Deep South Turning Blue

The story of the Deep South is, in many ways, reflective of the political history of the entire nation. Even when the Deep South votes in ways contrarian to the rest of the country - which has been often - a parsing of the votes of these five states reveals the deepest political fissures in our nation's history. I'll begin with examining the history of how the Deep South has voted. I'll then draw some conclusions from what this history teaches, and then explain why I believe demographic changes will be insufficient to turn the Deep South blue again. The Solid South since ReconstructionAfter the Civil War, the repatriated rebel states voted Republican in presidential races as often as it voted Democratic. Under Reconstruction policies, black citizens were allowed to vote, and voted for the party of Lincoln in large numbers. The voters of Mississippi sent the first black Senators to DC, and Mississippi, Alabama and South Carolina voted for General Grant for president in 1972 (Louisiana had not yet rejoined the Union). [1] [2] By the election of 1876, Republicans both in the South and nationally had been wearied by the terrorism committed by Confederate loyalists in the KKK. In the contested race between Democrat Samuel Tilden and Republican Rutherford Hayes, agreed to end Reconstruction policies in exchange for seating Hayes as president. [3]From that point onward, the South was the Solid South, voting staunchly Democratic for the next 70 years, even supporting Democrat Al Smith (despite his corruption and Catholicism) over Herbert Hoover in his 1928 landslide. [2]Until 1948. Prior to 1948, African Americans were roughly split between the two parties. In 1948, for the first time, more African Americans identified as Democrats than Republicans. [4] What changed? First of all, the election of 1948 followed Truman's order desegregating the military. [5] At the 1948 DNC, Hubert Humphrey introduced the first civil rights plank to a major party platform since Reconstruction, and called on the Convention to "get out of the shadow of states' rights and to walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights. " [6] [7] In protest, southern Democrats led by Strom Thurmond abandoned the convention. Thurmond ran for president under the "States Rights Party" banner, and became a Republican in 1964. [8] He captured the electoral votes of 4 out of the 5 Deep South states. [2] For the first time since 1880, the South voted for someone other than the Democratic nominee. The "Solid South" resumed its habits in 1952 and 1956, and were some of the only states to vote against Eisenhower. In 1960, a few electors in Mississippi and Alabama decided to vote for Harry Byrd, a conservative Southern Democrat, rather than liberal, northeastern Kennedy. Things changed for good in 1964, after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act. [9] The Deep South revolted, and for the first time ever, all five Deep South states voted for a Republican - Barry Goldwater, who by opposing the Civil Rights Act, won only the Deep South and his home state of Arizona. [10] [2]. In 1968, the Deep South would vote largely for segregationist George Wallace instead of civil-rights-supporting Hubert Humphrey. [2] Nixon's campaign strategist Kevin Phillips devised the "southern strategy" to openly appeal to "Wallace Democrats" who opposed civil rights. [11] In 1972, Nixon won the Deep South. Since then, the Deep South has voted almost uniformly Republican, except when a Southern Democratic candidate (e. g. , Carter or Clinton) was on the ticket. [2] Even then, Carter and Clinton lost in the Deep South more than they won (9 wins, 11 losses). [2] The "Solid South" is now solid GOP. Lessons from historyThere are two conclusions I draw from this history of the South over the last 34 Presidential elections. First: racial politics matter resonate deeply in the Deep South. The Deep South abandoned the Democrats over a single issue - civil rights for African Americans. The two shockwaves came in 1948 - when the Democrats decided to support civil rights - and in 1964 - when they actually accomplished them. The Democratic Party was immediately, forcefully, and permanently rejected in the Deep South as a result. As racial tension continues to fill the news - as southern states seek to limit access to the polls by black voters [12] and Confederate sympathizers fight to wave a symbol of racist oppression - it seems as though the white vote in the Deep South remains as animated by white supremacy as its ever been. Second, it takes a concerted strategic effort on the part of political parties to win over deeply entrenched regional interests. As much as the Deep South abhorred civil rights, it wasn't until Nixon actively pursued the Southern Strategy that the Deep South became habitually Republican. Party strategy can change in light of changing demographics, as well. The future of the Deep South. I'll address the religious trends first. I don't think very good predictions can be made about how the increasing number of nonreligious voters will behave over the next several decades. Nonreligious voters are split on fiscal policy, and neither party has made an express appeal to these voters yet. The religious right faction of the GOP has turned some of these voters off, certainly - but if a conscious effort is made to develop an appeal, who can say? More importantly for the Deep South, however, is that the rise of the nonreligious has almost entirely been white. [13] In the Deep South, I suspect racial identity will still be the dominant organizing force for the next several decades. I agree, though, that racial demographics do have the ability to shift the level of support for the GOP in the Deep South (assuming that the parties don't change their strategies dramatically as the GOP did under Nixon). But I don't think that these changes will be as pronounced in the South as my opponent does. First of all, my opponent has reported the demographic of everyone in the state. It would be more accurate, however, to look at the estimated breakdown of eligible voters, which is whiter than the population as a whole. [14] But my opponent also fails to compare the Deep South to the nation as a whole. Georgia is the only state in the Deep South whose voting population is projected to become 50% minority sooner than the nation as a whole, in 2036. The US as a whole will reach that point in 2052. Mississippi will also hit 50% minority in 2052, but will retain a larger percentage of the white vote for longer - 48% in 2060, as opposed to 45% in 2060 for the nation as a whole. Louisiana will hit 50% minority in 2056. Alabama and South Carolina will still be far above 50% white in 2060 - 58% and 55% respectively. If demographic trends hold, then the Deep South is more likely to remain a rump of GOP control while the rest of the country moves on long before turning blue. [1] . http://goo.gl...[2] . http://goo.gl...[3] . http://goo.gl...[4] . http://goo.gl...[5] . http://www.ourdocuments.gov...[6] . http://www.americanrhetoric.com...[7] . http://goo.gl...[8] . http://goo.gl...[9] . http://www.washingtonpost.com...[10] . http://www.washingtonpost.com...[11] . http://www.nytimes.com...[12] . http://goo.gl...[13] . http://www.nationalreview.com...[14] . https://goo.gl...