• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Timeline: The Religious Right and the Republican Platform

NobleSavage

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2003
Messages
3,079
Location
127.0.0.1
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The "Southern Strategy" happened. Around the 1950s, the Dem party began more assertively supporting Civil rights issues, pushing southern racists away from the party. The Republican party made a conscious effort to court these voters by shifting more assertively against Civil Rights. A huge % of the racist and sexist bigots they were courting were deeply Christian and of the fundy variety that had grew out of the "Great Awakenings" in the 18th and and 19th centuries. Also, if you want to promote a worldview centered upon intolerance, hate, and inequality, there is no propaganda more designed for that purpose than Monotheism and the Bible.

IOW, religion and intolerance have a symbiotic mutually reinforcing relationship. The party promotes fundyism but at the same time is trying to appeal to the inherent values of fundyism to create a deeply committed base of voters that will guarantee them a certain number of votes and control of many states no matter how incompetent or truly insane the candidates are that they put forth.
 
Let's not forget about abortion. Before Roe v. Wade, Democrats had a huge religious "right" component.
 
In those days, one of the most powerful figures in the Democratic Party was William Jennings Bryant, Congressman, Secretary of State, and fundamentalist Christian, who late in life argued for the prosecution in the Scopes trial. It was a different time.
 
Actually, the religious right happened to the Republican Party, and it didn't start in the 1950s but in the 1970s.

There was a time in this country when there wasn't a "Christian" identity as much as there were denominational identities, and Baptists and Lutherans and Episcopalians and Presbyterians didn't consider each other to be part of the same club. For a candidate to say "I am with this denomination" would be considered a bit odd and a bit gauche.

It was Roe v. Wade that triggered the change, causing various ministers of various denominations to actually work together to create the "Moral Majority", which wasn't very moral and certainly wasn't the majority. But they did forge out a new paradigm of Christian identity and therefore Christian political identity.

Come the late 1970s, with the Moral Majority now a large cohesive force, they approached the Republican Party with a deal - you back our positions, we'll back you with votes. The Republicans accepted the deal, and the Moral Majority became the Religious Right.

And the vastly over-hyped Southern Strategy wasn't part of it.
 
Actually, the religious right happened to the Republican Party, and it didn't start in the 1950s but in the 1970s.

There was a time in this country when there wasn't a "Christian" identity as much as there were denominational identities, and Baptists and Lutherans and Episcopalians and Presbyterians didn't consider each other to be part of the same club. For a candidate to say "I am with this denomination" would be considered a bit odd and a bit gauche.

It was Roe v. Wade that triggered the change, causing various ministers of various denominations to actually work together to create the "Moral Majority", which wasn't very moral and certainly wasn't the majority. But they did forge out a new paradigm of Christian identity and therefore Christian political identity.

Come the late 1970s, with the Moral Majority now a large cohesive force, they approached the Republican Party with a deal - you back our positions, we'll back you with votes. The Republicans accepted the deal, and the Moral Majority became the Religious Right.

And the vastly over-hyped Southern Strategy wasn't part of it.

Sorry but the facts of history show you are wrong. Prior to 1948 Dems had a stronghold on the southern states, due to the pre civil war support for slavery. In 1948, the Dems national campaign had a very direct civil rights plank and that same year Truman desegregated the military. Southern Dem politicians and voters were outraged over this and many left the party, some forming the "Dixiecrats" who nominated the virulently racist Strom Thurman as their presidential candidate and their sole platform was pro segregation and pro Jim Crow.
[P]
We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race; the constitutional right to choose one's associates; to accept private employment without governmental interference, and to earn one's living in any lawful way. We oppose the elimination of segregation, the repeal of miscegenation statutes, the control of private employment by Federal bureaucrats called for by the misnamed civil rights program
[/P]

