Jump to content

Talk:Southern strategy/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

RfC about Southern Strategy

is the suburban strategy notable enough to carry the WP:WEIGHT required for inclusion in the lead? DN (talk) 03:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Why are you asking this? More specifically, what changes do you think need to be made to the article? What evidence are you suggesting one way or the other? First, the SS is clearly a top down strategy as described in the article. The SS refers not to why the South changed from blue to red but to the idea that a top down Republican strategy caused that change. Even if turns out the blue to red shift was actually caused by martians that doesn't change what "The Southern Strategy" was. However, I think what you are asking is, do experts see the Southern Realignment as due to top down or bottom up influences. The article says the mainstream view (and the first one to be established) is the top down view. It also establishes that the bottom up view is a significant dissenting view on the subject. The balance of the content reflects those views. Springee (talk) 03:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see the point of this RfC as it does not propose any changes to the article and suggest you close it. Obviously a political strategy is top-down by definition. Whether or not there was such a strategy (which I imagine is your concern) is entirely separate. TFD (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Post Change Discussion

The scope of the RfC was changed per above comments. To avoid confusion I've opened this section for the discussion of the new RfC question and moved two comments from above to this section Springee (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes, the scholarly debate associated with the southern strategy including the top down and bottom up theories of southern realignment, that is did the realignment occur due to a top down or bottom up (or both) movement. Any discussion of the effectiveness of The Southern Strategy includes this debate. Since the debate among scholars is a significant part of the body of the article (and the topic in general) it should be included in the lead. Springee (talk) 04:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
That said, having looked over the intro to the article it does seem to conflate the actual "southern strategy" with the causes of southern realignment. It's clear that "The Southern Strategy" refers to a top down plan to win white southern votes by using racist appeals during the time Nixon was in office. What is less clear is if that was in fact a strategy used by Nixon or Republicans in general (at the national and/or local levels). Were the campaign promises/claims actually intended to appeal to "racism" or were the points in question ones that were important to a largely conservative voting block that could be swayed to red? Given the shift from red to blue was this because of actual appeals to racism? Was it because of appeals to economic/other interests instead? Did the blue to red shift happen because a top down message appealed to white southern voters or conversely, did white southern voters decide the red ticket vs blue ticket was better aligned with their political leanings. Finally, is the GOP still using similar appeals and are they intentionally racism based or simply appealing to a middle class, suburban voting block that is also largely white and conservative?
If someone is ambitious enough to take on the task perhaps this article should be broken up and aligned with the Solid South article and one on the Southern Realignment (I don't think that exists now). This would allow one article to narrowly discuss the "Southern Strategy" while spending less time focusing on the causes of southern realignment. I think that material ended up here because it is part of the debate regarding if the Southern Strategy as a top down appeal to racism ever existed and if such an appeal could explain what we see today. Springee (talk) 04:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I am not knowledgable enough on the subject to weigh the different sources and whether these sources have been accurately summarized. I think this article could do with expert input. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Undue for the lead. It's worth mentioning somewhere, but the sourcing and coverage (relative to the massive coverage of the Southern Strategy as a whole) is too slight to give it such focus in the lead. In fact, the entire scholarly debate paragraph is broadly undue in its current framing and focus - the debate is real, but not so prominent that it deserves an entire paragraph making up half the lead. We're also giving Lassiter in particular undue weight in the body - he's mentioned eight times across four paragraphs. He is not that noteworthy; we can mention his view, but we should do so once in a single paragraph. --Aquillion (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
The problem with this view is that we cover not just what the SS was reported to be but also what impact it may have had etc. Also, the "massive coverage" in general isn't research into the subject rather it's oped's that take the SS as a given rather than critically assess if there was such a deliberate strategy and if such a strategy actually explains the southern realignment. However, I do agree that the scope of the article isn't well defined. Perhaps a better way to discuss this topic is say what should the structure and scope of this article look like. Springee (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Speaking as the OP of this contention that the "suburban stratagy" is not WP:NOTABLE enough to take up so much of the lead, I feel the problem is just that not only are there lots of other opinions given in this section that get no mention at all in the lead (let alone in bold).
There are no contemporary mainstream RS talking about SS with Mark Lassitor, Kevin M. Kruse and Joseph Crespino that ive found. I'm not saying we shouldn't include their POV in the lead, but compared to the rest of the article it takes up far to much space in the lead for the WP:WEIGHT it carries according to WP:PROPORTION. DN (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
See a source cited in the article: 'Painting Dixie Red: When, Where, Why, and How the South Became Republican....', it contains a number of essays and citations. By the way, about the 2 sources we cite to back the statement This top-down narrative of the Southern Strategy is generally believed to be the primary force that transformed Southern politics following the civil rights era......I cannot access one and the other essentially says that may be the narrative....but it's wrong.Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes It appears worthy of inclusion in the lead. Though I would tend to agree with Springee that the scope of the whole article needs to be better defined. This appears to be more an article briefly explaining 100+ years of racial politics and realignment rather than focusing on what the Southern Strategy was, how it was developed and implemented, its possible affect on the shift of the south from blue to red, and its place in today's political climate. Tchouppy (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
    What reasons do you have for why "suburban strategy" is worthy of inclusion in the lead? DN (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Lead suggestions to fix Undue

