March 27, 2004
FROM YELLOW TO RED (via Mike Daley):
The Myth of the Racist Republicans (Gerard Alexander, March 20, 2004, Claremont Review of Books)
[B]ias is evident...in how differently they treat the long Democratic dominance of the South. Carter and the Black brothers suggest that the accommodation of white racism penetrates to the very soul of modern conservatism. But earlier generations of openly segregationist Southerners voted overwhelmingly for Woodrow Wilson's and Franklin Roosevelt's Democratic Party, which relaxed its civil rights stances accordingly. This coalition passed much of the New Deal legislation that remains the basis of modern liberalism. So what does the segregationist presence imply for the character of liberalism at its electoral and legislative apogee? These scholars sidestep the question by simply not discussing it. This silence implies that racism and liberalism were simply strange political bedfellows, without any common values.But the commonality, the philosophical link, is swiftly identified once the Democrats leave the stage. In study after study, authors say that "racial and economic conservatism" married white Southerners to the GOP after 1964. So whereas historically accidental events must have led racists to vote for good men like FDR, after 1964 racists voted their conscience. How convenient. And how easy it would be for, say, a libertarian conservative like Walter Williams to generate a counter-narrative that exposes statism as the philosophical link between segregation and liberalism's economic populism.
Yet liberal commentators commit a further, even more obvious, analytic error. They assume that if many former Wallace voters ended up voting Republican in the 1970s and beyond, it had to be because Republicans went to the segregationist mountain, rather than the mountain coming to them. There are two reasons to question this assumption. The first is the logic of electoral competition. Extremist voters usually have little choice but to vote for a major party which they consider at best the lesser of two evils, one that offers them little of what they truly desire. Segregationists were in this position after 1968, when Wallace won less than 9% of the electoral
college and Nixon became president anyway, without their votes. Segregationists simply had very limited national bargaining power. In the end, not the Deep South but the GOP was the mountain.Second, this was borne out in how little the GOP had to "offer," so to speak, segregationists for their support after 1968, even according to the myth's own terms. Segregationists wanted policies that privileged whites. In the GOP, they had to settle for relatively race-neutral policies: opposition to forced busing and reluctant coexistence with affirmative action. The reason these policies aren't plausible codes for real racism is that they aren't the equivalents of discrimination, much less of segregation.
Why did segregationists settle for these policies rather than continue to vote Democratic? The GOP's appeal was mightily aided by none other than the Democratic Party itself, which was lurching leftward in the 1970s, becoming, as the contemporary phrase had it, the party of "acid, amnesty, and abortion." Among other things, the Democrats absorbed a civil rights movement that was itself expanding, and thus diluting, its agenda to include economic redistributionism, opposition to the Vietnam War, and Black Power. The many enthusiasms of the new Democratic Party drove away suburban middle-class voters almost everywhere in the country, not least the South.
One of the tragedies of American politics is that white Southerners supported the Democrats for so long, simply because of racial issues. Had the voted their conservative consciences much of the damage done by FDR and Truman might have been avoided. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 27, 2004 9:04 AM
I never met a conservative white Southerner who thought FDR did any damage, and only the unredeemedly racist had any problems with Truman.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 27, 2004 3:13 PMYes, they were yellow dogs then.
Posted by: oj at March 27, 2004 3:21 PMIt was not a political statement. It was an observation.
In fact, among the conservative white Southerners I was particularly thinking about were my Bircher uncles, all Republicans.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 29, 2004 2:11 AMAnd thought Earl Warren should be impeached, but you think they were pro-FDR? Good one.
Posted by: oj at March 29, 2004 8:17 AMThey loved TVA.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 29, 2004 3:29 PM