Posted by
Andrews on Monday, August 25, 2008 10:13:39 AM
Every so often I hear someone attempting to malign Republicans by bringing up Nixon's "southern strategy" and attempting to use it to "prove" that Republicans are somehow racist. It is an invalid argument for any number of reasons, but since I hear it so often, I figure I should address it.
First, the argument almost always involves a conflation of two different ideas. Often the speaker will mention alleged attempts in the early seventies to win over disaffected Dixiecrats with covert appeals to racism and follow this with quotes showing that this or that modern Republican has written off the black vote. However these are two very different things. Implying that one's party will promote pro-white policies is racism, recognizing the fact that the black vote goes almost entirely to Democrats is not. A Republican taking no efforts to win over the black vote is no more racist than failing to appeal to the union vote is. It is simply a wise use of resources. The black vote has, for the most part, not been in play for decades. In fact, black voters themselves can be blamed for this. Were they less of a monolithic voting block, they would attract more attention form both parties. As it is, Republicans and Democrats can both afford to ignore black voters, as their vote is guaranteed for one and denied the other. Recognizing that fact is not racism, it is realism.
However, let us deal with the other half of the equation, Nixon's alleged racism, and the charge that it represents the current policy of the Republican party. Most who promote this will quote Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips:
From
now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20
percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but
Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the
Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the
South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and
become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding
from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable
arrangement with the local Democrats.
First, you can see from this quote where the idea originated to conflate failure to appeal to black voters with the appeal to white racism. However, as we have dealt with that, let us look at the second part of the equation, the allegation that Republicans are attempting to appeal to southern white racism.
If you look carefully at the quote, though it sounds "racist" in the modern sense of not instantly excoriating anything less than pristine race-free thinking, it really says nothing. There is no statement that the Republicans are going to appeal to racism, instead the statement is one of fact, a prediction, that as blacks enter the Democrat party it will drive whites to the Republicans. It may imply that in the south whites who fear blacks will join the Republican party, but that does not mean that the Republicans are doing anything to appeal to racism.
Some recognize this, and argue instead that Phillips' prediction came true, and as a consequence the Republican party became filled with racists. But we can see that simply isn't true. The prediction turns out to have been incorrect. As the presence of former Klansman Robert Byrd in the senate shows, many whites who were uncomfortable with blacks remained in the Democrat party. In fact, Phillips was wrong even within his own immediate future. The Democrats continued to dominate the south throughout the 70's and 80's. Only in the 1990's did local elections begin to go to Republicans. So if the racist Democrats were leaving the party, they don't appear to have been going to the Republican party.
But let us ignore all of that and ask one final question. What is the point? Why bring up a quote from the 1970's, from a Nixon strategist? What does it say about the Republican party of today? Nixon himself was hardly representative of the Republican party even in his day, much less now. The modern party owes much more to Goldwater than Nixon. So what does a forty year old strategy statement from an advisor to a non-representative leader show?
How about this. Justice Taney was a quite representative Democrat of his day.Yet this prominent Democrat jurist said blacks are:
beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.
Does this mean modern Democrats share justice Taney's perspective? Of course not. It is absurd to think any one man can represent the thoughts of an entire political party, even more so if we use the thoughts of one long out of office.
But if I can admit that, can Democrats abandon mention of Nixon's "southern strategy"?
POSTSCRIPT
Even assuming the absurdity proposed is true, assuming in 1970 every racist Democrat fled the party and registered Republican, exactly how many are still active in Republican politics? Assuming a normal distribution of ages in 1970, or more likely one skewing a bit older to allow for more racist views, it is likely that these fleeing racists are either dead or well into retirement. Given that parties are usually run by those in their 40's and 50's, how much influence would they have today?
So, even if everything the Democrats allege is correct, what would be the impact? Almost none.
On the other hand, some Democrats openly court racist organizations such as La Raza and Nation of Islam. Yet somehow this escapes the notice of those decrying Nixon's southern strategy.