They had enough racist support in the south to win 5 previously stronghold southern Dem states, but Truman still won the election. After losing the election, most of the Dixiecrat office holders rejoined the Dems but their constituents increasingly moved toward the Republicans over the next 2 decades and were joined in 1964 by Strom Thurman who left to join the Republican party after the passage of Kennedy's Civil Rights Act, even though the Act was opposed by most southern politicians of both parties, it was a Dem bill and the only support for it in the Southern States came from Dems. That same year, 5 southern states (LA, GA, MS, AL, SC) that had all gone Dem in almost every election since the Civil war (except in '48 when Thurman ran against the Dems on a Jim Crow platform) all voted for the Republican Goldwater, and no Dem but Carter has won in those states since.

Nixon's and his strategists really seized upon the strategy of appealing to southern racists in 1968. The seeds of their approach were rooted in Nixon's 1960 loss to Kennedy. During that election, Kennedy pressured for the release of an arrested MLK while Nixon was silent. That led to near universal support for Kennedy among southern blacks, but Kennedy lost many southern white votes as a result, and just barely typically Dem southern states, due mostly to his southern VP running mate.
In 1970, Nixon's strategist laid out this approach of appealing to southern racist that had been developing over the last decade among southern Republicans, but never explicated to this degree:
"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.
"

Centuries of political speeches show that racism and Christian fundyism have gone hand-in-hand in the US since at least the rural southern Christian revivals of the late 1700's. Therefore, once the Republicans decided to go for the racist vote, this inherently meant going for the fundy vote.
 
For most of the 20th century, politicians avoided making religion an issue because in most districts, almost all voters claimed some religious affiliation, even if only to have a place to get married, of for their funeral. Bringing one's religion to the campaign was sure to alienate some part of the electorate, for no good reason. A Catholic candidate in Boston was running against another Catholic, but both of them wanted the Episcopalian vote. For the most part, religion was simply a non-issue because there was no controversy over it. This did change in the 1960's and racial tensions in the south did play a part.

Black churches became centers for the civil rights movement. Black ministers were community leaders and we all know the names of the most famous ones. The protestant white churches were politically divided. I remember a joke from the time, which I didn't understand until many years later:

What's black and white, and red all over? The Mississippi Methodist Conference.

Half the white churches saw desegregation as a message from God and the other half saw it as an order from son of a bitch Catholic from Massachusetts. It didn't help one bit when was replaced by a son of a bitch from Texas.

A lot is made about the solid South as a Democratic bastion, but this was mostly an illusion. The State Democratic parties were divided along lines that mirrored the Democrats and Republicans in the rest of the country. There was a liberal/progressive wing and a conservative wing. While the rest of the country pitted Republicans against Democrats, southern states pitted Democrats against Democrats and got basically the same results. In the 60's, a Louisiana governors election would start with at least 12 candidates. A few were strong enough to run a state wide election. This guaranteed a second runoff primary, which was the election, until 1977, when a strong Republican candidate, Dave Treen appeared in the general election. From that point forward, there was a steady migration of conservative Democrats to the GOP. Nothing much changed, except the labels.

The division of the protestant churches over civil rights, desegregation and abortion left the old line segregationist churches firmly in the Republican camp. As abortion became a settled issue, it was no longer a real campaign issue, but it continues to be an internal GOP issue, which is used to vet candidates. The abortion fight has been replaced by the Gay Rights fight. Conservative religious leaders want to use this issue to peel away voters from the middle, but it's a losing battle. The religious rhetoric used to keep the turmoil going, simply does not ring true with the majority of people. The only reason this has dragged on so long is general voter apathy. As the conservative religious right dies off, their hold on this issue will die with them. The demographics are in place and the change is inevitable.
 
