Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Silverman The Economist: White Southern Democrats Have All But Vanished
Posted by Jack Silverman on Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 1:02 PM
Here in the very red state of Tennessee, it might not exactly be news that white Southern Democrats are a vanishing breed in Congress and the Senate. But this video analysis from The Economist, which follows the evolution of the white Southern Democrat since President Lyndon B. Johnson's signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is still pretty shocking. Legend has it that after signing the bill, Johnson turned to an aide and said, "We have lost the South for a generation." If it's true, his words were prophetic.
At the time, the 11 former Confederate states had 128 seats in Congress, and 115 of them were white Southern Democrats. Yes, you read that right. Of course, these were a different breed of Democrat, and many of them were pro-segregation. (For example, Strom Thurmond was still a Democrat at the time.) The breakthrough of having non-white Democratic congressmen and representatives accounts for some of the decline, certainly, but the bottom line is that the South is now overwhelmingly Republican. In case you hadn't noticed.
Still, if that's the price Democrats had to pay for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I'm guessing most of them would say it was worth it.
Comments (66)
Showing 1-50 of 66
Aren't the Democrats we DO have anti-choice creationists who hate taxes? Or at least the kind that pay lip service to such notions? Not worth it.
like
dislike
Most of the white southern Democrats I know are still pro-segregation. And anti-abortion. And homophobic. And throw the "n-word" around like a bottle of Jack at a Vols game.
Mayhaps the disappearance of the white southern Democrat isn't such a bad thing. And you almost made it a whole blog without taking a shot at Republicans! Congrats!
It is sad to see how the Democratic Party so completely lost touch with the average Joe in the South. You can make yourself feel better by saying that it was all about race but it was just as much about entitlements, taxes and guns. They could have kept winning down here if they had not so completely sold out to the N.E. and the left coast.
So, what you're saying is that the South has turned away from the party who fought against the Civil Rights Act and towards the party who fought for it. In other words, the South has turned away from the party of slavery and towards the party of liberty.
Yeah, I'd say that was worth it.
"So, what you're saying is that the South has turned away from the party who fought against the Civil Rights Act and towards the party who fought for it. In other words, the South has turned away from the party of slavery and towards the party of liberty."
Talk about twisting history. Those Democrats who fought against civil rights became Republicans. The Republicans who fought against slavery, i.e. the party of Lincoln, are not the same Republicans today.
The myth, or incredible misunderstanding, or whatever it is, that Republicans were responsible for the Civil Rights Act, that Martin Luther King was a Republican, and so on, continues to amaze. Somebody is getting their 1864 Radical Republicans mixed up with the Goldwater Republicans of 1964, and can't quite grasp that George Wallace and Martin Luther King, two New Dealers, were in the same majority Democratic Party.
Who's fostering the "Republicans were for Civil Rights, not Democrats" outlandish fiction? And what for?
In any case. Tea Party supporters may be on their way out of the Republican Party towards somewhere else in much the same way Wallace voters were on their way our of the Democratic Party back in that day.
And that's nonsense. You've been drinking the crazy kool-aide. King Senior was a Republican. Not Junior. Whatever some grouchy family member says now.
That same video mentions that King's work had nothing to do with Left/Right, which is a joke, A large joke. He was branded "Communist" by the far right from the first, (which he was not) believed in the social gospel, had democratic socialist instincts and was, if anything. to the left end of the Democratic Party. He wsan' a dreamer, he was an activist.
Before you start pointing to histoiry, get some credible sources.
I once was in a discussion with an avowed Democrat and I asked him if he was for or against the death penalty. He said he was for it. I asked him if he was for or against abortion. He said he was against it. I asked him if he was for or against the right to bear arms. He said he was for it. I asked him why, then, did he vote democratic. He said politicians he voted for felt as he did. I pointed out that on a national scale they had to jump in bed with the Liberals up north. He said he didn't believe they did. I think, over the years, that he and a whole bunch of others have changed their minds. (I also had pretty much the same discussion with a black friend one time and he gave the same answers as the other fellow. But he also said, "Hmmm..." as if I'd given him a different perspective.)
mississippigirl, no matter how many times you say it, it will never be true. Segregationist southern Dems broke with the party over civil rights issues, and during the ensuing years became Republicans. Hence Johnson's statement re "losing the South for a generation."
