Talk:Southern strategy/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

"Byrd machine"

I notice that the question was briefly addressed earlier on the talk page, but it looks like whatever fixes may have been applied only mangled it beyond recognition. Can anyone explain if the following extended non sequitur is relevant to the article, and/or make it coherent?

In a year-by-year analysis of how the transformation took place in the critical state of Virginia, James Sweeney shows that the slow collapse of the old statewide Byrd machine gave the Republicans the opportunity to build local organizations county by county and city by city. The Democratic Party factionalized, with each faction having the goal of taking over the entire statewide Byrd machine. But the Byrd leadership was basically conservative, and more in line with the national Republican Party in economic and foreign policy issues. Republicans united behind A. Linwood Holton, Jr. in 1969, and swept the state. In the 1970 senatorial election the Byrd machine made a comeback by electing Independent Harry Flood Byrd, Jr. over Republican Ray Lucian Garland and Democrat George Rawlings. The new Senator Byrd never joined the Republican Party and instead joined the Democratic caucus. Nevertheless, he had a mostly conservative voting record especially on the trademark Byrd issue of the national deficit. At the local level, the 1970s saw steady Republican growth with this emphasis on a middle-class suburban electorate that had little interest in the historic issues of rural agrarianism and racial segregation.[52]

(And out of personal curiosity, what the heck is "the Byrd machine"? I feel like I'm walking in on the middle of an argument. :-/ ) 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's relevant, especially since it makes absolutely no connection to the Southern Strategy. I couldn't find a working copy of the source for that paragraph, but I did find this which explains that the Byrd era/machine was from 1925-1965, which preceded the Southern Strategy. I could see a use for it if historians explained how it set the field for the Southern Strategy, but currently I'm not seeing anything drawing that connection. This portion was added about the same time that a lot of other sources were added de-emphasizing the role of race in the Southern Strategy and propelling a minority viewpoint on southern realignment related to the suburban strategy. I feel that this is an example of coatracked information to further try and boost the viewpoint.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, and for the confirmation that it's not just me who perceives it as not relevant to the article. Personally, though, I think the article is already drowning in background. Even if a connection can be drawn, I doubt it would even be as strong as existing material that needs to go for the sake of clarity and readability. 67.183.114.153 (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Odd. My apologies for any confusion - I'm 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409, but it looks like I became 67.183.114.153 after my browser went kthpbbt on me. 67.183.114.153 (talk) 04:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

No need to apologize, I figured it was you, but thank you for clarifying just in case.Scoobydunk (talk) 04:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Trump "remixing" the Southern Strategy

The Atlantic has recently suggested that Donald Trump is currently using a "remixed version" of the Southern Strategy. Worth mentioning in this Wikipedia article? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Probably worth a short mention. See also:

Jeet Heer, How the Southern Strategy Made Donald Trump Possible, New Republic (February 18, 2016) (arguing that Trump's rise has roots with the Southern strategy).

Margaret Talbot, Southern Trouble for Donald Trump?, New Yorker (July 7, 2016) (suggesting that Trump will not do that well in the South due in part to the New Great Migration).

Neutrality^talk 21:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Scholarly debates

Dead links to Lassiter, and a lot of content that may be UNDUE. Please comment with suggestions...DN (talk) 08:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The Edit from the US Senate

Somebody from the US Senate (based on the ip address) tried editing this page to remove the mention of racism.

Discovered Via: https://twitter.com/congressedits/status/878289048992792580

The Edit in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=787130542&oldid=785252046 2600:1012:B00B:353C:7CF0:307:1D4:ACC7 (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Cool. I look forward to working with them. DN (talk) 08:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

The following edits have been reverted, as the editor did not provide citations, and the the material they added is not supported by current context/cites. [1], [2], [3]. ClemVegas - DO NOT ERASE OTHER EDITORS COMMENTS. DN (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

This entire article is mostly Democratic Party talking points about the GOP, not an unbiased version of history. There is no discussion upfront that the GOP and conservatives reject the assertion that the GOP used race and still uses racism to win elections.

I believe that the first statement should be revised from 'In American politics, the southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3]'

to the following: "Many liberal Democrats contend the GOP used a southern strategy, a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans". The current statement implies that there is no disagreement over this talking point used by partisan Democrats. It doesn't make sense to rely exclusively on partisan Democrats and established liberal media sources like the NY Times for information about the GOP but that is what this article is doing.

