Have “Southern Strategy” and “values” wedge politics underpinned US Republican federal electoral successes? How and Why?

By: Suheyla M Ahmed

28 April 2008

The aim of this essay is to demonstrate the outcomes of Southern strategy and values for the US Republican Party resulting in the Republican federal electoral success. It will be argued that the Southern Strategy and Values wedge politics have underpinned the successes of the Republican in the election during many elections. The main focus will be on the 2000 election where Georg W Bush unexpectedly won the election and defeated Albert Gore the Democrat’s candidate. In order to understand how the southern strategy underpinned the republican federal electoral success it is necessary to go back to the history when Richard Nixon used this strategy to insure votes for republicans in the Southern States. The Southern strategy was a tactic which the Republican president Richard Nixon employed successfully to win over the Democrat candidate. Value is an issue which is influencing Americans political behavior is culture and value to an extent where it is argued that Americans politics is becoming more value-based. Gender, race and religion play important role in Americans political life, particularly during national elections.

Different sources have set different times for the first appearance of the Southern Strategy, for instance Chapin (2001), believes that the phrase Southern strategy was first introduced by political analyst Kevin Phillips more than three decades ago, accurately described the political situation of those years. Between 1948 and 1964 the South which once was a supporter of the Democratic Party was “up for grabs” (Chapin 2001).

For the Republican party, the aim of the southern strategy was to win the white working voters in the south through peeling away white voters in the heavily Democratic South (Benedetto 2005). It began in the mid-1960s, when Republicans blamed pro-civil rights Democrats for racial conflict and other racial problems and used this to encourage isolated white voters in the Southern states to vote for Republican (Benedetto 2005). To be more precise the Republican Party took advantage from racial polarization to gain more votes (Benedetto 2005).

The aim of developing the Southern strategy was to take advantage of the upheaval in the Southern Structure and its major goal was to transform the Republicans’ reputation as the party of Licoln, Yankees and carpetbaggers into the part that protects the white interests (Aistrup 1996, p.8). Assessing the Southern strategy it is agreed that it has been successful as presidents (Aistrup 1996, p.6)

As Democrats’ main focus was on Blacks’ issues, the Republicans used the opportunity to appeal to the angry White working men class; this resulted in driving a wedge between the less wealthy whites and minorities and shattered any possibilities for class politics (Stonecash 2000, p.732).

The South has been the battleground for the Republicans and Democrats. From 1880 to 1944, the 11 Confederate states only twice did not vote as a block for the Democratic Party (Chapin 2001). Thereafter a solid South has only appeared for four times, all for the Republican candidates which were Nixon as well as Reagan in their 49-state landslides, for Bush in 2000 and his father in 1988 (Chapin 2001). The 11 Southern states have not often been required to provide the electoral margin for presidential candidates (Chapin 2001). Precisely during the entire post-Civil War period, only four candidates had required Southern electoral votes to prevail over a loss and these candidates were Grover Cleveland , Woodrow Wilson , Jimmy Carter in 1976 and George W. Bush in 2000 (Chapin 2001).

Reconstruction was the first Southern strategy of the Republican Party (Chapin 2001). In this process blacks were combined with traditional poor whites in order to create a competitive political system (Chapin 2001). It resulted in successful election for President Ulysses Grant in 1872, the first election in which all the so called disloyal states voted again, and Rutherford Hayes in 1876 (Chapin 2001). After a compromise in 1877 which in it, it was agreed to withdraw Northern troops from the South “this strategy sputtered to a halt” (Chapin 2001).

There have been times where the candidates have had no need to employ Southern strategy, for instance in 1896 the Republicans won elections without having the votes from the South (Jim Chapin 2001). From 1872 to 1896 there was a slow decline in the Southern share of the national vote (Chapin 2001). William McKinley's great victory is seen to be a new era in which the Republican majority in the North was so great in number that there was no need for the Southern blacks (Chapin 2001). The South disenfranchised its blacks and many poor whites quickly (Chapin 2001).

In 1964, the Republicans changed their Southern strategy to a new model which was providing direct support for their Southern opposition to desegregation (Chapin 2001). This strategy cost them the outer South, but it gained them the Deep South. In addition, it detached the party from blacks, and that is proved to be permanent (Chapin 2001).

