Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: BroJoeK; Ohioan

“I’m no expert on Rusher, but if as you seem to imply, Rusher here talks about Nixon’s so-called Southern strategy, I would recommend to you D’Souza’s new movie, “Death of a Nation” which, among other things, debunks that.”

Sure, because Dinesh knows so much more than the people who actually knew Nixon. Including some who designed the 1968 campaign and strategy.

“The two books I reviewed in the March 24 TAC, Alfred Regnery’s Upstream and Donald Critchlow’s The Conservative Ascendancy, both offer some interesting background on what became the Southern strategy. Regnery argues that National Review‘s Bill Rusher had outlined the strategy as early as February 1963, noting that (in Regnery’s words), “a conservative Republican with support in the Midwest and West could make inroads into the solidly Democratic South because of Southerners’ discomfort with the civil rights movement and thus eke out a presidential victory.”

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/2008/04/03/secret-origins-of-the-southern-strategy/

“Having made his intentions known, Nixon dialed up the charm. In January 1967 he invited Buckley, Bill Rusher (publisher of National Review), and other members of the conservative media to his sprawling Fifth Avenue apartment. There he exhibited his virtuosic command of foreign and domestic policy. Rusher remained unmoved — Rusher would always remain unmoved when it came to Nixon — but Buckley? There was no surer way to Buckley’s heart than a vigorous display of intellect and insight. As Neal Freeman, Buckley’s personal aide, recalled: “I knew when we went down the elevator, early in the evening, that Bill Buckley was going to find some reason to support Richard Nixon.” True, Nixon was no conservative, but the heart wants what it wants. And a smart, experienced, electable Republican was exactly what Buckley wanted in a 1968 candidate. More than a year before the election, he was recommending Nixon as the “wisest Republican choice.”

https://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/richard-nixons-model-campaign/

“In 1968, the political experts were all looking in the wrong place, just as they would do in 2016. “The young, the antiwar groups, the mass demonstrations,” Buchanan remembers. But Nixon’s men picked up a different signal: The center was being ignored and was there for the grabbing. “You could carve off the conservative wing of the Democratic party, populist and conservative—Northern Catholics and Southern Protestants we called them then—and bring them into the Republican party of Goldwater and Nixon.” A few liberal Republicans would flee, but the GOP would “wind up with the larger half of the country.” Out of this came Nixon’s 1972 landslide, on a scale unthinkable today: 60 percent of the vote, forty-nine states.

“To hear Buchanan sift through this, with his easy command of electoral numbers and voting trends, is to feel how thin and hollow our politics has become. “Northern Catholics” and “Southern Protestants” still exist in America, but you wouldn’t know it. They have been crowded into an undifferentiated blur—white and Christian, with no shadings. But Nixon’s men grew up in a denser geography of ethnic difference, full of prickles and thorns. They used terms like “lower-middle-class Irish Catholic”: Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s description of Buchanan, in a letter sent when both were working for Nixon. The two were ideological foes but, when it came to elites, of one suspicious mind.

“Later accounts would cast all this as a politics of bitter polarization, the marshaling of resentments and grievances. And indeed it was, to a considerable extent—”the whole secret of politics—knowing who hates who,” as Kevin Phillips, a lawyer and the master strategist of Nixon’s new majority, summarized it at the time. Phillips was a prodigy who at fifteen had begun working out the intricacies of shifting voter allegiances going back to the nineteenth century. Even younger than Buchanan, he had gone on to work for Nixon’s 1968 campaign and in his administration. His 1969 book, The Emerging Republican Majority, elevated voter analysis into a rarefied art. “American voting patterns are a kaleidoscope of sociology, history, geography and economics,” Phillips wrote. “The threads are very tangled and complex, but they can be pulled apart.” Phillips unknotted those threads in formulations like this: “The sharpest Democratic losses of the 1960–68 period came among the Mormons and Southern-leaning traditional Democrats of the Interior Plateau.”

http://buchanan.org/blog/pat-buchanan-tried-make-america-great-126773


123 posted on 08/14/2018 10:06:12 AM PDT by Pelham (California, Mexico's socialist colony)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies ]


To: Pelham

.
Dinesh has always had visions of grandeur.

But no foundation.


127 posted on 08/14/2018 10:21:33 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies ]

To: Pelham

Thanks for a fascinating & informative post, seriously,

Feel free to tell me what the point of it is.


135 posted on 08/16/2018 7:07:54 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson