Instigator / Pro
0
1579
rating
35
debates
71.43%
won
Topic
#6142
The “Southern Strategy” was used by the Republican Party in the 1960s and was the biggest cause of the party switch
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- 1,500
Contender / Con
0
1587
rating
208
debates
55.29%
won
Description
Southern Strategy - A campaign tactic used by the Republican Party, but primarily Nixon and Goldwater to flip the south by appealing to white southern democrats using covert racism.
I’m going to add the stipulating that the Sources point should be given slightly more consideration as this is a debate that relies heavily on sources, not like a philosophy debate. However it is still up to voter discretion how that point is awarded or if it is at all.
Round 1
I clarified in the description of this debate that since the focus is history, sources are going to be a big part of the arguments. I'll be leaning heavily on quotes and articles for my debate, but you don't have to do that as much as me.
Who was involved in the Southern Strategy
My main argument stems from the fact that the people involved in the southern strategy openly admitted to its existence, but then relies on me clarifying who devolved and implemented the strategy itself. Contrary most narratives, the southern strategy wasn't only used by Richard Nixon, though he is the most famous face for it. The Republicans employed the tactic of covert racism throughout the 1960's also notably in the campaign of Barry Goldwater.
Kevin Phillips is credited with popularizing this tactic in Nixon's campaign. He famously said this about the southern strategy:
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. 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. [1]
This quote is from Nixon aid Lamar Alexander,
“...we flat out invited the kind of political battle that ultimately erupted when we named a Democrat-turned-Republican conservative from South Carolina. This confirmed the Southern strategy just at a time when it was being nationally debated” [2]
Other notable Nixon officials also talked openly to the press about their campaign strategies. The most famous of these quotes comes from Republican 60s campaign mastermind Lee Atwater. To lay one more quote on you, Atwater famously said in an interview,
You start out in 1954 by saying, “N*gger, n*gger, n*gger.” By 1968 you can’t say “n*gger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites [3]
Lee Atwater was the chairman of the RNC in the 60s, and their political mastermind up the republican's sleeves. He is the authority on republican 60s strategy because he invented republican 60s strategy.
The Party Switch
My position is that the southern strategy was the reason for the party switch, and that's stipulated in the resolution. However many denialists of the southern strategy agree the party switch happened, but fail to provide an alternative explanation to racist dog-whistling from Nixon and Goldwater.
It's near impossible to deny the party switch happened (Just take a look at the election map from 1920 to 1964 and 68') so in order to uphold your point you'll have to provide an alternative explanation for Lincoln and Reagan being in the same party.
Conclusion
The southern strategy clearly has lots of evidence to support it. The most important part of the evidence though is where it comes from. This isn't outside analysts, or modern day historians claiming this happened, this is straight from the Nixon campaign itself. The authors of the southern strategy itself were the first to admit to it, and it is because of their testimony that we know it happened.
There is no higher authority on an action than the person who took that action. Unless there is a reason to distrust my testimony, you believe me when I say that I did something. Lee Atwater had no ulterior motive for making himself look like a racist. Kevin Phillips had no reason to lie about his political strategy if the story he told ended up making his candidate look worse in hindsight. We have no reason to distrust the testimony of those most connected to this historical event, and no counter story by anyone working on the Nixon campaign. The quotes speak for themselves.
Sources Used
Apologies. I forgot about this debate. I'll have to yield this first round.
Round 2
Fair enough, real life should always take priority over DART. Same thing as last time though, you’re gonna have to forfeit the conduct point.
Thank you moozer, I always appreciate a solid debate about history!
Framework
Pro is not simply claiming that The Southern Strategy (a tactic to get democrats to become republican by exploiting their racial views of discrimination) was used by The Right, as that is too oversimplified. He is arguing that of all the factors responsible for the switch, that The Southern Strategy is the primary cause.
BOP
If Pro is able to show that The Southern Strategy had the strongest influence for changing the politics of the democrats compared to the other influences of the time and that it is one of the tactics used, then I believe this is sufficient enough to meet the BOP.