African Americans have long voted for Democrats, therefore “Republicans have been working aggressively to build the party's support among African-Americans”. Despite Republicans’ effort, during the 2000 election, President Bush only received 9% of the black vote (Benedetto 2005). According to Chapin (2001) there is no need for the Republicans to employ the Southern strategy, because their strategy has worked and now the Southern States have become the base of the Republican Party.

In the 2000 election, Bush was sure of Southern support, therefore his campaign concentration was on winning the North (Chapin 2001). In the election, Republicans’ Southern strategy in Florida was to reject as many votes from minorities and Black people as they can through different methods, such as using “outdated machines, improper counts and tabulations, inadequate access to individuals with disabilities and lack of translators for immigrants” (Hines 2002, p.72). Due to the fact that the governor of Florida was Jeb Bush who had taken many conservative actions against the Blacks, the plan was successful and Georg Bush won the election (Hines 2002, p.72). Studies show that there are evidence which suggest that there were a relationship between race and rejected votes in the 2000 presidency election. It is argued that compared to affluent counties with large white population, counties with large minority groups had a much higher rate of ballot rejection (Hines 2002, p.72).

According to Allen (2005) in 2005 the Republican National Committee chairman stated that Republican’s Southern strategy which was to exploit racial conflict for votes was wrong and referred to the two parties’ racial polarization as ‘not healthy for the country’ (Allen 2005).

It is argued that in recent years the American politics have become more value-based (Layman and Carmines 1997, p.751). Election studies from 1980 to 1992 show that cultural orientations have significant influence on American’s political behaviour, particularly when these cultural orientations are defined by religious traditionalism rather than material-postmaterial value priorities (Layman and Carmines 1997, p.751). Religion and religious-based cultural differences play a powerful role in contemporary American politics (Layman and Carmines 1997, p.753). Unlike many other democratic industrial societies, religion still plays an important role in the US and the country continues to be very religious (Layman and Carmines 1997, p.753). In its policies Democratic Party is increasingly associated with cultural liberalism while Republican Party is becoming more culturally conservative (Layman and Carmines 1997, p.752).

Surprisingly, in America politics cultural issues such as abortion, women’s rights, prayer in public schools, and homosexual rights are in the forefront (Layman and Carmines 1997, p.752). To set an example, Bush’s popularity was declining until before the 2004 election, when the issue of gay marriage came out in a perfect time for Georg Bush’s re-election as “it enabled the Republicans to obtain the necessary signatures to place anti-gay marriage referenda on the ballot in eleven states including the greatest prize of all Ohio” (Landy 2005, p.100). The referenda were passed in all the eleven states and this clarified that the majority of the Americans disregard of colour and race were against gay-marriage (Landy 2005, p.100). Bush’s position was clear as he was against gay- marriage therefore the voters’ decision to vote for Bush was guaranteed (Landy 2005, p.100).

It is argued that “the Republican Party is becoming the political home of religious traditionalists while the Democratic Party is becoming increasingly attractive to religious liberals and secularists” (Layman and Carmines 1997, p.753). Campbell (2006, p.104) stresses the role of religion and culture in Americans political life stating that American politics is further divided along religious or cultural lines. Kemmelmeier (2004, p.218) states that most candidates from Democratic Party are more liberal while candidates from Republican Party are more conservatism. Some studies show that compared to Democrat candidate supporters, Republican candidates supporters are higher in Authoritarianism (Kemmelmeier 2004, pp.218-219). In times of election, the evangelicals vote for racially conservative candidates rather than liberal candidates as they believe that seculars undermine their values therefore the white voters feel threatened by the existence of Africa Americans in their community (Campbell 2006, p.104).


The concern of Christian religious conservatives is not with the focus of new elites on nonmaterial concerns, but rather with their systematic secularism which refers to their “rejection of traditional religiosity and its associated cultural norms and the public and private policies” (Layman and Carmines 1997, p.753). This secularism had some consequences such as “the Supreme Court decisions to remove prayer from the public schools, banning state restrictions on abortion rights and the threatening of traditional sex roles and sexual morality by the motion picture industry” (Layman and Carmines 1997, p.753). These policies and their threat to traditional religious and moral values have resulted in political mobilization of conservative evangelical and fundamentalist Christians into American politics (Layman and Carmines 1997, p.753). It is argued that religiosity and value priorities are almost independent of each other (Layman and Carmines 1997, p.754).

