Talk:Southern strategy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Untitled

George Bush (41) did not use a "Willie Horton" commercial. The Bush campaign commercial was the "revolving door justice" commercial. If you want to find the origins of Willie Horton as a campaign issue, look no further than Al Gore, who used the prison furlough issue against Dukakis in the 1988 New York primary.

The entire leftist slant to the *myth* of the "Southern Strategy" does not stand up to the facts.

In 1968 a former Democrat, George Wallace, running as a third party candidate won all of the deep south states. Nixon came in *third* in some of those states.

That is hardly "appealing to (evil) white southern (racists)"!

In addition, the Democrats have run the following "southern white males" for President since WWII:

Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Gore

and Wallace, a Democrat, ran as a third party candidate in 1968.

The Republicans have run the following "southern white males":

Bush (43)

Someone who was called a "carpetbagger" because of his New England background.

There are undoubtedly a few throwbacks in politics (of all parties) who think appealing to race is somehow a winning tactic, but to claim the Republican Party does it as a matter of policy is just ludicrous.

Opposition to Federal policy by the Republican Party has always been due to the nature of unfunded mandates or bad policy decisions at the Federal level, not because of the stated goals of such programs. Good "intentions" do not guarantee good results.

---

I agree, this article could certainly use some other contributors, esp. those who know about the topic. If you're new here, you might want to look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style, or not, but either way you're encouraged to be bold in your editing. Look forward to your edits, Meelar 00:01, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC) P.S. That said, I'm not saying I agree with your interpretation, but let's see if we can't work out something acceptable to us both.

== NPOV

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)

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)

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)

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. [1] 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)

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. [2] -- 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.

Virginia's Harry F. Byrd, the architect of "Massive Resistance," refused to endorse a Democratic Presidential candidate from 1948 until 1964 when the Democratic party adopted integration and civil rights as a plank in the party's platform.

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.[3] 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.[4] 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)

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.

Welcome to the publishing world. Publications have bias. Would you eliminate the NY Times as a source because of its well-known bias? What matters is that the quote is Buchanan's first-hand report of Nixon's strategy in 1966 -- and it was not racist. This is a first-hand contradiction of the premise that GOP's aim was to adopt racism. Milkchaser (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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.

1. The phrase "virtually all serious historians" is argumentum ad authoritatem. It is no cure for a lack of hard evidence. It is the epitome of POV bias -- who is to say which historians are serious?
2. If it were true that GOP was sympathetic to racism, where is the evidence? Nixon desegregated Southern schools. Was that racist? Making white southerners send their children to school with black children, was this racist? There is evidence that contradicts the notion that GOP was racist, and none that shows it. It is all allegation. The fact that many historians allege it does not overcome the lack of evidence.
3. It is true that Democrats (finally) abandoned the cause of segregation, but not true that GOP picked it up. Milkchaser (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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.

The Civil Rights movement did not begin in 1964. LBJ thwarted and watered down the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Progress might have been made 7 years earlier if not for him. To suggest that he was more energetic in 1964 is to completely ignore his racist past. And given that the GOP was a minority, it is not clear how much energy you feel was needed. This is clear POV bias. What were the vote tallies? That is what matters. What percentage of Democrats opposed this legislation vs. Republicans opposing it? That is the only mathematical and unbiased way to measure partisan intent. It will not do to cherry-pick one congressional candidate, even though he eventually became famous. One might very well ask, what racist legislation did Bush propose when he was President? The GOP, the southern strategy did not end in 1964.Milkchaser (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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.

If Thurmond felt comfortable in the GOP, why did he not join it in 1948 instead of forming the Dixiecrats? Why did it take him 16 years? He did not switch parties until after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made the issue of segregation moot. Milkchaser (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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.

Zell Miller never joined the GOP. He died a Democrat. Milkchaser (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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

It is true that the crux of the strategy was an appeal to white racists, but not an adoption of racism. That is where you make your big mistake. White racists are citizens entitled to vote. While their racist views may be abhorrent, there is a big difference between how the two parties historically courted them (and any accurate discussion of this must make this point clearly):

1. Democrats accommodated white racists by blocking civil rights and anti-lynching laws. Notably, LBJ as Senate Majority Leader blocked civil rights legislation. The intent of Democratic Party accommodation was to stifle civil rights progress and leave in place the Southern status quo.
2. Republicans never blocked civil rights legislation, in fact they promoted it. And Nixon (through his Atty Gen'l John Mitchell) is responsible for desegregating a majority of Southern schools. The GOP simply did not accommodate racism, even while courting the votes of white racists.

The dog whistle theory of code words that would appeal to white racist voters is just a theory. The issues of states' rights, federalism and crime ("law & order") transcend the issue of race, although these were used to justify the racist status quo in the south. In effect, the GOP laid the claim that these issues have merit, but not when applied to maintain a racist status quo. The notion of a dog whistle myth purports that there is a secret code in place that only white racists could hear. The myth (impossible to support via facts) purports that claims to support these issues were a secret agreement amongst racists to leave or bring back the racist status quo ante. However, no GOP legislators ever proposed legislation to bring it back. So an alternate theory is that these GOP politicians really sincerely meant what they were saying: That there is genuine merit to the issues of states' rights, federalism and law & order separate and apart from white racism. If anyone could be accused of hearing something others do not hear it is that apologists for Democrats "hear" racist sentiment that proponents of these issues are deaf to. Insufficient white sensitivity is not racism. Milkchaser (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Randwolf (talk • contribs) 05:37, 13 September 2004‎ (UTC)

Southern strategy

Deleted the section about Reagan in Mississippi. This is a [5] 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.

The essence of the "Southern strategy" was an appeal to white racists (or white former racists), but explicitly not on the basis of anti-black racism. Quite the contrary, the appeal was on all other issues besides race, since it was clear with the tardy but welcome accession of various white racist Democrats (e.g. LBJ) that opposition to civil rights legislation was at last a lost cause. Republicans recognized this. Some white racist Democrats recognized this. Only the utter repudiation of the prospect of maintaining the racist status quo ante would cause life-long Democrats to the GOP. Milkchaser (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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

POV bias: Who is to say which historians are serious? The ones that agree that the GOP is racist to the core? Milkchaser (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

"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

A distinction must be made between appealing to white racists and becoming a white racist. FDR allied with Stalin. Did this make him a communist? Southern political leaders were notably racist -- that is granted. But they were also proponents of federalism and being tough on crime, and opposed communism. In these, they found more common ground with Republicans. Milkchaser (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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 [6]. 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

Bob Herbert is NOT a reporter. He wrote for the NY Times as a VERY CLEARLY LABELED "OPINION" (Op-ed) writer. His columns are OPINIONS. He now runs a very far-left Think Tank. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• • 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)

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)

Again, Bob Herbert is an OPINION WRITER. The journalistic fraud at the NY Times is irrelevant (and rare); while well thought of AS AN OPINION WRITER, Bob Herbert is not a journalist, nor can he be regarded as one. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

My bad with "of" statement

Obviously I meant against, the "of" was supposed to be "of" the racism but it read like it was "of" the African-Americans. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. Sorry I mentioned vandalism, but it did look very odd. Bishonen | talk 20:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC).

Examples?

This article is sorely lacking in specific examples of the way the Southern Strategy was actually used. After reading the article, I still have almost no sense for how the racial "dog whistle" was blown. I suppose part of the problem is that all the "coded messages" were plausibly deniable. Still, I'd like to know WHAT was said that is alleged to be a coded message. The article mentions Reagan's "state's rights" comment, HW Bush's Willy Horton ad, Nixon's mention of "law and order"...this is not a huge number. And where's the solid evidence that these were indeed coded racial messages?Cromulant (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• One could argue that the "dog whistle" aspect of these so-called coded messages is better heard by those alleging racism than by alleged racists (who are more likely merely unintentionally racially insensitive). Milkchaser (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Warning: WP:CANVAS violation

This article's currently the topic of a WP:CANVAS flag by [7] editors. Extra care should be taken to ensure that edits are following WP:NPOV standards and that non-NPOV material is promptly reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.208.246 (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Bias

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

Agreed, the article mentions that democrats fought for slavery, and created segregation laws, and wouldn't let vote, and then says that 90% of blacks became democrats. But it fails to mention how or why this happened. 2602:30B:8220:A8E9:6125:A311:C7DA:5882 (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Editorials - for 1 side only

The first sentence has 2 references to _editorials_ by Bob Herbert - POV (see talk, above) Where are the opposing opinion pieces?

If you find any, we can add them. FurrySings (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Evidence for Mehlman apology

I've been unable to find evidence that Ken Mehlman apologized to the NAACP for "a Republican Party strategy of gaining political support for certain candidates in the Southern United States by appealing to racism against African Americans," AKA the Southern Strategy as defined in this article. He clearly apologized for the Republicans having largely written off the Black vote, but in the NAACP speech he does not say that this was anything confined or particular to the South. In addition, in an interview 2 days following that speech, he replied to an interviewer who used the term "Southern strategy" by saying that the practice described was used generally, North, East, West and South. [Today I added this quotation and a link to the CNN site where it appears]. I believe that this makes an important difference, since the very claim of the existence of a Southern strategy is that it was something targeted to the South, differing from Republican strategy elsewhere in the country. There may have been such a strategy, but the Mehlman quotes cited cannot support the assertions that he specifically acknowledged or apologized for a geographical-poitical strategy aimed directly at Southern Blacks. Accordingly, I have edited these claims to reflect this understanding.Italtrav (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Independent, reliable sources clearly link Mehlman's apology to the Southern strategy. For example, the Washington Post wrote:

It was called "the southern strategy," started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue—on matters such as desegregation and busing—to appeal to white southern voters. Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, this morning will tell the NAACP national convention in Milwaukee that it was "wrong." ([8])

Because Wikipedia's content is based on independent, reliable sources, we need to reflect their content. MastCell ^Talk 22:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

This leads then to the absurd result that the Washington Post is taken as a better authority on what Mehlman meant than Mehlman himself. Will you then remove Mahlman's quote from the CNN interview on the grounds that it contradicts what you find in the Washington Post? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Italtrav (talk • contribs) 01:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it's fine to include Mehlman's quote, but when contextualizing his statement we rely on third-party reliable sources. MastCell ^Talk 20:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Shift in Strategy

"In 1992, the Democratic Party's position towards welfare reform changed dramatically with the election of Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton as President." - This statement seems to be WP:SYNTH. Can someone point out in the citation where it explicitly states the Democratic party's view on welfare changed using Clinton's election as direct evidence of said change? Darknipples (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Weak intro, maybe even a one-sided slant