When it comes to history, just as with with science, you are simply not entitled to your own facts. Sorry.
The interesting thing for those who say that other factors besides race (like gun control) were more pertinant to white southernors leaving the Democratic party than race is how little the Dems are really that different from the Republicans in this regard. There has been no effort by the national Democrats to ban guns but you keep hearing that Democrats want to ban your guns (and your Bibles) and a good percentage of white southernors believe it, even without evidence. White southernors continue to be hoodwinked and played by the Republican party into believing they have their best interests at heart. Going back to the Reagan discussion from earlier, he was brilliant at this. He (or his political advisers) took Nixon's Southern Strategy and perfected it. Remember, he announced his candidacy in Philadelphia, MS, one of the epicenter's of civil rights era violence.
But make no mistake, race was the biggest issue. You can't with a straight face try to spin the facts that southern whites were absolutely resistant (for the most part) or at least ambivalent to equal rights for blacks and didn't just change their tune because the Civil Rights Act was passed (by a Democratic president). If you believe that you're naive or just outright in denial. And Nixon and Reagan played to southern white fears and won the region.
Don't delude yourself...the anti-segregation, "states rights" and Southern Dixie-Crats left the Democratic Party wholesale for the Republican Party starting when the liberal Democrats began pursuing civil rights legislation during the 1940s (desegregation of the U.S. miltary) 1950s (desegregation of the U.S. public schools and universities), 1960s (U.S. Civil Rights Act, Equal Pay Act of 1963, etc.), and early 1970s (the non-ratified U.S. Equal Rights Amendment of 1972).
Here follows is an excerpt for the Wikipedia article for the GOP poster boy, Strom Thurmond:
"James Strom Thurmond (December 5, 1902 – June 26, 2003) was an American politician who served as a United States Senator. He also ran for the Presidency of the United States in 1948 as the segregationist States Rights Democratic Party (Dixiecrat) candidate, receiving 2.4% of the popular vote and 39 electoral votes. Thurmond later represented South Carolina in the United States Senate from 1954 to April 1956 and November 1956 to January 2003, at first as a Democrat and after 1964 as a Republican. He switched so he could support Goldwater's conservatism and because of their shared opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.[1] He left office as the only senator to reach the age of 100 while still in office and as the oldest-serving and longest-serving senator in U.S. history (although he was later surpassed in the latter by Robert Byrd).[2] Thurmond holds the record for the longest serving Dean of the United States Senate in U.S. history at 14 years. He conducted the longest filibuster ever by a lone senator in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1957, at 24 hours and 18 minutes in length, nonstop. In the 1960s, he continued to fight against civil rights legislation. Starting in the 1970s, he moderated his position on race, but continued to defend his early segregationist campaigns on the basis of states' rights in the context of Southern society at the time,[3] never fully renouncing his earlier viewpoints.[4][5] After his death it was revealed that Thurmond and a black maid, Carrie Butler, had a daughter whom Thurmond never publicly acknowledged.[6]"
and an excerpt from the Wikipedia article Dixiecrat:
"The States' Rights Democratic Party (commonly known as the Dixiecrats) was a shortlived segregationist, socially conservative political party in the United States. It originated as a breakaway faction of the Democratic Party in 1948, determined to protect what they portrayed as the Southern way of life beset by an oppressive federal government[1], and supporters assumed control of the state Democratic parties in part or in full in several Southern states. The States' Rights Democratic Party opposed racial integration and wanted to retain Jim Crow laws and white supremacy. Members of the States' Rights Democratic Party were often called Dixiecrats. (The term Dixiecrat is a portmanteau of Dixie, referring to the Southern United States, and Democrat, referring to the Democratic Party.)
"By 1950, nearly all the Dixiecrats had returned to the Democratic Party. The Dixiecrats had little short-run impact on politics. However, they did have a long-term impact. The Dixiecrats began the weakening of the Democratic Party's total control of presidential elections in the Deep South. The 1948 campaign laid the foundation, at first in presidential voting only, for the creation of a two-party region. Finally, the Dixiecrats, especially Strom Thurmond (Senator from 1954 to 2003) initiated a national political dialog on the dangers of an expansive federal government that threatened "local control." This theme was picked up by southern Republicans, who became a major element in the national GOP by the 1990s[2]"
So, just to be clear, what you are saying is that southern whites, today, most of whom were born after 1964, are voting Republican because they are still mad about the Civil Rights Act of 1964? You're really saying that?