I believe this version is what seems most appropriate considering the current scope. DN (talk) 04:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

  • The "Southern Strategy" refers primarily to "top down" narratives 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.[5] This top-down narrative of the Southern Strategy is generally believed to be the primary force that transformed Southern politics following the civil rights era.[6][7] This view has been questioned by historians who recognize the racial backlash to the political realignment of the South suggests that this backlash took the form of a defense of de facto segregation in the suburbs rather than overt resistance to racial integration and that the story of this backlash is a national rather than a strictly Southern one.[9][10][11][12]
I think this could be a good change. I'm not sold yet but I think you are making a good case that the lead doesn't need to mention specific historians etc. When looking at the lead and honestly the whole article I think it would be good to decide what is actually in scope. As I've mentioned previously, it looks like much of the content has come from people dumping news bites and news opinions rather than trying to put together a comprehensive article. The "modern" section in particular is very problematic.
If we were to zoom out I would suggest drastically closing the scope to just what is classically known as the Southern Strategy, just the Nixon era stuff. I'm thinking something like a three part article, "What Nixon did (or was reported to have done)", what those actions are reported to have produced, what critics say about that second section. This would drastically cut down the article. However, there is a lot of good material here which could go into a Southern Realignment or other article. My concern is could we get enough editors to buy into a new structure? I will admit part of my reluctance to change parts of this article is it was really quite a fight to get some content in since the topic is political and partisan. It was one of those articles where you end up with an uneasy trues and leave it at that. There is still plenty of material in here that I think it being presented poorly or for partisan gain vs to help the reader gain a better or more nuanced understanding of the topic. Anyway, that's a bit rambling. Do you have thoughts on cleaning up some of the other sections? Springee (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Sources 6 & 7......I cannot access one and the other essentially says that may be the narrative....but it's wrong. So I guess the question becomes: is there a RS for that?Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC about whether to mention the Southern Strategy in the intro for Republican Party (United States)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)#RfC:_Racial_and_geographical_realignment_after_the_Civil_Rights_Act. Sdkb (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2020

https://www.prageru.com/video/why-did-the-democratic-south-become-republican/ 73.142.152.250 (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jack Frost (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2020

Please add this book to the “Further Reading” book list: Dent, Harry and Betty “Right Vs. Wrong: Solutions To the American Nightmare (Thomas Nelson, 1992) pp 10-11, 215, 218

Although Kevin Phillips was the publicizer of the Southern Strategy, Harry S. Dent Sr. is a primary source who was an initiator of this strategy. To be succinct, this is Harry Dent’s story, with references from his book:

The Southern Strategy was cooked up by Harry S. Dent, a staffer of Republican Sen. Thurmond. As he shared it with Vice President Nixon, it was basically a political gambit. This strategy was to win just enough Republican votes that, combined with votes for independent, George Wallace, would deny Democrat electoral votes in 5 states. [10-11] This helped Nixon win the election. The Republican campaign in the South played on what in later years would be called the ‘Bubba’ vote. Harry Dent, as a surrogate, campaigned with an emphasized drawl in order to win the electorate [p 11, “good ole boy Southern accent”]. After Watergate and seeing his fellow Nixon staffers going to prison, Harry Dent saw the evil of his ways, and publicly repented of this strategy [p 218]. Harry S. Dent Sr. Right Vs. Wrong: Solutions to the American Nightmare (1992) Postadavis (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd be interested in finding a copy of this to look at first, before we recommend folks read it in relation to this article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — Tartan357  (Talk) 15:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2020

{{subst:trim|1=

Change

Atwater... to

Atwater...

in the Evolution topic.

208.84.66.30 (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

A few issues

I've had a few issues on my mind related to this article on my mind.....the fact that somebody added a heading recently have brought them more to the forefront:

1: Does the Wille Horton deal even belong in this article? To be blunt in the matter: the Horton ads were run nationally. This is a article about the so-called southern strategy.

2: The statement: In addition to presidential campaigns, subsequent Republican campaigns for the House of Representatives and Senate in the South employed the Southern Strategy. appears to be a issue. First off, it appears to be unsourced.....and secondly, the one example given of this is the Jesse Helms's "Hands" ad. I would think we would need to add a "source needed" to that or perhaps get a RS statement to clarify to what degree/frequency we are talking.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

1:I can't think of a more relative example, can you?
2:There are sources listed. (See 1) DN (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure how a nationally broadcast campaign ad can be called "relative" in a regional campaign strategy. With regards to your second comment, ref [78] is a link to a Helms campaign ad, [79] also discusses this ad....but provides no statistical insight (or any other as far as I can tell) into how prevalent this was (overall) in Congressional campaigns. (Which is the claim without quantifying.) This assumes [78]&[79] were intended to do that.....I don't think they were. I think the statement was just added without support.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Reverted edit

HandThatFeeds The entry Realigning election in the "See also" section redirects to Political realignment. The term "political realignment" appears three times in the lead paragraphs. I wikilinked one of those terms and removed the entry in the "See also" section to comply with MOS:NOTSEEALSO "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body." Mitchumch (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that you wikilinked the term. I saw that in the edit summary, but didn't see it in the diff. In that case, I'll self-revert, that's a good edit. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Biased and full of lies