This entire entry is completely fake and written by a progressive activist. Seriously, this exists on Wikipedia? Can we make an entry on the Democratic Black Strategy about the Democrats support for welfare to obtain votes for generations? I would hope not, but this is exactly what has been allowed with this insane article. 98.199.196.39 (talk) 08:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a horrific intro. May be a bit of hyperbole on my part. But I could even argue on a one-sided slant to this intro. At least, try some other sources beside NYT which has morphed to decidedly liberal. Something better than 'appealing to racism against African Americans' has to be in there. Let's stay away from any particular slant though, and look at things such as -- How can demographics, population movement from Northern, 'Rust-belt' type states, to the South not be highlighted, or even at the top of the list of rationales. I plan on working on the quality of this article -- a C Class -- unbiased as possible 10stone5 (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• This article/source -- NYT, Impossible, Ridiculous, Repugnant By BOB HERBERT Published: October 6, 2005 -- has got to go as an overly POV source. It lays out a straw man that a comment by Bob Bennett, maybe innocuous, maybe taken out of context, maybe not, as a rationale for labelling the Republican party as the go to party of racism. These sorts of Wiki references have got to go. 10stone5 (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• This intro -- '... gaining political support or winning elections in the Southern United States by absorbing the Democratic Party's alienated white, segregrationist base' -- seems much more relevant, much more logical, much more in tune with traditional history on how political strategy in the South has changed. This intro -- 'gaining political support or winning elections in the Southern United States by appealing to racism against African Americans' -- is much too inflammatory, and really quite hard to justify. If you are going to say the strategy was based on racism, then the type of racism has to be mentioned. Was it straight discrimination? Reverse discrimination? Provide some examples of this racism, not assume the racism was there because of the absorption of Dixiecrats. I'll contact the parties involved in these edits for feedback. 10stone5 (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

As you feel strongly about the 2005 Herbert piece, I've removed it. On the other hand, I don't agree that the New York Times is unsuitable as a source for this article in general. I think we also need to confront the reality (or at least the view widely reported by reliable sources) that the Republican Party "absorbed the Democratic Party's alienated white segregationist base" in part by "appealing to racism against African-Americans."

It's not just the lib'ruls at the New York Times who hold that view; it's widespread in political-science scholarship, and has been acknowledged directly from time to time by the GOP leadership itself. For example, our article quotes the famous interview with Lee Atwater, the most important Republican strategist of the 1980s and a former RNC chairman, in which he described the evolution of the strategy:

You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger.' By 1968 you can't say 'nigger'—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

More recently, in 2005 Ken Mehlman (then head of the RNC) apologized to the NAACP for the GOP's "decades-old practice of writing off the black vote and using racial polarization to win elections." ([9]) So I think that the language about appealing to racism is, in many ways, supported by the available sources, although of course I'm open to discussion and would welcome additional reliable sources. MastCell ^Talk 22:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Democrats controlled southern legislators for more than a hundred years ending that only 5, 10 years ago in many of those states. A so-called "Southern Strategy" would never take 40 years to give total control of the South to the GOP. Republicans voted for civil rights in far bigger proportions, and only a single Democratic Senator from 19 against Civil Rights became a Republican.

The article intro is a shameful demonstration of bias and this bias is the reason why so many are not donating anymore to the Wikipedia, barely all sources in the article are from partisan, low quality sources. Look into that: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html?_r=0

"In the book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)

The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t.

To be sure, Shafer says, many whites in the South aggressively opposed liberal Democrats on race issues. “But when folks went to the polling booths,” he says, “they didn’t shoot off their own toes. They voted by their economic preferences, not racial preferences.” Shafer says these results should give liberals hope. “If Southern politics is about class and not race,” he says, “then they can get it back.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.16.253.165 (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I've added the alleged term to the intro because the New York Times has an article stating that it's a myth that has been perpetuated for political reasons. Given the NYTs is a credible source this reference should be left in place. I also removed a previous "proof" statement because it was an open ended statement that said only that the GOP had neglected/not targeted AA interests. That is NOT the same as saying they were trying to appeal to racists. Not giving money to a homeless man is not the same as taking money from them. One can not use the lack of giving money to a homeless person as proof they are stealing from the homeless. The same is true of this GOP statement. It does not support the claim that the GOP is trying to court racists in the South. It only says they are not trying to actively court the AA vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.205.228.188 (talk) 01:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a lot of edit warring going on -- two IPs, both geolocated (coincidentally?) in the same area, keep adding language that has now been reverted by four different editors. The single source relied on is far from a definitive study. The following review [10] shows the books weaknesses:

"This is a disturbing book. In this slim volume of less than two hundred the authors set out to turn on its collective head what has emerged as the studied wisdom about post-World War II partisan change in the South. Byron E. Shafer and Richard Johnston stipulate that the demise of legal segregation largely drove the change in southern partisan loyalties from Democratic to Republican in presidential elections (something thathas long been known and something that runs directly counter to their dominant thesis). They claim that race was not as important a factor in the South's congressional contests. Then they promptly dismiss in importance their first observation to conclude that economic change - not race - was the engine" that drove partisan change in the post-1945 South."

And why is the apology for the Southern strategy, which is sourced, being deleted? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The apology was deleted because it was being used in a way that was incorrect. Apologizing for ignoring the needs and wants of African Americans does not mean there was a strategy to appeal to white racism. That is just as bad as the claim (in a section below) that claims that because "The NYT article doesn't say that the Southern strategy didn't exist, it says that (according to one book) it didn't work." (it didn't work) doesn't mean it didn't exist. Well the same logic applies. Saying the GOP ignored AA issues doesn't mean they tried to appeal to racists. --129.59.79.123 (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Article needs to define what the "Southern Strategy" really is

The article needs a section that states, according to the article, what the "Southern Strategy" really is. Currently the term is ill-defined which allows for rather nebulous claims to be used as "support". It seems the thrust of the intro is that there was a policy to exploit racism and appeal to racist instincts to get votes. If that is the "Southern Strategy" then articles which don't support that claim are non-supportive even if they do use the words "southern strategy". For example, Apple (ref #8 at the time of this posting) is largely talking about the GOP having trouble reaching black voters. That doesn't mean there was a policy to appeal racist motives and a policy that happens to appeal to racists for non-racist motives would not fit the opening sentence of this article. In Apple's article he does say "soutern strategy" but he then goes on to say

"Republicans appealed to Nixon Democrats (later Reagan Democrats) in the Northern suburbs, many of them ethnic voters who had left the cities to escape from blacks, with promises to crack down on welfare cheats and to bring law and order; the party also fought affirmative action."

None of that proves racist intent. The "escape from blacks" is an assumed intent but Apple then says promises to crack down on welfare cheats (is that a bad thing? It was passed under Clinton) and improve law and order (a reasonable appeal at a time when crime was increasing). Finally affirmative action was mentioned. OK, but many are against that not because they are racist but because they see it as reverse racism (ie, you aren't treating people as equals because you are giving something positive to a group based on race). The above is an example but it appears that many of the references being used to support the idea that there was a plan to win over voters based on racism is not supported by many (most?) of the sources for this article. --Getoverpops (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Adding alternative POV to the article

This article's neutrality is questionable. How should we add alternative articles into the text? I propose that we add "alleged" to the opening paragraph and include references that show that the facts and details are in dispute. This will allow the reader to see that there is more than one narrative. Since the facts and events are in question the opening should NOT state things as a given. I will add a dispute tag to the article so people can join the talk here.--129.59.79.123 (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I have created an account.--Getoverpops (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

You need to provide sources for the alternative view. TFD (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I provided them several times before other editors reverted the changes without justification and claimed edit war. Here are a few that have been in the article and removed by other editors

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html?_r=0 http://www.redstate.com/diary/dan_mclaughlin/2012/07/11/the-southern-strategy-myth-and-the-lost-majority/ http://www.nationalreview.com/article/300432/party-civil-rights-kevin-d-williamson

The above three have all appeared in the article. One is from the New York Times. At the same time the sources in the opening lead are on the whole not very strong. Two are from the the same author. One is an Op-Ed article and the other isn't clear one way or the other. Herbert doesn't offer proof or even evidence of a racist "southern strategy". Instead his articles accept on faith that it existed. The two books are simply referenced but without specific quotes or other information. How can a reader know what was actually said in those texts and if it actually supports the claims. Remember, we have editors here who think the GOP saying they were sorry for neglecting the interests of black voters is the same as trying to appeal to racism in white southern voters. If those sources are to be referenced we need the actual text. Finally we have Boyd's article which does say "southern strategy". Well that's hardly damning. Nixon also likely had a plan for trying to win city voters etc. So of all the opening articles at best there is one that actually supports with some evidence a racist strategy (Boyd). At the same time we have others who say otherwise. That doesn't mean Boyd is wrong but it does mean the facts are in dispute and the opening should not state disputed events as fact. Alleged is the correct term here.--Getoverpops (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

A diary from redstate.com? Surely you jest. — goethean 17:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

If you read what I said you will see that I was simply reposting links that had previously been in the article in answer to a question. I did not pass judgment on the links.--Getoverpops (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC) I was actually about to post this, when the system refused to allow me to post since it would have deleted your post:

Having just reviewed the Wikipedia:Reliable sources archives it is clear the National Review is considered to be a reliable source. Redstate is questionable. --Getoverpops (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

A "diary" from redstate.com is not an acceptable source. The National Review can be a useful source to demonstrate a partisan conservative take on an issue, but it is not a suitable source for statements of fact (see WP:BIASED). Ironically, of course, the National Review under Buckley was at the intellectual forefront of the Southern strategy, most famously when Buckley wrote in its pages:

the central question that emerges... is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas where it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.

Kevin Williamson (whose piece you cite) is not exactly a renowned scholar of political science; he's perhaps best-known for comparing African-American children to primates, again in the pages of the Review ([11]), so your choice of sources is somewhat ironic if your intent is to deny that the right exploits racism for political purposes.

News pieces from the New York Times are suitable reliable sources for statements of fact. This is a book review of a work by two academics who take a somewhat revisionist line about the role of race in the political re-alignment of the South. This source (and the associated academic work) is sufficient to show that there are dissenting minority or revisionist views, which may be mentioned with appropriate weight and context in the body of the article, but we still need to give proper weight to the mainstream understanding of the Southern strategy, which is detailed in the existing lead.