Unpreparation & Failures of Planning
It is my case that this factor is greater than any effect The Southern Strategy could have used. While The Civil War was a moral cause fighting for the greater good, the truth is that this part of the country was still built on the foundation of a racist society. This required a whole reset of their institution, as they knew it. But the new legislation and the new doctrine proved to be a difficult challenge for democrats to overcome. Rather than embracing change, the democrats realized that switching back to republican was the easiest solution. The southern democrats had already been opposed to the early versions of the legislation from the beginning, it was the northern democrats who were actively endorsing it in the south.
Religious Influence & Outsider Interference
While there are many democrats in the south. Ideologically and spiritually, the majority of them leaned towards christianity. Jesus Christ is how they lived their life. It is natural for them to feel very strongly towards abortion and having prayer in school. When there was a demand for reform in these two categories, the south began to feel at odds and didn’t like the idea of outsiders interfering with their beliefs. This also caused southern democrats to become republican.
Round 3
Pro is not simply claiming that The Southern Strategy (a tactic to get democrats to become republican by exploiting their racial views of discrimination) was used by The Right, as that is too oversimplified. He is arguing that of all the factors responsible for the switch, that The Southern Strategy is the primary cause.
Yes, that's a correct interpretation of the resolution. It's essentially divided into two parts. I have to prove that the southern strategy was used, and it was successful to a degree that it was the greatest cause of the party switch. You never disputed any of my arguments stating that the strategy was used, so I'm going to take that as an accepted point, correct me if wrong. That was the easiest thing to prove though, so I wouldn't blame you for moving on to my harder BOP.
While there are many democrats in the south. Ideologically and spiritually, the majority of them leaned towards christianity. Jesus Christ is how they lived their life. It is natural for them to feel very strongly towards abortion and having prayer in school. When there was a demand for reform in these two categories, the south began to feel at odds and didn’t like the idea of outsiders interfering with their beliefs. This also caused southern democrats to become republican.
I'm not going to deny that religion and Christianity played some role, in the party switch, but due to the timing of the actual flip, we can see really clearly the real cause. You can use this site to track election maps throughout history. Since the 30's you still see the solid south, albeit with a few rare exceptions such as Texas and Florida, but those two are much bigger states than the rest, and the prevalence of many large cities in their states can explain their liberal leanings. Even up to 1960 when Nixon runs the first time we see the Democrat JFK win the south. But fast forward just 4 years, and it flips. What happened? Barry Goldwater happened. Lee Atwater happened. The southern strategy happened. The same happens in 1968 when Nixon finally wins. He wins part of the south but an even more conservative candidate, George Wallace wins most of it.
You also cited two sources which I'd like to talk about. One was a Wikipedia article mainly just defining your terms so I'll skip that one. The other was an article that placed a lot of emphasis on the depression and FDR as the reason for the switch. Once again, I'm not denying that FDR played a major role in shaping our modern day parties, but he only set the stage. The southern strategy was the real catalyst. Your source even goes on to state the following:
...Republican candidate Barry Goldwater publicly opposed the new law, arguing that it expanded the power of the federal government to a dangerous level ... However, upon hearing Goldwater’s argument against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the majority of Black voters left the Republican Party in favor of the Democrats.
We know due to testimony from RNC officials (cited in my past argument) that these policies were veiled racism as part of the strategy to flip the south.
For the last round, I'm going to focus only on rebuttals.
I am conceding one part of the resolution. Which is, that the southern strategy was used. My case is that the actual impact produced by the southern strategy was so weak, that the actual influence was irrelevant. Pro's BOP originally required him to prove two parts. But by conceding the first half, he is only required to prove the second part.
Statistical Analysis & Correlation
The two professors Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin & Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania both declare that the shift from democrat to republican is a question of economic progress, and there is little to no evidence to make the racial association. The southern democrats had opposed the Civil Rights Movement from the very beginning; it was the northern democrats who were fighting and actively endorsing the policies that they were trying to push on the south.