WP:SOAP. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

As is the case with any political article on Wikipedia, that always sides with leftists. There was no switch. The Democrats are just trying to pin their disgusting history on their opponent and rewrite history. Of the 21 racist Democrat senators who opposed the civil rights act, only one (1) became Republican. They used to be racist in the south and the less racist they got the more Republican they got (or is it the more Republican they got, the less racist). That's the only shift that happened. The average white southerner today will vote for a black Republican over a white Democrat anytime. MatthewS. (talk)

If you want changes.....you need to make a concrete proposal here (with RS) in order to proceed.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Article states misleading information

The article claims that President Richard Nixon appealed to racists in the South to win the 1968 and 1972 elections. This is clearly not true since he did not win the South in 1968, and instead won States such as California by a larger margin (3%), and his successor, Ford, would completely fail to win the South against Jimmy Carter in 1976. On top of this, the South didn't vote Republican until 1994 in the Senate or House of Representatives. Overall seems the Republicans did a horrible job at appealing to racists, as this article implies, or simply never did appeal to racists, as reality indicates and this article itself admits later on. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 15:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

That's a lot of original research right there. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
It is OR. The article already presents opinions that there was no Southern strategy. Incidentally, the fact that an approach was not initially successful does not mean it was not pursued. In any case, Nixon won Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida in 1968 and all Southern States in 1972. The Democrats successfully turned back the Republican tide in the South, at least temporarily, by nominating a former Southern governor for president in 1976. TFD (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The Southern Strategy was not about appealing to racists in the south. As the south became LESS racist it became more Republican. The American Civil War ended in 1865. And a new conflict immediately began.

The North won the first war. The South won the second. To truly understand American history, one needs to understand how this happened, and why.

The years immediately following the end of the Civil War—1865 to 1877—are known in American history as “Reconstruction.” What should have been a glorious chapter in America’s story—the full integration of 3.9 million freed slaves—instead became a shameful one.

It began with the assassination of Republican president Abraham Lincoln. One week after the Civil War effectively ended, the one man with the political savvy and shrewdness to have guided Reconstruction was gone.

His successor was Vice-President Andrew Johnson, a Tennessee Democrat. Johnson was the rare Southern politician who stayed loyal to the Union during the Civil War. Lincoln added him to his reelection ticket in 1864 as a gesture of wartime bi-partisanship. But Johnson was wholly unprepared for the task.

Under his Reconstruction plan, the defeated rebels would be allowed to return to power, almost as if they had never left. The only requirement to rejoin the Union was that they agree to ratify the 13th Amendment that abolished slavery.

This was fine with the old Southern Democratic ruling class. By agreeing to abolish slavery, they would actually increase their political power. Whereas the Constitution’s old 3/5ths clause limited slave states to counting only 3/5ths of their slaves for the purpose of determining representation in Congress, after the Civil War, the Southern states were able to count 100% of the freed slaves.

This would ensure the return to Congress of Southern Democrats, and in even greater numbers than before the rebellion, allowing them—with the help of their Democratic Party allies in the North—to fight Republican efforts to secure the citizenship rights of the former slaves.

Johnson’s plan set off three years of bitter political warfare. The Republicans in Congress created their own Congressional Reconstruction plan. Still in the overall majority there, they reorganized ten of the Southern states into military occupation zones, requiring them to write new state constitutions that recognized black civil rights before they could be readmitted to the Union.

Over fierce Democratic opposition, the Republicans also managed to pass two new amendments to the Constitution—the 14th and 15th Amendments—guaranteeing due process in law and voting rights in elections. Those rights enabled the former slaves to help elect new state governments, to hold office, and even to send the first black representatives and senators to Congress—all Republicans.

Most important, in 1869, with the help of 500,000 votes from newly-enfranchised blacks, a new Republican president, Ulysses S. Grant, took office. Grant was solidly behind the Congressional Reconstruction plan.

But a new problem arose: Disgruntled Southern whites organized themselves into ad hoc militias to terrorize Southern blacks and their white Republican supporters into silence. The largest and most famous of these militias went by a still-familiar name: the Ku Klux Klan.

President Grant fought the Klan and other like-minded terror groups. But the fight required an extended military intervention to keep the peace, and that cost time and money. Grant also had to deal with Northern Democrats, who were sympathetic to Southern racism. With each new election—1868, 1870 and 1872—they gained more congressional seats and more power.

And then, in 1873, a major financial depression began. Economically desperate, anxious to put the remnants of the Civil War behind them, voters gave control of the House of Representatives back to the Democrats in the 1874 midterm elections.

Grant left office in 1877. Soon after, the last Republican state governments in the South were overthrown. Black voters were disenfranchised, “Jim Crow” racial segregation became the order, and the South returned to social and economic backwardness.

What could we have done better?

First, we should have imposed a real occupation on the defeated Confederacy, until a new political generation grew up in the South which learned a newer lesson about race and rights than white supremacy.

Second, we should have gotten landownership into the hands of the freed slaves and brought the South into the same world of free markets, economic mobility, small-scale manufacturing and industry that Lincoln’s Republicans advocated.

But the truth is that the North had won the war, but the South had won the peace.

That’s the real story of Reconstruction.