On a more general note, I'm somewhat bemused by the effort to deny the existence of this strategy when even the RNC itself has acknowledged it, but such is life, I guess. MastCell ^Talk 18:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

If you define what exactly is the "southern strategy" then perhaps we can decide if their is evidence that it happened. Certainly every candidate has a strategy for getting votes in the south. As for the apology you claim, the articles you posted don't contain such a thing. They are an apology (as a way to court votes) but they don't admit to a racist strategy in the past. Again, I encourage you to apply the same standard of review to your own references as you wish to apply to mine.--Getoverpops (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Having looked I've only found references stating that the National Review is considered a reliable source. The POV is acknowledged but it should be considered reliable. I agree that redstate is not. I see you are being critical of several of my references. I would encourage you to apply those same standards to the references which are used to claim support for the claim. What do you mean by news pieces? One of the pieces in the opening is an Op-Ed. Your attack on Williams seems to be an attack the sources sort of claim. It is also clear that the claim of racism is not clear cut. Unless his arguments are shown to be flawed the article should be accepted as a reference. You are critical of a NY Times article that references the work of two researchers but you are willing to accept on faith the claim of a reporter who provides no references or supporting material? Sorry, either the NYT is OK or it isn't. Getoverpops (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the last sentence of your message. Please comment on content and not other contributors. Gamaliel (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Bob Herbert article is Op-Ed, other opening articles are also questionable as support.

The opening sentence of this article seems to contain the real thrust of the entry. It says there was a plan, called the "southern strategy" and it was based on appealing to racism. Two of the 5 supporting links are by Bob Herbert. They ran in the New York Times however, they ran as Op-Ed articles. Wikipedia is clear on the use of such material. They can not be taken to be the opinion of the New York Times nor should they be taken as reliable statements of fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." In this case Herbert is a political commentator so his claims as to events should be taken as such. This means they are not sufficient to be proof that the "southern strategy" was a racist appeal by the GOP as claimed. This supports the need to state the opening sentence as alleged in light of other authors and academics who state that no such strategy existed.

The contents of the book by Carter are not listed so a reader can not judge if they support the opening sentence or not. Furthermore, no page reference is included. Carter is an academic, so are the authors of texts which dispute the validity of the "southern strategy". With that in mind why should we believe Carter and not the others? The same issue applies to the reference to Branch's work. We don't know the content in which his work is supposed to support the opening sentence of this wiki entry.

Boyd's article has a number of accusations but lacks references. It was also written at a time when Nixon was under a great deal of political pressure due to Vietnam. Basically it would be hard to separate political spin from actual facts of the time. Remember that to support the opening of this wiki the reference MUST show that the intent was to appeal to racism.

At the same time we have several sources that dispute the facts and events as described and show that there was no campaign to appeal to southern voters on racial grounds.

Based on the above alone it is reasonable to start the article with some indication that the opening sentence is an accusation that is in dispute rather than established fact. Getoverpops (talk) 02:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Herbert - Atwater Link does not support the paragraph

In the Evolution section of the article there is a interview that claims to be Herbert speaking with Atwater. As mentioned by a previous editor this whole section is questionable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Southern_strategy/Archive_1#Bob_Herbert.27s_Article The text does not mention Herbert at all and the link is to a citation, not the interview. If we are to accept this as an interview with Atwater by Herbert the actual interview should be the reference, else we have no context and no way to know Herbert is involved. In short the citation is broken and the information should be removed until a reliable source can be found. Furthermore the entire interview should be included to provide the proper context. Again this is why the article needs to contain an alleged type "disclaimer".--Getoverpops (talk) 03:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say that Herbert interviewed Atwater. Herbert was reporting on the interview conducted by Lamis. Check the Southern Politics reference. gobonobo ^{+ c} 05:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

It says it in the Wiki article, "Bob Herbert, a New York Times columnist, reported a 1981 interview with Lee Atwater,". If Herbert wasn't involved with the interview why was he mentioned. Furthermore, Atwater was a teenager at the time the "southern strategy" was allegedly proposed. Why would we listen to his take?

I would not suggest mediaite as a reliable source, however, they talk about the interview and suggest there was far more context to the comments that appears in the small quote we are given in the Wiki article:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/martin-bashir-broadcasts-misleading-edit-of-lee-atwater-quote-to-portray-gop-as-racist/

This isolated remark from a more than 40 minute conversation clearly lacks important context:

Atwater began the interview by asserting that race and party were the dominant issues in the South prior to the 1964 Voting Rights Act. Following that, Southern voters became focused on the economy and national defense — in a sense, setting a trend for the nation because (with the exception of the Vietnam War) much of the Northeast, Midwest and West were still focused on local issues like agricultural and industrial policy in the 1968 and 1972 presidential elections.

The South in 1964 was considered reactionary, Neanderthalic, and so forth because we weren’t mainstream on not only on the race thing but on economic issues and national defense and all. We were considered, you know, ultraconservative and everything.

What happens is a guy like Reagan who campaigns in 1980 on a 1964 Goldwater platform, minus the boo-boos and obviously the Voting Rights Act and [Tennessee Valley Authority] and all that bullshit. But, if you look at the economics and the national defense, what happened is the South went from being behind the times to being mainstream.

The Reagans did not have to do a Southern strategy for two reasons: number one, race was not a dominant issue, and, number two, the mainstream issues in this campaign had been quote “southern issues” since way back in the ‘60s

“So, Reagan goes out and campaigns on economics and national defense. The whole campaign was devoid of any kind of racism. Any kind of reference,” Atwater continued.

He went on to chide white Southerners for their lack of knowledge of the true impact of the Voting Rights Act on American voting patterns. “There’s just no interest and no intensity on that thing among white voters,” Atwater said with an audible hint of derision.

Atwater goes on to say that the “Southern strategy,” as it was understood at the time, was really a play for white blue-collar voters. Those voters went for John Kennedy in 1960 and Barry Goldwater in 1964, but they went for George Wallace in 1968 – a candidate who also won urban white voters in the North’s declining industrial bases as well as the rural south by appealing to notions of alienation.

After supporting Richard Nixon‘s reelection bid in 1972, those blue-collar voters flipped and cast their ballots for Jimmy Carter in 1976. Atwater stresses that blue-collar voters have always been attracted to “the most conservative guy on fiscal matters” or “the toughest son of a bitch on national defense and foreign policy.” Regional pride issues also attracted low-education white voters, Atwater said with yet another note of disdain.

He goes on to note that the VRA would have been a major issue in the South in 1968, but, by 1980, Reagan did not have to run a regional campaign. His national themes of a strong defense and a renewed focus on fiscal conservatism carried the South as it did the Midwest and the West.

At this point, Lamis interrupts Atwater. Lamis notes that the fiscal debates of the 1980 campaign – reforming welfare and the food stamp program, for example – have an undeniable racial element to them. Atwater answers his question “as a statistician.”

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, it backfires. So you say stuff like, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and the byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites. And, subconsciously, maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract and that coded then we’re doing away with the racial problem one way or the other, you follow me? “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

A report by The Nation’s Rick Perlstein, in which the audio of the interview is published, omits the portion in bold – a crucial bit of context. Bashir’s segment also omitted this exculpatory aside.

What Atwater is saying in the omitted portion of this interview is that, by 1980, overt appeals to racism had lost their efficacy. In the midst of a clinical evaluation of campaign strategy, Atwater digresses to contend that racism both exists and is no longer an effective tool for campaigners.

At the very least, an honest appraisal of what Atwater is saying is that a racial strategy is not a prudent course for campaigners in the South. And this was 30 years ago. To misquote him in order to attest that he was referring to circumstances relevant today is misleading at best.

Sorry to include so much of the article but the point is the context of the conversation doesn't really support the racist southern strategy claims and there is certainly no reason to reference Herbert in that paragraph at all. I would hope that at the least you agree that Herbert's name should be removed since it's not clear from the citation how he is involved. Getoverpops (talk) 05:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

If Corey Robin is a reliable source is Anne Coulter also reliable?

I've noticed that many of the book references in this article come from Corey Robin. Robin makes a claim about Nixon but offers no reference and then goes on to quote the same Atwater quote that was discussed in previous Talk sections (one archived last year and mine). I have two issues with this reference. First, it seems rather circular. The sort of thing where lots of people say they heard something from many sources so it must be true but when you trace all the rumors back you find a common source. That appears to be what we have here. Anyway, if these sorts of political books are valid references would Ann Coulter's books be valid counter references?--Getoverpops (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

What a ridiculous comparison. Robin is a professor of political science with a PHD from yale. Gamaliel (talk) 05:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

That is not a Wiki-credible answer. Coulter has a JD from Michigan (a very good law program). Also the Coulter book that I've found which discusses the Southern Strategy (Mugged) includes footnotes and citations. Robin's book does not. Which should we consider to be more reputable, a book written by an author with more credentials but the book is lacking references or a book written by an acknowledged opinion writer but which contains references? This all leads back to my primary concern with the article and the point which either needs to go to moderation or needs to be agreed upon. That point is that there are sufficient references saying "no" to call the claim of a "racism based 'southern strategy'" debateable. Why is it not reasonable to start the article with "alleged" and also include a dissenting view section?--Getoverpops (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

you can taken this question to the reliable sources discussion board and see if you can find anyone who thinks your argument is sound and consistent with wikipedia policy. Gamaliel (talk) 06:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Understand I would normally take Coulter an an opinion writer. That means she may put together a sound argument but she also might pick and choose her battles in such a way as to show only one side of an argument. Her biases are of course well known. However, do we know if some of the other sources people are using as "proof" of a racist "southern strategy" really are any better? Can we trust that, for example, when Robin says there was a "Southern Strategy" he knows this from some historical record or is he repeating something that has been said over and over again under the assumption it was fact (GM couldn't understand why the Nova didn't sell in Spanish speaking countries). A marketing Prof might use the story of GM's Latin American Nova sales as the lead in to a lecture on getting to know a local market before trying to sell there. In that context the story is catchy and possibly educational. However, since the story is actually not true, we shouldn't assume that just because a smart person says it, that the details of the story are true.

Going back to some of the articles which are used by this wiki to support the existence of a "southern strategy", many simply state it exist then go on to talk about something else. For example, both the Apple and Rondy links are held up in the intro as "proof" of a racist "southern strategy" simply because the authors say there was such a thing. They don't offer proof that such a thing existed. Hence I find those to be dubious references. They could be taken to mean the idea has been accepted as a backdrop for political conversations but it doesn't mean there is actual fact to the claim. Again, I intend to edit and if need be get moderation to push this point. The article is currently flawed because it accepts, based on poor evidence, that a racist "southern strategy" is a given yet a number of editors refused to allow equally strong (or weak) contradictory evidence to be posted. I'm posting here so my changes and their justifications can be well documented and we can avoid people wrongly claiming edit wars--Getoverpops (talk) 07:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

More sources defining (not alleging) the southern strategy

William C. Binning, Larry E Esterly, Paul A Sracic. Encyclopedia of American parties, campaigns, and elections. Westport, Conn. : Greenwood Press 1999

p. 386: "The Southern strategy was a conscious effort by the Republican party to gain a foothold in what had been the solid Democratic South." Gamaliel (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this actually something the book proves or the book simply states as an assumed fact? Given the scope of what the book claims to cover (there is an issue of access here since this is not readily available on line) how can we know this is proof vs simply a statement of assumed fact such as a claiming the "Pinto Memo" was about gas tanks... or the Pinto. Basically as it stands this isn't any more of a source than some of the previous articles I've discussed.