ClemVegas - Please slow down your edits. If you have questions you can ask them here @Wikipedia:Teahouse I also recommend reading this WP:TALK. The way this works is that you have to find reliable sources WP:RS. Then, there needs to be a consensus among editors WP:CON to make the changes you want to make. I would also recommend this WP:TUTOR...It will be very helpful to you in learning how to navigate and use Wikipedia more effectively. DN (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Why do I need to 'slow' down my edits? Who decides the proper 'rate' for edits? It appears you make up rules as you go.

The problem is the editors on here appear to be mostly liberals or this article would not be posted. It is cut and paste from the Democratic Party talking points. Wikepedia has posted as fact the assertion that the GOP used a racist platform to win the the south starting with Nixon, who was for civil rights and against segregation and praised by MLK. This obviously doesn't make any sense and linking to NY Times and other liberal websites making the claim doesn't make it credible.

Springee - can you maybe help give him some reassurance that I'm only trying to help, here? Thanks. DN (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

What is funny is you say you need reliable sources yet you appear to be satisfied with sources that claim Nixon supported racist policies despite no evidence of that. You also said that I need to cite sources for my assertion that slavery, segregation, lynching, Civil War, etc were all supported by the Democratic party. Isn't this common knowledge? Don't Democrats admit this when they make the case the white racists switched to the GOP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClemVegas (talk • contribs) 22:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

You appear to be very new here, but I'm starting to wonder... Please read WP:BAIT. - DN (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not here to get homework assignments from strangers. You appear to want to insult me rather than actually discuss my points.

This Southern Strategy page is a partisan talking point by the Democratic party, who obviously have a motive to smear the GOP as racist. I have no problem with their partisan smear being discussed on here but I think that it should be made clear that the GOP and conservatives think it is a smear and baseless, given Nixon was for civil rights.

I'm done posting about it. Most people aren't reading this article anyway. I note that Wikipedia claims to have a Conservative Project to improve the articles about conservativism. One easy way to do that is stop allowing partisan Democrats on here to associate conservatism with racism. For example, every racist Democrat back in the day is referred to as a Democrat conservative. I don't think white racists who supported New Deal Democrats can be described as conservative. FDR was not a conservative and he owned the South back when it was racist. It seems obvious that liberal Democrats are trying to hang their party's horrible racist history on the GOP and conservatives, while also asserting that liberalism and racism are mutually exclusive, which isn't true.

Unrelated/wrong sources

Sources 1, 2 and 3 do not support the first paragraph talking points. Revision is needed to improve clairity. Seagullimperial (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Sources 1, 2, and 3 come after the first line. Cite 4 comes at the end, so the context in the rest of the paragraph may be supported there. A little known fact about leads paragraphs on Wikipedia is that leads are often devoid of cites, as they are meant to be more prominent in the body, along with supporting context, that may also be often paraphrased in the lead. Hence WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Sometimes the lead gets disputed because many fail to read past the lead. If you truly wish to dispute this, please be more specific as to what is missing not only from the lead, but also the body. DN (talk) 04:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

One strategy or many related strategies?

This first paragraph of the intro reads like the "southern strategy" was a GOP named strategy along the lines of say "Contract with America". The body of the article is clear that this is a name applied by others to describe strategies. In reading the article it's clear that this the name is being applied when evidence suggests that the GOP is using an appeal to subsurface racism to win southern support. Thus Nixon's "southern strategy" isn't the same as Reagan's. Also, I think the intro should state that the details and extent when/where such a strategy was used is disputed. Again this is seen in the body of the article. I hope that these changes might help cut down on the number of hit and run intro changes we've seen lately. Since this is a disputed topic I think these changes should only be made after some level of agreement here. Springee (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Do what?

