Karl Kurtz, writing for NCSL’s the Thicket, has an interesting article about the party swap that seems to have occurred between the Northeast and the South. The Northeast has come to be solidly controlled by the Democrats while the South has come to be solidly controlled by the Democrats Republicans. Therefore, he notes that, in effect, the “system of 1896” also known as the “Fourth Party System” has been turned on its head. From 1896 through 1932, Republicans controlled the northeast and Democrats controlled the South.
From 1932 through the 1960s, the New Deal Coalition saw Democrats making some inroads in the north following a Great Depression triggered backlash against the Republicans. For me, it seems that the New Deal coalition started eroding in the 60s partially because it was running out of steam, but also as a backlash to the Civil Rights movement. After the Voting Rights Act was implemented, Lyndon Johnson said that the Democrats would lose the South for a generation. Whether because of race relations or other factors, in fact, we have seen the South shift from Democratic to Republican between the 60s and 90s as the Dixiecrats gradually became Republicans. (I wonder if Georgia Democrat Zell Miller’s angry tirade at the 2004 Republican National Convention was the culmination of that process.) Now, the Northeast has come to be controlled almost entirely by Democrats where once it was a Republican stronghold.
Democrats control 17 of the 18 legislative chambers in the Northeast (19 of 20 if you prefer to call Maryland an eastern state) after the 2008 election. The only exception is the Pennsylvania Senate.
Kurtz has another article entitled “Reverse coattails in the South” which shows the effect of this election enhancing Republican dominance in the old Confederacy (my term, not his.)
In some ways, it seems this Regional battle between North and South keeps coming into play again and again and again, with race frequently playing a central role. There are brief respites as other issues grab our collective attention, but the default tension in our politics seems to be Plymouth versus Jamestown over and over.
stAllio! says
i think you have an inversion of your own there in sentence two…
Mike Kole says
Economics is only one aspect to consider of course, but in that same time frame, the Rs & Ds flipped their relative positions as liberals and conservatives. Going back to the birth of the Republican Party, they were the more relatively liberal, favoring government projects to build infrastructure and tariffs, while Democrats were virtually pure free marketeers. Of course, by FDR these positions were reversed, with the Republicans holding essentially the same position as before, while Democrats embraced a wider government involvement in most areas of life.
So, in that sense, there has been some consistency in that the NE has been fairly consistently liberal in relative economic terms, while the South has been fairly consistently conservative in the same relative economic terms.
Again, just one aspect.
Doug says
Aside from the whole Jim Crow business, of course.
Mike Kole says
Thanks for making me sorry for the contribution.
Doug says
Can’t tell the tone of your comment here. If I’ve actually made you feel unwelcome — that’s not at all my intent.
I guess I’m merely echoing Samuel Johnson when he said, “How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?” Southerners have historically had a love of liberty with an enormous, unforgivable blind spot.
Mike Kole says
Certainly true, and I’ve always loved the SJ comment. However, the way you wrote it simply negates everything I said. I mean, who would both to even consider after that rejoinder? True enough that the South was consistently bigoted.