Ineffective Manipulation & Coded Language
The success of the Southern Strategy as an effective rhetorical propaganda device operates on the assumption that Nixon possessed the intellect to communicate subtly to his people with implied racial discriminations, but the evidence appears to leave a lot room for doubt about Nixon's capability as an effective manipulator. The possibility of Nixon's racism remains, but his skills as a political puppeteer are questionable. It would also appear that according to the available evidence, that Nixon's main targets were not people of color. Instead, they were hippies and proponents of the drug culture.: Timothy Leary, and caucasian draft-dodgers that fled the country. So this now raises another interesting, but fundamental question.:
- How much of Nixon's followers were racist?
For the most part, the statics appear to show that Nixon had failed to win over any of the racist voters, which indicates he had fallen out of favor with The Deep South. The demographic that makes up most of Nixon's supporter-base were the urban and northerner non-racists who had championed the progressive moment calling for equality of black people.
Round 4
I am conceding one part of the resolution. Which is, that the southern strategy was used. My case is that the actual impact produced by the southern strategy was so weak, that the actual influence was irrelevant. Pro's BOP originally required him to prove two parts. But by conceding the first half, he is only required to prove the second part.
That's a valid strategy. I'll now focus my argument all on part 2 of the resolution.
First Source:
The two professors Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin & Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania both declare that the shift from democrat to republican is a question of economic progress, and there is little to no evidence to make the racial association. The southern democrats had opposed the Civil Rights Movement from the very beginning; it was the northern democrats who were fighting and actively endorsing the policies that they were trying to push on the south.
In the Daily Wire article you cited to support this claim, Shapiro goes to one statistic found by these two professors to support his claim. The top 10% of Americans in income moved republican by 24 percentage points from the 50s to the 80s while the bottom 10 percent moved only 10 percentage points. This statistic is somewhat cherry-picked though, and it doesn't show the whole picture. For one problem, this statistic only further shows how black people stayed with the Democrats, and Whites did not. In the 60's south, the poverty rate among black Americans was more that three times that of white Americans, meaning a shift of the top 10% of southerners means a shift of almost all white people to the republicans. Second, ANES polling data has shown a significant shift of those who self-described themselves as racially conservative far to the left after 1964. I'm using this paper for a lot of my statistics, but this article does a good job of outlining it. This study was done by two researchers from princeton, and it found that "...from 1958 to 1980, white Southern voters left the Democratic Party at a rate that was 17 percentage points higher than similar white voters elsewhere in the country. This decline is almost entirely explained by the 19 percentage point decline among racially conservative white Southern voters." further, this study found "...before 1963, conservative racial views strongly predict Democratic Party identification in the South. After 1963, that association is all but wiped out."
Second Source:
It would also appear that according to the available evidence, that Nixon's main targets were not people of color. Instead, they were hippies and proponents of the drug culture.: Timothy Leary, and caucasian draft-dodgers that fled the country. So this now raises another interesting, but fundamental question. How much of Nixon's followers were racist? For the most part, the statics appear to show that Nixon had failed to win over any of the racist voters, which indicates he had fallen out of favor with The Deep South. The demographic that makes up most of Nixon's supporter-base were the urban and northerner non-racists who had championed the progressive moment calling for equality of black people.
The last statistic you mention is simply not true, and I can't find it mentioned anywhere in your source. Nixon drew most of his support from rural areas and small towns, while Humphrey carries most urban areas and big cities. (source) Also, if you just look at the 1968 electoral map, you can clearly see Humphrey winning the majority of the north, carrying states like New York, Maine, Maryland, and Pennsylvania.
Conclusion
Economic factors have had little to no impact on the southern strategy. The data showing (self identified) racially conservative voters moving in droves from the Democrats to the republicans, all in the time-frame of Lee Atwater and Nixon's reign in the Republican party illuminates a strong causal relationship between the covert dog whistling of Nixon/Goldwater and the party switch. The Ben Shapiro article you cited blamed the real cause of the party switch on Reagan and Gingrich's "appeal to America" which happened years after the 1968 election when the parties clearly flipped. The rich (and almost entirely white) majority in the south are who moved to the republicans, not the poor (and mostly black) minority.
Forfeited