It is stated that Republican identification is more associated traditional religiosity, while Democrats identification is more associated with Post-materialism. However, except the year 1984, religious traditionalism has had stronger effect than value priorities in American politics (Layman 1997, p.759). From 1980 to 1992 Party identification has been the most reliable predictor of the presidential vote, which has had the largest impact on the probability of voting Republican in each year. Except for 1984 election, race has been the only one of the noncukural variables to have a significant impact on the vote. It is now more obvious that cultural orientations have impact on American political behavior, but this is argued to be true only if these cultural orientations are defined by religiosity and not by Material—Postmaterial value priorities. In 1984, 1988, and 1992 elections religious traditionalists were more likely to vote for Republican presidential nominees, while value priorities did not have any impact on vote choice in any of these years (Layman and Carmines 1997, pp.762-764).

According to Layman and Carmines (1997, p.767) “when citizens are concerned about cultural matters, it is their religious orientation and not their level of Post-materialism that plays a principal role in shaping their political behavior”. Immediately, after the 2004 election commentators explained that Bush’s victory was due to the Republicans’ emphasis upon moral traditionalism and their debt to the religious rights (Ashbee 2005, p.210). One source has stated that ‘for Bush mandate, look no further than abortion and gay-marriage’, this shows the importance place of moral values amongst the American voters (Ashbee 2005, p.210). It is stated that Bush’s election campaign was based on morals values and in particular on national discussion over abortion rights and gay-marriage (Ashbee 2005, p.212). However other sources suggest that Bush’s victory is not due to Republicans’ emphasize on values but there are other reasons such as having a stronger national security (Ashbee 2005, p.215). Fear of another terrorist attack might have been a reason for mothers to vote for Bush in order to assure the safety of their children (Ashbee 2005, p.215).

Republican Party is not popular among women, therefore in America’s politics women are more attracted to democrats rather than Republicans and this has created a gender gap because men are more and more attracted to Republicans while women have stayed with the Democrats (Norrander 1999, p.566). This is true in both the North and the South as white men have left the Democratic Party to join the Republican more than women (Norrander 1999, p.574). The only difference between the North and the South is that both men and women have become more republicans and less Democratic (Norrander 1999, p.575). Additionally, the gender gap in the South mainly began when men dramatically moved away from the Democratic Party into the Republican Party (Norrander 1999, p.575).


In conclusion, in a number of elections the Southern strategy has underpinned the Republicans’ federal electoral success. The Republican Party has employed different Southern Strategy in different times all aiming at creating race conflict in order to win the poor white working men’s vote. The Republicans’ first Southern strategy was reconstruction. In regards to value as an element which is believed to be influential on elections, it is argued that American politics is becoming more value based. In addition, religion plays a great role in Americans political life to an extent where it affects their voting preferences as well. White evangelicals believe that seculars -the Democrats -are a threat to them therefore they rather vote for the Republicans. The Republican Party is said to be conservative while the Democratic Party is more Liberal. Evidence show that women tend to support Democrats while men support Republicans and it is the case in both the South and the North. The reason is because the Democratic Party shows a secular position on cultural values as well as economic and political issues.

References:

Aistrup, J.A 1996, The Southern strategy Revisited: Republican Top-down Advancement in the South, University Press of Kentucky, USA.


Allen, M 2005, RNC Chief to Say It Was “Wrong to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes, viewed 10 April 2008,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302342.html.


Ashbee, E 2005, The 2004 Presidential election, ‘Moral values’, and the Democrats’ Dilemma, Political Quarterly Publishing Co. Ltd, 76(2), UK.


Benedetto, R 2005, GOP: 'We were wrong' to play racial politics, USA TODAY, viewed 15 April 2008,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-GOP-racial-politics_x.htm.


Campbell, D.E 2006, Religious “ Threat” in Contemporary Presidential Elections, The Journal of politics, vol 68, No. 1.


Chapin, J 200, Why the GOP's Southern Strategy Ended, Part I, NewsMax.com Wires, viewed 10 April 2008,
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/2/23/172905.shtml.

