# Southern Strategy denialism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 18, 2014, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southern-strategy-denialism/681651 "2014-02-18T20:45:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southern-strategy-denialism/681651/141 "2014-02-21T15:06:48Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’m not sure what this means – Republican politicians really did deliberately plan and execute actions designed to appeal to Southern white racists (just as Democratic politicians did for a century before) – but at least you’re acknowledging its existence. Of course it existed. It’s just not as important as people think to the shift in Democrats to the GOP. It was the consequence of much larger forces. It didn’t cause the shift to the GOP, it took advantage of it. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southern-strategy-denialism/681651/142 "2014-02-21T15:12:30Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You’re demanding that code words be reclaimed, as if there were no others available to use instead, as if they had innocent origins that got hijacked along the way and deserve to be reclaimed. Well, guess what, “states’ rights” meant slavery right from the beginning, and has meant the successors to slavery ever since. There is no innocent meaning to be reclaimed. Same for urban, ghetto, thuggish, certainly the n-word itself, among many other words mentioned in this thread. I didn’t say all code words could be reclaimed. But come on - to declare that “reducing crime” is forever and always a racist thing to say it just absurd. And yes, it’s got an entirely innocent meaning. So now “urban” is racist? Does the Urban League know this? And words like thug and the n-word aren’t even codewords! > [@](#): > > If there is \*no \*innocent meaning available for a code word that you can explain readily, then the audience is entitled to draw an inference that you mean something you might not even be aware of yourself. Only through their forbearance would that inference be that you’re merely ignorant or callous. Obviously. But most codewords have some kind of innocent meaning, or else they wouldn’t be code words. If there’s no innocent meaning possible, they’re not in code. But if there IS an innocent meaning possible, do you agree with me that such a codeword shouldn’t be automatically and irrevocably considered racist? Because that’s what I’m saying. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southern-strategy-denialism/681651/143 "2014-02-21T15:18:08Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > IBut come on - to declare that “reducing crime” is forever and always a racist thing to say it just absurd. As absurd as stating that anyone has said that, yes. > [@](#): > > And yes, it’s got an entirely innocent meaning. One that does require clarity when using it, yes. That’s a \*good \*thing, btw. > [@](#): > > But if there IS an innocent meaning possible, do you agree with me that such a codeword shouldn’t be automatically and irrevocably considered racist? Because that’s what I’m saying. Tell you what. Try putting a swastika on a T-shirt and telling anyone who says anything that you’re innocently trying to reclaim an ancient Buddhist good-luck symbol. Let us know what happens. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southern-strategy-denialism/681651/144 "2014-02-21T15:22:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I disagree. > > What phrase should I use to express the belief that the **federal** constitution establishes a **federal** government of supreme authority in its bailiwick but of limited, enumerated powers, and retains state governments of dual sovereignty and plenary powers? Gee, if only the language had a word for that concept… ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southern-strategy-denialism/681651/145 "2014-02-21T15:25:50Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Is there any reason to believe he wasn’t? > > You can’t just say “everyone was racist back then.” That’s both completely unfair and untrue. Right, like I said before, I’m not trying to imply Reagan was a racist while in the White House, nor that his policies were racist, nor that his supporters were. I’m trying to determine, as a basis for this discussion, if Reagan was racist for any length of time in his life, at all. I think we can say with a fair amount of certainty that Reagan, by the time he entered politics, was at best a _former_ racist, and was therefore familiar with the right “code words” and other political tactics needed to appeal to racist Republican voters, even if he wasn’t racist himself. Even if he wasn’t a former racist, and had been and enlightened believer in equality and civil rights his whole life, he still grew up in a world where deeply entrenched racism was almost universal. He knew how to appeal to those people because they were part of his community from birth, his family, his friends, and his coworkers. And I think that analysis holds for most Republican politicians in the 60s and 70s, too. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southern-strategy-denialism/681651/146 "2014-02-21T15:27:00Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > As absurd as stating that anyone has said that, yes. So let’s stipulate - you agree that someone can say “reducing crime” and it might not be a racist dogwhistle? > [@](#): > > One that does require clarity when using it, yes. That’s a \*good \*thing, btw. Okay. > [@](#): > > Tell you what. Try putting a swastika on a T-shirt and telling anyone who says anything that you’re innocently trying to reclaim an ancient Buddhist good-luck symbol. Let us know what happens. What was it you just said? Oh yeah - “as absurd as stating that anyone has said that.” Not all symbols or words can be reclaimed. But some can be. Some MUST be. You seem to agree that “reducing crime” has been reclaimed, after all. