Did the Southern Strategy really happen? Or did the migration of Blacks from the South to the North force the political parties to modify their White Supremacys plans? I must admit that it requires a massive amount of naiveté for Black people to really believe that Goldwaters 1964 failed presidential bid was a watershed moment in American (Caucasian) politics as far as race goes. Surely, one hundred years earlier, when the Emancipation Proclamation took place, would have been a more fitting timeframe. Or, perhaps the arrival of the Mayflower ship was indeed the transformative moment. Some may even argue that the question of the negro problem was settled long before the creation of America, and really started when Europeans decided to turn Africa into their own continental piggy bank. By now, it is generally accepted that Lee Atwaters infamous revelation of a Southern Strategy during a taped interview with two journalists represented a critical moment when Republicans decided to appeal to Southern racist White voters in order to win national elections. But, lets look at the facts closely; Barry Goldwater did win some southern states that traditionally went to the Democrats in 1964 (Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama), however, he still lost to his democratic opponent, Lyndon Johnson, by a very wide margin. In fact, the only other state Goldwater won was his home state, Arizona. LBJ won the remaining 44 states with 61% of the popular vote. But, many democratic strategists have pointed to Goldwaters southern victories as valid proof that a shift had occurred in republican political strategies. But the reason for Goldwaters southern success was simply due to his opposition to the Civil Rights bill, and not due to a collusive master plan by the GOP. In fact, the Civil Rights bill still had more support from Republicans than it did from Democrats in both the House and the Senate. In the House, the Democratic Party voted: 152–96 (61–39%) compared to the Republicans; 138–34 (80–20%); In the Senate, the Democrats voted 46–21 (69–31%), compared to the Republicans who voted 27–6 (82–18%). Logically, there was no big shift in race relations ideology in both parties in 1964. And if indeed there was a transformation in American politics, it certainly wasnt along race-based ideological lines. For centuries, American political parties, from the Whigs, Libertarian, Progressives, and others, have always relied mostly on regional politics to win local elections, with southern politicians opposing anything that even remotely seemed to favor Blacks, and their northern counterparts winning elections mostly on non-racialized issues. And when Congress passed laws, they usually reflected the political views of those in the South. And since most blacks, (90%), were still living in the South, the subjugation of Blacks was a well-orchestrated political tag-team effort by both parties. But when Blacks started migrating to the northern and western states en masse, it created a huge dilemma for the political parties. Consider this, by 1970, more than six million African Americans have migrated to the North and the West. Something had to change. With millions of Blacks now living in the North, would Democratic politicians in the South still have political relevancy by appealing to their racist constituents there? And would northern politicians still espouse the same negro-friendly political views that they had subscribed to for more than a century? The answer was an obvious No. Democrats in the South had absolutely nothing to gain by appealing to racist Whites there and Democrats in the North could not suddenly become anti-Black -- that would be too apparent. And likewise, Republicans in the North had to cease giving the appearance of being Negro-friendly since Negros were now actually living in the North. But, by propagating a fictitious notion of a Southern Strategy, northern politicians could now freely subscribe to the same racist policies that southern politicians had used for more than a century to subjugate Blacks without waking the suspicion and curiosity of Blacks. If the two political parties have always worked in tandem in order to achieve the desired outcome for the perpetuation of White Supremacy, then surely the rapid success of the Civil Rights movement, for the first time, must have revealed a fundamental flaw in their approach. The parties seemed to have responded by simply ceasing to accommodate the new political demands of Blacks inhabiting the northern cities, and by adopting a new method of divisive and stalemate politics, whereby legislation would take forever to pass, thereby ensuring slow progress on racial inequality issues. Republicans did not become anti-Black overnight anymore than Democrats became pro-Black. The only shift that occurred took place in the legislative process on race relations and economic fairness issues. Consider this, prior to 1964, only 8% of bills were filibustered, today its a staggering 70%. And as long as the stalemate can be blamed on the putative intransigence of the two political parties due to a so-called Southern Strategy by the Republicans, the electorate and Black citizens in particular are kept from being alarmed. The so-called Southern Strategy, it seems, was simply a strategy to slow progress on Civil Rights and economic fairness legislation as it was becoming more and more difficult to effectively subjugate a more nation-wide dispersed Black citizenry by relying on the old method of regional politics that worked so well in the past.
Posted on: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 20:31:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015