I’m Allen Guelzo, professor of American history at Gettysburg College

Once upon a time, every student of history – and that meant pretty much everyone with a high school education – knew this: The Democratic Party was the party of slavery and Jim Crow, and the Republican Party was the party of emancipation and racial integration.

Democrats were the Confederacy and Republicans were the Union. Jim Crow Democrats were dominant in the South and socially tolerant Republicans were dominant in the North.

But then, in the 1960s and 70s, everything supposedly flipped: suddenly the Republicans became the racists and the Democrats became the champions of civil rights.

Fabricated by left-leaning academic elites and journalists, the story went like this: Republicans couldn't win a national election by appealing to the better nature of the country; they could only win by appealing to the worst. Attributed to Richard Nixon, the media's all-purpose bad guy, this came to be known as "The Southern Strategy."

It was very simple. Win elections by winning the South. And to win the South, appeal to racists. So, the Republicans, the party of Lincoln, were to now be labeled the party of rednecks.

But this story of the two parties switching identities is a myth. In fact, it's three myths wrapped into one false narrative.

Let's take a brief look at each myth in turn.

Myth Number One: In order to be competitive in the South, Republicans started to pander to white racists in the 1960s.

Fact: Republicans actually became competitive in the South as early as 1928, when Republican Herbert Hoover won over 47 percent of the South's popular vote against Democrat Al Smith. In 1952, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower won the southern states of Tennessee, Florida and Virginia. And in 1956, he picked up Louisiana, Kentucky and West Virginia, too. And that was after he supported the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education that desegregated public schools; and after he sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock Central High School to enforce integration.

Myth Number Two: Southern Democrats, angry with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, switched parties.

Fact: Of the 21 Democratic 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. On average, those 20 seats didn't go Republican for another two-and-a-half decades.

Myth Number Three: Since the implementation of the Southern Strategy, the Republicans have dominated the South.

Fact: Richard Nixon, the man who is often credited with creating the Southern Strategy, lost the Deep South in 1968. In contrast, Democrat Jimmy Carter nearly swept the region in 1976 - 12 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And in 1992, over 28 years later, Democrat Bill Clinton won Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and West Virginia. The truth is, Republicans didn't hold a majority of southern congressional seats until 1994, 30 years after the Civil Rights Act.

As Kevin Williamson of the National Review writes: "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.”

Don't buy it.

I'm Carol Swain, professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University, for — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vehria01 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Question on section titled "Scholorly debate"

The following text is included in the third paragraph of this section - "Lassiter says the Southern Strategy was a 'failure' for the GOP and that the Southern base of the Republican Party 'always depended more on the middle-class corporate economy and on the top-down politics of racial backlash' ".

This doesn't make sense to me in context. It seems like it should say "always depended more on the middle-class corporate economy THAN on the top-down politics of racial backlash." The language used in the article is also used by a number of other sources on the web. I could not find a copy of the referenced article with free access. If someone could get access, it would be helpful if the correctness of the text as written could be checked.Jpipersson (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I looked it up in The Democratic Experiment..., and you are correct. I fixed it there....and another part of the quote was inaccurate as well so I fixed it too. Thanks for pointing this out.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

2021 Jan removal of material

JzG, you removed a lot of significant material that was extensively discussed a few year back. The debate between the top down and bottom up narratives is a significant part of this article. Can you offer a bit more explanation why you removed so much sourced material? I'm not sure why Lassiter's article was red. I don't know who added the links, if they worked at one time or if they never worked. The other links did work. The book, The Silent Majority by Lassiter was cite almost 1000 times per Google Scholar. Springee (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I was about to revert until I saw your post. Too much RS material was removed that develops the debate on this issue. Not to say it cannot be trimmed.....but I don't follow removing it because the source does not have a wiki article. And the debate deserves some mention in the LEAD since we do have a lengthy section on it. (Although less lengthy now.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Springee, because it makes a claim that the dominant view is "increasingly" disputed by "Southern" historians like Matthew Lassiter (redlink). We're here to publish mainstream scholarship, not to mainstream revisionism. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
JzG, I don't see where it says these are "southern" historians. Lassiter is not southern, he is at U of Michigan. His views are part of mainstream scholarship. This has been extensively discussed in the talk archives. I believe the actual claim from a scholar who was reviewing the sources was that the top down theory come out first and thus was, for a time the default understanding. The bottom up theory came out later and but once it came out it gained popularity with scholars. The "increasing" phrasing was based on the words of the scholar who did the review of sources/views. I think you have misread the debate. This is very much a mainstream theory. Springee (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It is hard for me to gauge to what extent this is a minority assessment in the literature versus a substantial and prominent one. Ideally, we'd get inputs from actual historians and political scientists who are experts on the topic. Who wants to email the scholars who have been cited on this particular topic? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