• In American politics, the southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3] As the Civil Rights Movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South to the Republican Party that had traditionally supported the Democratic Party.[4] It also helped push the Republican Party much more to the right.[4] -- DN (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2017

People who were involved with the Nixon Campaigns have long said the "Southern Strategy" is a myth. Liberal scholars seem to ignore most of the South didn't vote for Nixon when he was elected. Much of the old South supported George Wallace, a life long Democrat, in 1968. Nixon won a few Southern states, but only because of Wallace's taking normally Democrat votes. Nixon did not compete with Wallace for those votes, but Hubert Humphrey tried to. In 1972 Nixon carried 49 states, so strategy wasn't a big issue. I was one of the Regional Campaign Managers for the Nixon/Agnew ticket in 1972 and I can guarantee Nixon had an impeccable civil rights record and wanted us to do all we could to campaign for Black votes. It is an ignored fact...about 40+% of the Black vote supported Ike/Nixon in 1956. It was Ike who sent in the troops to integrate Southern schools over Democrat opposition. About 30+% of the Black vote supported Nixon in 1960 including the leading Civil Rights Icon of the 1940s and '50s, Jackie Robinson. Blacks had been solidly Republicans and in that era the Republicans had not written the voting block off. It was Ike/Nixon who had the first major Civil Right legislation in the 1950s that was filibustered by LBJ and his "Solid South" 100% Democrat allies. Black Americans knew slavery, Jim Crow, lynchings, the KKK, Separate but equal, Freedom Riders, Dred Scott, Woodrow Wilson resegregating DC, FDR refusing to integrate the military in WWII, FDR appointing a KKK member to SCOTUS (Hugo Black of Alabama) and Selma were all 100% Democrat actions. Black Americans knew slavery was the Democrat Party's legacy. It is a forgotten fact that it was Republican votes that passed the Civil rights legislation of 1965. The Democrats tried to filibuster it. Old racists like LBJ wanted to attract a vote the Republicans hoped to regain. LBJ famously explained his switch on Civil Rights to Southerners saying "I'll have those ni**ers voting Democrat for the next 200 years". All those racists (except Strom Thurmon) remained Democrats until the day they died. Those of us who were there know the Southern Strategy was just a way for Democrats who were the party of slavery and resistance to integration to try to blame Republicans for what the Democrats had done. This is another urban legend used by Democrats to hide the truth of what they had done and avoid the issue of modern-day Democrat inner city "plantations". The Republican voters in today's South are heavily patriotic, Evangelical Christians and most of them weren't even born in the days of the Democrat Jim Crow South. Pat Buchanan who was also a Nixon Administration speech writer and campaign worker wrote a brilliant column on July 4th of 2014 thoroughly disproving the liberal's Southern Strategy reinterpretation of history. (Roger A. Keats)

I'm not sure I understand your question in response to my question. :D To try to clarify, notice that the first sentence says, "the southern strategy was..." and the next sentence says, "Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that..." . The first is singular while the second is plural. We also start the article off saying "the southern strategy was". That phrasing suggests it's a proper name as opposed to a name given to a general strategy by others.

Finally, and not in reply to your quote, I do think we need the title to say this is a disputed thing, at least at some level. Certainly some political commentators dispute specifics and details. I think that should be part of the intro. Springee (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I would not support changing the name of the article since this is pretty clearly the WP:COMMONAME - this term is so widely known/used that I really can't think of any alternative name that would make sense. I agree there's some slippage between Nixon & Goldwater-era southern strategy (which is what most people think of when they hear the phrase) and other republican dog whistles and appeals to racism (which have been compared to or even called a southern strategy, but aren't strictly speaking, the southern strategy). Whole article has needed an overhaul for ages - if/when I ever get time to do it, I would probably start by refocusing the article on the "classic" southern strategy, and packing the other stuff into a "legacy" section, with cross-links to other articles where appropriate. Just my $0.02. Article needs tons of work - in general I would recommend working on sources & the body before we get into protracted debates about the lede and title, since that process will tell us what kind of lede & title RS actually support. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not proposing a title change. The title is appropriate for either a formally named strategy or a series of similar informal strategies. I'll be interested to see what you come up with and I like the idea of breaking up the topic into the classical section vs the later claims of dog whistle politics. Looking forward to seeing what you come up with. Springee (talk) 12:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Why not this version....?

• In American politics, the southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3] As the Civil Rights Movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South to the Republican Party that had traditionally supported the Democratic Party.[4] It also helped push the Republican Party much more to the right.[4] -- DN (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Southern strategy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A06E2DA1F3AF93AA2575AC0A960958260
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A06E2DA1F3AF93AA2575AC0A960958260
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/07/15/gop_ignored_black_vote_chairman_says/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Continuities+in+American+anti-Catholicism%3A+the+Texas+Baptist+Standard...-a0162618834
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2007/11/dogwhistling_dixie.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304030134/http://www.onlinemadison.com/ftp/reagan/reaganneshoba.mp3 to http://www.onlinemadison.com/ftp/reagan/reaganneshoba.mp3
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E6DF1E30F935A35753C1A9639C8B63
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/us/politics/11south.html?pagewanted=all
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302342.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2018

There is a typo in the "World War II and population changes" section

" This followed a floor fight led by civil- ights activist, Minneapolis Mayor (and soon-to-be Senator) Hubert Humphrey."