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southern-strategy-denialism/681651/147 "2014-02-21T15:28:28Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > I think we can say with a fair amount of certainty that Reagan, by the time he entered politics, was at best a _former_ racist, Based on what evidence? > [@](#): > > Even if he wasn’t a former racist, and had been and enlightened believer in equality and civil rights his whole life, he still grew up in a world where deeply entrenched racism was almost universal. He knew how to appeal to those people because they were part of his community from birth, his family, his friends, and his coworkers. Yes, he likely knew how to appeal to racists. (Of course, appealing to racists would be a form of racism). ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southern-strategy-denialism/681651/148 "2014-02-21T16:24:23Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > So let’s stipulate - you agree that someone can say “reducing crime” and it might not be a racist dogwhistle? To repeat myself: Context. > [@](#): > > Not all symbols or words can be reclaimed. But some can be. Some MUST be. Which is which, and who decides? > [@](#): > > You seem to agree that “reducing crime” has been reclaimed, after all. Not in all cases. Context, remember? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southern-strategy-denialism/681651/149 "2014-02-21T16:30:32Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > To repeat myself: Context. Sorry, you weren’t very clear the last time. So we both agree that context matters, and that someone can use a “codeword” innocently and shouldn’t always be hammered for it. Great. So sometimes it would be okay to just say “reduce crime” rather than that long convoluted way of saying the same thing but avoiding that phrase, right? Great. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southern-strategy-denialism/681651/150 "2014-02-21T16:51:59Z")
Context has a different weight from the perspective of the communicator or the communicatee. From the perspective of someone interpreting something that someone else said, context is of course of paramount importance. But the claim here is being made that a person doing the communicating can rely on context to avoid being accused of using code words. This is not remotely realistic. Context is highly nuanced, and interpreting context is highly subjective. In this thread, I think it’s clear from the context of Lee Atwater’s remarks that he is not saying that Reagan had a deliberate strategy to appeal to racists by using code words, but others disagree with that interpretation. And in Reagan’s “state’s rights” usage, the context is explicitly not related to anything racial, but people still manage to dig up some supposed context of their own out of the location of his speech. So in sum, there is nothing anyone can do to forestall this, especially if you’re in politics and you have ideological opponents picking at everything you say in an effort to discredit you. It’s worth being careful to the extent practically feasible, but to some extent it comes with the territory and you just have to take it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southern-strategy-denialism/681651/151 "2014-02-21T17:09:40Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Exactly. > > The Southern Strategy was an effect, not a cause. Cause or effect, it **presaged** a very real transformation of both political parties. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southern-strategy-denialism/681651/152 "2014-02-21T17:13:28Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > And in Reagan’s “state’s rights” usage, the context is explicitly not related to anything racial, but people still manage to dig up some supposed context of their own out of the location of his speech. It’s not explicitly related to anything racial, but unless Reagan was a political neophyte, he would have been aware what the phrase ‘states’ rights’ meant, politically speaking, from the late 60s onward (at the time). So this is what I think. Reagan, who probably did not think black people were inferior in any way, was OK with using phrases like ‘states’ rights’, which he was aware (because he was an intelligent politician) meant “the traditional rights to oppress black people” to a certain portion of the electorate, while having a mundane meaning to most others (and having a specifically racist connotation to most black voters). Reagan wanted the considerable population of racist white people to vote for him, but he did not want to sound explicitly racist, so he was OK with using phrases like ‘states’ rights’ which would ring an attractive-sounding bell with racist white voters. And this is basically all the Southern Strategy was – it was cynical politicians and operatives making subtle efforts to appeal to racist white voters while at the same time trying not to alienate non-racist white voters. They did not care that much about black voters at the time, and had more-or-less written them off (as they still do now). This is basically what Atwater was explaining. He was explaining how the “sweet spot” of not sounding explicitly racist but still appealing to racists had shifted over time. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southern-strategy-denialism/681651/153 "2014-02-21T17:14:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I disagree. > > What phrase should I use to express the belief that the federal constitution establishes a federal government of supreme authority in its bailiwick but of limited, enumerated powers, and retains state governments of dual sovereignty and plenary powers? > > Unless you aver that the above belief is itself somehow inherently racist…? “Federalism.” States have autonomy, but they have no **rights** under the Constitution; you won’t find the word “right” used in connection with “state” anywhere, not even in the Tenth Amendment. Nor does the Constitution explicitly protect anything you might call a state right, except for the guarantees that states cannot be deprived of territory or of equal Senate representation without their consent. And it is a historical fact in America that the phrase “states’ rights” always has been used to mean local autonomy to deal with blacks the local way without federal interference. It is only in the past few years that I have ever heard it used in any other contexts (mainly gay marriage and marijuana). ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southern-strategy-denialism/681651/154 "2014-02-21T17:17:11Z")