Hines, R.I 2002, The silent voices: 2000 Presidential election and the Minority Votes in Florida, Western Journal of Black Studies, vol 26, No.2, USA.


Kemmelmeier, M 2004, Authoritarianism and Candidate Support in the U.S. Presidential Elections of 1996 and 2000, The Journal of Social Psychology, 144(2).


Landy, M 2005, Election in wartime: the president under siege, Prospective on Political Science, vol 34, No.2, USA.


Layman, G.C & Carmines, E.G 1997, Cultural conflicts in American politics: Religious Ttraditionalism, Postmaterialism, and U.S. Political Behavior, The Journal of politics, 59 (3), USPIR Reader, the University of South Australia, Adelaide.


Norrander, B 1999, The valuation of gender Gap, Public Opinion Quaterly, 63(4), USA.

Stonecash, J.M, Brewer, M.D, Peterson, R.E, Mcguire, M.P & Way, L.B 2000, Class and Party: Secular Realignment and the Survival of Democrats outside the South, Political Research Quarterly, 53(4), USA

Australian federalism needs major reforms to be effective in the 21st century: Options for reform

This statement comes from the fact that as time has passed by the world has changed and for the Australian federal government in order to be effective it needs to make major reforms and changes. Arguably this statement is shaped by some facts such as globalization and regionalism as well as other major changes and developments nationally and internationally. As political systems face challenges such as policy challenges politicians think of change and reform as a way of tackling these new challenges. Australian federalism has come across some important policy challenges such as water policy, tax policy and other constitutional issues. In this paper it will be argued that federalism needs to go under some major reforms in order to be effective in the ever changing political and economic and social system of the world, particularly at a time where the old system of federalism does not serve the citizens well. It will also be argued that federalism can still be an effective way of governing Australia as federalism has been successful so far, but there are some challenges and problems which need to be addressed. At the end of the paper some recommended options for reform will be discussed and highlighted.

    

In order to discuss federalism and reforms in Australian federalism first the term federalism needs to be defined. Federalism is a form of government system which is used in some important countries such as the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany and the Russian Federations (Lovell et al 1998, p.61). In a federal system, power is divided over existing territories and at least two levels of governments govern the country (Lovell et al 1998, p.61). One is central and the other one is based on state (Lovell et al 1998, p.61). This definition is a general definition, but all federal systems have their own distinctive character. In this case Australian federalism is distinctive from other forms of federalism around the world, although it has borrowed the idea of creating a federal system from other federal countries, particularly USA.

 

Generally federalism is viewed as one of the most effective governmental systems in dealing with "the twin pressures produced by globalisation – the upward pressure to deal with some matters at the supra-national level and the downwards pressure to bring government closer to the people" (Withers and Twomey 2007, p.4).

 

Federalism was first chosen for Australia in 1901 as a way of governing a number of states under one national government. According to Singleton et al (2006, p.77), one major reason for choosing a federal system of government for Australia is "the desire for a political arrangement of convenience, where existing interests and tensions make power sharing imperative if the various groups involved are to come together at all". Historically, the founding fathers chose federalism for Australia to protect the distinct responsibilities which were previously held by the colonies of that time (Singleton et al 2006, p.77). Also they wanted to create a national government in order to take care of issues such as foreign affairs and defence (Singleton et al 2006, p.77). Additionally, at that time federalism was the best option for Australia as arguing on other options was very difficult (Singleton et al 2006, p.77). Federalism has been beneficial to Australia in many ways. Some of the benefits of federalism for Australia are "protection for the individual by checking the concentration of power", "choice and diversity" and many other benefits (Withers and Twomey 2007, p.8).

 

For many years, federalism in Australia has been criticised (Withers and Twomey 2007, p.4). Over time the Commonwealth has used its financial powers as well as increased legislative power to intervene in states and their responsibilities (Withers and Twomey 2007, p.4). Such action by the Commonwealth undercuts the benefits of federalism for Australia and also worsens problems such as duplication and excessive administrative burdens (Withers and Twomey 2007, p.5). While in Australia centralism seems to be the order of the day, in the rest of the world, all steps are taken towards decentralisation and federalism (Withers and Twomey 2007, p.4).

