoover won over 47% of the south's popular vote against Democrat Al Smith. In 1952, Republican Dwight Eisenhower won the southern states of Tennessee, Florida, and Virginia, picking up Louisiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia in 1956, in addition to those won in 1952. The 1956 election was AFTER he had supported the decision in Brown V. Board of Education, causing desegregation and even sending troops to areas, such as Little Rock, to enforce the policy.

The Second Myth: Southern Democrats, Angry with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, switched parties.

Refutation: Of the 21 Democrat senators who opposed the Civil Rights Act, just one became a Republican. The other 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by other Democrats who were chosen by the same people who chose those first 20 opposers. On average, those 20 seats didn't go Republican for 25 years.

The Third Myth: Since the implementation of the southern strategy, the Republicans have dominated the south.

Refutation: Richard Nixon, the man often accredited with the southern strategy, actually LOST the deep south. Jimmy Carter, however, took nearly the entire deep south in 1976. Even in 1992, under Bill Clinton, most of the original confederate states had still voted Democrat. Republicans didn't even hold a majority of southern congressional seats until 1994.

As was written by Kevin Williamson, at the National Review, "If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so. They say things move slower in the south - but not that slow."

So, what really happened? Why does the South now vote overwhelmingly Republican? Because the South itself has changed. Its values have changed. The racism that once defined it, doesn't anymore. Its values today are conservative ones: pro-life, pro-gun, and pro-small government.

And here's the proof: Southern whites are far more likely to vote for a black conservative, like Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, than a white liberal.

In short, history has moved on. Like other regions of the country, the South votes values, not skin color. The myth of the Southern Strategy is just the Democrats’ excuse for losing the South, and yet another way to smear Republicans with the label "racist.”

Sources and Facts: Myth 1: Republicans gaining traction in the 1920s: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/04/30/southern_whites_shift_to_the_gop_predates_the_60s_118172.html

Herbert Hoover's win percentage, along with the states picked up by Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/elections.php

Richard Nixon losing the "racist" deep south after allegedly using a racist strategy: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelection.php?year=1968

Even in 1969, Political commentators such as Kevin Phillips, had already realized the Republican platform wasn't compatible with the deep south, with Phillips writing, "the Republican Party cannot go to the Deep South. The Deep South must soon go to the national GOP." http://www.claremont.org/crb/article/the-myth-of-the-racist-republicans/

Myth2: Democrat Robert C. Byrd led a 14-hour filibuster to the Civil Rights Act, and stayed a Democrat for 51 years. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Civil_Rights_Filibuster_Ended.htm

Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the Civil Rights Act, just one became a Republican. The other 20 remained Democrat or were replaced by Democrats. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=980DE0D8123DEE3ABC4E52DFBF66838F679EDE&legacy=true

A total of 80% of Republicans in both houses of Congress voted for the Civil Rights Act. Only 60% of Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act. http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/10/politics/civil-rights-act-interesting-facts/

Myth 3: Richard Nixon losing "racist" deep south states after the alleged racist strategy. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelection.php?year=1968

Jimmy Carter sweeping the "racist" deep south 12 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1954. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelection.php?year=1976

Bill Clinton, 1992, 28 years after the CRAo1964, won deep south states. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelection.php?year=1992

Republicans didn't hold a majority of southern state congressional seats until 1994, a full 30 years after the CRAo1964. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelection.php?year=1992

Kevin Williamson's National Review article: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/300432/party-civil-rights-kevin-d-williamson

Nixon, the accredited creator of the southern strategy, is actually responsible for:

Raising civil rights enforcement budget by 800%, instituting the first affirmative action policies, had a record number of black appointees, and increased small business loans to blacks from the federal government by 1000%. https://townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2014/07/03/nixons-southern-strategy-and-a-liberal-big-lie-n1858667 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.72.139 (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH. Volunteer Marek 06:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Synthesis by who? -- Frotz(talk) 19:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
The IP is throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks and claiming that together it all means the Southern Strategy was a myth. The IP is making their own argument. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Can someone add the following content to a relevant section in this article:

