I missed his point. A lot of conservatives like to be dumb and say “Democrat Party,” and he is mocking this idiocy. I say, I say, it’s a joke, son.
Well, it’s no great secret that Deep South states tend to lag on educational indicators, as well as health and other quality of life ones. As the joke goes when one of the other 49 does poorly by some measure: “Thank god for Mississippi!”
The real mystery to me: how could you grow up in North Carolina and never visit the Deep South? You didn’t cross the border to South Carolina even once?? Sure, the schools are underwhelming, but there’s an awful lot of great stuff to experience down there.
Ethnic groups in the US (and around the world) have significantly different average results. That’s the case when you adjust for socio-economic factors too. So of course ethnic demographics matter in these comparisons.
Gottfredson, L. S. (2005). Implications of cognitive differences for schooling within diverse societies. Pages 517-554 in C. L. Frisby & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Comprehensive Handbook of Multicultural School Psychology. New York: Wiley.
Yes, there was a time when the Democratic party was the racist wealthy white conservative southern party, and the Republican party was the progressive liberal party of labor union support and urban citizenry.
A few things have changed since then. Used to be anyone who talked about genetic differences in intelligence between races was pretty likely to be a Democrat. But, what party do you suppose Chen019 usually votes for?
Something I’ve noticed about liberals today - when they want to insult Republicans, they like to claim the parties just switched places, and hence they can imagine (whenever convenient) that their real ideological ancestors were always decent Liberals, just under another label. What they like to ignore is that the Southern Democrats were “conservative” in one specific area: race. And that, of course, accepts the incorrect assertion that racial prejudice is a conservative trait. In fact, Southern Democrats were significant supporters of the Progressive factions, although not quite as important as the Granger types. Indeed, Progressives led the nastiest and worst of the racial causes, and found no contradiction between their politics and their racial views. And Democrats were much more than a party of “Wealthy Southern Conservatives,” but had no difficulty including them.
In any case, your assertion is even incorrect apart from that. Republicans tended to be against labor unions, although at one point they did attract a stronger urban core - specifically, when cities had a larger middle class. That, at least, is something which stayed largely the same since the formation of the Republicans from the Whigs. Democrats have a base more among lower-class and middle-lower workers, Republicans among middle-class and middle-upper skilled workers. Various elites tend to get split between them differing in times and places. Then again, this might be changing now. Republicans are picking up more votes downmarket, as it were, while Democrats are taking a bigger slice of elites.
Given that Republicans tend to have a greater number of Creationists and Democrats tend to be more likely to believe in evolution, I would expect the opposite actually.
btw. I’m not from the US so don’t vote for either.
Doesn’t surprise me. I have not gotten an impression the region is a desirable place to live in pretty much any way.
Fascinating. I am curious as to what makes Texas an outlier; but even more interested in knowing what’s the matter with RI and OR? I lived in Rhode Island for a year when I was eight; and my wife and I have for years now had a great desire to move to Portland, OR (about three years ago one of my best friends moved there which only intensified the feeling). Wonder what’s up? Strange, when you see such a strong pattern otherwise when comparing white kids in red and blue states.
One thing I noticed the year I went to school there was that there were a lot of Portuguese immigrants for some reason, who did poorly in class. Are they counted as white or Latino? (I know one can technically be both, which is a whole other confusing subject, but you know what I mean.)
I know, right? They want to lecture us on economics, and wonder why we won’t just listen to their wise counsel! LMAO
Others have made some good responses about the parties’ “switching places” in the twentieth century, which is mostly valid–and a fascinating and bizarre aspect of American history. It is not totally valid, because Plains farmers and Western rancher types stayed Republican all along, as did certain mega-wealthy top hat and monocle types. But what is pretty much undeniable is that a century ago, the majority of blacks (the ones who managed to vote) voted Republican, and the vast majority of Southern whites voted Democratic. The descendants of those two groups have certainly flipped parties.
What I think also bears remembering, though, is something that far predates these modern parties. Going back to the time of the Revolution, and seemingly a good while before that (the book I read on it was concerned specifically with the late 18th century but made references to longstanding regional policies and ideologies), Southern states were oriented toward low taxes, with an especially low (that is, proportionally low) tax burden on the large wealthy plantation owners. They tended to oppose using state money for big infrastructure projects like dredging harbours, building canals, etc., as well as tending toward anemic support for public education (even for white kids). This political culture, it would seem to me, has persisted to a remarkable degree to the present day.