John J. Patrick, Richard M. Pious, and Donald A. Ritchie. The Oxford Guide to the United States Government. Oxford University Press, 1993 ISBN-13: 9780195142730

"Republicans adopted a “Southern strategy”—running candidates and making appointments that would appeal to the region's conservative sentiments. The strategy encouraged many Democrats to register or vote as Republicans. The “solid South” made way for a two-party South as Southern voters began electing Republicans as well as Democrats to Congress." Gamaliel (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

A Google search of the text (admittedly not a perfect method) doesn't show your paragraph. The only mention of a "southern strategy" (my search term) as a mention of Zachery Taylor.

--Getoverpops (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• What is meant by "conservative"? We have seen that the GOP has made strong inroads with religious conservatives, especially in the south. Are you saying that appealing to religious conservatives is appealing to racism? Remember the opening line of the wiki says it was an appeal to racist instincts. Your links above do not show that. I have links that dispute a racist plan that are from several academics at more than one university. That should be plenty to meet a standard that says the "racism" part is in dispute. That is all I need to show to justify adding text to the article that shows the facts are in dispute. --Getoverpops (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Matthew Mace Barbee, Race and Masculinity in Southern Memory, Lexington Books, 2013

P124: "These shifts had to occur without resort to racist language or direct reference of racial fears...Unable to directly and overtly tap white fear, conservatives deployed a highly abstract platform that spoke to those fears without engaging in weighted, offensive language. Often called the "Southern Strategy," this technique has proven influential for national candidates from Nixon through George W. Bush" Gamaliel (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this a credible source or simply one that is stating a known legend as fact? Regardless, this is simply more evidence that the facts of the "southern strategy" are in dispute and thus the article should have a section addressing the dispute and the intro should not lead off with a statement implying fact. --Getoverpops (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It is a book by a university professor from an academic publisher stating it as fact and not legend, which is evidence for exactly the opposite of your assertion here. Gamaliel (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

And I have posted links to books by university professors from academic publishers stating the opposite. What that means is we have two or more credible sources saying different things. How does Wiki suggest we address that issue? Based on an earlier post by Tom it would appear that putting "alleged" is an option. However, he is right, that can be a word that suggests the "alleged" is actually false. We could call it disputed which would be more neutral as to the actual facts. In that case what do we do with the lead in? It is not acceptable to have an opening that suggests the "racist southern strategy" is a thing if we have credible (according to Wiki standards) sources that say it is not.

How do you propose to address the issue of conflicting sources?Getoverpops (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Alleged would unduly emphasize your favored sources and violate NPOV. Gamaliel (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't fully agree but you have a point. How would you suggest the information be included? The intro should not, as it current does, indicate that we are dealing with established fact. Perhaps we could say that the "SS" is a term referring to, according to various sources, a policty to win over southern voters. Notable authors (saying notable avoids making it sound like only fringe authors are claiming it) have said it involved appealing to racist motives while others have said they GOP targeted non-racist (a better phrase would be good here) concerns such as economic considerations. I'm sure we can come up with something better as a group. Simply refusing to add any of the credible sources that say it wasn't racist isn't acceptable since they meet the wiki standards for reliable sources. It should be a question of how, not if. --Getoverpops (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe you have provided reliable sources that justify changing the introduction, sorry. Gamaliel (talk) 04:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Then you aren't looking. The book mentioned by the NY Times was written by a pair of academics. The Myth of Southern Exceptionalism edited by Matthew D. Lassiter, Joseph Crespino is edited by two academics and published by Oxford University Press. The Myth of the Racist Republicans By: Gerard Alexander is an article written by an academic in the field. How many do we need to have before we can say the facts are in dispute at the academic level?Getoverpops (talk) 04:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says the facts are in dispute at the academic level? Or are you pointing to some outliers and making that claim yourself? Gamaliel (talk) 04:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I just showed two text and an article written by academics. What are you looking for? BTW, your above sources appear to be questionable. See my recent edit/reply.--Getoverpops (talk) 04:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

"The Myth of the Racist Republicans", which was published in the Claremont Review of Books, says there was a Southern Strategy.[12] The dispute over the Southern Strategy is not whether it occurred but whether or not the Republican Party/Conservatives/the South are inherently racist. There is no dispute that the Republican Party appealed to racism to gain support in the South. TFD (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course you're right. Problems with this source have pointed out to Getover before and he has failed to provide any adequate rebuttal. The other source has also been effectively contested (see [13] for example) -- again no effective rebuttal. At this point, we have to assume that this latest response by Getover represents his best effort (he has made about 37 edits of significant length on these topics) at locating sources. IMO he has failed and it is time for him to move on. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

[personal attacks removed] Getoverpops (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Back to personal attacks? Nowhere in the article does the phrase "racist southern strategy" appear, does it? This was explained to you before. Perhaps you should check out Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, especially WP:REHASH. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? "In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a Republican Party strategy of gaining political support for certain candidates in the Southern United States by appealing to racism against African Americans." The first sentence says it was a plan to use racism. How is that NOT racist?--Getoverpops (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I explained that to you before, didn't I? Let me repeat it:

You state: "The point is that their is limited evidence to support it's existence and a good bit of evidence to support the notion that a racist southern strategy did not exist." However what our article actually says is: "In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a Republican Party strategy of gaining political support for certain candidates in the Southern United States by appealing to racism against African Americans". Big difference. The policy may or may not have been racist (it could be purely pragmatic); what's not in doubt is that the policies were designed to attract folks holding racist views.

Historian Sean Wilentz in "The Age of Reagan" (p. 282) makes this exact distinction: "Likewise, whatever his personal views were about racial justice, Reagan's rhetoric as well as the policies of his Department of Justice greatly reassured the enemies of civil rights reforms, their politics forged in reaction to the advances of the 1960s, that he was on their side."

Look familiar? Are you serious when you argue that Nixon, Reagan, and other users of the southern strategy were not fully aware that their policies on desegregation would appeal to racists? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

And I've already replied to this. Sorry, the simple fact is there are sources that are both credible and do not agree with this article. How do you propose they are added? Additionally, a number of references are misused in the article. For example the claim that the GOP apologized to black voters (how can that not be seen as an attempt to say anything to get votes) was held up in a single sentence "paragraph" as proof that a "racist southern strategy" existed. That is not a credible citation. The Wiki editor is assigning meaning to the quote which it can not logically have.--Getoverpops (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Removal of the dispute tag

This article is currently the subject of dispute resolution. Why was the POV tag removed?--Getoverpops (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute Notice

Due to the our inability to reach a resolution on the neutrality of this article I have submitted it to the Neutrality noticeboard. [[14]]. I have added the POV tag because the article is currently on the review board. It should be removed upon completion of the review. --Getoverpops (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Edited intro

I added sources to the intro, avoided claims of "alleged" to avoid biasing the reader but did add sources that disagree with the original into. This is a reasonable and balanced change. If you disagree clearly state why. Please do not start an edit war.--Getoverpops (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Every source you added and most of the material you added has been disputed in the seven or so sections above -- most of which you started. I don't believe any further elaboration on the UNANIMOUS disagreement with your proposals is needed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You are not applying the same level of scrutiny to sources that support the claims as you are to ones that dispute the claims. Furthermore those sources meet the Wiki standards for reliable sources and they are topical. Given that, under what grounds would you have them removed? Why are you willing to tolerate questionable sources that support the racist strategy hypothesis but unwilling to consider ones that dispute it? Given the history of the talk section it is clear that many other editors are unhappy with this article but they have lost patience with trying to change it. This may be an example of article ownership. I have requested Dispute resolution because you are unwilling to accept alternative points of view in this article.--Getoverpops (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You are not applying the same level of scrutiny to sources that support the claims as you are to ones that dispute the claims. Furthermore those sources meet the Wiki standards for reliable sources and they are topical. Given that, under what grounds would you have them removed? Why are you willing to tolerate questionable sources that support the racist strategy hypothesis but unwilling to consider ones that dispute it? Given the history of the talk section it is clear that many other editors are unhappy with this article but they have lost patience with trying to change it. This may be an example of article ownership. I have requested Dispute resolution because you are unwilling to accept alternative points of view in this article.--Getoverpops (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

−

I hope Getoverpops reads the James Boyd article thoroughly on Kevin Phillips, who was with the Nixon administration. He had been analyzing the continuing shifts of ethnic politics for some time and realized there were Democratic voters in the North and South who would be willing to shift into the Republican Party because of the Democrats' national "identification with the newcomers" in their party, that is, the African Americans and Hispanics. Phillips thought the people in the Upper South's suburbs were a good target for Republican appeals, as they were more moderate than voters in the Deep South. But in Virginia, those suburbs had already been part of the Massive Resistance to integration of schools, for example, and had been committed to segregation.Parkwells (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion for dealing with this article is to cite who referred to Nixon and Reagan's having a Southern strategy, describe the results of the elections (their goal was to capture the presidency and they did). Add the later "conservative response," denials, and proposals of economics as the "true" alternatives as to why people went to the Republican Party can be described; but these are the results of later studies, not the contemporary analysis. They responded to the controversy generated by naming this strategy. But I suggest any such "Controversy" section should be treated separately, with a clear indication as to who is speaking/writing. Identify the academics who disagree, not as a list, but by name and affiliation, rather than "some", etc. Parkwells (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It has to be acknowledged that the term "Southern strategy" entered the political lexicon to characterize such actions as Reagan kicking off his campaign in Philadelphia, MS, known only as the site of the murders of the civil rights workers, where he defended states rights. Everyone was alert to the symbolism of that gesture. So cite a source saying the Republicans have denied that was the intended symbolism; the results were in the votes. People can have more than one opinion as to what happened as political realignments continued, and people vote for more than one reason - but often first out of emotion. Kevin Phillips, the Nixon strategist, said in his own words and work that there was an opportunity to capture shifting votes based on ethnic/racial appeals, and was part of the campaign and administration that achieved this. He was speaking from inside the Republican Party, not as an outside observer. It is going against the sources to try to contend that the Republican spokesman's 2005 apology for using racial polarization has no relation to the Southern strategy as described in this article or by Phillips in the Boyd article. I agree with Tom (NorthShoreman).Parkwells (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

How can I take the above as good faith vs partisan defense of a topic that seems to only attack the GOP (note the large number of accusations of bias in the talk history). The entry of the term into the lexicon is generally in agreement. The dispute is over the nature of the actual plan (or even if a singular plan existed). Incidentally, given the number of times the motives of authors who dispute the racist hypothesis have been posted why shouldn't the motivations of those who support the claims also be presented?--Getoverpops (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