We do have inputs from actual historians, Glen Feldman states it is "the dissenting—yet rapidly growing—narrative on the topic of southern partisan realignment".[10], Feldman, Glenn (2011). Painting Dixie Red: When, Where, Why and How the South Became Republican. University Press of Florida. pp. 16, 80. Feldman is specifically talking about Lassiter's POV. The fact that Lassiter et al's book has been cited nearly 1000 times is a very strong indication this is a mainstream view on the subject even if we can't say if it is the dominant view. Springee (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Citation counts are not an accurate reflection of whether something reflects a mainstream view. In fact, minority views may often be way more cited than each publication that comprises the predominant view. Huntington's Clash of Civilizations has been cited 40,000 times, but primarily to be dunked on by topic experts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Are we trying to decide if this is the majority view (over 50%), not a fringe view (say over 5%) or simply minority view but one taken seriously, (say 40%)? I think the Feldman passage below should answer if this is just fringe vs if this is a view historians take seriously. This also aligns with much of the material Rjensen was proposing for the article a few years back. Springee (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Expanding the Feldman material, this excerpt from his book is from the talk archive:
All of this leads us, finally, to the dissenting - yet rapidly growing - narrative on the topic of the southern partisan realignment as represented in this book most clearly in the Tim Boyd, George Lewis, Michael Bowen, and John W White essays. All - to greater and lesser extents - follow the lead of the historian Matthew D Lassiter in The Silent Majority (2006) as well as that of the political scientists Byron Shafer and Richard Johnston in The End of Southern Exceptionalism (2006). Lassiter, and others since, have argued strongly against what they term the "white backlash" narrative of the South becoming Republican in reaction to national Democratic identification with civil rights and racial liberalism. The "Suburban school," as it may now be called, stresses a "suburban strategy" versus what it deems a "southern strategy" - and insists that post-World War II white southern suburbanites were relatively "color-blind" in their approach to politics. The argument goes on to reject the notion of a distinctive South as well as to downplay - and even at times dismiss - the role of race in motivating white southerners to leave the Democratic Party for the GOP. Race was just not something they cared a while lot about - this better-educated, upwardly mobile, suburban elite. In this volume, the suburban school approach is probably most clearly exemplified in the essays authored by Tim Boyd on Georgia and John W White on South Carolina, though it pops up in Dan William's and Leah Wright's essays, as well as elsewhere. The brewing debate between the "backlash" theorists and the "suburban school" is so important that I have chosen to include as many sides as possible in this volume. Feldman, Painting Dixie, page 16, Springee (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't find "dissenting, yet rapidly growing" to be particularly compelling; it's a polite way to say "this view is on the fringes but it might go somewhere in the future, maybe." More importantly - that was in 2011, correct? Do you have anything more recent? A lot has changed in the past nine years specifically when it comes to racial and regional divisions in America and the scholarly assessment of them. I'm not seeing any evidence that the growth Feldman noted was substantiated in the long term. I can find barely any recent references to Feldman's views at all. --Aquillion (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I can e-mail them if necessary....but we do know it is certainly a significant school of thought. If WEIGHT is a issue, we can trim down/paraphrase or perhaps make a footnote of the removed content. But I think it should be in to develop this POV to be clear on what it is.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Wouldn't it make more sense to email more mainstream scholars? Obviously every scholar is going to say their views are significant, but no, I do not at all see any evidence that it is a significant school of thought given how large the topic area is as a whole. There were a few Southern historians who praised it and speculated that it might prove to be more convincing then it actually turned out to be, but it looks to me (at least based on references to it relative to the size of the topic as a whole) that it didn't really go anywhere in the long term. --Aquillion (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I (currently) haven't e-mailed anyone. Before I did, I would want consensus on who & the content of said correspondence. And I disagree that it isn't "a significant school of thought" Shafer & Johnson's work (and (to my knowledge) neither of them are southern) has been cited quite a bit since it came out. Numerous other citations in the article indicate this is not a uncommon school of thought. We simply do not know how much of a percentage it is among scholars. (I would assume a survey would to tough to ascertain.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • We're definitely putting too much emphasis on Lassiter specifically. A Google Scholar search finds only 52 results for "suburban strategy" "southern strategy", many of them dismissing it (Adding the latter phrase is necessary because there are many uses of the term that don't refer to Lassiter's theories, such as the 2018 Democratic strategy in the midterms, which further underlines how comparatively fringe they are, ie. he's failed to even dominate the use of the phrase he tried to use for it; even scholars who focus on race relations and political divisions in America are often completely unaware of his theories or consider them so trivial that they use the term for unrelated things.) For comparison, "southern strategy" race america turns up over six thousand results. But that's not the most fatal problem here - if we restrict the search to recent (post-2017) results, there are five hits, most of which (at a glance) aren't even using the words in reference to Lassiter's theory (for comparison, there have been about 1700 scholarly references to the Southern Strategy in that timeframe.) The fact that Glenn Feldman spoke of it as growing back in 2011 is only worth so much when 1. he also acknowledges it is a dissenting view, ie. it failed to catch hold then, and 2. every indicator is that that growth didn't actually go anywhere. Obviously any broad assessment of American politics is going to have its dissent, and it's worth briefly noting the existence of such dissent in the lead, but Lassiter isn't even the most notable voice of dissent; the previous version practically trumpeted his views as if this was an even scholarly debate or as if he had substantially changed the discussion, which is absolutely not supported by the sources - there have been over seventeen hundred scholarly references to the Southern strategy in the past three years, of which at most five even bother to acknowledge that Lassiter's views exist. Highlighting Lassiter's views in the lead is grossly undue; a sentence or two in the body is defensible, but not more than that. --Aquillion (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I can condense it down a bit further and perhaps switch his name out with someone else in the LEAD. (Maybe with Shafer or Johnson.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. To be clear, I'm fine with a sentence or two in the lead noting that dissenting views exist, and I'm even fine with mentioning Lassiter's name in passing there when mentioning scholars who disagree (though I'd also be fine with replacing him with a more notable dissent if we can find one.) There's definitely dissent worth noting overall, I'm just not convinced that Lassiter specifically ought to be highlighted as an alternative narrative in the lead. I think usually for broadly-popular theories like this where dissent exists, we note the existence of dissent but don't usually go into the sort of blow-by-blow "but X says [complete counter-theory]" in the lead, not unless the scholarly debate is really really close or really really important to the point where it's impossible to discuss the topic without immediately going into detail on it. --Aquillion (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Some votes for who should replace Lassiter in the LEAD is welcome. (So no conflict down the line.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
