Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Landrieu and the myth of the southern realignment
Hot Air ^ | December 7, 2014 | Jazz Shaw

Posted on 12/07/2014 6:17:17 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet

With Mary Landrieu exiting the Senate, the usual rounds of finger pointing and recriminations have already begun. In the eyes of her supporters, the reasons are numerous and obvious. It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the unpopularity of the President or the issues she espoused. No, the only reason that a Republican will occupy that seat next year is that the South is full of hateful, bigoted, stars and bars waving racists and homophobes.

This, they will claim, is the result of an ongoing process which began simmering after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, building up to the sweeping “party switch” in the era of Nixon’s southern strategy. This was allegedly when the kindhearted Republicans fled to their more natural home in the Democrat party while the old school, evil racist Democrats jumped ship to the GOP. It’s an old story, and one which is reasonably deflated by Kevin Williamson this week.

A few obvious questions: If white Southerners were really so enraged about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and if they switched to the Republican party to express their displeasure, then why did they wait 30 years before making that preference felt in House elections? Why did Dwight D. Eisenhower — a supporter of civil-rights legislation who insisted on the actual desegregation of the armed forces (as opposed to President Truman’s hypothetical desegregation) and federal agencies under his control — win a larger share of the Southern vote in 1956 than Barry Goldwater, the most important Republican critic of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, did two cycles later? Why did Mississippi elect only one Republican governor in the entire 20th century, and that not until 1992? Why didn’t Alabama have a Republican governor until 1987? And why did Louisiana wait 60 years to eliminate its last Democratic senator in favor of a candidate from the party of Condoleezza Rice, Ben Carson, Allen West, Mia Love, Tim Scott, and that not-very-white guy who serves as governor of Louisiana? White supremacy should be made of sterner stuff: Did somebody forget to tell Louisiana state senator and newly confirmed Republican Elbert Guillory that he’s black?

Generalizations about “The South” are as common as they are wrong. The southeastern portion of the country is actually incredibly diverse by virtually any metric you’d care to use. If we must drill down to the most basic of numbers, we can note that the overall population of the United States is roughly 62% white and 13% black. The corresponding population distribution in South Carolina, for example, is almost exactly the same. Interestingly, of all businesses in the United States, only 7.1% of them are owned by blacks, but in South Carolina (same chart as last link, further down) that number jumps to 12.1%. In short, the entire country is a melting pot, as it has been for ages. To pretend that the south has been immune to this is to be intentionally obtuse or disingenuous.

Democrats still get elected in the south and Republicans somehow manage to get elected in the northeast. The Donkey party won every governor’s race but one in Mississippi during that last century. Missouri, the site of so much racial trouble of late, has a Democrat governor. (Which might explain the total lack of media finger pointing in Jay Nixon’s direction during the riots.) Voting tides rise and fall as the issues Americans focus on shift. It’s an easy and very tired diversion to simply scream Racist every time you lose an election.

Mary Landrieu didn’t lose the election because Louisiana is full of racists. (The same racists who seem to keep electing Bobby Jindal, by the way.) She lost because she failed to serve the needs of a majority of her voters.

TOPICS: Louisiana; Campaign News; Issues; Parties; U.S. Senate
KEYWORDS: 2014midterms; billcassidy; blacks; democrats; keystonexl; landrieu; louisiana; marylandrieu; opec; override; realignment; robmaness; veto; whites

1 posted on 12/07/2014 6:17:17 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

You really should refrain from inundating the Dims with facts. Their poor little minds can’t handle the overload.

2 posted on 12/07/2014 6:25:38 PM PST by txnativegop (Tired of liberals, even a few in my own family.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...

South’s Shift To Conservatism Now Complete With Defeat Of Mary Landrieu

3 posted on 12/07/2014 6:26:11 PM PST by SunkenCiv ( the Polls, Ignore the Trolls)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Rock solid South with the exception of Florida’s astronut...

4 posted on 12/07/2014 6:40:08 PM PST by gov_bean_ counter (Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter
Read Ann Coulter's "Mugged".

She addressed this directly.

If the republicans are the "racist southern party", via Nixon's "Southern Strategy", several questions must be asked.

How did Jimmah Carter win? It was only TWO years after Nixon left office.

How come Bill Clinton "won" the solid south in 1992?

How did Obama win a solid red state like Indiana in 2008?

The answer is of course that nobody can accurately predict voting patterns.

Sure, the democrats are the party of the liberal factions, minorities, blacks, unions, illegal hispanics, gays, pro-aborts, etc.

BUT, when you get down to brass tacks, the democrats have absolutely NOTHING to offer the hard working WHITE American.

As in nada.

Now with gay "marriage" being off the table, so to speak, why would any white person ever vote democrat?

Fine, they can pander to the factions, but for the moment, white Americans are the biggest voting bloc.

And with amnesty, and the example set by Obama, the fact is "whites" are pretty damn sick and tired of being blamed for everything wrong.

Even the stupidest democrat must realize this.

It makes me weary to read all of the stories about how repubs must "learn to appeal to whatever group".

No, the REAL issue is how do democrats appeal to the majority, which happens to be white.

They've got nothing.

5 posted on 12/07/2014 7:03:09 PM PST by boop (I never use the words democrats and republicans. I use liberals and Americans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
If the Donkeys want to hang their hats on Republicans being racists, then how was it that the Republican Party was formed as an abolitionist (anti-slavery) party? Its first President, Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves in the states in rebellion, then the Republicans went on to make all slaves free, make them citizens, and give them the right to vote. The Republicans were behind numerous Civil Rights Acts and were a clear majority for the 1964 Civil Rights Act in both House and Senate.

Who are the racists? The Democratic Party that were slave masters before the Civil War, organized the Ku Klux Klan post-CW, were responsible for Jim Crow Laws in the South, resegregated the Federal Government (thanks to racist President Woodrow Wilson), were the segregationist Dixiecrats, and had as heroes George Wallace, Bull Connor, Lester Maddox, and William Fulbright. The Democrat Party was and is the party of slavery and intolerance. However, that fact is irrelevant to Donkey true belivers.

6 posted on 12/07/2014 7:32:35 PM PST by MasterGunner01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MasterGunner01
The Democratic Party that were slave masters before the Civil War

Not completely true. There WERE some Whig slaveowners. What were Whigs? They were 19th Century versions of Moderate Republicans, ie, GOP-e.

7 posted on 12/07/2014 7:50:03 PM PST by MuttTheHoople (Ob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MuttTheHoople
Exactly right. The Republican Party was founded as an abolitionist party and alternative to the Whigs in 1854. The Whigs were dissolved in 1860. The party was ultimately destroyed by the question of whether to allow the expansion of slavery to the territories. There were deep divisions in the party on the expansion of slavery question. The anti-slavery faction prevented the nomination of its own incumbent, President Fillmore, in the 1852 presidential election. Instead, the party nominated General Winfield Scott.

Most Whig party leaders eventually quit politics (as Abraham Lincoln did temporarily) or changed parties. The northern voter base mostly joined the new Republican Party. By the 1856 presidential election. By 1860, the party was virtually defunct. In the South, the party vanished.

8 posted on 12/07/2014 8:34:57 PM PST by MasterGunner01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
No, the only reason that a Republican will occupy that seat next year is that the South is full of hateful, bigoted, stars and bars waving racists and homophobes.

We should encourage donks to think like this. When they can't see the real reasons for failure, they'll continue to lose elections.

9 posted on 12/07/2014 8:58:33 PM PST by Spirochete (GOP: Give Obama Power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

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