I would submit, and I think it’s a pretty unimpeachable argument, that those persistent policy preferences have led directly to their lagging behind the North economically, educationally, healthwise, and all the rest. They have been conducting a laissez-faire experiment for centuries now, and the results have been unimpressive to say the least.
Izzat right? Huh, could have sworn that Dick Clark, Tom Harkin, John Culver, and Harold Hughes all represented Iowa in the Senate in those two decades. In fact, if my quick calculation is right, of the forty total years of Senate tenure during that period (twenty years times two senators), the tally is 22-18 in favour of Democrats. The governors were Republican, but there were only two of them who each got repeatedly reelected. So maybe you can say it “leaned Red”, but “consistently Red”? No.
Preach it! Yeah, I’m not really getting how it works as an excuse to say “oh, those blue states are just doing better on these stats because it’s where all the money is (or affluent people are)”. Ummm…ok? It’s pretty easy to move from state to state, certainly a lot easier than leaving the country. So why aren’t all these businesses and rich folk pulling Galts and fleeing to those “pro-business”, “right to work” states, leaving all the blue states as poverty-ridden hellholes? Conservatives love to crow about Detroit, but it sure looks like the exception rather than the rule.
Ha, you’re reminding me of the SNL parody of Bill Clinton in 1992 when he crowed at a debate (paraphrasing from memory) “I’m glad to report that Arkansas has surged up to 49th place, with a bullet, in prevention of rickets. Take that, Mississippi!”
I am sort of curious to visit someday. I kind of want to wander about with a lot of pro-Obama paraphenalia and see how people react; but I think that might (ironically) necessitate buying a handgun first!
I actually wasn’t sure if SC was considered the “Deep South”. I mean, historically some of the real Southern nastiness was also found in NC (Jesse Helms, the 1979 Greensboro massacre for which the KKK members were acquitted by an all-white jury as if it were still the early Sixties). Yet it seems not to qualify, as you imply. We lived in Chapel Hill, though, which was liberal (and probably still is).
My friends at school would go with their families down to Myrtle Beach, but we mostly vacationed in Maine, near Moosehead Lake; or in Connecticut (family) or Quebec. We did go to Wrightsville Beach in NC one time. Oh, and we went to Florida a couple times (that is, south Florida, which is certainly not the “Deep South” in any way other than its latitude). But I don’t think driving straight through on the interstate really counts as visiting a place.
I wondered, after the discussion above, what did constitute the “Deep South”. According to Wikipedia, it generally today is considered to include SC (along with parts of eastern NC by some lights). But: “When ‘Deep South’ first appeared in print in the middle of the 20th century, it applied to the states and areas of Mississippi, north Louisiana, southern Alabama and Georgia, and northern Florida. This was the part of the South many considered the ‘most Southern’.” So SC originally did not qualify, and perhaps still did not when I was growing up.
Study your history and you will be aware that the South has never managed to struggle out completely of the economic deprivation caused by the Civil War. (I am only two generations removed from that war.)
Yet, I attended a school where there were only 36 students in my senior class. Three of the men in my Sunday School class of about 12 people graduated from the Air Force Academy and West Point. I graduated from Peabody College for Teachers – the highest ranked college at Vanderbilt University and the highest ranked school of education in the country. I wasn’t even in the top third of my high school class. I was chosen for the Honors Program at Peabody.
Students in my hometown went through grades 1-12 together. I think that bonding experience was one of the best things about my education.
Put down your broadbrush. I say the same thing to Southerners who put down Yankees. Albert Gore, Jr. was elected to Congress and the Senate many, many times as was his father before him. One governor who was a Democrat saw to it that no children had to buy textbooks. They were provided. These were pretty liberal guys.
Our last governor was a Democrat and the city of Nashville just blossomed under him. We have a Republican governor now, but I think he is under investigation for some business dealings. We have two Republican Senators. Both are well-respected in the Senate.
The further west you go in Tennessee, the bluer the state gets.