It wasn’t and shouldn’t be controversial that, to racist white people in the South (as well as black people), “states rights” meant, primarily, the rights to oppress black people. Any politician or experienced political operative would know this. So any politician using this phrase does this with the knowledge that they are appealing to racist white Southerners and turning off black voters, while sounding uncontroversial to most other voters. For several decades, there was a big net positive in using this phrase (and others). Now, not so much. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southern-strategy-denialism/681651/155 "2014-02-21T17:19:12Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Reagan used the welfare queen story to show that welfare was rife with fraud, people were getting it who did not need it because the safeguards in place were not adequate. Then he lied. The historical fact is that welfare-cheating was trivial. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southern-strategy-denialism/681651/156 "2014-02-21T17:27:00Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > So this is what I think. Reagan, who probably did not think black people were inferior in any way, was OK with using phrases like ‘states’ rights’, which he was aware (because he was an intelligent politician) meant “the traditional rights to oppress black people” to a certain portion of the electorate, while having a mundane meaning to most others (and having a specifically racist connotation to most black voters). Reagan wanted the considerable population of racist white people to vote for him, but he did not want to sound explicitly racist, so he was OK with using phrases like ‘states’ rights’ which would ring an attractive-sounding bell with racist white voters. And this is what I think. People have a tendency to align their positions on abstract political and other matters based on how it affects them or their causes. Hanging chads, filibusters, you name it, it’s all the same. And as a result of a long history involving race relations and other matters (e.g. tariffs, back in the early days), there had developed a very strong belief in states rights down south, and this remained even though much of the racial angle had faded significantly by 1980. And Reagan thought he could harness the general popularity of states rights down south in favor of his own positions in opposition to federal micromanaging and the like. Which is why he said what he said, spelling out just what he meant by “states rights”. I can’t prove it and neither can you. So we’re at an impasse. Which is pretty much where this thread has been since the start. No smoking gun of any sort. No actual black-and-white evidence. Just “do you really expect me to believe …?” blustering. So everyone gets to believe what makes them happy. Beers all around. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southern-strategy-denialism/681651/157 "2014-02-21T18:00:48Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > And this is what I think. > > People have a tendency to align their positions on abstract political and other matters based on how it affects them or their causes. Hanging chads, filibusters, you name it, it’s all the same. And as a result of a long history involving race relations and other matters (e.g. tariffs, back in the early days), there had developed a very strong belief in states rights down south, and this remained even though much of the racial angle had faded significantly by 1980. And Reagan thought he could harness the general popularity of states rights down south in favor of his own positions in opposition to federal micromanaging and the like. Which is why he said what he said, spelling out just what he meant by “states rights”. > > I can’t prove it and neither can you. So we’re at an impasse. Which is pretty much where this thread has been since the start. No smoking gun of any sort. No actual black-and-white evidence. Just “do you really expect me to believe …?” blustering. > > So everyone gets to believe what makes them happy. Beers all around. Do you think Reagan was aware that the phrase “states rights” meant “racist oppression” to a significant portion of two large groups – racist white people and black people? I do, and I think he was OK with that. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southern-strategy-denialism/681651/158 "2014-02-21T18:06:31Z")
I’m sure he knew there was a long history of usage in that context, but didn’t consider that you can’t use the term in any other context even when you make clear that you mean something else. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southern-strategy-denialism/681651/159 "2014-02-21T18:07:51Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Cause or effect, it **presaged** a very real transformation of both political parties. No, the transformation began first. It started in 1948 when Truman desegregated the military, and really took off when the Voting Rights Act brought millions of new black voters into the Democratic primaries in the South. That created the opportunity for a Southern Strategy. You could say the SS was part of the overall transformation, sure - but many people claim it was the beginning of it. That’s why I called it “overblown.” It wasn’t the first or the most important event. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southern-strategy-denialism/681651/160 "2014-02-21T18:49:26Z")
Another part of what happened is that the Great Society created a natural alliance between blacks and liberals on fiscal/economic issues. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southern-strategy-denialism/681651.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/southern-strategy-denialism/681651.md?page=9)