I wrote this on the Republican Party (United States) article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I can't find any appropriate place in the article as it is currently composed. Perhaps the "scholarly debate" section, but it seems more generalized, so it would need consensus to be put into the lead. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 17:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Race, Campaign Politics, and the Realignment in the South". yalebooks.yale.edu. Retrieved June 9, 2018.
  2. ^ Bullock, Charles S.; Hoffman, Donna R.; Gaddie, Ronald Keith (2006). "Regional Variations in the Realignment of American Politics, 1944–2004". Social Science Quarterly. 87 (3): 494–518. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2006.00393.x. ISSN 0038-4941. Retrieved June 9, 2018. The events of 1964 laid open the divisions between the South and national Democrats and elicited distinctly different voter behavior in the two regions. The agitation for civil rights by southern blacks, continued white violence toward the civil rights movement, and President Lyndon Johnson's aggressive leadership all facilitated passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. [...] In the South, 1964 should be associated with GOP growth while in the Northeast this election contributed to the eradication of Republicans.
  3. ^ Gaddie, Ronald Keith (February 17, 2012). "Realignment". Oxford Handbooks Online. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195381948.013.0013. Retrieved June 9, 2018.
  4. ^ Stanley, Harold W. (1988). "Southern Partisan Changes: Dealignment, Realignment or Both?". The Journal of Politics. 50 (1): 64–88. doi:10.2307/2131041. ISSN 0022-3816. Retrieved June 9, 2018. Events surrounding the presidential election of 1964 marked a watershed in terms of the parties and the South (Pomper, 1972). The Solid South was built around the identification of the Democratic party with the cause of white supremacy. Events before 1964 gave white southerners pause about the linkage between the Democratic party and white supremacy, but the 1964 election, passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 altered in the minds of most the positions of the national parties on racial issues.
  5. ^ Miller, Gary; Schofield, Norman (2008). "The Transformation of the Republican and Democratic Party Coalitions in the U.S." Perspectives on Politics. 6 (3): 433–450. doi:10.1017/S1537592708081218. ISSN 1541-0986. Retrieved June 9, 2018. 1964 was the last presidential election in which the Democrats earned more than 50 percent of the white vote in the United States.
  6. ^ "The Rise of Southern Republicans — Earl Black, Merle Black". hup.harvard.edu. Harvard University Press. Retrieved June 9, 2018. When the Republican party nominated Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater—one of the few northern senators who had opposed the Civil Rights Act—as their presidential candidate in 1964, the party attracted many racist southern whites but permanently alienated African-American voters. Beginning with the Goldwater-versus-Johnson campaign more southern whites voted Republican than Democratic, a pattern that has recurred in every subsequent presidential election. [...] Before the 1964 presidential election the Republican party had not carried any Deep South state for eighty-eight years. Yet shortly after Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, hundreds of Deep South counties gave Barry Goldwater landslide majorities.
  7. ^ a b "Issue Evolution". Princeton University Press. Retrieved June 9, 2018.
  8. ^ Miller, Gary; Schofield, Norman (2003). "Activists and Partisan Realignment in the United States". American Political Science Review. 97 (2): 245–260. doi:10.1017/S0003055403000650. ISSN 1537-5943. Retrieved June 9, 2018. By 2000, however, the New Deal party alignment no longer captured patterns of partisan voting. In the intervening 40 years, the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts had triggered an increasingly race-driven distinction between the parties. [...] Goldwater won the electoral votes of five states of the Deep South in 1964, four of them states that had voted Democratic for 84 years (Califano 1991, 55). He forged a new identification of the Republican party with racial conservatism, reversing a century-long association of the GOP with racial liberalism. This in turn opened the door for Nixon's "Southern strategy" and the Reagan victories of the eighties.
  9. ^ Valentino, Nicholas A.; Sears, David O. (2005). "Old Times There Are Not Forgotten: Race and Partisan Realignment in the Contemporary South". American Journal of Political Science. 49 (3): 672–688. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2005.00136.x. ISSN 0092-5853. Retrieved June 9, 2018.
  10. ^ Ilyana, Kuziemko,; Ebonya, Washington,. "Why Did the Democrats Lose the South? Bringing New Data to an Old Debate". American Economic Review. doi:10.1257/aer.20161413&&from=f. ISSN 0002-8282. Retrieved June 9, 2018.