Even in these areas, we are not all alike..
As I was looking at the list of top schools by state, I noticed that 7 out of 10 are in some ways considered Southern. (Maryland, Kentucky, and Arkansas can be stretched a little to fit.)
And it wasn’t until about 1984 that my classroom was air-conditioned. It was 110 humid degrees in my classroom at least once – in a packed room. I’ve also taught in a room that was 15 degrees. Students could not concentrate in either.
North Carolina is a Southern state and it seems to be sinking politically.
When magnet schools were set up in the South, they provided excellent educations. But what happens when the best and the brightest are moved from impoverished schools to academically gifted schools? Those impoverished schools rankings fall hard. And the teachers are blamed.
Well, that settles it, then. Anyone who lives there must be a fool or trapped, right?
There’s only so much you can do to overcome a destructive Civil War, economic and political oppression of a large portion of your population, and having an economy based around agriculture. Dredging harbors, or stifling what prosperity you do have with a heavy tax burden, isn’t going to help that.
Some are (such as auto manufacturers), and some aren’t. Every business is different, some benefit from moving to the South and some don’t.
Gasp! Are you insane? Everyone in the South has a murderous hatred of Obama!
Alabama: 38% voted for Obama
Georgia: 45% voted for Obama
Louisiana: 41% voted for Obama
Mississippi: 44% voted for Obama
South Carolina: 44% voted for Obama
Sure, if I hang out in the Black Belt, no problem. Though I do take the point that when we think about “Southerners” we don’t really mean the substantial portion of the population that is African American – which is in one sense a kindness or courtesy, but does leave them kind of invisible in a way. Kind of like how there was the assumption expressed on one of these threads that Nashville must be overwhelmingly white given its country music reputation–yet it does have a large black population.
But no, I was thinking the real deep, deep South experience would be to ride along Route 90.
The point is that it’s not blue state paying red state. It’s wealthy people, who may be red or blue, paying taxes that then get distributed through the system and paid out to people who may be red or blue. Where those people happen to live has nothing to do with how much they pay or receive.
And the comparison was only discussing federal taxes. State taxes don’t figure into those numbers.
As you say, referring to the South or the Deep South and only meaning the conservative white people is dehumanizing to the many, many Southerners who are neither. It’s also a form of essentialism, as you’re imparting characteristics to all members of a group which is not defined by those characteristics.
Also…a kindness or courtesy? Only if you use “Southerner” as an slur. Which you really, really, shouldn’t do when 118 million people live there and are as distinctive and individual as you or anyone else.
Other Americans don’t share your views, although the migration has slowed some with the recession about half a million people a year move into the South from other regions. During the past 30 years the population of the south has risen 50% while the population of the Northeast has risen 15%, all of it from immigration from abroad.
The GDP of the south is 69% larger than the northeast or midwest and 41% higher than the west.
The last Republican to get a majority of the black vote was Herbert Hoover. The parties have not really switched sides that much outside of the south the democrats have been the party of the cities and the Repubicans the party of the rural areas and suburbs. The Curley, Tweed, Pendergast, and Daley machines were all democrat controlled and ran the cities. After the civil rights era the racism which tied the south to the democrat party ebbed and the south became normal with the cities being controlled by democrats and the suburbs and rural areas by republicans.
The democrat party that controlled the south from reconstruction to the 1980s was not laissez faire at all. The Jim Crow laws were the most meddling the government has every done into private businesses. It is insane to call governments which legislated where people could sit on busses laissez faire. Huey Long controlled Lousiana and spent huge amounts of state money. The south was not poor because of laissez faire or the civil war. The south was poor because of the weather and racism. The hot weather meant that malaria could easily spread. This meant large cities were impossible with a few exceptions. The only economic advantage was the climate could grow cotton and indigo. Thus southerners were spread out and had an agricultural economy. It does not make sense to build up transportation infrastructure when the population is small and widespread. In contrast the Northeast had large cities and manufacturing. It makes sense to build infrastructure between large cities. Jim Crow laws meant half of the south was not integrated into the economy and were actively discouraged from being productive.