@Slartibartfast: "So, just to be clear, what you are saying is that southern whites, today, most of whom were born after 1964, are voting Republican because they are still mad about the Civil Rights Act of 1964? You're really saying that?"
No and nor I am attemptingmaking broad generalizations about all Southern Republicans.
However, racism is a learned and intergenerational behavior and you cannot simply dismiss that racism has to some significant degree fueled the growth of the Republican Party in the southern United States since the late 1940s. The upshot: if you parents and grandparents are (were) assholes, you are likely an asshole yourself...and you know who you are.
Chris - The Dems did ban "assault weapons" and magazines of greater than 10 rounds for several years. That to me, and other gun supporting folk, is more than enough evidence of what certain Dems would like to do re: guns.
Slart - in part, yes. I've heard many a Southern Republican dance around what they really mean to say - which is: I don't want my money going to blacks.
"No and nor I am attemptingmaking broad generalizations about all Southern Republicans.
However, racism is a learned and intergenerational behavior and you cannot simply dismiss that racism has to some significant degree fueled the growth of the Republican Party in the southern United States since the late 1940s. The upshot: if you parents and grandparents are (were) assholes, you are likely an asshole yourself...and you know who you are."
You are and you did.
"Chris - The Dems did ban "assault weapons" and magazines of greater than 10 rounds for several years. That to me, and other gun supporting folk, is more than enough evidence of what certain Dems would like to do re: guns."
The vast majority of southernors are not going to just change voting patterns based on the banning of assault weapons. I don't buy it. And I'd like to see your source for this factoid because I don't remember it, but even if it did happen, it came after the region flipped political allegiances and was certainly not the source of it.
The assault weapon ban and magazine restriciton were part of the Clinton Crime bill that passed in 1994 by Bill and the boys. I voted for Bill in 92. I did not in 96. The region had not flipped in 1994 but was certainly on its way. In fact many at the time(including myself) viewed the sucess of Bill as proof that for the Democratic Party to come back to national prominance they would need the South and they would need to field a moderate southern politician for President. He seemed to be the answer but like alot of elected officials forgot to dance with them that got him there.
@Chris Allen...
The negative fallout from the Assault Weapons ban is why gun control is pretty much dead at the national level.
Ohtheironey, I do believe that the region had largely flipped by 1994. The average southern white had long went over to the Republicans in Presidential elections. Maybe the assault weapons ban, which I believe to be responsible policy, drove some people away, but they were only marginally Democratic to begin with. Yes, guys like Lincoln Davis and John Tanner could still win up until recently, but the south has been solid for the Republicans since Reagan in 1980. Clinton was just an exceptional politician and one from the region to boot. Ironically, the '08 election saw a little bit of thawing for the Democrats in parts of the south, with Obama easily winning Virginia and eaking it out in North Carolina. This was due in large part to outsiders moving in to their urban centers. Georgia was even single digits. And with the growth of Atlanta, Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham and the Belt Way area in NoVA, it probably wasn't a fluke.
"
So, just to be clear, what you are saying is that southern whites, today, most of whom were born after 1964, are voting Republican because they are still mad about the Civil Rights Act of 1964? You're really saying that?"
Not what I'm saying. I'm saying that people who supported segregation in the south - the vast, crushing, overwhelming majority of them - were Democrats up until the 60s. After the civil rights era as it were, those same people became Republicans. And the younger generations of folks who are generally sympathetic to those on what is unequivocally the wrong side of history overwhelmingly vote GOP.
Or, to put it another way: not all people who vote Republican are racists, but all people who are comfortably racist (not just subconsciously prejudiced) vote Republican.
"the assault weapons ban, which I believe to be responsible policy"
It may be "responsible policy" in your eyes, but its a direct violation of the US Constitution in the eyes of many others. Myself included.
I'm not saying the "assault weapons" ban was the key factor in the flip, but certainly a contributing/confirming factor.
soooo you need an "assault weapon" and "magazines of greater than 10 rounds" to do what pseudo.....hunt?? are you in a militia? why do you need those over a plain handgun or rifle? i'm dying to know...........