Is it a myth?[edit]

I read that this story is a myth. I am not an expert on this. https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/402754-the-myth-of-nixons-southern-strategy https://newstalk1130.iheart.com/featured/common-sense-central/content/2018-05-01-the-myth-of-the-republican-democrat-switch/ https://71republic.com/2018/08/13/myth-big-southern-party-switch/72.76.163.6 (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Those are opinion pieces and not reliable sources for anything other than the opinions of their authors. Dinesh D'Souza, for example, is a conspiracy theorist and convicted criminal who was pardoned by Donald Trump. We need high quality reliable sources for use in this article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiprVX4os2Y72.76.163.6 (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Can someone provide some context, instead of just posting a YouTube link with nothing else? Acroterion (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not specifically endorsing the content but the link is to a video of Carol Swan, a Vanderbilt University poly sci professor talking about the political conversion of the south. It would fit with the links the IP editor included above. Springee (talk) 03:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

https://amgreatness.com/2018/07/29/the-switch-that-never-happened-how-the-south-really-went-gop/72.76.163.6 (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

This is an opinion piece written by a far-right leaning, radicalized republican and convicted felon, Dinesh D'Souza. DN (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you could point out where he's wrong or at the very least invalid rather than heaping meaningless abuse on him. You don't seem to be aware that hiis conviction (which was pardoned) was for what's usually a technical violation that one wouldn't ordinarily think of as criminal, yet the book was thrown at him. That seems to happen a lot these days to people who cross powerful leftists. -- Frotz(talk) 05:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
You could try reading the article itself, perhaps? DN (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
WP is not a sounding board for left wing or right wing politics - see WP:NPOV DN (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
While both Both D'Souza and Carol M. Swain (who wrote the introduction to D'Souza's history of the Democratic Party) were academics, their more controversial views have not been published in academic books or papers and therefore have no weight and their polemical works are not reliable sources. This article already has by the way alternative views, including the suburban strategy which holds that the south became conservative as a suburban middle class arose which, in common with the rest of the country, voted Republican. TFD (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I do not agree that Swain's views couldn't find weight in this article. She is clearly an expert in the field with sound credentials. Most of the sources we cite are books which aren't going to have much more scrutiny than an opinion article. I wouldn't give it much weight vs the bulk of the article but none isn't appropriate either. If D'Souza also has credentials that would make home an expert opinion (I don't know much about him) and they agree that would add more weight for inclusion as a counter POV. Springee (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Swain's views on the subject are WP:FRINGE and are not published in academic outlets. Swain's academic books used to refer to the "Southern strategy"[1], whereas her more recent commentary in right-wing outlets known for fringe BS and hoaxes describes this as a myth invented by the leftwing media. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
There is no evidence that her view is fringe vs just a minority view on the subject. Are you suggesting that she doesn't have the credentials needed to have such a pov? Hey reply to Kruse addresses her previous use of the southern strategy and she specifically notes that as she studied the issue more she decided the common view didn't fit the facts. That send like exactly the sort of material that should be included. [[2]] This is clearly a minority view but a view held by an expect in the field who felt it was worth offering an opinion on the subject. Springee (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
If she had any credible evidence or substantive arguments to bring to the debate, she'd publish it in academic outlets. That's what actual scientists do. They would not publish op-eds in a Tennessee version of Breitbart[3] and 4 minute videos for right-wing propaganda outlets. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
NO one has to prove that views are fringe. Fringe means that views have received little or no attention in mainstream sources. They are views that have not entered into mainstream discussion whatsoever. It is up to someone wanting to add them to prove they are not fringe. TFD (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
WP:RS allows the views of experts in the field to be included. Are you claiming she doesn't have credentials to be an expert in the field? Springee (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
No, it does not. While it allows their work to considered reliable, it does not establish any weight for their opinions. Believe me, if an expert had a head injury and thought unicorns exist, we would not consider that a mainstream view. TFD (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
This is all covered by WP:FRINGE: "Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight" Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
If you read WP:FRINGE/PS you will see it largely involved pseudoscience, rather than minority views in the social sciences. Also, Swain references Prof Gerard Alexander who is critical of claims of dog whistle and Aistrup's work which makes much use of dog whistle claims. This is a case where we can use common sense. We have an expert in the field saying the theory doesn't makes sense on critical review. She is able to show other experts are critical of one of the foundational parts of the Southern Strategy narrative. Even the bottom up strategy is critical of the top down, dog whistle version. To be clear, I'm not interested in wading further into this article but I also don't think the way people are trying to dismiss an expert opinion is in the spirit of Wikipedia. From WP:RS When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.[notes 2] If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces.[7][8]
Alexander's review of Aistrup's work (the work in question is widely cited in out article [[4]] back's Swain's views... or, given publication dates, Alexander's view is backed by Swain. Either way, we have two experts in the field who dispute the claims. That should be enough for inclusion as a minority view on the subject. Springee (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
In fact I do read policy and guidelines before citing them. WP:FRINGE says, "To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea." It does not matter that most of the examples are in natural science or conspiracism, it applies to all subjects. TFD (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, and fringe is talking about pseudoscience which this isn't. Also we have have at least two experts who say the facts don't fit. That's no longer fringe. Springee (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Please cite fringe where it says it only applies to pseudoscience and provide sources that claim these writers are experts in the subject. Incidentally, whether or not what they are saying is true is irrelevant but whether it has acceptance in mainstream sources. TFD (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Fringe/PS, it's talking about academics and pseudoscience. It's not saying that an a credentialed expert in the field who doesn't agree with the orthodox view should be dismissed as fringe. Also, we don't just have one expert saying this. Swain's academic credentials include Prof positions at Vanderbilt and Princeton. Furthermore, her views align with Dr Alexander's (UVA). Sure, we can't show that they represent anything more than a minority view but how would keeping this information out of the article be good for our readers? Take Alexander's questions regarding dog whistle claims (a core part of the this article)
Let's start with policies. Like many others, Carter and the Black brothers argue that the GOP appealed to Southern racism not explicitly but through "coded" racial appeals. Carter is representative of many when he says that Wallace's racialism can be seen, varying in style but not substance, in "Goldwater's vote against the Civil Rights Bill of 1964, in Richard Nixon's subtle manipulation of the busing issue, in Ronald Reagan's genial demolition of affirmative action, in George Bush's use of the Willie Horton ads, and in Newt Gingrich's demonization of welfare mothers."
The problem here is that Wallace's segregationism was obviously racist, but these other positions are not obviously racist. This creates an analytic challenge that these authors do not meet. If an illegitimate viewpoint (racism) is hidden inside another viewpoint, that second view—to be a useful hiding place—must be one that can be held for entirely legitimate (non-racist) reasons. Conservative intellectuals might not always linger long enough on the fact that opposition to busing and affirmative action can be disguised racism. On the other hand, these are also positions that principled non-racists can hold. To be persuasive, claims of coding must establish how to tell which is which. Racial coding is often said to occur when voters are highly prone to understanding a non-racist message as a proxy for something else that is racist. This may have happened in 1964, when Goldwater, who neither supported segregation nor called for it, employed the term "states' rights," which to many whites in the Deep South implied the continuation of Jim Crow.
The problem comes when we try to extend this forward. Black and Black try to do this by showing that Nixon and Reagan crafted positions on busing, affirmative action, and welfare reform in a political climate in which many white voters doubted the virtues of preferential hiring, valued individual responsibility, and opposed busing as intrusive. To be condemned as racist "code," the GOP's positions would have to come across as proxies for these views -and in turn these views would have to be racist. The problem is that these views are not self-evidently racist. Many scholars simply treat them as if they were. Adding insult to injury, usually they don't even pause to identify when views like opposition to affirmative action would not be racist.
This isn't some sort of radical counter argument and it's coming from a published review of an academic press book and was published by an academic source. How much do you want to see before you decide it graduates from "fringe" just to "minority view"? Are you suggesting this is pseudoscience? If not, then why try to keep it out (again I'm not interested in making the effort to include it but I would support inclusion). Springee (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Neither of these people are credentialled experts in the field, but even if they were and had papers about the Southern strategy published in academic journals and even if those views were coherent and well-argued (none of which applies btw) they would still be fringe if they were ignored in the bulk of the literature. Fringe in the policy does not mean fake or incoherent, it merely means lack of acceptance. Readers don't want to read about theories that their textbooks and experts in the field ignore. That's not to say they cannot be mentioned - there are lots of articles about fringe theories, but they do not belong here

