Misunderstanding Racism in the Rise of Reagan and Republicans

There has been a fierce debate in recent weeks over racism's role in Ronald Reagan's political legacy and, by extension, the rise of the Republican Party.

The argument goes that Democrats lost their majority, above all other reasons, because they would not appease white racists, particularly in the South. Had George McGovern supported tepidly bigoted policies, by this logic, he may have defeated Richard Nixon.

History does matter. Considering the reasons behind the rise of Reagan and the Republican majority is vital to Democrats, as they attempt to create a sustainable coalition of their own.

Racism was certainly a factor in the GOP's ascension, and a significant one in the South. But it was not the "central" factor for Republicans, as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman contended was "undeniable."

Krugman, along with others, revived this long-standing debate. A few weeks ago he argued that Reagan's Mississippi "states rights" speech in August of 1980, not far from where three civil-rights workers were infamously murdered in 1964, epitomized Reagan's reliance on Richard Nixon's "southern strategy." Krugman later used Republicans appeal to white men as his proof.

It is worth noting, firstly, that if Reagan used a "southern strategy" it was also popular in the North.

Several 1980 Election Day exit polls by the networks -- which have their flaws, but are significantly more accurate than the small sample sizes of the American National Election Studies data often cited in academia -- demonstrates that Reagan won 66 percent of Southern white men in 1980. But he also won 60 percent of non-southern white men. Among white women that year, Reagan won 58 percent in the South and 52 percent in the non-South.

By 2004 Republicans continued narrowly winning non-southern white women, 51 to 49 percent. Non-southern white men, however, continued to vote heavily for Republicans by 58 to 41 percent. Of course, the white male gap is far larger in the South, where Democrats also lose white women by wide margins.

Now this could mean non-southern whites are simply milder bigots. But the evidence paints another picture.

"I think what a lot of white southerners saw [by the 1970s] is that black folks aren't so bad, but liberals are," as Harvard political philosopher Harvey Mansfield put it, conveying the conservative perspective.

The so-called racially motivated "southern flip" has come to be such conventional wisdom that even our smartest analysts take it as gospel. But as with most conventional wisdom the truth is more complicated.

As I write in The Neglected Voter:

"The military is most visible and most respected in the South. Southerners register the highest levels of life satisfaction, fully 60 percent, compared to 43 percent of nonsoutherners, which explains their cultural apprehension about reform. The South has the lowest level of unionization in the nation. It has the highest level of gun ownership: 46 percent of southerners compared to 40 percent nationally; among white men, 62 percent own guns in the South compared to 52 percent outside the South. Not surprisingly, the South also has the highest level of church attendance, and ultimately it was the South's Protestant religiosity that was responsible for the first significant Republican southern inroads under Herbert Hoover. Seven out of ten of the largest megachurches in America are located in the South or Midwest, while nearly half of all social conservatives live in the South."

None of this means that racism did not play a considerable role in the rise of the modern Republican Party. But the Hoover point is worth a closer look. Republicans first large gains in Dixie since Reconstruction were not in 1968, nor were they even in 1948 when Democrats took up the civil rights mantle.

Twenty years earlier, when both parties mostly ignored the plight of blacks, Republicans won half the South. The 1928 Democratic nominee Al Smith was a Catholic running in the Protestant South. But it was more than that. Smith was against Prohibition. The GOP successfully painted him as a big city politician who had little culturally in common with the Southern everyman.

In short, the first significant Republican success in the South was based on an entirely non-racial culturally populist appeal.

But by the Sixties racism shifted our political tectonics, explaining whites swing from Democrats to Republicans in the Deep South. It was in this time that Reagan first took the national political stage with an impassioned speech on Barry Goldwater's behalf. The conservative appeal would be repeated into Reagan's run for the presidency in 1980.

Reagan biographer Lou Cannon reported on that race as it unfolded. He recently challenged Krugman's argument. Cannon recounts an evocative story from Reagan's college days. When an Illinois hotel refused to offer a room to two football teammates who were black, Reagan brought them home to his parents for the night.

Yet Barry Goldwater was also not personally racist. Nevertheless, his vote against civil rights legislation and use of "states rights" (a political euphemism for a segregated South in the Sixties) had severely racist implications.

Now Reagan was no segregationist. As Cannon and Times' columnist David Brooks argue, piecemealing together racially loaded rhetoric does make for a racially loaded campaign.

Ultimately, we know from exit polling and good reporting that Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter over issues of policy and character. Carter's "malaise speech," his inability to manage issues from the energy to the hostage crisis, stood in stark contrast to Reagan's optimism, his clear principles, his promise to reassert America's role in the world and strengthen its military.