"Ohtheironey, I do believe that the region had largely flipped by 1994. The average southern white had long went over to the Republicans in Presidential elections. Maybe the assault weapons ban, which I believe to be responsible policy, drove some people away, but they were only marginally Democratic to begin with. Yes, guys like Lincoln Davis and John Tanner could still win up until recently, but the south has been solid for the Republicans since Reagan in 1980. Clinton was just an exceptional politician and one from the region to boot. Ironically, the '08 election saw a little bit of thawing for the Democrats in parts of the south, with Obama easily winning Virginia and eaking it out in North Carolina. This was due in large part to outsiders moving in to their urban centers. Georgia was even single digits. And with the growth of Atlanta, Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham and the Belt Way area in NoVA, it probably wasn't a fluke."
If you want to ban a weapon simply because you do not like the way it looks then yes it is responsible policy. I hate to tell you but the whole country has been mostly republican since 1980. There was 8 years of Clinton and so far 3 years of Obama. Obama's election I suspect was more a rejection of George Bush and less a move to the left. Obama only won Va. by about 6% and giving the fact that they lost so much in Va. in 2010 it is hard to say Va. is a strong Democrat state. If the country had really moved left of center you would not have had the "issue" in the November elections. I also hate to tell you but guys like you and gast do not win elections. While looking down your nose at those "marginal" democrats and while tea party folks talk about "taking back the country" hundreds of thousands of "marginal" party members go and pull the levers that put people in office. The Democrats lost the party to left in the 70s and pretty much was marginalized nationally for the next 20-30 years. The Republicans are drifting more and more to the fringe right of their party. It remains to be seen what effect that will have.
Chrisallen: You better check your research about Reagan's speech in Philadelphia, Ms.
Its not about what I 'need'. Its about what the US Constitution says.
Also, in a SHTF situation, 30rds > 10rds.
Pseudonym, HERE is what the Constitution says:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
If we are to use the strict interpretation of the Constitution instead of a LIBERAL one like the NRA and you do, it's pretty obvious that unless you are in the National Guard (well-regulated militia), you actually have no gun rights at all.
So which is it going to be? The literal word of the Constitution or your activist, liberal one, Pseudonym?
"If we are to use the strict interpretation of the Constitution instead of a LIBERAL one like the NRA and you do, it's pretty obvious that unless you are in the National Guard (well-regulated militia), you actually have no gun rights at all."
Wrong.
The right is "of the people" - not "of the militia" or "of the people in the militia". Therefore the literal reading is the right is not restricted to people in the militia. The preceding dependent clause of the sentence places no restrictions whatsoever on the right "of the people" enumerated in the independent clause of the sentence.
Republicans (including the great Barry Goldwater, who desegrated his business and military unit) fought for civil rights, esp. under Eisenhower but were turned away by the Dixiecrats.
The majority of Dixiecrat politicians didn't become republican (why would they join that party to begin with? Duh.), esp. since the pubs voted in higher %'s for civil rights and war on poverty (turrible). The Pubs also fought union discrimination against blacks with the Philadelphia Plan in the 1970s.
You're actually both wrong. Citizens have the right to "bear arms" and the government, as our representatives, has the right to regulate them. Hence, it's perfectly Constitutional for assault weapon bans. If you believe the government can't regulate, or ban in some cases, weapons, then where does it stop? Rocket launchers, bazookas, small nuclear devices. Can the government regulate those?
Gast, I just did check my research. He gave a state's rights speech in Philadelphia, MS and it was his first campaign stop since the convention. Quoting Wikipedia (yes, I know it's Wikipedia), "was seen by some as a tacit appeal to Southern white voters and a continuation of Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy, while others argued it merely reflected his libertarian economic beliefs."
Since Reagan was no libertarian in practice, I'm going with the first option.
Barry Goldwater would most certainly not be welcome in the Republican party today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwat…
What Martin said.
Also, assault rifles, along with submachine guns, battle rifles, machine pistols and machine guns, are illegal in this country (without an expensive and difficult to acquire permit). What remains legal are semi-automatic rifles, pistols and carbines.
I've found over the years that those who most vehemently oppose gun rights are both fearful and ignorant of firearms. If those persons were to take the time to learn about them, their irrational hatred might wane.
At the time the Constitution was written "militia" meant all able bodied men.