Also, could you please explain what criticism of the theory of the Southern Strategy they add that is not already included in the article but sourced to actual experts?

TFD (talk) 05:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the burden would be on you to explain why neither are experts in the field. We could review their respective publications to decide if they have work published in this area even if not specifically on the southern strategy. Their criticism of the majority view would be reasonable for inclusion. Are you claiming their criticism aren't reasonable it valid? Springee (talk) 10:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The Claremont Institute is not an academic source. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Alexander's The Fog of Political War: Predicting the Future Course of Conservatism was published by The Journal of Political History, Cambridge University Press. Again, as experts who are specifically critical of claims used to support the orthodox view this seems like DUE criticism. What do our readers gain by sheltering then from these decenting views? Do we think their counter arguments are so nonsensical as to not merit mention? Springee (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Where in that publication does Alexander dispute the Southern Strategy? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
D'Souza is not an academic by any stretch of the imagination. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: I came across this page because I was doing cleanup work related to fraudulent sources. The comment of 23:57, 14 March 2019 posted by Springee, cited an article in the Tennessee Star as evidence. The website claims to be a local newspaper, but no such newspaper exists. The website is one of a batch of clone websites produced by a campaign financing org, backed by PAC money.[5] In the current political climate, local newspapers are considered one of the few relatively trusted news sources... so of course campaign donations flowed into a project to spam fake websites pretending to be local newspapers, to push campaign propaganda. Such websites should not be considered Reliable sources for anything, and especially not reliable evidence to support any political-related argument.