That should be "civil-rights activist" Jhallard (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks! Springee (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Past tense

The article currently says "In American politics, the Southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans." (emphasis mine) The problem is that using the past tense makes it seem as if the Southern strategy is something that the Republican Party used to do, when in reality they're still operating under it to this day. — Red XIV ^(talk) 00:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The article and it's sources are clear that this is describing a historical policy. As described it was meant to win over voters who were upset at Democrats for the recently passed civil rights legislation. A number of commentators have claimed that the Republicans still practice race-based, dog whistle politics but that isn't what this article is actually about. Modern dog whistle politics would likely belong here Dog-whistle_politics. Springee (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The article itself describes how this wasn't official, explicit policy, but in fact a narrative "of the political realignment of the South which suggest that Republican leaders consciously appealed to many white Southerners' racial grievances in order to gain their support." In that sense, it was as much then as it is now, "dog whistle politics," but also lasting conservative realpolitik methodology. This is the same electoral strategy used by virtually every GOP presidential candidate since, as the article does well to illustrate with its "evolution" and "shift in strategy" sections. It is both disingenuous and misleading to document its changing nature over the years and into the present while framing it as past tense. McGrudis (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

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

• After passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Southern states became more reliably Republican in presidential politics with the Northeastern states becoming more reliably Democratic. Studies show that Southern whites shifted to the Republican Party due to racial conservatism.

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

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

References

Massive Corrections Needed

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

The Southern Strategy relies on a set of Myths.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:SYNTH. Volunteer Marek 06:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Synthesis by who? -- Frotz(talk) 19:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The IP is throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks and claiming that together it all means the Southern Strategy was a myth. The IP is making their own argument. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Is it a myth?

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

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

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

Can someone provide some context, instead of just posting a YouTube link with nothing else? Acroterion (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not specifically endorsing the content but the link is to a video of Carol Swan, a Vanderbilt University poly sci professor talking about the political conversion of the south. It would fit with the links the IP editor included above. Springee (talk) 03:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Perhaps you could point out where he's wrong or at the very least invalid rather than heaping meaningless abuse on him. You don't seem to be aware that hiis conviction (which was pardoned) was for what's usually a technical violation that one wouldn't ordinarily think of as criminal, yet the book was thrown at him. That seems to happen a lot these days to people who cross powerful leftists. -- Frotz(talk) 05:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

You could try reading the article itself, perhaps? DN (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

WP is not a sounding board for left wing or right wing politics - see WP:NPOV DN (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

While both Both D'Souza and Carol M. Swain (who wrote the introduction to D'Souza's history of the Democratic Party) were academics, their more controversial views have not been published in academic books or papers and therefore have no weight and their polemical works are not reliable sources. This article already has by the way alternative views, including the suburban strategy which holds that the south became conservative as a suburban middle class arose which, in common with the rest of the country, voted Republican. TFD (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not agree that Swain's views couldn't find weight in this article. She is clearly an expert in the field with sound credentials. Most of the sources we cite are books which aren't going to have much more scrutiny than an opinion article. I wouldn't give it much weight vs the bulk of the article but none isn't appropriate either. If D'Souza also has credentials that would make home an expert opinion (I don't know much about him) and they agree that would add more weight for inclusion as a counter POV. Springee (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Swain's views on the subject are WP:FRINGE and are not published in academic outlets. Swain's academic books used to refer to the "Southern strategy"[4], whereas her more recent commentary in right-wing outlets known for fringe BS and hoaxes describes this as a myth invented by the leftwing media. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no evidence that her view is fringe vs just a minority view on the subject. Are you suggesting that she doesn't have the credentials needed to have such a pov? Hey reply to Kruse addresses her previous use of the southern strategy and she specifically notes that as she studied the issue more she decided the common view didn't fit the facts. That send like exactly the sort of material that should be included. [[5]] This is clearly a minority view but a view held by an expect in the field who felt it was worth offering an opinion on the subject. Springee (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