Those of you who argue the political shift has only to do with segregation are ignoring other facets of disagreement. Gay rights, immigration, government taking over parental responsibilities, the liberal inclination of lionizing morally deficient (Teddy Kennedy, Clinton) while demanding conservatives who slip leave office. Also, if the Democratic Party is the party of choice of the NAACP then it is also the party of the Black Panthers. And those of you who are uncomfortable with the use of the "N" word should probably hang out with conservatives; I have seldom heard it.
chrisallen: Reagan did not announce his candidacy in Philadelphia, Ms.
"I've found over the years that those who most vehemently oppose gun rights are both fearful and ignorant of firearms. If those persons were to take the time to learn about them, their irrational hatred might wane."
Irrational hatred of guns? You do know that guns don't have feelings and aren't people, right? Anyways, maybe I'll spend some one on one time with a machine gun and get to know it. I just may find out that I was all wrong about it and it's ok afterall.
"chrisallen: Reagan did not announce his candidacy in Philadelphia, Ms."
Thank you Gast. You got me on a technicality. The overall point remains the same.
I wouldn't open up the can of worms of lionizing people if I were you. Obviously the right lionizes such noted liars and slanderers as Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, judging by their ratings and how Republicans constantly back off criticizing them for fear of retribution. The left has hardly lionized Bill Clinton and even conservatives in the senate, such as Orren Hatch, have said that Kennedy has been a different person since his younger days.
And as for the "n" word, I've only heard it from conservatives (apart from black rappers), including a guy I work with who referred to a black guy from the country as a "country n...." This particular guy also loves the Tea Party. So don't go there.
still pseudo, i see nothing about "30rds > 10rds" anywhere in that amendment! what....that rabbit going to get away from you with only 10 rounds of ammo?? you must be a lousy shot then!
"You're actually both wrong. Citizens have the right to "bear arms" and the government, as our representatives, has the right to regulate them"
No it doesn't.
That isn't what the 2nd Amendment says.
The fact that America went over 100 years w/o regulating arms tells the tale on the 2nd amendment.
"still pseudo, i see nothing about "30rds > 10rds" anywhere in that amendment! "
It doesn't need to.
The purpose of the Constitution is to define the limited powers of government .
The federal government has no authority to do anything whatsoever except those things that it has been specifically authorized to do by enumeration in the text of the Constitution.
Since the 2nd does NOT say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed - except for 30 round magazines", that means it has no authority to regulate them.
Regarding the decreasing numbers of Democrats in the south (and elsewhere) I guess even they eventually get tired of lying to themselves.
Judging by the unsupported leap of reasoning reflected in the main point of the article, there are few still out there who continue to drink the Kool-Aid.
Well, I see the historical revisionists are hard at work with their "white southerners who once were Democrats and later became Republicans were the REAL promoters of civil rights for black people" line of bullshit. Why the heck do you think STrom Thurmond left the Dems for the GOP? B/c of the civil rights plank in the Democratic platform, that's why. Other than that, Thurmond was a straight FDR, New Deal, big-government-help-the-little-man politician. BTW, Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act, and so did Reagan, although many NOrthern Republicans supported it. Those Northern Republicans are mostly gone form the Party, the victims of the right wing purge of GOP moderates and liberals from the Party.
As far a MLK, yes he did support some Republicans, like Ike, for instance, and had some favorable things to say about Nixon in the 50's and 60's, but he wasn't a republican, he was a social-oriented liberal. The right wing (both Dems AND Republicans) called MLK a commie and they hated him. And his father left the GOP when Johnson came out in support of civil rights. When Johnson said "We shall overcome," MLK about fell out of his chair watching the TV.
Johnson was a sleaze in many ways, but he took the civil rights banner right from the GOP and they let him. After they got tromped in 1964, the GOP decided on its southern strategy, which was based on race, and they purged most black GOP delegates at their Convention. The great Jackie Robinson was almost assaulted by an angry racist white GOP delegate, it ran Jackie away from the GOP permanently.
Facts trump bullshit, tea-partiers.
"Since the 2nd does NOT say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed - except for 30 round magazines", that means it has no authority to regulate them."