Reagan also tapped into an emerging counter to the counter culture. He embraced a nascent social conservative movement that was turning on Carter.

In 1976, Carter said he was "born again" (a term that resonates most with social conservatives, in the South, and southern white women particularly). By the next election many conservative Christians believed Carter had not stood with them on issues from abortion to the Cold War. So they stood against him, as Jerry Falwell told me in an interview months before his death.

Why Yesterday Should Concern Democrats Today

A quarter century after Carter vs. Reagan we are still wrestling with the same debate. The lessons we read from this dispute influence how we interpret the present presidential race. We currently are witnessing echoes of the 1980 contest.

Many liberals have been admittedly confounded by Rudy Giuliani's appeal to some social conservatives. The political world buzzed when Pat Robertson, an evangelist and contemporary of Falwell, endorsed Giuliani.

Robertson said he backed Giuliani because he believed the fight against terrorism was the issue of our times. Robertson and Falwell backed Reagan, who was against abortion but also divorced and no regular churchgoer, to a large degree because national security was a foremost concern in those Cold War days as well.

It is impossible with election polling to precisely separate how issues of war and peace, or cultural values, or racism mingle in the mind of a voter. But we do know what came up most in the 1980 campaign - the Cold War, the role of government, the debate over the social fabric of our nation, and competing visions of the nation.

All of this complicates Krugman's argument that "backlash" played a "central role" in "the rise of the modern conservative movement." Few fair-minded analysts will argue today that "backlash" did not play a considerable role.

But there is a difference between arguing an elephant fundamentally supports itself on one leg instead of relying on all four.

If Republicans capacity to win five of the last seven presidential elections was largely due to a racist appeal to whites than the logic goes: as we whites become less racist Republicans are in trouble. But we also know that white racism in 2004 was a shadow of the racism of 1968. Republicans still won both contests.

Some liberals, for far too long, have been consoling themselves over the loss of the FDR coalition by arguing they fought the good fight and by consequence inevitably lost their majority -- it was fated in this vein of thought, therefore "A" for effort. But that conclusion has not helped liberals win back their majority.

A dispassionate look at why the GOP won from Nixon to Reagan to George W. Bush sometimes reveals the race card. But it also brings forth issues of "law and order," national security, insufficiently addressed middle and working class economic insecurity, cultural populism, and character politics.

America lived these issues with stunning similarities over the decades. The Democratic nominee of '68 was painted as "wishy washy" like the nominee of '04 was painted as a "flip flopper."

There is a quote I favor by historian H. W. Brands: "The purpose of history is not to make people happy, it is to make them wiser."

While Democrats were on the right side of the greatest social movement in American history, that of civil rights, the lessons of history do not always ease the "conscience of a liberal." But those other lessons of how Democrats also lost the FDR coalition will surely help liberals win the illusive majority they have sought for a quarter century.


***

David Paul Kuhn, a Politico.com senior political writer, is author of the recently published book, The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma.

Comments

[iswearington]

the sorry excuses proffered by this blogger...for the constant and never ending racism...that permeates every facet of american society...its institutions and mores...were barely afloat..but they were suddenly swamped by waves of thundering logic...when the following was uttered. "none of this means that racism did not play a considerable role..." thats just it. racism plays not only in the reagan era...but also historically and in present times...a decidedly "considerable role" in the american diaspora.america lives and breathes racism.the deep crevice and wide chasm that separates the races in america are far wider and deeper...than those between even jews and arabs or lions and antelope.case in point; a commercial now running on television seeks donations to preserve the history and restore the physical structure of ellis island..the point of entry for the "good immigrants", the irish, italians and germans and swedes.thats fine for white folk...but for the slaves on whose free labor this nation was built...still reeling from centuries of death, rape and slavery...ellis island only serves as a horrifying , sickening.­..reminder to the former slaves...not yet recovered from the hell of slavery...of each, sucessive , invading wave of hordes of irish, italian, scandinavian and jewish racists.

[ipitombi]

Mr. Kuhn's arguement boils down to what I often hear from Republican whites: "My country club just employed a black dishwasher, so therefore, we are not an exclusionary club". OR- The bus driver that picks my kids is black, so therefore, I am not racist. Very watery, shallow, and specious arguements at best. Nice try nonetheless.