If I called George Wallace a racist, would that be an attack, or a sober description? In this article we are trying to neutrally describe, with reference to the most authoritative sources, a strategy that was undeniably used by the Republican Party. This is a fact of history and political science. It is unsurprising that Republicans want to deny it, but it happened, per the vast consensus of professional historians. You can wok with us to improve the article, but this topic is not alleged to exist; it is an established historical fact, and it is not going away. — goethean 21:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Substituted alternative language about the Republican Party's "appealing to regional racial tensions and history of segregation" in the Lead. No one has to prove to you as an editor that "a singular plan" existed; political campaigns are running games. Sure, ID who wrote about the Southern Strategy - and include Kevin Phillips' detailed discussion and assessment of his studies as quoted in the NY Times Boyd article.Parkwells (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

That is a false argument. What you are attempting to do is setup up a test where any thing that could be seen as possibly detrimental to a particular race would be prof of a racist strategy. That is beside the point. We have sources that pass wiki muster that say the racist narrative is false. Those should be included in the article. You make the article better by being more inclusive of information, not suppressing it. --Getoverpops (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Changed the second paragraph to improve description of changing politics in the South after Civil War; it had previously started with the Solid South, but that term developed in the 20th century after the South disenfranchised its large African-American population and many poor whites, and was sending white-only Democratic delegations to Congress.Parkwells (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

When you claim there is a "southern strategy" you are referring to a single plan (long term or not). The problem is if you open up the definition we get into a game of wak-a-mole. All we have to do to "prove" this racism is prove that someone somewhere was racist while running for office in the south. If that is the standard then it would likely apply to all parties for all national elections. If the idea is to discuss this general nebulous concept then again articles which dispute this nebulous concept or say it is different than often described are still valid additions. What is troubling here is the degree to which people will refuse to include some sources yet defend other questionable sources and/or citations. Note, due to concurrent edits I've had to place texts next to the paragraphs they would have followed had the other edits not occurred.--Getoverpops (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You're the one setting up a test - equating a strategy with "a single plan". No one has to find language about a "single plan" to satisfy your contention that this is what it means. The word "strategy" is not synonymous with a single plan. You have not referred to any sources saying there was no strategy; you have said other academics or commentators believe there were reasons other than racial appeals that Democrats shifted into the Republican Party. No one suggests there is only one reason. But, the sources, including Kevin Phillips from inside the administration, show that Nixon and Reagan played on racial issues in their strategy for their campaigns.Parkwells (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

If editors do not like my suggested changes about "appealing to regional racial tensions and history of segregation" in the Lead, then change the first paragraph back. I don't think it's "opening it up" - it is following the same kind of thinking about context as shown in the sources.Parkwells (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Your source, Gerard Alexander in The Claremont Review article, says, "Now to be sure, the GOP had a Southern strategy. Willing to work with, rather than against, the grain of Southern opinion, local Republicans ran some segregationist candidates in the 1960s. And from the 1950s on, virtually all national and local GOP candidates tried to craft policies and messages that could compete for the votes of some pretty unsavory characters. This record is incontestable. It is also not much of a story—that a party acted expediently in an often nasty political context." - See more at: http://www.claremont.org/article/the-myth-of-the-racist-republicans/#.VRIBz-G8rSp That's what the editors here said. Parkwells (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

As TFD said above re: Alexander's article, the "dispute over the Southern Strategy is not whether it occurred but whether or not the Republican Party/Conservatives/the South are inherently racist." Editors here are not claiming here that the party is inherently racist, but worked "with the grain of Southern opinion", as Alexander said. That sums it up well. Alexander goes on in his article to argue against later interpretations of Republican thought and practice, some specific ideas by Carter, Aistrup, and the Black brothers that are not at issue here. Parkwells (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe another solution, although unusual, is to use a quote from a source in the lead. The WA Post 2005 article by Mike Allen says about the "southern strategy", that it "described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue -- on matters such as desegregation and busing -- to appeal to white southern voters."[15] I think this is what Tom (NorthShoreman) was referring to in his version of the Lead (or whoever wrote the last one before mine). It's straightforward.Parkwells (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Parkwells, thank you for at least trying to work on this. There are other people who were inside the Nixon admin who say the there was no southern strategy. Presumably they are speaking in reaction to people who are trying to claim a racist southern strategy. I do think, for the purpose of a balanced article, that the racism part is given fair treatment. We have several articles that say the plan to win southern votes was not based on appealing to racism. Those voices should be given weight comencerate with their sources. Really, much of the article is acceptable but the lead is the real issue because the lead currently states the plan was to use racism. I don't think running with a quote is that good a plan. Often you will see newspaper articles that start with such a quote ("Congress to sell Florida!"... according to sources). It's a great way to run a flashy headline without running a "dishonest" headline. In this case if there is clear debate weather or not this nebulous thing called "the southern strategy" is an appeal to racism that debate should be included in the lead, not near the bottom of the article. The fact that people don't want to nail down what "the southern strategy" even is makes defining it as racist or not even more problematic. What if a lower ranking Regan adviser says it was. Well was that the same "southern strategy" as Nixon used? Was it used in the '76 elections? Some of the editors have said these past activities should not be used to indite the party as a whole (or something to that affect). Should that go in the lead? The problem with the current lead is it really reads as "GOP=racist". For this reason I think sources of similar weight to those in the lead should be included to balance that section. It should also be noted that many of the lead sources are not strong as the article stands. --Getoverpops (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

We have several articles that say the plan to win southern votes was not based on appealing to racism. Those voices should be given weight comencerate with their sources.

Comparing these few sources that you have been able to muster to the overwhelmingly vast weight of scholarship which agrees that the Southern Strategy existed and was used to manipulate Southern "Negrophobe" voters into the Republican Party, your carefully selected sources merit no weight in the article at all. Do a quick search on Google Books and Google Scholar.[16] [17] — goethean 16:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

This is simply not true. The section proposed below can be used to address such claims. --Getoverpops (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed changes

I'm proposing the following changes to the article introduction.

1. Add alleged to the intro sentence.
2. Specifying that the Herbert articles used in the opening are opinion pieces.
3. Removing/edit the "proof" claims that do not directly support the existence of a specific strategy, started under Nixon of appealing to racism in southern voters. Several of the claims, including the one that says the GOP apologized for ignoring minority issues are taken by this article to be proof of guilt. Instead they should only be seen as a backdrop of ignoring some minority issues.
4. Articles where a reporter simply states that "the southern strategy" existed should not be taken as proof. They should be taken as repeating an often claimed story.

This last one is similar to the way some people will start off an article about car companies calculating the cost of fighting wrongful death claims vs fixing a problem with mention of the Ford Pinto. A review of the history of the Pinto case finds that Ford didn't do such a thing but the story told by Mother Jones has stuck regardless of the actual facts. People have generally accepted that Ford did a human life vs fire value calculation when designing the Ford Pinto. It has become so prevalent in urban mythology that people mention it all the time as given to be true. Several of the articles used to support the claim of a racist "southern strategy" simply mention it in passing but offer no proof that it was ever a thing. These should be seen as no more credible than a New York Times article that mentions the "Pinto Memo" before talking about a contemporary case of a company trading lives for profit as proof that Ford's "Pinto Memo" actually did the same.

Barring feedback these changes will be made in the next day or so.--Getoverpops (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually I believe most of these have been objected to, although it's really hard to tell since you are constantly starting new sections (like this one) and filling them with more rhetoric than substance. Since your first proposal (i.e. "Add alleged to the into sentence") has been reverted by at least four editors and nobody has indicated that they've changed their minds, it appears that you're making a promise to resume edit warring. Not a good idea. Since your editing as an has resulted in the page being semi-protected and your IP being blocked, your best bet is to slow down on your proposals and wait until people actually agree with you. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

They have not been specifically objected to. In fact I had asked, before people falsely accused me of the edit war, that people who wanted to undo the edits do so here. This is the place to describe any objections to the above changes. If, the changes aren't objected to here but the article edits are simply reversed this will have to go to mediation. I hope that we won't have to do that. It is clear that looking at the talk history of this article others have objected to exactly the things I have mentioned. Those people also accused a few editors of, in effect, goal tending the article to maintain a given political view. So with that said, what are you objections to any of the 4 points?--Getoverpops (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with everything Tom has said here. Gamaliel (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Tom as well and oppose adding "alleged" to the intro sentence. I don't think I understand what specific references Getoverpops is planning to remove with the third and fourth proposals, so can't really say I'd offer support. I do sort of agree that the Herbert articles aren't the best references (at least for the lede), but don't think we should remove them from the article entirely. My sense is that Herbert played a key role in informing the public about the southern strategy, especially in regards to bringing Atwater's interview to a larger audience. How about replacing the Herbert references in the lede with this and this? gobonobo ^{+ c} 00:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• I would not remove the Herbert articles at all. I think they are an excellent reference as to what is alleged to be the "southern strategy". Even if the facts are not clear we should say what both sides view the facts or the alleged strategy to be. However, what is your (and Tom, this question is for you too),reason for refusing to want to put "alleged" in the title given that we have sources that say there never was a plan to take the south by appealing to racism (ie "the southern strategy" as outlined in the opening sentence)? Certainly we have sources that meet a reasonable level of reliability according to Wikipedia that say there never was a racist southern plan. Conversely none of the opening sources should be taken as overly reliable (as I outlined above). Hence we have reasonable doubt and thus the article should discuss this as an alleged strategy. What level of confidence would you have to have in refuting evidence to accept an "alleged" intro? I wouldn't be opposed to using either of the Salon references but we need to remember that Salon, like the National Review would be an source with a somewhat biased POV. If we are willing to accept Salon as prof for then I think something from the National Review would be a reasonable counter article. This again gets back to we have evidence both for and against and thus we as editors shouldn't decide entirely in favor of one or the other. As I recall simple agreement is a first step but not the final mediator of an article. You need to explain why you think I'm wrong (Gamaliel & Tom). If you can't then this will certainly end up in mediation.

Before removing/editing any of the specific claims that I feel don't properly support the existence of a racist southern strategy I will post the changes here. Previously I had asked that people move the topic to talk before undoing my changes (something not mentioned in the "edit war" claim against me). Several of the examples are discussed in my previous talk posts but I think we need to work on the alleged part first.