If she had any credible evidence or substantive arguments to bring to the debate, she'd publish it in academic outlets. That's what actual scientists do. They would not publish op-eds in a Tennessee version of Breitbart[6] and 4 minute videos for right-wing propaganda outlets. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

NO one has to prove that views are fringe. Fringe means that views have received little or no attention in mainstream sources. They are views that have not entered into mainstream discussion whatsoever. It is up to someone wanting to add them to prove they are not fringe. TFD (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:RS allows the views of experts in the field to be included. Are you claiming she doesn't have credentials to be an expert in the field? Springee (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

No, it does not. While it allows their work to considered reliable, it does not establish any weight for their opinions. Believe me, if an expert had a head injury and thought unicorns exist, we would not consider that a mainstream view. TFD (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

This is all covered by WP:FRINGE: "Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight" Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

If you read WP:FRINGE/PS you will see it largely involved pseudoscience, rather than minority views in the social sciences. Also, Swain references Prof Gerard Alexander who is critical of claims of dog whistle and Aistrup's work which makes much use of dog whistle claims. This is a case where we can use common sense. We have an expert in the field saying the theory doesn't makes sense on critical review. She is able to show other experts are critical of one of the foundational parts of the Southern Strategy narrative. Even the bottom up strategy is critical of the top down, dog whistle version. To be clear, I'm not interested in wading further into this article but I also don't think the way people are trying to dismiss an expert opinion is in the spirit of Wikipedia. From WP:RS When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.[notes 2] If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces.[7][8]

Alexander's review of Aistrup's work (the work in question is widely cited in out article [[7]] back's Swain's views... or, given publication dates, Alexander's view is backed by Swain. Either way, we have two experts in the field who dispute the claims. That should be enough for inclusion as a minority view on the subject. Springee (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

In fact I do read policy and guidelines before citing them. WP:FRINGE says, "To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea." It does not matter that most of the examples are in natural science or conspiracism, it applies to all subjects. TFD (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and fringe is talking about pseudoscience which this isn't. Also we have have at least two experts who say the facts don't fit. That's no longer fringe. Springee (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Please cite fringe where it says it only applies to pseudoscience and provide sources that claim these writers are experts in the subject. Incidentally, whether or not what they are saying is true is irrelevant but whether it has acceptance in mainstream sources. TFD (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Fringe/PS, it's talking about academics and pseudoscience. It's not saying that an a credentialed expert in the field who doesn't agree with the orthodox view should be dismissed as fringe. Also, we don't just have one expert saying this. Swain's academic credentials include Prof positions at Vanderbilt and Princeton. Furthermore, her views align with Dr Alexander's (UVA). Sure, we can't show that they represent anything more than a minority view but how would keeping this information out of the article be good for our readers? Take Alexander's questions regarding dog whistle claims (a core part of the this article)

Let's start with policies. Like many others, Carter and the Black brothers argue that the GOP appealed to Southern racism not explicitly but through "coded" racial appeals. Carter is representative of many when he says that Wallace's racialism can be seen, varying in style but not substance, in "Goldwater's vote against the Civil Rights Bill of 1964, in Richard Nixon's subtle manipulation of the busing issue, in Ronald Reagan's genial demolition of affirmative action, in George Bush's use of the Willie Horton ads, and in Newt Gingrich's demonization of welfare mothers."

The problem here is that Wallace's segregationism was obviously racist, but these other positions are not obviously racist. This creates an analytic challenge that these authors do not meet. If an illegitimate viewpoint (racism) is hidden inside another viewpoint, that second view—to be a useful hiding place—must be one that can be held for entirely legitimate (non-racist) reasons. Conservative intellectuals might not always linger long enough on the fact that opposition to busing and affirmative action can be disguised racism. On the other hand, these are also positions that principled non-racists can hold. To be persuasive, claims of coding must establish how to tell which is which. Racial coding is often said to occur when voters are highly prone to understanding a non-racist message as a proxy for something else that is racist. This may have happened in 1964, when Goldwater, who neither supported segregation nor called for it, employed the term "states' rights," which to many whites in the Deep South implied the continuation of Jim Crow.

