Talk:Southern strategy

Book "Long" Southern Strategy

I haven't seen this book mentioned in the article, has it been discussed before? It was written by political scientists, Angie Maxwell and Todd Shields.

• 1. WaPo review by Curtis Wilkie "The Long Southern Strategy” describes a more extensive plot, an unbroken arc of more than a half-century begun by Barry Goldwater’s “Operation Dixie” in 1964, in which the GOP played on white prejudices to transform the old “Solid South” — once essential to the Democratic coalition — into a bastion contributing to national Republican victories. For the purposes of their argument, Angie Maxwell and Todd Shields concentrate on the patriarchal, evangelical-fundamentalist Southern population that has been cultivated by the Republican Party. African Americans rarely appear in these pages; they are not considered prey for the GOP. Instead, the authors focus on the party’s targets — white Southern men — cherished as God-fearing Protestants, protective of Southern womanhood and family values, and filled with missionary zeal to impose American military hegemony on the rest of the world....The Long Southern Strategy has lasted 55 years and has mostly succeeded, interrupted only by the election of two Democrats who were themselves Southern Baptists, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, and one other Democrat, Barack Obama. The master plan led to Donald Trump, not exactly a role model for evangelical-fundamentalists, but a politician who championed their gut issues and won every Southern state but Virginia in 2016. - Angie Maxwell "The long Southern strategy had finally come to fruition, and it is still working today. The GOP’s partisan conversion of Southern white evangelicals is so complete that no longer must a Republican candidate hold authentic religious beliefs to secure their support. Nowhere is this clearer than in Southern white evangelical support for Donald Trump. Indeed, only 38 percent of white evangelicals living in the South identified Trump as a Christian, but 84 percent of them still voted for him. Understanding the full range of the GOP’s efforts in the South since Nixon clears up any confusion as to how Trump, a man whose personal life seems to violate every moral precept avowed by most Southern white conservatives, secured their unyielding allegiance. Trump has wielded the GOP’s Southern playbook with precision: defending Confederate monuments, eulogizing Schlafly at her funeral and even hiring Reagan’s Southern campaign manager, Paul Manafort. Trump, in many ways, is no anomaly. He is the very culmination of the GOP’s long Southern strategy."

• 2. Facingsouth.org (Angie Maxwell) "There are two things in this next phase of what I call the Long Southern Strategy. They really adapted their coded racial language to fit the moment, which in the '80s became a pitch towards color blindness. Doesn't sound like a bad thing, but it's really a denial of structural racism. And then into fiscal conservatism, but not on everything — just on social programs that were aimed at leveling the racial playing field, so to speak, or welfare reform issues. The other thing that they did in rebranding the party in the Southern image, to earn these Southern white voters and cut themselves an electoral path to victory, is that they adopted a Southern style of politics, which is the politics of entertainment and big rallies, spectacle kind of politics, a real distrust of media, an us-versus-them politics. They pull some kind of George Wallace. Instead of defining yourself by what you are, you define yourself by what you're not. Sometimes they call that "positive polarization." They realized that Southern white women had been politicized by the anti-feminist movement led by Phyllis Schlafly, and then other movements like WWWW — Women Who Want to be Women [founded by Texas native Lottie Beth Hobbs] — and efforts from the Southern Baptist Convention to portray feminism as a threat to traditional gender roles. It's important to know that they had to do all three of those things, because it turns out a lot of people are just one of those three. When we measure racial resentment and modern sexism, which is a measure of just anti-feminism, and Christian nationalism, there are some people that are all three, but a lot of people are two of three or one of three. (How was former President Trump's inflammatory rhetoric and exploitation of the Southern Strategy connected with the recent violent attack on the U.S. Capitol?) "I think it's directly related. I don't think a lot of Trump's language is coded. Trump really uncoded it. He was coming after eight years of a Democrat, and it's pretty common historically for things to flip after eight years. There's also the rise of cable news and talk radio — just this perfect storm. Trump was able to go that far because people had sorted themselves accordingly. Because he didn't have to code it very much, he speaks louder and clearer to people for whom the dog whistle wouldn't work because they didn't quite hear it or didn't know what it meant. But when he says it explicitly, it can draw in whole other crowds. I know it's the first time people have breached the Capitol, but when I think about the history in the South of massive resistance, when I think about governors blocking doorways and civil rights workers getting beaten to death, people getting beaten on the bridge in Alabama, dogs being turned on people, people being assassinated — mob violence is nothing new in the South."
• 3. The Atlantic by Kevin M. Kruse and Dov Grohsgal, an associate research scholar at INCITE, Columbia University..."As the political scientists Angie Maxwell and Todd Shields chronicle in their new book, The Long Southern Strategy, the old “coded racism” continued, but in concert with newer appeals to religious conservatism and anti-feminism. (Atwater himself offered something of an apology for some of those tactics toward the end of his life.) Taken together, these approaches solidified the South for the Republicans and, as a result, secured their victories in national races. Notably, the Republican majority that emerged in these decades did so largely on the terms set forth by Phillips. Appeals to racial resentments, handled lightly, did much of the work, but the broader social issues ultimately played an even more important role. Striking a delicate balance between the two proved to be the winning strategy for the GOP. The risk for Republicans today, of course, is that President Trump has upset this balance, rejecting old dog whistles on race for full-throated racism. Unlike Nixon, who disastrously tried such a strategy in his first midterm but then dialed it back considerably in his reelection run, Trump has doubled down on the race-based themes that failed to work in his own first midterm. In doing so, he runs the risk of reversing decades of work and rendering the Republican majority a thing of history.
• 4. AP News After losing presidential races to Southern Democrats Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, Republicans tightened their hold on the South by locking up support among evangelical Christians and voters who rejected feminism, said Angie Maxwell, a political scientist at the University of Arkansas and co-author of the book “The Long Southern Strategy: How Chasing White Votes in the South Changed American Politics.” But coded racial messaging stayed in the mix and ultimately was aimed at sympathetic voters outside the South.
• 5. CNN Notably, there was also what University of Arkansas political science professors Angie Maxwell and Todd Shields call the “Long Southern Strategy,” which was a series of decisions on religion, race and feminism that Republicans made in an effort to court White Southern voters. While the strategy began in earnest in the ’60s, political leaders reformed it over the course of several decades.