I think it is critical to define, preferably in the intro or just after, what people claim the "racist southern strategy" really is. That is people have alleged there was a plan to appeal to southern voters who were allegedly mad at the democrats for passing civil rights laws. OK, so what appeals were made? If the GOP say decided to focus on say farm subsidies (and assume those were of great value to the south) would that be racist? On the other hand if they said school integration was a state's choice, well that would be racist. Thus two possible ways to appeal to southern voters but only one is racist. Without showing what the GOP offered as a carrot to "racist" southern voters how can one tell if the political offering was racist?--Getoverpops (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that someone add a paragraph describing exactly what is alleged to be "the southern strategy". This is important because it is safe to assume all politicians running on a national scale have some strategy for each region of the country. I'm sure our current president had one. That doesn't mean that those strategies are any more racist because they involve the south than a strategy to win western states (ie a "western strategy"). Thus what the objectionable strategy is needs to be defined so we can say if any supporting claims actually support the objectionable strategy vs just a plan to appeal to voters of a region (say religion in the relatively religious south). --Getoverpops (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

In order to use qualifiers such as "alleged" we need to show that some sources challenge its accuracy. We cannot base this on our personal views on the sources provided in the article. TFD (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Well that's settled then. This was already done by myself and others and we can add some additional sources as well. You left out that we can also show that the sources provided do not support what the claims they are being used to support within the article. That by itself doesn't make it alleged but if it's shown that what appeared to be a large number of sources for is actually quite small and the number of sources against is larger than originally thought... well that would be "alleged".

I would like to ask how people feel about reducing the emphasis placed on sources that mention the southern strategy in passing or as a historical event without going into detail. For instance, Mike Allen's article (ref 12) starts with "it was called the southern strategy" but the article isn't about this alleged historic strategy but instead about the GOP ignoring the needs of black voters. That type of mention can not be seen as a strong proof that a racist southern strategy existed and more than a mention of the Ford Pinto memo in an article about drug companies trading lives for profits can be seen as proof that Ford did such a thing and documented it. The primary sources that should be used as proof of such a strategy must be ones that specifically discuss it and it's details, not ones that make mention in passing. The Allen article's use in the Wiki entry is particularly flawed because the editor used an apology for one thing as proof of another thing simply because Allen mentioned it as an opening line. That makes it a dubious reference. --Getoverpops (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Allen provides a pretty accurate description of the Southern strategy when he says, "It was called "the southern strategy," started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue -- on matters such as desegregation and busing -- to appeal to white southern voters."

As far as your claim that you've already provided adequate sources to support the issue you edit warred over, the fact is that you failed to address the problems raised above with the sources you produced. This is the problem when you keep starting new sections for discussion rather than finishing the old business.

Along with all the other problems with adding "alleged" to the first sentence of this article, you need to consider WP:ALLEGED from the MOS article Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. This states, "Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

No, Allen simply states that it existed then goes on to talk about a wide range of grievances. The only claim to the "racist southern strategy" is the opening paragraph which simply states what the supposed strategy was but doesn't provide any sort of proof. It, along with the entries by Herbert would be very good sources to justify what the alleged strategy was but not a good source to prove such a strategy ever actually existed.

It was called "the southern strategy," started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue -- on matters such as desegregation and busing -- to appeal to white southern voters.

It is not clear what issues you think I have failed to address. Please be specific.

If you think alleged is the wrong word, what word would you pick given the very existence of a "racist southern strategy" is in dispute. Here are sources that say it never happened.

http://www.claremont.org/article/the-myth-of-the-racist-republicans/#.VQ9uXIjnRak

http://www.claremont.org/article/southern-strategy/#.VQ9uPojnRak A reply to the above which suggests an alternative method for measuring the impact but does not disagree with the conclusion. Both articles are written by academics in the field.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/390398/elbert-guillory-bear-killer-gadfly-statesman-joel-gehrke Elbert Guillroy denies such a policy existed (this would be similar to the Allen claim, mentioned in passing).

We also have the NY Times article which is every bit as reasonable as the Herbert references. The NY Times article reports on the contents of an academic paper. Herbert's work is Op-Ed and thus according to Wiki reliable source standards should only be taken as proof of his opinion. So when you combine the above sources which say it didn't happen with the weakness in the sources that try to show it did (as opposed to the ones that mention it as if it were proven fact) I think we have met the standard for an "alleged". However, a more neutral word would certainly be acceptable. Then again, "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined". Isn't that the case we are dealing with here?--Getoverpops (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I check the very first link you provide and find the following (bold face added):

"Now to be sure, the GOP had a Southern strategy. Willing to work with, rather than against, the grain of Southern opinion, local Republicans ran some segregationist candidates in the 1960s. And from the 1950s on, virtually all national and local GOP candidates tried to craft policies and messages that could compete for the votes of some pretty unsavory characters. This record is incontestable. It is also not much of a story—that a party acted expediently in an often nasty political context."

You didn't include the paragraph just before that one which puts things in context, hence you were trying to change the author's meaning.

A myth about conservatism is circulating in academia and journalism and has spread to the 2004 presidential campaign. It goes something like this: the Republican Party assembled a national majority by winning over Southern white voters; Southern white voters are racist; therefore, the GOP is racist. Sometimes the conclusion is softened, and Republicans are convicted merely of base opportunism: the GOP is the party that became willing to pander to racists. Either way, today's Republican Party—and by extension the conservative movement at its heart—supposedly has revealed something terrible about itself.

This myth is not the only viewpoint in scholarly debates on the subject. But it is testimony to its growing influence that it is taken aboard by writers like Dan Carter, a prize-winning biographer of George Wallace, and to a lesser extent by the respected students of the South, Earl and Merle Black. It is so pervasive in mass media reporting on racial issues that an NBC news anchor can casually speak of "a new era for the Republican Party, one in which racial intolerance really won't be tolerated." It has become a staple of Democratic politicians like Howard Dean, who accuses Republicans of "dividing Americans against each other, stirring up racial prejudices and bringing out the worst in people" through the use of so-called racist "codewords." All this matters because people use such putative connections to form judgments, and "racist" is as toxic a reputation as one can have in U.S. politics. Certainly the 2000 Bush campaign went to a lot of trouble to combat the GOP's reputation as racially exclusionary. I even know young Republicans who fear that behind their party's victories lies a dirty, not-so-little Southern secret.

The bold is my emphasis. It's very clear in that opening the author does not agree that a racist southern strategy exists. --Getoverpops (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

There may be a legitimate debate to be had about the extent and the duration of the racism, but, as your source shows, racism was certainly a very important part of it. The way to address that IS NOT to throw in the word "alleged" in the first sentence of the lead. You were pointed to WP:WEIGHT by another editor -- it states "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Another editor referred to your POV as fringe. With these policies in mind, you need to make the case for ANY expansion of your POV beyond what is already in the article.

I checked your National Review article about Elbert Guillory. I find that he loved Nixon because of affirmative action but don't see that he has an opinion on the southern strategy. I assume the NYT article you refer to is the book review -- you never did respond to the info I provided on a very critical review of the same work by an academic. That review says that even Shafer and Johnston (the authors being reviewed) "stipulate that the demise of legal segregation largely drove the change in southern partisan loyalties from Democratic to Republican in presidential elections."

Your distortion of the MOS section I pasted is bizarre. You really think an exception for pending criminal cases has ANY RELEVANCE at all for this discussion? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

First, a single random editor coming in here and claiming ANY thing I said to this end would be fringe is a worthless comment. The NY Times decided Shafer and Johnston were credible enough to report on their book. That doesn't make the hypothesis true but it moves it far from "fringe". That you found a critic of the book is great but that doesn't make it wrong. Both sources can be included in the Wiki article. What is important is that the book is yet more evidence that this "racist southern strategy" is a thing in dispute hence by your own admission "alleged" is appropriate.

Elbert Guillory: in the included article the author speaks of the "so-called southern strategy". That is the author's way of saying he doesn't buy into the common story line. It is every bit as credible (or more specifically not credible) as the Allen article. I would propose that both be used only as evidence that there is a popular conception about the "racist southern strategy" but that it's not an agreed upon thing.

The Claremont source does NOT support the idea that there was a "racist southern strategy". Remember, the article (and you) are claiming a specific racist plan was implemented (though you have not defined what that plan was). Both Dems and Repubs have engaged in dirty politics over the years and worked with dirty players to get votes. That is not proof that a "racist southern strategy" existed. Second, the claim is that the GOP appealed to racism to get votes. If the things they offered were not racist in nature how can this be an appeal to racism? More than one source has claimed the shift from Democrat to Republican in the south was more about religious views and before that financial views (the GOP was historically the party of the more affluent).

I have no idea what you are talking about with the "MOS section". Please make sure your arguments are clear.--Getoverpops (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

← It's probably time to put a stop to this. I agree with everyone else here (except for Getoverpops) that the proposed changes aren't appropriate. It would be worth tightening up the sourcing—Herbert's New York Times article may be relevant but it is, after all, an opinion piece and is better replaced with more reliable/independent sources. But the effort to sow confusion or "allegedness" about the Southern strategy is a no-go, because it goes against the sources. There are plenty more, including this New York Times piece in which Kevin Phillips, one of the GOP strategists who pioneered the Southern strategy, described it thus:

All the talk about Republicans making inroads into the Negro vote is persiflage... From now on, the Republicans are never going get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are.

The last two sentences are as good a summary of the Southern strategy as any, and if you (Getoverpops) are interested in a well-sourced description of the strategy straight from the horse's mouth, then we should probably incorporate it. MastCell ^Talk 18:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Your attempt to dismiss without cause not withstanding there is enough evidence here that the article should CLEARLY state that the claim that such a strategy exists is not an agreed fact among those studying the history. I've included several academic authors who do not agree. It appears that we will have to take this to mediation since the editors in this case are not open to including sources that dispute the claims.--Getoverpops (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to add some additional references.

The Myth of Southern Exceptionalism edited by Matthew D. Lassiter, Joseph Crespino This book takes direct aim at the notion of a racist southern strategy.

In Search of Another Country: Mississippi and the Conservative Counterrevolution, Joseph Crespino

In the Republican Party, conservative and moderate Republicans in both the state and national party were divided over the question of how vigorously the GOP should pursue southern Dixiecrat voters. To many national observers, President Nixon's election in 1968 and his administration's close attention to the concerns of segregationist leaders in a state like Mississippi led to charges that the administration was pursuing a "southern strategy". When asked about such a strategy, Richard Nixon readily admitted that he targeted white southern voters, but he distinguished between the Deep South states that Barry Goldwater won in 1964 and the border South states that helped put Nixon over the op four years later. Nixon argued that by going after "foam-at-the-mouth segregationishts," Goldwater weakened Republican appeals among moderates. For Nixon, at least in retrospect, the southern strategy meant targeting not the segregationist Dixiecrat followers of George Wallace but rather moderate suburban and upper South whites who readily identified with the fiscal and social conservatism of the Republican Party."