The problem comes when we try to extend this forward. Black and Black try to do this by showing that Nixon and Reagan crafted positions on busing, affirmative action, and welfare reform in a political climate in which many white voters doubted the virtues of preferential hiring, valued individual responsibility, and opposed busing as intrusive. To be condemned as racist "code," the GOP's positions would have to come across as proxies for these views -and in turn these views would have to be racist. The problem is that these views are not self-evidently racist. Many scholars simply treat them as if they were. Adding insult to injury, usually they don't even pause to identify when views like opposition to affirmative action would not be racist.

This isn't some sort of radical counter argument and it's coming from a published review of an academic press book and was published by an academic source. How much do you want to see before you decide it graduates from "fringe" just to "minority view"? Are you suggesting this is pseudoscience? If not, then why try to keep it out (again I'm not interested in making the effort to include it but I would support inclusion). Springee (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

I think the burden would be on you to explain why neither are experts in the field. We could review their respective publications to decide if they have work published in this area even if not specifically on the southern strategy. Their criticism of the majority view would be reasonable for inclusion. Are you claiming their criticism aren't reasonable it valid? Springee (talk) 10:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The Claremont Institute is not an academic source. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Alexander's The Fog of Political War: Predicting the Future Course of Conservatism was published by The Journal of Political History, Cambridge University Press. Again, as experts who are specifically critical of claims used to support the orthodox view this seems like DUE criticism. What do our readers gain by sheltering then from these decenting views? Do we think their counter arguments are so nonsensical as to not merit mention? Springee (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Where in that publication does Alexander dispute the Southern Strategy? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

D'Souza is not an academic by any stretch of the imagination. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: I came across this page because I was doing cleanup work related to fraudulent sources. The comment of 23:57, 14 March 2019 posted by Springee, cited an article in the Tennessee Star as evidence. The website claims to be a local newspaper, but no such newspaper exists. The website is one of a batch of clone websites produced by a campaign financing org, backed by PAC money.[8] In the current political climate, local newspapers are considered one of the few relatively trusted news sources... so of course campaign donations flowed into a project to spam fake websites pretending to be local newspapers, to push campaign propaganda. Such websites should not be considered Reliable sources for anything, and especially not reliable evidence to support any political-related argument.

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

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

@Alsee:, to be clear I'm not currently trying to add this information. This article is to political for me to wade into without some other logged in editor offering support. I also agree that we would need to avoid a section that says "myth". However I do have some criticism of your comments. First, we have two experts in the field (and this isn't a huge field) who are critical of this specific theory. Their views are not radical or illogical and, in the case of Alexander, have gathered mainstream (NPR at least) attention. Swain's credentials are sound and her views are aligned with Alexander. I wasn't giving weight to Swain based on publication in the Tennessee Star. Rather, I would see that as "expert criticism" which could come from a blog if need be. We also have the backdrop of that publication. Swain was featured in a video on the subject. Kruise felt it was important to address her comments. She replied. The fact that we have two academics debating this also suggests that there is something here. If nothing else, I would argue for inclusion based on IAR. As I asked before, how does it harm our readers to include things like Alexander questioning the dog whistle evidence that is a key pillar of the theory? Springee (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

But there isn't an academic debate going on about this. Alexander and Swain are publishing their ideas in fringe outlets, not in academic outlets. Kruise addressed Swain's video, because Swain's fringe ideas in the PragerU video are contaminating public discourse (the video has more than 6 million views). Kruise also addresses fringe ideas when expressed by the likes of Jacob Wohl and Dinesh D'Souza. That doesn't mean they are also engaging in an "academic debate". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll start by reiterating that I'm not going to make changes to the article without some other editors supporting the changes. If nothing else, CONSENSUS doesn't support a change at this time so our discussion is a friendly disagreement. Alexander's The Fog of Political War article does discuss the flaws he see's in the Southern Strategy narrative (sadly I no longer have easy access to a research library to access the full article) [[9]]. You would have to show that Alexander's views are published in fringe outlets (CRB isn't fringe nor was his NPR discussion). Your opinion on PragerU "contaminating" is perhaps true but how is that contamination different than many of the leftist publications that do the same? The accusation that is "contaminates" vs say, "raises questions that can be addressed by X,Y,Z" suggests bias in your own views on the subject vs anything about the claims made in the video. Again, Swain and Alexander clearly have the needed credentials to provide expert opinions in this area (Alexander in particular). Kruise replied to Swain and Swain replied back with reasonable answers. Let me close with a simple question, do you think Alexander's criticism of the claims of "dog whistle" (in blue above) are reasonable? Springee (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you please read Southern strategy#Scholarly debates and tell what arguments against the Southern Strategy theory are not presented that you think should be included? TFD (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Read it? I helped write it. Since I'm not proposing specific edits why would I suggest specific edits? Currently such an effort would be pointless because several editors have made it clear they would object based on weight regardless of the quality of the arguments in the sources. That results in a CONSENSUS problem. Springee (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