The Lassiter material shouldn't be cut down. Sorry, when a historian who is writing a review of the various views on this subject says this is a notable (rapidly growing) theory we shouldn't pretend he actually meant "fringe". Additionally when the book has been cited almost 1000 times we can't decide it's not worth discussing. This is a very significant part of the big picture. At a high level this article says there was a plan and then says if the plan worked. If historians disagree then we cover it. If the article is too long there is plenty of other material that could be trimmed before this. Springee (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
There are, as far as I can tell, about five cites at most in the past four years using the term "suburban strategy" to refer to Lassiter's theories; again, your one cite talking highly of it is from 2011 and talks of it dismissively at the same time by noting it is merely a dissenting theory. (Likewise, of the "thousand cites", relatively few of them are citing it for the part you want to focus on. The book is not exclusively about the theory you're pulling out of it to place in the lead; people who cited it for that are comparatively few.) There's no indication that it actually grew in the time since then. Lassiter failed to even claim the term "suburban strategy", which is now used to refer to other aspects of the topic (again, if you do a scholar search for it and the Southern strategy today, several of the higher-profile hits refer to the Democratic strategy in the 2018 midterms, which makes it clear that his use of the term didn't have much impact.) It is absolutely not significant relative to the size of the topic as a whole - one book on a subject that attracted some attention but whose theories ultimately went nowhere is indeed still very firmly WP:FRINGE. I have no objection to mentioning it for a sentence or two, but your insistence that this is some major aspect of the topic that needs to be given central billing is an extreme reach to rely on using a single source from nine years ago that gives it a backhanded complement at best. "Dissident but rapidly-growing", in academia, is a polite way of saying "this is fringe but maybe it will attract more attention in the future." Now that it's nine years later, we can clearly see that it did not. I'm ok with a few sentences for it in the body, but highlighting it in the lead as the counter-narrative or going into depth on there is grossly WP:UNDUE - most of the sources you cite that reference it do so in passing while noting the broader range of dissidents. It simply is not as important as you make it out to be. --Aquillion (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Your argument seems to be that you can't prove to yourself that the bottom up theory continued to have legs thus it must be bunk and we should only report on the top down theory. The problem is you haven't shown that "suburban strategy" is now accepted by at least a reasonable percentage of scholars or even that the "suburban strategy" is the common name (vs bottom up or even not specifically named - see Alexander article later in this edit). When we have a scholar in the field who says this is a view that deserves attention we can't dismiss that and decide it's actually a fringe theory after all. And, no, his statement is not backhanded or that the theory is crap but he's mentioning it anyway. Additionally, the Lassiter view is aligns with Alexander who specifically points to flaws in several of the sources that support the top down view. Alexander's Clairmont Review article discusses several of the top down books and points to flaws. [[1]] If you want to claim the bottom up narrative didn't gain traction then show a newer article that say so. This isn't a rapidly updating field of study since we are talking about events that are 40-50 years in the past. I don't expect to see new scholarship every year. Springee (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
At the risk of getting on a tangent, you've touched on something I've wondered about: the volume of research on this (on a year by year basis). The media was certainly slow on picking up on this.....I've always been curious as to the timing of academia. (I personally never even heard of some of this stuff until years (even decades) after the fact.) That info might be worthwhile to add to our Scholarly debates section.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The lead should clarify that regardless of whether scholars see the realignment of the parties as a top-down process or a bottom-up one, they all agree that racial conservatism was the main driver behind the realignment of the two parties. Currently[2], the lead makes it seem as as if Matthew Lassiter, Kevin M. Kruse and Joseph Crespino dispute that (per footnote 7, they don't). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Well most do and some don't. Polsby, Shafer, Johnston, Lassiter, etc are quoted in the article as saying racial animus took a backseat to class and so on. Perhaps this will kill two birds with one stone. Maybe we could change (in the intro): This view has increasingly been disputed by some historians such as Matthew Lassiter, Kevin M. Kruse and Joseph Crespino, who have presented alternative theories for this realignment.[7][8][9][10][11] To (instead): Several aspects of this view have been debated[<<link to our Scholarly Debate section] by some historians and political scientists.[7][8][9][10][11] This would (I think) cover everyone.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm OK with restoring the earlier earlier language of the lead which noted that point. "This narrative recognizes the centrality of racial backlash to the political realignment of the South,[8] but suggests that this backlash took the form of a defense of de facto segregation in the suburbs rather than overt resistance to racial integration". It's important to say how this racial conservatism was manifest. It was not in the form of displays of racism, rather it was those with means went to the suburbs which then because segregated not by law but in practice. Springee (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
To me, the nuts & bolts of this (i.e. so many opinions) are diverse enough to where I think if we just kick it into the Scholarly Debate section...we are most likely covered for all. (And that also solves the problem of which scholar(s) to mention in the intro.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested edit