 

Despite many advantages for Australia, federalism has been criticized in terms of "overlap and duplication", "vertical fiscal imbalance", "insufficiencies when individual states have different rules" and "too many tiers of government" (Singleton et al 2006, p.100). It is argued that federalism in this country has not served its citizens well (Fixing Australian Federalism 2008, p.30). There are some internal and external factors which undermine federalism in Australia and pose the question of whether federalism is the best system to govern Australia. External factors are regionalism, a more mobile workforce, privatization of public sector, globalization, internationalization, the republican issue and the difficulty and slow process of making states to implement policies Policy challenges as internal and globalization and regionalism as external factors (Singleton et al 2006, pp.118-119).

 

The following quote by Tony Abbott is a starting point to argue for reforms in Australian federalism. Abbott (2008, p.1) states:

Federalism means that bribing the states is the only way to improve water management in the Murray-Darling basin, to achieve academically-rigorous, national standards in schools or to reform public hospitals. In important respects, the federation is broken and does need to be fixed.

The above quote reaffirms the main statement of the paper which states that Australian federalism needs to go under major reforms. According to Williams, each year the federal structure costs Australia around $9 billion in wasted taxes. The inadequacies and bottlenecks of this structure are a barrier to the future prosperity of Australia (Williams 2008, p.1). The result of a federal system where Commonwealth has control over most of the money and States are in charge of expensive and growing areas such as education and health has usually been "a chronic underfunding of essential public services, along with an unfortunate misdirection of some of those funds, and excessive administrative duplication and red tape" (Williams 2008, p.2). These issues and many more have raised voices to bring about reform.

 

In late 1989, two areas which were "fiscal and constitutional federalism" were proposed to be reformed (Galligan and Walsh 1991, p.4). According to Galligan and Walsh (1991, p.4), these areas needed reform in order for the Australian federalism to continue its vitality in the economic and political environment of the twentieth century. Additionally, Galligan and Walsh (1991, p.15) stress the need for "a fundamental rethink" in Australian federal fiscal arrangements.

 

There are several other recommendations for reform in Australian federalism. For instance Twomey (2008, p.2) recommends focusing on three matters. The first one is "the relocation of powers and responsibilities between the levels of government (Twomey 2008, p.2). Second is the improvement of mechanisms for intergovernmental co-operation and third is the reform of financial relations between Commonwealth and State (Twomey 2008, p.2). In explaining the first area of focus to reform, Twomey (2008, p.3) suggests that matters such as housing, police and education should be under the control of states' governments while national government should deal with matters such as defence, foreign affairs and social security which equally affects all Australians. Twomey (2008, p.5) introduces the third area of focus as the most important and necessary area to reform in Australian federalism. According to Twomey (2008, p.5) two problems exist in that area. The first one is that the Commonwealth collects more than eighty percent of all taxes in Australia, while states' governments are responsible for services such as hospitals, schools, police as well public transport. Therefore, in performing their constitutional functions states remain dependent on Commonwealth grants (Twomey 2008, p.5).

 

The areas for reform in Australian federalism could be summed up as six reform ideas (Fixing Australian Federalism 2008, p.30). First, the roles and responsibilities of states and commonwealth need to be defined. Second, Commonwealth and states must collaborate in national economic reform. Third, the ways in which GST revenue across the states is allocated need to be changed. Fourth, vertical fiscal imbalance needs to be addressed. Fifth, "specific purpose payments (SPPs)" which is given to states from the Commonwealth needs to be reformed. Sixth, state taxation needs to be reformed (Fixing Australian Federalism 2008, p.30). It is stated that the current government is only interested in two of the above ideas to reform which are reform of SPPs and State-Commonwealth collaboration in national economic reform (Fixing Australian Federalism 2008, p.30).

 

Many of the suggested reforms could be achieved through co-operation and the transfer of power in areas necessary (Withers and Twomey 2007, p.5). Withers and Twomey (2007, p.5) also suggest that a constitutional convention could be a useful way to reach consensus on these reforms and to propose any constitutional amendments which could improves and develops the operation of the Australian federation in future (Withers and Twomey 2007, p.5). Singleton et al (2006, p.101) points out that the national and states' governments cooperate in many ways in order to form and implement policies for joint interest, however Abbott (2008, p.1) argues that further and better cooperation is demanded and needed for Australian federalism to perform better.