The above two and the other ones I've added are hardly in sum "Fringe" sources and make a strong case that the allegations should be qualified with "alleged". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getoverpops (talk • contribs) 19:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you're helping your cause by cherry-picking sources like this. First of all, your quote establishes that the "Southern strategy" is the mainstream historical understanding of the realignment of Southern party politics, but that Richard Nixon retrospectively distanced himself from the more racist elements of the strategy. Moreover, the very next sentence, which you chose to excerpt, reads: But the actual record of the Mississippi Republican Party was much more complicated than Nixon's post facto analysis allowed. It goes on to explain that Southern Republicans worked with the Nixon White House to undermine civil-rights programs in the South in order to win over white segregationist voters from the Democratic Party. So this source further supports our existing text on the Southern strategy, your borderline-dishonest misrepresentation of it nothwithstanding. MastCell ^Talk 19:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

"First of all, your quote establishes that the "Southern strategy" is the mainstream historical understanding of the realignment of Southern party politics". OK, but that isn't what the wiki is claiming. The Wiki is claiming the strategy was a deliberately racist strategy. The articles do NOT support that claim. You are failing to understand that the critical point is NOT that people think the racist southern strategy existed (that much is clearly a fact). The point is that their is limited evidence to support it's existence and a good bit of evidence to support the notion that a racist southern strategy did not exist. That puts the article in the area of alleged.

As a parallel example, take the Pinto: "history has said the Ford Pinto had a gas tank that was designed to a price. Ford decided it would be cheaper to pay off the families of people who would die in rear impact fires rather than spend just a few dollars to fix the gas tank." That is a quick summary of the popular history of the Ford Pinto. I think few would argue that is the pop-history version of events. However, if you look into the mater you will find that the actual events and actual choices at Ford were far more complex and in general not nefarious. Ford_Pinto#Fuel_tank_controversy The same thing appears to be true here. --Getoverpops (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

You state: "The point is that their is limited evidence to support it's existence and a good bit of evidence to support the notion that a racist southern strategy did not exist." However what our article actually says is: "In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a Republican Party strategy of gaining political support for certain candidates in the Southern United States by appealing to racism against African Americans". Big difference. The policy may or may not have been racist (it could be purely pragmatic); what's not in doubt is that the policies were designed to attract folks holding racist views.

Historian Sean Wilentz in "The Age of Reagan" (p. 282) makes this exact distinction:"Likewise, whatever his personal views were about racial justice, Reagan's rhetoric as well as the policies of his Department of Justice greatly reassured the enemies of civil rights reforms, their politics forged in reaction to the advances of the 1960s, that he was on their side."

As far as your cherry-picking that MastCell identified, a review of Crespino's book in The Journal of American History (Vol. 95, No. 2 (Sep., 2008), pp. 607-608) notes that "Crespino contends that politicians such as Richard M. Nixon and Ronald Reagan were archtypes of the racial backlash that fueled the conservative movement. Both Nixon and Reagan came to Mississippi to seek votes from disaffected whites, speaking in coded language about Communism and state's rights, respectively." I'll take the academic review over your opinion of what Crespino actually argued. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

PS Bruce H. Kalk in The North Carolina Historical Review (Vol. 71, No. 1 (JANUARY 1994), pp. 85-105) describes one of the important steps Nixon took in implementing his southern strategy:

"On May 31, 1968, Nixon flew to Atlanta, Georgia, to meet with southern Republicans. At the Atlanta conference, he negotiated with senators Strom Thurmond of South Carolina and John Tower of Texas, Mississippi GOP chairman Clarke Reed, and other conservative leaders. The first day of the conference Nixon met with the Republican state chairmen. On June 1 he talked with Thurmond, Tower, and others. In return for their support, Nixon made several specific promises. He pledged to stop the accelerating federal commitment to racial integration by easing pressure on southern school boards and discouraging plans to bus students in order to achieve desegregation. He also promised his support for conservative, "strict-constructionist" Supreme Court nominees. If elected, Nixon said he would consult with southern GOP leaders regularly. He gave Thurmond the impression of a "southern veto" on White House policies that affected the South.8 He also promised Thurmond help for the struggling textile industry in the Carolinas and, of special interest to the South Carolinian, support for a more aggressive American military posture. The candidate's promises seemed earnest enough to win pledges from the "Dixiecrat-segregationists," most notably from Senator Thurmond himself."

Do you have sources that dispute this agenda of this meeting? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• No this is basically the same thing and more importantly there are only a limited number of sources that have offered any credible claims that the strategy was to appeal to racism. That is the critical thing here. No one disputes that there had to have been some plan to win votes in the south. What is in question, and the reason why I say we need to add "alleged" is because the claim of this wiki is that the plan was to appeal to racism.

• I don't recall Regan running with Nixon. Are we talking about Nixon or Regan? Are you even sure or is the idea to mention everyone?

• I don't think you are in a position to berate others for "cherry picking". It doesn't mater. The fact of the mater is there are credible sources that disagree with the narative of this article. They should be included and the opening should indicate that the facts/narrative is in dispute.

• Congratulations, you have found sources that say a southern plan was drawn up. That is not what the opening sentence of this Wiki says. The opening sentence says that the plan was to appeal to racism, not just to appeal to southern voters who were no longer happy with the Dixiecrats. Your above references DON'T say that an alleged southern strategy was planing to use racism to get votes. So which is it? This is exactly why I think we need a formal definition of what the "southern strategy" really was.
• Anyway, I have discussed the changes that should be made. I will go about making them in a way that tries to make sure your views are preserved. I hope that we can avoid taking this to mediation. Given the number of conservative critical articles you are involved with I don't have high hopes for that. --Getoverpops (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Tom, I put my posts where I did because they were replies to your lines. Unless you can point to a Wiki policy that says that is not OK it is not OK to edit what I said. I would undo your change but I do not wish to disturb the post after it. --Getoverpops (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Baloney. This is the type of rude behavior that got you blocked once. See WP:AVOIDABUSE for the common sense guideline -- "Interweaving rebuttals into the middle of another person's comments disrupts the flow of the discussion and breaks the attribution of comments. It may be intelligible to some, but it is virtually impossible for the rest of the community to follow." Now quit it and stop wasting my time. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Just as you and the other editors should have justified the removal of my reasonable edits to the article in the Talk section (that is part of BOLD) you should have posted this the first time you moved my text.--Getoverpops (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I trust you will remove the edits that were added to the article around 9:30 today as quickly as you removed mine. After all the new edits clearly are not supported, are non-neutral POV and are possibly vandalism. --Getoverpops (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I am troubled by the current POV of the article, particularly of the opening paragraph. No directive or plan from the Republican Party is cited, just anecdotal evidence. The assumption that the feelings of some political operative were universal and coordinated is then presented as fact.

That Nixon flipped Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee in 1968 is presented (without citation) as evidence of a premeditated, coordinated, racist Southern Strategy. That Nixon flipped Nevada, New Mexico, Missouri, Illinois, Delaware, and New Jersey in the same election is naturally pure coincidence and not worth mentioning.

Competing explanations for the political realignment of 1968 must be mentioned and the first paragraph must be rewritten to note the contested nature of the theory. Juno (talk) 04:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I strongly agree. I've been busy but I would like to add some new information. There is a neutrality dispute open regarding this page. To some extent the issue of the dispute was addressed by a change in the lead. However, several sources which dispute the telling of events as presented in this article were included in that discussion. I would like to make sure this article includes those sources. You are correct that currently the article is based largely on sources that are anecdotal. There is virtually no solid evidence of what happened. The results are being used as proof even though several scholars have said the results were due to other causes. In short, the article is just not very good.--Getoverpops (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

How should articles that dispute the racist nature of the "southern strategy" be added to the body of the article

How would people suggest adding articles that dispute the racist nature of the "southern strategy" be added to the article? Would a general controversy section be appropriate? In a controversy section opinion articles such as Herbert's could be cited as well as other opinion writers with clear indication that they are opinions. This would also allow the inclusion of sources, those I have listed previously, that dispute the understanding that this was a racist policy. Since racism is the public perception associated with the policy (see the Herbert references) then balanced sources should be included. Please suggest how they should be incorporated.--Getoverpops (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add a new section about the contrary, conservative viewpoints. They are notable, and you have RSs to support you. Then a light mention in the lede would be appropriate. It sure looks to me as though the southern strategy was racist, but WP isn't about what editors think. It's about what the RSs say. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

As the above sections of discussion clearly show, there has been universal disagreement against the reliability of the sources proposed by GetOver. In many cases it has been shown that language is cherry picked from the sources by GetOver, ignoring contrary language from the same sources. The sources are all up there -- perhaps you could go through them and show where Getover is right and whichever editor opposes him is wrong. I don't disagree with such a section -- what I vehemently disagree with is that GetOver has made a case for how he intends to use the sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, there has been disagreement regarding the reliability of the sources proposed by me (who is GetOver?). The claims of cherry picking are claims, not shown. You will of course have a chance to provide input to the section if you disagree with how a source is used. --Getoverpops (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually my comments were directed at Mr. Tweet. I'm encouraging him to elaborate on his apparent endorsement; it would be interesting to see if he has anything specific to add to the discussions on each individual source. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's keep straight what is being discussed - as Tom (NorthShoreman) has repeatedly said and what the Lead summarized, is the issue is the "southern strategy" that appealed to people based on racial polarization (as the Republican Party apologized for in 2005.) Maybe we should use their language in the Lead, so we can get over this argument. This article did not say the Republican Party was inherently racist, but that it used racial issues to achieve electoral success. One could argue that it was pragmatic, as some of the quotes seem to support. The Party was going for the main chance in order to get candidates elected. Sources agree on this. The Allen article in The Claremont explicitly agreed there was a southern strategy, as I quoted above. He disagreed with later conclusions by scholars about Republican Party motivations, and appeared to exaggerate later opinions for effect and to argue with.Parkwells (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that the argument regarding the first sentence is resolved. Getover's proposals have been rejected and your change apparently accepted -- it's fine with me and nobody else has objected. It seems that "racism" had been part of the sentence for years but I don't know why it was added. The distinction between a "policy INITIATED by racists" as opposed to a "policy TARGETED to appeal to racists" is an important one -- a concept that Getover rejects. I think attempting to find language that Getover will agree to is a waste of time, but, if you have the patience, go for it.

This edit [18] reverted an ill advised addition to the lead, both in timing and ignoring the context of the purpose of the sentence edited. It remains to be seen whether this is going to generate another section on the discussion page. I have repeatedly advised Getover to slow down, but it's not happening.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

On further thought, the first sentence might be better if you changed "history of segregation" to "white opposition to desegregation. This article [19] seems to be on point; the following is an excerpt from the complete JSTOR article:

On black Americans, Nixon's views were unambiguous. On April 28,1969, discussing welfare, Haldeman recorded: "P emphasized that you have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this while not appearing to. Problem with overall welfare plan is that it forces poor whites into same position as blacks (p. 53)." Nixon pointed out that "there has never in history been an adequate black nation, and they are the only race of which this is true." In February 1970, discussing southern school desegregation: Nixon "feels we have to take some leadership to try to reverse Court decisions that have forced integration too far, too fast. Has told [Attorney General] Mitchell to file another case, and keep filing until we get a reversal (p. 126)." Nixon told Ehrlichman to move fast on developing a constitutional amendment banning school busing for racial balance. "Feels we should bite bullet now and hard, if its called racism, so be it! Feels we have to take a black or white position (didn't even notice the pun), can't be on both sides because we just get hit from both and please no one. ...