Cheers DN (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The following citations don't reference the "long" SS, but they could be used as a kind of secondary source.

• 6. "Donald Trump has warned that if Joe Biden replaces him as president the suburbs will be flooded with low-income housing. He has backed supporters who have sometimes violently clashed with Black Lives Matter protesters across the country. The US president has even refrained from directly condemning the actions of a teenager charged with killing two protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin. And Trump has also called the BLM movement a “symbol of hate”. With such rhetoric, the president is taking a page or two out of the 1960s “southern strategy”: the playbook Republican politicians such as Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater used to rally political support among white voters across the south by leveraging racism and white fear of people of color.
• 7. "In 2010, Michael Steele—the first black head of the RNC—admitted in a talk with students at DePaul University that Republicans had given minorities little reason to vote for them: “For the last 40-plus years we had a Southern Strategy that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South.” One glaring, underreported clue about the method behind the post-primary Trump madness is his selection of Paul Manafort as chair of his national campaign. Manafort’s appointment, followed by the ousting of Corey Lewandowski in June, was widely seen as a move to professionalize Trump’s disorganized campaign staff just ahead of the convention. But along with credentials earned from working with top GOP politicians (and a raft of international dictators from the Philippines to Somalia), Manafort also brought decades of experience as an overseer of the Southern Strategy. To be sure, Trump has not simply exhumed and dusted off the old Southern Strategy. He has characterized illegal immigrants rather than black Americans as a threat to white women’s safety. And he has redirected the Christian Right’s focus away from its preoccupation with a “godless Communism.” In its place, Trump has exploited the perception of Islam’s growing power abroad against a backdrop of genuinely declining white Christian influence at home, where the U.S. finds itself for the first time a minority white Christian nation. And, significantly—in a demonstration of just how successful the old strategy was—he’s discarded the dog whistle in favor of a bull horn. (By Robert P. Jones)