 

Although Australian federalism needs major reforms, making changes in the constitution is difficult as it has been written in a form which does not allow changes and reforms easily (Jaensch 1994, p.296). Similarly Mathews (1975, p.9) describes the Australian constitution as "inflexible" and points out that the only way to amend it is through referendum. However, Twomey (2008, p.7) suggests that Australia needs to take necessary steps towards reform in its federalism in order to position the country for the future. The current government may take steps towards a cooperative federalism but it is argued that this could be one step further towards centralization with "smiles and handshakes" followed by more Commonwealth intervention in states' policies (Fixing Australian Federalism 2008, p.37).

 

The twenty first century is described as the century for federalism nationally and internationally (Galligan and Walsh 1991, p.4). Internationally, the popularity of federalism is increasing because federal systems cultivate unity through accommodating diversity, and bringing governments closer to their citizens (Withers and Twomey 2007, p.6). It is suggested that federalism strengthens the democratic process through "increasing access to and participation in the political system, and checks the potential abuse of power" (Withers and Twomey 2007, p.6). Globalisation is an external force which influences the ways in which governments around the world function. As Withers and Twomey (2007, p.6) point out that in order to obtain the economic advantages of globalisation the respond of governments around the world to the pressures of globalisation have been joining supra-national bodies as well as decentralising power and granting greater functions and responsibilities on sub-national states and states (Withers and Twomey 2007, p.6).

 

When Kevin Rudd was elected as the Prime Minister of Australia in 2007, he proposed reform in the Australian federalism, however it is still not clear what the Rudd government means by reform as reforming federalism has different meanings for different people (Fixing Australian Federalism 2008, p.30).

 

In conclusion, this paper discussed federalism in Australia and options for reform. It highlighted some of the important areas to reform suggested by many people specialized in the area. It also pinpointed the benefits of federalism for Australia and the reasons for choosing federalism for Australia by the founding fathers. While highlighting the criticisms of federalism the paper argued that federalism is still an effective system of government for Australia as it is made up of smaller states and each state has the capability of governing the citizens while working in cooperation with the national government. In the paper it is argued that federalism is now preferred as the best system of government around the world.

References:

 

Abbott, T 2008, AUSTRALIAN FEDERALISM: RESCUE & REFORM CONFERENCE, viewed 25 December 2008, <http://www.tonyabbott.com.au/Pages/Article.aspx?ID=3672>.

Fixing Australian Federalism 2008, Vol. 24 No. 1, Autumn 2008, POLICY, viewed 30 December 2008,

<http://www.psmprogram.sa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/carling-2008-fixing-australian-federalism.pdf>.

Galligan, B & Walsh, C 1991, Australian Federalism: Yes or No, Federalism Research Centre, Discussion Papers, No.9, December 1991, Canberra.

Jaensch, D 1994, Federalsim Australian Style, in Parliament, parties and people, 2^nd ed, Longman Cheshire, Melbourne.

Lovell, D. W, McAllister, I, Maley, W & Kukathas, C 1998, The Australia Political System, 2^nd ed, Longman, Melbourne.

Mathews, R 1975, Innovations and Developments in Australian Federalism, in Federalism in Australia: Current Trends, Publius, The journal of Federalism, Summer 1977, vol 7, No.3.

Singleton, G, Aitkin, D, Jinks, B &Warhurst, J 2006, Australian Political Institutions, 8^th edition, Pearson Education Australia, NSW.

Twomey, A 2008, Australian Federalism: Options for Reform, viewed 1 February 2009, <http://www.deir.qld.gov.au/pdf/ir/conference/aust-federalism-options-reform-twomey.pdf>.

 

Williams,
G 2008, Now for the hard bit, Australian Policy Online, <http://www.apo.org.au/webboard/comment_results.chtml?filename_num=248188>.

 

Withers, G & Twomey, A 2007, FEDE RALIST PAPE R 1: AUST RALI A'S Federal Future, A REPORT FOR THE COUNCIL FOR THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERATION, viewed 3 February 2009, <
http://caf.gov.au/Documents/AustraliasFederalFuture.pdf >.