In other words, D'Souza and Swain add nothing to the debate, they merely repeat criticism already provided by actual experts and included in the article, and there is no reason to use their non-scholarly works as sources. TFD (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

When was I taking about D'Souza? Swain and Alexander both not the issue with claiming Dog Whistle. Do you think Alexander's dog whistle concerns are flawed? Swain, as an expert in the subject, adds weight to the views of Alexander (as does the coverage his views have received). Springee (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Southern Strategy was trending on Twitter recently due to a comment by Candace Owens. I found a Twitter thread from Kevin Kruse addressing the video I linked https://twitter.com/KevinMKruse/status/996386257109508096?s=19  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.163.6 (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC) 

Narrative?

Why does this page frequently use the word "narrative" in weird and confusing ways? For example, in the introductory paragraph we see "The "Southern Strategy" refers primarily to "top down" narratives of the political realignment of the South". In this case, the use of narratives seems genuinely deceptive.

Either the Southern Strategy is a confirmed fact, in which case it should use declarative language; "The Southern Strategy refers to the top down political realignment". Alternatively, the Southern Strategy is not a confirmed fact, in which case the language used should reflect that this is a scholarly conjecture; "The Southern strategy refers to the top down theory of political realignment".

The use of narratives seems to be trying to be neither, which feels extremely inappropriate. It reads as if the article is saying that these narratives exist, and the article makes no comment on the veracity of those narratives or who is creating them, but will still describe said narratives at exhaustive length in a way that suggests it is established fact, without actually saying that is the case.

Just as a matter of clarity; one could say that there is a narrative that aliens built the pyramids but to phrase it like that is false neutrality. Such a narrative does exist, but we don't give it much credence do we? There is also a narrative that the 2008 presidential election was won by Obama, but again to describe it that way implies that this is merely a narrative and not historical fact. If things are established facts we should call them so. If they are theories supported by credible scholars, we should say so. If they are fringe beliefs, we should say so. Using one word to mean both "definitely true" and "only believed by people with tin foil hats" is simply not acceptable, and discredits the rest of the article.

81.100.137.118 (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The narrative in this case refers to two conflicting arguments for how the Southern Strategy formed: top down vs bottom up. Sources themselves use that language, so the article is reflective of that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Churches

Kolyvansky, please review MOS:LEAD. The material you are adding should not be added to the lead nor as a subsection of the Introduction. Please consider how the new content fits within the scope of the article. I've moved the content to a later section in the article. I don't like it as a stand alone item and you should spend time considering how it would fit in with other material or if it's really DUE in this article. It doesn't really support or reject the Southern Strategy topic. The first source doesn't mention the strategy at all. The second does but suggests it was a reaction rather than a forward thinking strategy. Springee (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Scholarly debates

[10] It seems the importance of Matthew D. Lassiter is receiving extra WP:Weight compared to all the other "minority" views. He practically takes up the whole section. DN (talk) 02:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

This was discussed quite a bit when the material was added. We don't have a way to indicate that this newer theory is "a few" which is why "some" was picked. Note the opinion of Feldman from the article, "the dissenting – yet rapidly growing – narrative on the topic of southern partisan realignment". If this is a rapidly growing theory among experts in the field we shouldn't down play it. Springee (talk) 02:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

To maintain a neutral point of view, any idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. I can't name more than "a few" including Lassiter that have yet to become notable. This is about proportion to prominence, not playing "the WHAT IF game". This section is pretty old and needs updating. DN (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Why should we think the bottom up POV isn't broadly supported? We can assume it's not the "majority" (over 50%) but we can't assume it's getting undue weight in context of this complete article. This is a long article, I don't see an issue with leaving the extra few sentences. Springee (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Because according to the article, that is not the CONSENSUS or MAJORITY view, or whatever you wish to call it. DN (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)44