DN (talk) 08:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Two thoughts. First the book seems like a good source to add as another academic view. Given we have sources that say academics disagree we shouldn't treat any of them as outright true, just theories put forth. The other sources bring up a bigger issue with this article in general. This article is a mess in part because it mixes that is classically called "The Southern Strategy" (the claims that Nixon deliberately used racist appeals to win over southern voters by appealing to their racism) with the longer term southern realignment which is the actual fact that southern voters largely shifted from Democrat to GOP and the various theories why. Currently Southern Realignment is directed here here but it should be a separate topic or perhaps included in the Solid South article. Specifically looking at the articles, 6 doesn't seem like a useful source. Basically the author is saying they think opposition to BLM = racism. That might be true but it's not inherently true and that's a national message, not a regional one. There are plenty of sources that will say Trump appeals to racist feelings but that is outside the scope of this article (as it stands or as part of either the TSS or TSR topics). 7 is again a TSR topic as well as evidence that the GOP largely ignored the minority vote. It doesn't admit to any of the claims of racism as ignoring the wants of a voting block is not the same as racism. Springee (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

'The Long Southern Strategy' is already a source in the article. I'm not sure it should be given more WEIGHT than the other sources.....but if there is an important point it makes that you feel is unsaid....it may warrant a brief mention.Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Conservatism category template

Hello Biohistorian15 and Springee

I curious about this recent edit which has been reverted. Is this link appropriate here?

The rv edit summary states that (Southern strategy) isn't about conservatism, however looking at the info-box on Conservatism in the United States, under history, there is a link for Southern strategy.

Looking at the lead topic summaries, the connection does seem to make sense. Is this a MOS guideline or simply a matter for consensus?

Cheers. DN (talk) 06:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

If there were other relevant guidelines, they'd likely concern where exactly to place the template in the article etc.; I think the lead is suitable in this case, though.

You're right, @Darknipples, this definitely is a notable part of historical conservatism. Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see this as part of conservatism at all. Keep in mind that just because some editor decided to add a link here didn't mean it was justified. Back to this article, what makes this political strategy inherently part of conservatism? This looks like a case of over linking to the banner. Springee (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, for starters it was a Republican party strategy, perhaps similar in some ways to the Republican Revolution. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Being a Republican strategy doesn't mean it was a conservative strategy. There is overlap but they are not the same thing. Springee (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know that you could call the SS a part of the conservative movement....at least not overtly. The article does throw around the word "conservative" a lot to describe southern voters.....but in many cases it is not sourced, and in others, the source doesn't connect it [the southern strategy] to the conservative movement. A good example is this statement: "Under the Southern Strategy, Republicans would continue an earlier effort to make inroads in the South, Operation Dixie, by ending attempts to appeal to African American voters in the Northern states, and instead appeal to white conservative voters in the South.[70]". If you look at source #70, it does not mention the word "conservative" once.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the key term may be Racial conservatism, which for some reason redirects to Criticism of multiculturalism. Cheers DN (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

If the justification requires several jumps then it probably isn't a good fit for this article. Springee (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

What jump(s)? In electoral politics... "The Republican Party has been the party of conservatism since the middle of 1963 when the conservatives largely took control. When President Kennedy announced his intention to advance the Civil Rights Act he alienated the then-Democrat white conservatives in the South who strongly opposed the civil rights movement. Between 1960 and 2000, the White South moved from 3-1 Democratic to 3-1 Republican. DN (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The overview of American conservatism refers to... "a balance between federal government and states' rights".

Remember that the Republican party was... "The party of conservatism since the middle of 1963".

• Many states' rights Democrats were attracted to Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign. Goldwater was notably more conservative than previous Republican nominees, such as President Eisenhower.
• With the aid of Harry Dent and South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond, who had switched to the Republican Party in 1964, Nixon ran his 1968 campaign on states' rights and "law and order". Liberal Northern Democrats accused Nixon of pandering to Southern whites, especially with regard to his "states' rights" and "law and order" positions, which were widely understood by black leaders to symbolize Southern resistance to civil rights...

See foreign policy conservatism and fiscal conservatism in the US, and you will see why it doesn't appear any jumps are needed when connecting these two subjects.

Cheers. DN (talk) 06:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Would you be more comfortable if we added a source about the significance of the SS in American conservative electoral politics? DN (talk) 04:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest reading Hemmers comments here's [1]. They voiced the same general concern that I'm raising here. The connection between the sprawling contents of this article and Conservatism are questionable and ill-defined. Springee (talk) 13:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I would note that where an article is linked in the template, my comments on "don't transclude" were aimed at generic or international top-level articles such as "Supply-side economics". Although the discussion was prompted by the other side of the coin - transclusion many articles which were not linked within the template.

This article is linked in the template and is solely concerned with US politics, so the presumption would be to follow WP:BIDI outside exceptional circumstances.