I'd suggest that the final sentence in the first paragraph of the lead be removed. The sentence reads, "It also helped to push the Republican Party much more to the right". It is not entirely clear what the word "it" is referring to, but that's not the main concern. The main concern is that the cited source ([3]) doesn't support the sentence. 74.67.45.185 (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

This account has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC on description of Southern strategy in lead of Republican Party

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Republican Party (United States) § RfC: Southern strategy description in the lead. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2021 - using reference 99 in the Wikipage

"change among white voters to blank" "change by appealing to racism against African Americans to blank". "change blank to Under FDR, the Democrats successfully assembled a daunting, cross-regional coalition of presidential voters. To compete, the GOP had to develop a broader national outreach of its own, which meant adding a Southern strategy to its arsenal." "change blank to In 1952, Dwight Eisenhower took his campaign as national hero southward. He, like Nixon in 1960, polled badly among Deep South whites. But Ike won four states in the Peripheral South. This marked their lasting realignment in presidential voting." <ref> Reference 99: Alexander, Gerard (March 20, 2004). "The Myth of the Racist Republicans". The Claremont Review of Books. 4 (2). Retrieved March 25, 2015. <ref> SelfCritic (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done I'm sorry, I can't make out what you're actually asking us to do here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The source you're talking about is a book review by a think tank. We shouldn't be citing it for statements of fact unrelated to opinions about the book at all. --Aquillion (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Disagree that the Alexander article is not acceptable. Gerard Alexander is a subject matter expert and the is replying to sources we use in this article as an academic criticizing the conclusion of other academics. He is also illustrating that not all academics agree with the typical Southern Strategy narrative. Springee (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Care to expand on what makes him a subject matter expert? All I'm seeing is that he's an Associate Professor at University of Virginia & has ties to a right wing think tank. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
He is a Prof of political science at a major university and has a long list of related publications. Springee (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
That doesn't make him a subject matter expert. Any number of professors can publish articles in their specialization, that does not make them experts in that field. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
When trying to decide if an person can be an expert for the purposes of Wikipedia we look at their background. Alexander is a well established academic who is published in the field and cited by others both in academia and outside (see NYT for example). Springee (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It's a book review for a think tank. I would strenuously oppose using it even to establish opinions on the book in the article about the book (the only place where I would ever even faintly consider the possibility that it might be usable), since think tanks in general have no expectation of fact-checking or accuracy and by definition exist to push a perspective based on their funding, which makes all but the most prestigious of them them useless for establishing general opinions or reception; but it certainly isn't usable here. I completely disagree that Alexander is a "subject-matter expert" (which requires a lot more than your vague assertion of "is an academic") and, again, a think tank is useless for establishing weight (since by definition their purpose is to find people willing to push their policy aims and pay them to do do so.) If the goal in including it is to give the reader the impression that some meaningful number of academics disagree with mainstream scholarship on the topic than that is a clear misuse of the source, since, again, think tanks by definition exist to push views by hook or crook without regard to whether those views are WP:FRINGE, and since, as a general rule, anyone employed by one is being paid to hold the views the think tank exists to promote. (Indeed, often the whole purpose a think tank will focus its weight behind something is because it is WP:FRINGE and cannot find traction outside of people paid to endorse it.) If you seriously think it can be used here, take it to WP:RSN. To be clear, I would have removed it instantly either for being a book review cited to establish things unrelated to the book it was reviewing (book reviews are, in general, WP:RSOPINION at best and cannot be used to state or imply matters of fact), or for being from a think tank with no particular reputation; obviously we can't use a source that is both at once. And if that is genuinely the best source you can find to illustrate the point you want to make, you might take a step back and consider that perhaps those views are simply too WP:FRINGE or obscure to attract serious, reputable coverage; actual WP:DUE scholarship, by definition, exists meaningfully outside of organizations funded specifically to promote it. --Aquillion (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It's a book review by a Prof from a major university. The prof field of study is political science and his CV has a number of publications in the field. Just as importantly he is directly addressing some of the foundations of other sources we use in this article. Your claims of fringe are without merit. You are getting hung up on the think tank part but ignore that the person has the CV to support knowledge in the area. He has been interviewed on NPR [[4]] and published as an OpEd in the NYT [[5]]. Repeating the claim "Fringe" doesn't make something fringe. It's very notable that people who are knowledgeable in this field disagree with this narrative. It's also rather questionable that we treat so many news stories that claim "racism" as RS but some editors would then try to treat a well established academic as fringe simply because he argues that some other academics got things wrong. Springee (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
At best you could claim that this is his opinion on the book he's reviewing. That does not hold that his opinion applies to this article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The Claremont Review of Books as a reliable source? You've got to be joking; try floating that at RSN and it'll go over like a lead balloon (if it hasn't already somewhere in the archives). I see Springee has managed to get some of you to engage with their civil POV pushing—you shouldn't waste your energy. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I said Alexander was an expert in the field and thus his views and his comments about the other sources can be treated as a dissenting expert. As for that specific article, it has been cited by others. Springee (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps a solution (if you want it back in) is to use a Reference Note [6]. You could there note the source and the author (since there seem to be disputes as to RS there). You could say something like Mr.[whomever] writing in [think tank name] said about Lassiter [whatever].Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Aquillion removed the source earlier today but that removal can be justified as not needed to support the statement in the article. What I would protest is if someone said the source couldn't be used at all. It certainly could be used to dispute claims/conclusions from the sources it reviews. It can also show that not all people who have studied this topic agree with the conclusions. I would not treat the CRofB as a scholarly source but I would consider it a reasonable source for attributed claims. Certainly Alexander is a scholar who's views can be given weight as a dissenting view. Regardless, this is one of those articles that is in bad shape but getting consensus to really clean it up is quite difficult. Springee (talk) 04:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2021