A lot is made about the solid South as a Democratic bastion, but this was mostly an illusion. The State Democratic parties were divided along lines that mirrored the Democrats and Republicans in the rest of the country. There was a liberal/progressive wing and a conservative wing. While the rest of the country pitted Republicans against Democrats, southern states pitted Democrats against Democrats and got basically the same results. In the 60's, a Louisiana governors election would start with at least 12 candidates. A few were strong enough to run a state wide election. This guaranteed a second runoff primary, which was the election, until 1977, when a strong Republican candidate, Dave Treen appeared in the general election. From that point forward, there was a steady migration of conservative Democrats to the GOP. Nothing much changed, except the labels.

Yes, but don't you know, those grapes are probably sour anyway.

Good points about alienating alternate denominations.
 
... A few were strong enough to run a state wide election. This guaranteed a second runoff primary, which was the election, until 1977, when a strong Republican candidate, Dave Treen appeared in the general election. From that point forward, there was a steady migration of conservative Democrats to the GOP. Nothing much changed, except the labels.

Yes, but don't you know, those grapes are probably sour anyway.

Good points about alienating alternate denominations.

Wow. Blinded by belief isn't just a republican trait. How is it he doesn't know? He didn't interview each and every voter?
 
Sorry but the facts of history show you are wrong. Prior to 1948 Dems had a stronghold on the southern states, due to the pre civil war support for slavery. In 1948, the Dems national campaign had a very direct civil rights plank and that same year Truman desegregated the military. Southern Dem politicians and voters were outraged over this and many left the party, some forming the "Dixiecrats" who nominated the virulently racist Strom Thurman as their presidential candidate and their sole platform was pro segregation and pro Jim Crow.
[P]
We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race; the constitutional right to choose one's associates; to accept private employment without governmental interference, and to earn one's living in any lawful way. We oppose the elimination of segregation, the repeal of miscegenation statutes, the control of private employment by Federal bureaucrats called for by the misnamed civil rights program
[/P]

They had enough racist support in the south to win 5 previously stronghold southern Dem states, but Truman still won the election. After losing the election, most of the Dixiecrat office holders rejoined the Dems but their constituents increasingly moved toward the Republicans over the next 2 decades and were joined in 1964 by Strom Thurman who left to join the Republican party after the passage of Kennedy's Civil Rights Act, even though the Act was opposed by most southern politicians of both parties, it was a Dem bill and the only support for it in the Southern States came from Dems. That same year, 5 southern states (LA, GA, MS, AL, SC) that had all gone Dem in almost every election since the Civil war (except in '48 when Thurman ran against the Dems on a Jim Crow platform) all voted for the Republican Goldwater, and no Dem but Carter has won in those states since.

Nixon's and his strategists really seized upon the strategy of appealing to southern racists in 1968. The seeds of their approach were rooted in Nixon's 1960 loss to Kennedy. During that election, Kennedy pressured for the release of an arrested MLK while Nixon was silent. That led to near universal support for Kennedy among southern blacks, but Kennedy lost many southern white votes as a result, and just barely typically Dem southern states, due mostly to his southern VP running mate.
In 1970, Nixon's strategist laid out this approach of appealing to southern racist that had been developing over the last decade among southern Republicans, but never explicated to this degree:
"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.
"

Centuries of political speeches show that racism and Christian fundyism have gone hand-in-hand in the US since at least the rural southern Christian revivals of the late 1700's. Therefore, once the Republicans decided to go for the racist vote, this inherently meant going for the fundy vote.

That's not what I've read. Nixon carried about 60% of the black vote (the few that COULD vote) in the South. Nixon carried only three Southern states where Ike had carried five and six in his bids. Prior to the '60 election campaign Nixon was probably more identified with civil rights than Kennedy was. Kennedy had done pretty much nothing on civil rights while in Congress.
 
Has anyone checked the Democrat platform for 1912? If it was all about the South, then the Democrat platform from 1912 should have lots of references to God. I doubt that it did.

In 1912 the Republican nominee was William Howard Taft who was a Unitarian. Politicians didn't mention God or faith because those were taken for granted in those days. Religion was a non-issue at the national level. That's because religion was not under attack. It was when the Supreme Court banned prayer in public schools and since then in other venues as well as the promotion of sex education in the schools, the legalization of abortion by the Court and other issues that have intruded into areas that were either considered non-governmental or matters for state and local governments to decide.