The contention here really seems to be whether this article (or, by extension Barry Goldwater 1964 presidential campaign) should be in the navbox at all. And if it's not linked from the navbox, then under WP:BIDI the navbox shouldn't be transcluded here except in some exceptional circumstance.

From a quick reading of both articles, they do seem to cover a turning point in US conservative rhetoric and politics, which would mark them in my British mind as "more relevant" (compared say, to Vivek Ramaswamy 2024 presidential campaign, which is of no consequence to US Conservatism as a political system or ideology), albeit it's more racial politics than pure academic Conservatism. However, inclusion in the template should be directed to Template talk:Conservatism US. I can't claim enough domain knowledge to say definitively whether it's in or out, but "should it be transcluded here" is the wrong discussion to be having. Whether to transclude the navbox will follow a discussion on whether this should be in the navbox at all. Hemmers (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

"The connection between the sprawling contents of this article and Conservatism are questionable and ill-defined"

I just walked you through some fairly defined and obvious connections.

In addition, Hemmers seems to disagree with your use of their argument here.

Biohistorian15's addition of the template seems an appropriate improvement to this article. Please consider reverting.

Cheers. DN (talk) 11:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, no. It isn't clear this is a turning point in the conservative movement. If this article is linked in the template I would question why. We shouldn't assume that the links were actually vetted by default. If you feel Nixon's presidency was a turning point in conservatism link it instead. Consider this, if the core claim is that the GOP appealed to southern conservatism then we should link to the Southern realignment article instead. If we accept as true (and this point is debated) that this was a deliberate appeal to racism then it's not conservatism. Either way this is a bad target for the template. Springee (talk) 11:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

If we accept as true (and this point is debated) that this was a deliberate appeal to racism then it's not conservatism

How do you figure that? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Why would an appeal to racism be "conservatism"? Springee (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Because conservatism relies on either keeping things as they are, or reverting to how things were. And slavery/racism was the default for the longest time in this country. Appealing to the people who want to keep certain minority groups oppressed is definitely conservative. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a legitimate source for that claim? Springee (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

This is WP:SKYBLUE territory. Sticking to the old ways is the definition of conservatism.

But since I know you're going to doggedly attack this, here, have a Professor of Political Science from San Francisco State university: "In this provocative, wide-ranging study, Robert C. Smith contends that ideological conservatism and racism are and always have been equivalent in the United States." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, you will absolutely need RSs to make the broad brush claim that racism=conservatism. That a single profession made the claim isn't sufficient. You need to show that such a view is the consensus view of conservatism vs the opinion of a profession from a very liberal university etc. Springee (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, here is a counter opinion to your source [2]. Springee (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

An op-ed? DN (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

By a scholar with credentials as opposed to a book by a different scholar making the opposite claim. Thus we don't have scholarly consensus. Springee (talk) 12:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

We are talking about a simple template that already links to this article...No changes to the article itself are being made here and MOS is quite clear. DN (talk) 09:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems like you are saying it's a minor thing this should be left out. Springee (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Why are you purposefully misrepresenting my position? DN (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not trying to misrepresent your position. You said "we are talking about a simple template". If that is all this is why put so much effort to justify inclusion? Springee (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Since you have removed the link on Template:Conservatism US and the new direction this discussion has taken seems to be getting more personal in nature, I've decided to respond on your talk page and cease participating here.

Cheers. DN (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for any thing I've said that would suggest a personal nature to this discussion. That is absolutely not my intent. As for the removal, the SS was added to the template without discussion or justification just a few months back. Since no case was made there this discussion seems to be the only place where such a discussion has occurred. As such I think this lack of consensus logically governs inclusion. Springee (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

This is clearly fallacious reasoning. By saying that any position that remotely supports "keeping things as they are, or reverting to how things were" is automatically equal to conservatism in the American political sense fails even the most basic test.

For instance, murder has been illegal in the U.S. for centuries, so would you call "wanting to keep murder illegal" a "conservative ideal?" Could I then say it is a "progressive ideal" to want to make murder legal, simply because that would technically be "progressing" the law/society? Of course not. No one would hold that "wanting to make murder legal" is part of the American political progressive platform. This is no different, and it's a silly argument. Just10A (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Trying to drag murder, something civilizations have agreed is bad throughout human history, in as an example is a straw man argument. But this is what I expect from this talkpage anymore, so I'm out. Civil POV pushers have won here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)