By the summer of 1970, Nixon was concentrating almost exclusively on the politics of domestic issues and policy. "P has changed his mind," Haldeman wrote, "has reached new conclusion. Is convinced policy of sucking after left won't work, not only can't win them, can't even defuse them (p. 187)." Nixon insisted that "all scheduling and other decisions [be based] on political grounds. Especially emphasize Italians, Poles, Elks and Rotarians, eliminate Jews, blacks, youth," Haldeman wrote. "About Family Assistance Plan, wants to be sure it's killed by Democrats and that we make big play for it, but don't let it pass, can't afford it (p. 181)." Nixon was "very upset that he had been led to approve the 1RS ruling about no tax exemption for segregated private schools." Nixon read Dent's memo analyzing problems with the South and issued a "whole series of orders about no more catering to liberals and integrationists to our political disadvantage...Wants me to tell all staff P is conservative, does not believe in integration, will carry out the law, nothing more (p. 184)."23 On federal enforcement of school desegregation: "Had me tell Mitchell not to open Southern offices and not to send his men down en masse, only when needed on a spot basis. Also set policy that we'll use no federal troops or marshals to enforce, must be done by locals (p. 185)." "We take a very conservative civil rights line," Nixon instructed (p. 208). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I would like to start by requesting that North Shoreman refer to me by my user name. I tried to indicate this before, now I am stating it. Second, I hope that all sources will be scrutinized as carefully as the ones I have mentioned. If the standard is to be one "credible" negative review and you are out then we will remove quite a few sources. I think it's important to note that this is a political wedge topic so it's no surprise that an author critical of Nixon (or the GOP in general) would highlight it as proof of racism. At the same time the GOP does have an interest in downplaying any sin. Hopefully with this round of edits we can present a more comprehensive picture of both sides. I believe the new introduction is an improvement. I'm still not 100% OK with the statement/assertion that the "policy TARGETED to appeal to racists". We have several sources that indicate that it was instead a policy that was targeted at avoiding alienating. Also, is racist the correct term? Some I'm sure were racist. However, you also had a large group who, if nothing else, were tired of being accused of being racist even if they personally didn't support many of the racist policies. As a southern soldier asked answered a northern soldier when captured, "You own no slaves, why would are you fighting us?" His reply, "Because you are here" (my recollection of a story told by Shelby Foote in a Ken Burns documentary). When you think about how people in the south would feel when DC just pasted a huge "South you suck" act (and DC was 100% right and just to pass it), it's understandable that some people were probably not inclined to take it well. What one person might call a policy to appeal to racists, another would reasonably argue was a policy intended to avoid antagonizing those who, right or wrong, felt they had been antagonized. That, is not a plan to appeal to racism but to avoid antagonizing. If the article is now to talk only of presidential elections and ignore local/state elections then references that are general to the GOP should carry less weight. For example, the apology to the NAACP is not an admission that any president used a souther strategy (as described in the lead). It could be as much for a GOP congress ignoring inner city needs etc. Anyway, I'm glad to see progress on this article. It seemed it needed a bit of a kick start ;) --Getoverpops (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

d== Why is this section in the article: "19th century disfranchisement and rise of the Solid South" ==

What purpose does this section server in the article? How does it support any particular narrative of a "southern strategy"? If the objective is to attempt to show that Republican messages were failing in the south prior to the 1960s then there are scholarly works that specifically address the changing voting patterns in the south. Many suggest that as early as the 1930s or 40s the GOP and most southern voters were more philosophically aligned with one another on all issues other than race where the GOP was a proponent of civil rights. If the section is just background then it really doesn't do anything to support the "southern strategy" for or against. We would need to start no earlier than the 1950s for the history of a post civil rights election strategy. I would move to remove this section. If not then please explain how it fits within the article. If it is retained I suggest we expand it to look at the more views on the reasons why the GOP did and didn't have success in the south. --Getoverpops (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Background. TFD (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the short answer. Why should we stop the history there? Why not extend it back to 1776 or earlier? Can you justify that the current level of background is warranted given the scope and time line of the "southern strategy". If yes, then justify it. This article is rather long and contains quite a bit that is off subject. This whole section should be removed since it is goes to far back to provide useful insight into the actual topic of the article.--Getoverpops (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The entire introductory part should probably just link to the Solid South or perhaps a similar article. This would greatly compact the article without removing any of the salient points regarding the political strategies of the GOP in the south just before and post civil rights legislation.--Getoverpops (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Background sections are useful -- this one particularly so. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree and prior to your post above the consensus was the section was overly broad given the topic of the article. Would you suggest that we include pre-Civil War material as well? Really, why have history dating so far back? Unlike some of the other changes that need to be made to the article this one isn't critical but so much information does reduce the quality of the article. Regardless, I guess we should concentrate on getting more of the recent information integrated into the article instead of fighting over a needlessly long background section. --Getoverpops (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

It probably could be shortened somewhat. The background section should explain the problem the Southern Strategy was undertaken to address, and does not need the level of detail. TFD (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with that. What material do we think is needed to explain the background. I think a single section vs two sections would be sufficient. It could probably be about half the current length. Since two editors were unhappy with my previous changes I figure we could hash this out a bit first. --Getoverpops (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

It's the other way around. Which material do you think needs to be excluded and explain why it doesn't assist in better understanding the dynamics behind the Southern Strategy. Generally, most of the information in this section has already been discussed by various sources, so its importance partially hinges on those sources' mentioning of the material.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are unable to see the issue here. Then again, you also have accused me of "Undid edit consisting of unsourced info and a violation WP:OR" which is interesting given that edit was the removal rather than adding of any information. We have two editors (my self and TFD) who agree that the background section is needlessly long. I have already said I feel that any material prior to the WW2 section is unneeded and covered in the solid south article (linked in both my edited version and the version you restored without proper justification (edit war on your part?). I feel the material prior to WW2 is not needed because other articles explain why the south was strongly Democratic prior to that time. The topic of the article only relates to the political make up of the area just before, during and after the passage of national civil rights laws. I'm would have thought that someone who had such strong opinions on this subject's neutrality dispute thread (but not here.... odd that) would understand such things. --Getoverpops (talk) 00:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The background section needs to go back to Reconstruction and demonstrate how the Democratic Solid South evolved. It also needs to show that blacks were deliberately targeted and disenfranchised by the racist white majority. One of the remarkable things about the Southern Strategy is that it was able to totally change generations of political dominance by one party in such a relatively short time. I can see sentences that can be changed or eliminated, but in the main the events covered are relevant. A reader unfamiliar with the subject, especially non-USA readers, need the type of background that the article currently provides. The Civil War, Reconstruction, southern white restoration, and the final transitions in the 1890s are all stages that need to be described in general. The seven paragraphs in "19th century disfranchisement and rise of the Solid South" can probably be reduced to four or five with careful editing. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that it needs to go that far back but I appreciate that you are the first to actually justify the length. I still disagree but I've also said that it's not worth fighting over. It hurts the readability while adding little value to the article but that's not the worst of sins. Your comment about how the "southern strategy" totally changed generations of political dominance (and claim of a cause and effect) is very questionable. I hope that is not the thesis you strive for while editing the article! Any way you look at it the statement is wrong. If we assume southern voters were motivated by race above all else then the passage of civil-rights by the Democrats would result in a large number of dissatisfied voters who would likely turn to any other party. Thus it would be the civil-rights push, not the "southern strategy" that was most responsible. But of course there are two flaws with this thinking. First, is the flawed idea that southern voters were really that racist. That they would put racism above all other considerations. Second, it ignores the research I'm trying to add to this article and that you should now be familiar with. That research suggests that the Democrats on the whole were, ignoring the issue of civil-rights, moving away from issues that the average southern voter agreed with. At the same time that research suggests that southern voters, on most issues, were better aligned with the GOP on issues that the Democrats. Rather it was the entrenched strength of the Dixicrats that held off a shift to the GOP until the rise of civil-rights broke the bond between the Dixiecrats and the larger Democratic party. In that sense the southern voter resisted the GOP because they didn't want to be with the side that was initially pushing for civil rights even though in most ways their views better aligned with the GOP vs the national Democrats. With the breaking of the Dixiecrats by the civil-rights issue the GOP didn't have to actively court many southern voters so much as not offend them. This BTW, is all basically covered in the sources I have presented. Those sources, rightly, question the notion of some grand, racist southern strategy. They point out that the change from blue to red is hardly proof. The Use of "code words" as proof is questionable (but convenient "proof" for political opponents) because it ignores real issues associated with the programs in question. As an example, being against affirmative action in school admissions could be seen as a modern "code word" for racism. But that would ignore the real complaint an applicant might feel if a student with a lesser academic record is placed at the head of the line due only to race. Often the claim of "code-word" is a way to dismiss legitimate concerns through an implied accusation of racism. There is very limited evidence that any "racist strategy" was actually enacted and certainly not over a period of nearly two decades. Heck, at least one of the sources I found suggested as much as anything the GOP stumbled and bumbled their way into the south by not recognizing that the region was culturally well aligned with the GOP (excluding support for racism). This is why the article needs a section that discusses what was actually done and how there is strong evidence that the political shift was not due to a GOP plan. --Getoverpops (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately your reasoning, examining and understanding of evidence, and conclusions are not relevant when other peer reviewed authors have identified and defined the Southern Strategy as racist. So your focus on what you consider "proof" ultimately does nothing to counter what reliable sources say and is really not constructive to improving the article.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

That is certainly an opinion you like --Getoverpops (talk) 03:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Tom, I do not think it has to explain how the South got that way, merely explain the way it was. Notably the section does not mention slavery, which of course is key to understanding how the South got that way. Had not millions of Africans been captured and forced into servitude, the South would have been no more racist than the Northern States. TFD (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

It is important to show how the Democratic Solid South developed, because it was based on the disfranchisement of millions of people, with a concomitant aggregation of power by the Democrats out of proportion to the people among the voters who agree with them. For that all to change is a major change. Democrats could not have run unopposed if they had not destroyed the Republican Party in the South by excluding African-American voters from the political system.Parkwells (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: I have reopened the dispute discussion on the dispute forum THUS the dispute tag on the article is current and valid. Do not remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getoverpops (talk • contribs) 14:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)