[Dadoftwins]

I think Mr. Kuhn's grasp of history is a little shaky. Al Smith was defeated mainly because he was Catholic. My father told me that he watched a parade of thousands of KKK members in Wash. DC in 1928 all supporting Hoover. Southerners hatred of the Republicans was surpassed only by their hatred of Catholics. Protestant ministers exhorted their flocks against Al Smith and " the Pope". I was a college student during the 1960s and I well remember the campaigns of George Wallace and Richard Nixon. Nobody had to guess where they stood on blacks. Reagan built the GOP on the base established by them in 1964, 1968 and 1972. Their supporters hated liberals, intellectuals, blacks, gays and feminists. You have to look at those times in context and it would be false to say that anti-black sentiment wasn't a key part of the rise of both Southern Republicanism but also Republican gains in ethnic, northern Democratic areas. I will never forget the many expressions of joy that I heard from Republicans when MLK was killed.

[jdm58]

Some points of history are being overlooked here. In the 1960's, the Democratic Party in the south was fragmented not only by those factions who were supporting racism, in the face of George Wallace, but also those who supported the military industrial complex, and by extension, the war. Southern jobs were dependent on the MIC and military. DOW Chemical was producing Agent Orange at it's plant in New Orleans, other defense contractors were producing weapons, aircraft, warships, in several southern states. Georgia, Texas, North Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, to name a few, were reliant on the job growth offered by these companies, it was no accident that many military bases were located there as well. Democrats were anti-war, and by extension, anti-southern jobs. Republicans gained support accordingly.
When Jimmy Carter was elected, the Civil Rights Movement had been joined by the Equal Rights Movement. Southern states had refused to ratify the ERA in 1972, attempted to block the casting of votes by people of color through underhanded registration techniques, and overall southern voters were conservative. Carter was able to initially woo this constituency with his roots and religion, but lost their support in the establishment of his windfall profits tax and energy reforms, which threatened southern millionaire tobacco, alcohol, coal and oil interests. Was it any wonder why big oil and coal mining lobbies would spend countless dollars to villify Carter's interest in solar and other renewable energy, and for the 1977 ammendments to the Clean Water Act that would have limited current Mt.Top Coal mining? One of Reagans first actions as POTUS would be to remove the solar panels from the White House. He then modified provisions in the CWA in favor of coal in 1981, and eventually gave control of water pollution back to the states in 1987. Wonder why? Oil, coal, tobacco, alcohol, and Defense are huge employers in the south, and continue to lobby hard against regulation and change that threaten their profit margins. Political support is offered to those who don't attempt to change this status quo.

[lgillooly]

Your points are well taken,but the single biggest reason for Republican domination is the Corporate owned media and 91 percent of talk radio being right wing hateful,fe­armongerin­g spinners. Reagan got rid of the Fairness Doctrine and suddenly 10's of millions listened to the likes of Rush,Savag­e,Hannity,­O'Reilly 24/7
If you have noticed the 3 things that Bush did not get his way on were 1.Immigration Reform 2. Harriet Myers and 3. Dubai Ports deal. All because of the power of talk radio.
Democrats have to address this imbalance ASAP or they will continue to lose.

[nikto]

"white Christian men are vile, black-hearted, self-centered pigs who are the creators of every evil that has been or will ever exist in this world and there will never be peace or justice or utopia until they are banned from power, sterilized, and euthanized... "
==========­==========­==========­==========­=========
As for myself, I have never said anything like this, but now that you mention it, it may be something worth thinking about.

Never really thought about it much until
a loyal, red-state righty mentioned it.

But now...
Thanks,
I'll keep it in mind.

[VSamuels]

Yet Barry Goldwater was also not personally racist. Nevertheless, his vote against civil rights legislation and use of "states rights" (a political euphemism for a segregated South in the Sixties) had severely racist implications.

Now Reagan was no segregationist. As Cannon and Times' columnist David Brooks argue, piecemealing together racially loaded rhetoric does make for a racially loaded campaign.

As I read the above sentences it occurs to me that simply stating something does not make it so, especially when one understands that both Goldwater and Reagan were relatively rich white men, living in a nation where 'race' was a known wedge issue to a large portion of the American electorate. It seems to be il-relevant if either Goldwater or Reagan themselves were racists or segregationists, since if they were not mental 'idiots' they had to know that their use of 'racism' would be effective.

It would seem a rather useless excercise to excuse these men actions so casually, as if they were merely running for local dogcatcher. They were both running to become the President of the United States and they were willing to stoop to racial baiting and pandering; rather than demonstrating 'white leadership' on the issue of race. Throughout this blog, I see a clear argument that the republicans were not soley a creation of its penchant for 'distorting race,' yet, I see no pattern of white national or state politicans from the republican side who have spoken up against 'racism' or who have led a charge to move its base away from the elements of racial fear and hatred.

As much as one may concede that perhaps race was not the 'straw' that stirred the drink of racism in the republican party, one can also argue that they spent little effort in speaking out against its use and the stereotypes and beliefs that become the basis for sentiment. As a voter, it is the manifestation of apathy toward racial sentiments that far overshadows the 'intent' factor of the republican party, as they seem content not to address what they clearly understood exists in its base.