I only skimmed the discussion above, but I see dispute on the definition and presentation of fringe views. While Fringe often comes up in relation to pseudoscience, it is a fundamental element of general NPOV policy. Our NPOV mission here is to summarize what Reliable Sources say. In section DUE, of the NPOV policy, it states: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. It goes on to say Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Section FALSEBALANCE says While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it.

If someone wants to present a view that the Southern Strategy is a myth, it is not sufficient merely to cite one academic with that view. It is necessary to demonstrate DUE WEIGHT, to show that the view receives a significant proportion of attention among all of the professionals in that field. While I am not an expert on the Southern Strategy, I think it unlikely that the myth-theory gets much attention from experts in the field, unless that attention takes the form of discrediting apologists or denialists. If the article does cover some sort of myth viewpoint, I expect that coverage will largely take the form of summarizing expert discreditation of that view. Alsee (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Alsee:, to be clear I'm not currently trying to add this information. This article is to political for me to wade into without some other logged in editor offering support. I also agree that we would need to avoid a section that says "myth". However I do have some criticism of your comments. First, we have two experts in the field (and this isn't a huge field) who are critical of this specific theory. Their views are not radical or illogical and, in the case of Alexander, have gathered mainstream (NPR at least) attention. Swain's credentials are sound and her views are aligned with Alexander. I wasn't giving weight to Swain based on publication in the Tennessee Star. Rather, I would see that as "expert criticism" which could come from a blog if need be. We also have the backdrop of that publication. Swain was featured in a video on the subject. Kruise felt it was important to address her comments. She replied. The fact that we have two academics debating this also suggests that there is something here. If nothing else, I would argue for inclusion based on IAR. As I asked before, how does it harm our readers to include things like Alexander questioning the dog whistle evidence that is a key pillar of the theory? Springee (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
But there isn't an academic debate going on about this. Alexander and Swain are publishing their ideas in fringe outlets, not in academic outlets. Kruise addressed Swain's video, because Swain's fringe ideas in the PragerU video are contaminating public discourse (the video has more than 6 million views). Kruise also addresses fringe ideas when expressed by the likes of Jacob Wohl and Dinesh D'Souza. That doesn't mean they are also engaging in an "academic debate". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I'll start by reiterating that I'm not going to make changes to the article without some other editors supporting the changes. If nothing else, CONSENSUS doesn't support a change at this time so our discussion is a friendly disagreement. Alexander's The Fog of Political War article does discuss the flaws he see's in the Southern Strategy narrative (sadly I no longer have easy access to a research library to access the full article) [[6]]. You would have to show that Alexander's views are published in fringe outlets (CRB isn't fringe nor was his NPR discussion). Your opinion on PragerU "contaminating" is perhaps true but how is that contamination different than many of the leftist publications that do the same? The accusation that is "contaminates" vs say, "raises questions that can be addressed by X,Y,Z" suggests bias in your own views on the subject vs anything about the claims made in the video. Again, Swain and Alexander clearly have the needed credentials to provide expert opinions in this area (Alexander in particular). Kruise replied to Swain and Swain replied back with reasonable answers. Let me close with a simple question, do you think Alexander's criticism of the claims of "dog whistle" (in blue above) are reasonable? Springee (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Can you please read Southern strategy#Scholarly debates and tell what arguments against the Southern Strategy theory are not presented that you think should be included? TFD (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Read it? I helped write it. Since I'm not proposing specific edits why would I suggest specific edits? Currently such an effort would be pointless because several editors have made it clear they would object based on weight regardless of the quality of the arguments in the sources. That results in a CONSENSUS problem. Springee (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
In other words, D'Souza and Swain add nothing to the debate, they merely repeat criticism already provided by actual experts and included in the article, and there is no reason to use their non-scholarly works as sources. TFD (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
When was I taking about D'Souza? Swain and Alexander both not the issue with claiming Dog Whistle. Do you think Alexander's dog whistle concerns are flawed? Swain, as an expert in the subject, adds weight to the views of Alexander (as does the coverage his views have received). Springee (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)