Gilbert, I would say that's a legalistic interpretation of the 2nd Amendment but it's not even that. No one is trying to, nor have they ever, infringed on your right to bear arms. You have that right, I agree with that interpretation. But you don't have unlimited rights, much like free speech. There are certain things that you and I cannot say, regardless of the First Amendment. The government, as our representatives, has the right to regulate firearms and the Constitution is explicit about that and even conservative judges have upheld that. If you don't agree with that, and I know you don't, then tell me if there is any kind of weaponry that you shouldn't be allowed to own?
"The government, as our representatives, has the right to regulate firearms and the Constitution is explicit about that"
No, the Constitution is not "explicit" about that because it doesn't say that in there anywhere.
The Constitution doesn't say A LOT of things, but here we are ...a lot of things including but not limited to: Christianity, Jesus, "God", Patriot Acts, "Faith-based" initiatives, fetuses, executive orders, printing paper money, marriage, congressional districts, the electoral college, executive privilege, G.I. Bill, interstate highway system, etc...
here's some interesting reading. for all you "Conservatives":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lew_Rockwell
"As guns and original intent go, the Second prohibits Congress, not the states, from regulating guns."
The 2nd Amendment:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Conservatives always argue that militia means the people, not a professional security force. Fine, it's debatable but I can live with that. What I find curious is they will make that argument and then explain away the "well-regulated" part, even though it's in the same sentence. Gilbert, it's very explicit and even conservative judges agree with that. Sometimes you should just give up and admit you're wrong.
By the way Gilbert, you never answered the last part: is there any kind of weapon that you feel you shouldn't be allowed to own? Feel free to answer the question also Pseudo, since guns are people too.
oops. wrong link i posted up there re "As guns and original intent go, the Second prohibits Congress, not the states, from regulating guns."
try here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/kirkwood/kirkwo…
wfii,
"Or, to put it another way: not all people who vote Republican are racists, but all people who are comfortably racist (not just subconsciously prejudiced) vote Republican."
I take it you have never been to Kennedy-voting South Boston. Or perhaps you forgot that in 1972 George Wallace won the Democratic primary in Michigan (I believe) and also barley lost Wisconsin. Not to mention your faulty assumption that all racism is on the part of whites (unless you think there are black Republican racists somewhere).
As for Tennessee and the South, it is true that many Democrats moved to the Republican party as the Civil Rights movement began to make gains thanks to LBJ and the federal government. But many white Democrats stayed with the party and preserved their racial attitudes.
For example, where are the black Democrats elected in majority white Democratic districts? Why has there never been a serious minority Democratic candidate for the 5th Congressional district despite the substantial vote from various minority communities. Where was all the white liberals when Nashville had the chance to elect a black Mayor? {Hint: They were off voting for the doomed Briley campaign instead of backing Gentry. I guess liberals don't need to consider diversity.}
And look at the 2008 Democratic presidential primary results. Where did Senator Clinton run us her largest % victories? Rural, traditionally yellow dog Democratic counties. Huge majorities of 5 to 1, 6 to 1 and higher.
You also undervalue the impact of immigration into Tennessee. Everywhere you see high growth, you see Republican gains. Most of this is people moving in from other states. Try a simple experiment. Take a disk of the registered voters in a county like Davidson and pull up the names by date of voter registration. Then look at the voting patterns in primaries. Recent registered voters trend heavily to Republican primaries. As you move back in time, that shifts. Growth is the engine for Republican votes in Tennessee over the last 30 years, not race.
Unless you want to argue that the majority of people moving into Tennessee from other states have been conditioned to racism by their racist parents...
fair points, Mark. i will retract my statement that "all people who are comfortably racist vote Republican."
and while the (probably racist) Boston southies you speak of, as well as many (probably racist) appalachian whites have tended to vote Dem even after desegregation, i think you will begin to see more regional self segregation aka "the big sort" (a sure driver of the GOP trending growth you see in TN), and I feel perfectly comfortable attributing that self-sorting to people who are uncomfortable with other races, religions, "the gays", and a black man named "Hussein" Obama in the White House, etc.
The GOP is no longer the party of small govt. They're not the party of unfettered markets (cf massive support for socialistic agri-subsidies). They're no longer the party of a humble, self-preserving foreign-policy (remember: the Dems were the globalist hawks until the 60s). They're certainly not the party of Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt. Nope, the GOP is the party of taxpayer-subsidized corporations, and they get people to the polls by stoking a fear of the "other".