[January]

Thank you commenters. I have nothing to add to your clarifications of this turgid thesis, except maybe, bizarre sells books?

[lwaxanatroi]

What good news! Reagan Republicans, and those Reagan Dems who crossed over to vote for him, weren't racists. No, indeed, they had a much broader agenda: they hated gays, gun control, non-Christians, sexually active women, the teachers' union--heck, any union--just as much as they disliked having to treat nonwhite citizens as fully equal members of society. As to the laughable idea that all northerers are racial liberals, does anyone remember the integration of Boston public schools? Bottom line: does it really matter how much of the so-called conservative philosophy is based on racial hatred when the truth is that it's based on fear and hatred all the way across the board?

[IMORPHEUS]

The entire premise of the Republicans continued success in Presidential elections - winning 5 of the last 7 races, is based on the assumption that the Supreme Court appointment of Bush in 2000 and the marginalization and manipulation of minority voters in Ohio in 2004, is perfectly legitimate...

[presidentsrus]

While claiming Reagan’s appeal wasn’t racist, David Paul Kuhn finds the Republicans pretty much blameless going back to the Twenties.

Kuhn makes the bizare argument that if Northern white males voted Republican it somehow absolved pols and white Southerners of racism.

And he tries to make the case that Republican Southern gains were due to a host of factors:

“Twenty years earlier, when both parties mostly ignored the plight of blacks, Republicans won half the South. The 1928 Democratic nominee Al Smith was a Catholic running in the Protestant South. But it was more than that. Smith was against Prohibition. The GOP successfully painted him as a big city politician who had little culturally in common with the Southern everyman…In short, the first significant Republican success in the South was based on an entirely non-racial culturally populist appeal.”

“Populist” is a broad church, but to draw sharp distinctions between racism and attacks on the big cities, their swarthy ethnic inhabitants and their libidinous ways is an interesting defense.
www.presidentsrus.com

[obalaji]

I don't get this guy's point. He's saying that white consrvatives didn't hate blacks but liberals. OK. The thing is, liberals are associated with favoring blacks. See? And this North-South thing means nothing. America is a racist country.

[dadumdee]

Racism is just one of the GOP's fearmongering/hate stirring tools. No one ever said its the only one. 60's to 80's brought you publicized fear of civil rights (Blacks are taking your jobs), Black Panthers (they want to control the White man), Willie Horton (They can't be rehabilitated either), etc. 80's to present brought you fear of welfare queens (Blacks are swindling you), crack dealers (Blacks need draconian jail sentences), inner city gangs(Blacks will do a drive by in your neigborhood), Arabs (they want to bomb you and they're everywhere), and now Mexicans (they want to steal your American culture and lower your wages). Oh, and when all else fails, exploit the White man's fear that he is losing 'his' White women to Black men (see Harold Ford ad, Tulsa OK Riots, Emmitt Till, OJ Simpson, and pretty much any other time in American history when White people wanted to galvanize other Whites to hurt Black people).

[charon]

A big part of Reagan's victory, and Southern white shift to the republican party, was motivated by the defeat of George Wallace in 1972, his treatment by the rest of the Democratic party, and the candidacy of George Mcgovern, who was widely disliked by the wallacites. Richard Viguerie writes in "The New Right: We're Ready To Lead" that a key operative in the Wallace camp gave Viguerie's direct mail organization complete name and address lists of Wallace donors.

The effect of this on the 1976 election was neutralized because of the widespread disgust with Nixon, and because the Dems put up Carter, who was a bonafide southerner and fundamentalist, like many of the Wallace supporters. The New Right, gearing up in the late 70s with things like the 1978 Prop. 13 campaign in California, managed to paint Carter as weak, politically and morally (granting an interview to Playboy, the hostages, etc.) This turned the wallacites against him, and secured the victory for Reagan.

Of course other factors played roles, such as the southern military culture's obsession with power and toughness, the Republican organization including their sophisticated direct mail campaign and use of computers to organize it, the the accession of Richard Mellon Scaife to the family fortune in 1975 and his use of it to finance campaigns to advance the extreme right, etc, but the wallacite defection and the Republicans' ability to access and manipulate them was a major factor.

Scaife-financed campaigns demonized the Dems with figures like Jane Fonda and Hollywood, which played well with the wallacite, southern whites, and eventually Reagan was able to turn "liberal" into the "the 'L' word" because of a compliant press afraid of him.

[ajax2]

I have not misunderstood Republican racial policies, and neither has Paul Krugman. To end debate on how big a part they play in Republican policy, one need only look at the last national voting results along racial lines. The facts are in the results.