The eradication of malaria and the invention of air conditioning meant the climate was no longer a problem and the eradication of the Jim Crow laws meant that blacks could fully participate in the economy. In 1950 the South had about the same population as the northeast and the midwest did and was by far the poorest region. Since then the population of the south has taken off with people migrating from other regions in huge numbers and the south now has the biggest regional economy in the country. I’d say that is a better controlled expirement and the results are overwhelming.
Look at this map. Every Southern state except Katrina stricken Lousiana gained personal income between 2000 and 2010. The biggest losers of income during that time were NY, California, and the rust belt states. Democrat run California had 254 companies move jobs out of state in 2011 alone. Business owners and workers are leaving blue states by the thousands and moving to the south and west.
A writer from Slate did an expirement where he walked around a republican area with a Kerry shirt on and a democrat area with a Bush shirt on. The result was hardly any reaction in the republican area and a lot of mean looks and name calling in the democrat area.
My impression was that it was the private bus companies that enforced these policies, and the government simply did not stop them. Hence the Montgomery bus boycott, as opposed to the Montgomery petitioning of the Alabama government to change the law. (I also wonder: were city buses still owned by private companies in the Northeast in the 1950s?)
As if racism was just some disembodied element like hot weather or malaria that the South had to suffer from. Try changing that to the active voice: “because white Southerners were racist” (and the past tense is mighty generous: if you are going to pretend most of them are magically no longer racist because the Yankee-controlled federal government forced them not to be, I’m going to have to side-eye that bigtime, especially given how much that would tend to implicitly contradict a lot of the rest of your ideological positioning).
ETA: Please stop using the “Democrat Party” slur, unless you can show that this usage was prevalent when the Democratic Party dominated the “solid South”.
Jesus Christ, this is a stupid thing to say. What actually “magically” happened is that a majority of the adults who were making the decisions back then magically died. A new generation of people have magically taken their places and are magically a lot less racist than were people back then. It isn’t perfect in the South, but it isn’t perfect in Boston, NYC or any other major area you can name in the US.
It would really be great if we could have a decent discussion about this without broad, sweeping & stupid generalities being tossed around.
It is amusing that you can be indignant about a perceived slur that was probably not intended as such (I learned about it on this board and have never seen it brought up elsewhere) while in the same thread, make sweeping generalizations denigrating the entire population of the South in the OP no less:
Pot. Kettle.
But I’m not using “Southerner” to mean “any resident of the states that formerly made up the Confederacy” (or any variant that adds in border states that had legal slavery but did not secede). I lived in Chapel Hill through most of my childhood, but was never a Southerner. Neither are most of the residents of south Florida, for another example.
Are you going to dispute that the average white Southerner in the 1950s was more racist than the average white non-Southerner? If you do dispute that, how do you explain that civil-rights legislation was passed while Southern senators attempted to filibuster it?
If you don’t dispute it, then how do you explain that Southerners retained their racism for 100 years after the Civil War but have, as you assert, largely shed it since then? Must be that the Bigfoot of the federal government had something to do with it. I see this as a rock and hard place dilemma: you either have to admit that federal power can change states for the better, or you have to admit that white Southerners are still stubbornly racist. (Personally, I think both propositions are true.)
I would also invite people to look at the chart on page 38 or 39 of this PDF, depending on whether you use the automated page number or the printed one.
Whether you look at the percentage above the median, the top quartile, or the top decile, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama are all riding the top of the racism chart. (I am now reminded that I have been to New Orleans, though nowhere else in Louisiana, so by some definitions that would also mean I have been to the Deep South; but by the original mid-20th century definition, that is not part of the region so named–presumably because of the Cajun flavour.)
Let’s be fair though and give credit where it is due: it would appear that the red states in the Mountain West are remarkably non-racist, with the exception of Wyoming.
BTW, I checked out that Slate link and had to laugh when I saw that the experiment was conducted entirely in California. As if Republican leaning areas of California would be the same as strongly Republican parts of the Deep South. Give me a break.
Your impression is wrong.
It’s rather obvious if you think about it. There’d be a sizeable advantage to be had in the market for business owners that broke ranks and did business with non-whites on equal terms. So, for Jim Crow to function, they had to be barred from doing so by the government.
Hey, English is a living language and all, but if you’re going to use your own definitions for words, expect to be misunderstood a lot.