"change Introduction-blank to Ironically, Nixon really did almost nothing to appeal to Southern racists in 1968, for an obvious, but frequently forgotten, reason: Alabama Governor George Wallace, who ran as a third-party candidate, had all their votes in his pocket and made blatant racial appeals the foundation of his campaign. Even as president, Nixon did very little, substantively, to appeal to the South. On the contrary, he moved rapidly to desegregate the schools and established affirmative action programs to aid black workers and businesses. It is now largely forgotten, but the reason Nixon made Spiro Agnew his running mate is because he had a reputation for being good on civil rights, having pushed for open housing laws as governor of Maryland. On balance, Nixon’s record on civil rights is pretty good, according to historians."

<ref> https://newrepublic.com/article/158320/western-origins-southern-strategy Bruce Bartlett/June 29, 2020 <ref> SelfCritic (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

First, SelfCritic, your formatting is not working well. It's hard to tell what you're trying to change when you do "change blank to...".
Second, it's unclear to me, but it appears that The Soapbox section on The New Republic site is an editorial page, which does not count as a reliable source.
Finally, that's a very long section to quote, probably too long. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: Per the concerns of HandThatFeeds Aasim (talk) 05:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Historically Not accurate

There was much more to the southern strategy that includes intimidation and hype up violence against African Americans. It wasn’t just political and this page needs to reflect that and needs to be more research on it. So it should be taken down and reviewed and accurate written then reposted!! Pizzagurl1 (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Pizzagurl1, if you have access to reliable sources that describe these aspects of the southern strategy, please be bold and update the page with information drawn from them! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

How do I go about an edit it! It’s locked, and I don’t have access. Pizzagurl1 (talk) 04:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2021

The Southern Strategy was much more then increase political support among white voters though racism. Many different tactics were used including violence and intimidation. Nixon would use certain type of language in his speeches that would cause white voters to become angry and would turn on African Americans. Not to mention this led to mass incarceration of many African Americans. The Southern Strategy still exist today. Just look at Trumps campaign and what he ran on. The whole “make American great again” thing. Pizzagurl1 (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC) Ol

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Violence and intimidation? That's a new one on me. In fact, the best examples the proponents of this can give are a handful of (non-violent) incidents that went virtually unnoticed by the mainstream media of the time. In any case, it sounds to me like you are conflating the civil rights movement with a strategy that (supposedly) tapped into the backlash against it. But whatever change you want, as others have said, you need a RS to back up whatever material you want.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Request for Page Protection July 10 2021

Seeing a lot of vandalism lately, luckily editors here are vigilant, but they have better things to do than revert random IPs every time they log in. DN (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

[7] - Looks like my request was declined. Apparently chronic disruption of this article is now welcome, at least until it meets a certain threshold of unknown proportion. DN (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I question the claim that the GOP appealed to racism against blacks

WP:NPA, WP:FORUM. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Read this by Goldwater in 1964 on the Senate floor:

And it's undeniable that Nixon fought for civil rights. According to Robert A. Caro in Master of the Senate, he was visibly angry when the Senate passed the jury trial amendment which watered down the Civil Rights Act of 1957. As president, he desegregated schools in the South.

And if one is to still argue the GOP really appealed to racism, they would have a hard time explaining why they simultaneously gave strong support to civil rights legislation from 1957 to 1968. And then there's the "Southern Republicans were just as bad as Southern Democrats" argument perpetuated by political hack Kevin M. Kruse [8] who ignore that some "Old Guard" Southern Republicans voted against the 1964 bill on libertarian grounds while supporting other legislation.

Anyone need more evidence backing my point? Total random nerd (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

What we have in your comment is a bunch of original research, an op-ed by a partisan, and a random tweet. This stands in contrast to the peer-reviewed publications that the article uses. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I indeed have the facts on my side. I'm sorry you're too closed-minded and vainly removed the banner I put in the article. Total random nerd (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by random IP - Request Page protection 3.31.22

I tried to revert the most recent disruptive edit before noticing this IP had made several such edits. See [9] [10] [11]...DN (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Southern_strategy/Archive_7&oldid=1137907235"