How many times did the 2012 Democrat platform mention God or faith? I wouldn't be surprised if it mentioned it more than the 1912 GOP platform.
 
Has anyone checked the Democrat platform for 1912? If it was all about the South, then the Democrat platform from 1912 should have lots of references to God. I doubt that it did.

In 1912 the Republican nominee was William Howard Taft who was a Unitarian. Politicians didn't mention God or faith because those were taken for granted in those days. Religion was a non-issue at the national level. That's because religion was not under attack. It was when the Supreme Court banned prayer in public schools and since then in other venues as well as the promotion of sex education in the schools, the legalization of abortion by the Court and other issues that have intruded into areas that were either considered non-governmental or matters for state and local governments to decide.

How many times did the 2012 Democrat platform mention God or faith? I wouldn't be surprised if it mentioned it more than the 1912 GOP platform.

Imagine a Unitarian Presidential nominee today.
 
Has anyone checked the Democrat platform for 1912? If it was all about the South, then the Democrat platform from 1912 should have lots of references to God. I doubt that it did.

In 1912 the Republican nominee was William Howard Taft who was a Unitarian. Politicians didn't mention God or faith because those were taken for granted in those days. Religion was a non-issue at the national level. That's because religion was not under attack. It was when the Supreme Court banned prayer in public schools and since then in other venues as well as the promotion of sex education in the schools, the legalization of abortion by the Court and other issues that have intruded into areas that were either considered non-governmental or matters for state and local governments to decide.

How many times did the 2012 Democrat platform mention God or faith? I wouldn't be surprised if it mentioned it more than the 1912 GOP platform.

Imagine a Unitarian Presidential nominee today.

In 1952 we almost had two. Robert Taft, William Howard's son, just barely lost the GOP nomination to Ike. The Democrat nominee, Adlai Stevenson, was also a Unitarian.
 
Imagine a Unitarian Presidential nominee today.

In 1952 we almost had two. Robert Taft, William Howard's son, just barely lost the GOP nomination to Ike. The Democrat nominee, Adlai Stevenson, was also a Unitarian.

In today's politics, Unitarians are treated like Mormons were until recently. They are considered to be atheists who have a place to go on Sunday morning. Perhaps a Republican Unitarian Candidate could rehabilitate them, the way Romney brought the CLLDS back into the tent, but first, they would have to find a Republican Unitarian.
 
In 1952 we almost had two. Robert Taft, William Howard's son, just barely lost the GOP nomination to Ike. The Democrat nominee, Adlai Stevenson, was also a Unitarian.

In today's politics, Unitarians are treated like Mormons were until recently. They are considered to be atheists who have a place to go on Sunday morning. Perhaps a Republican Unitarian Candidate could rehabilitate them, the way Romney brought the CLLDS back into the tent, but first, they would have to find a Republican Unitarian.

Today, Unitarians ARE basically atheists who go to church. I'm not sure how much that was the case in William Howard Taft's day. Unitarians grew out of the Congregational Church (basically the Puritans), who disagreed on the doctrine of the Trinity. They claimed one God-not three-in-one-Gods. Hence, Unitarian. John Adams was a Unitarian as were some of the other founders.

Were there Unitarians who thought Jesus Christ, though not God, was still their personal savior? I suppose there might have been at one time, but doubt that there are any today.

You don't have to be Christian to be a Republican. After all, there are quite a few Jewish Republicans, and I'm sure there are a few Unitarians, and a whole lot who don't go to church. William Howard's great grandson, Robert Taft III was Governor of Ohio until 2006, but I don't know what religion a fourth generation Taft would claim to be, but Taft is still a good vote-getting name in Ohio. I suppose they are still active. Taft's have held lots of positions in Ohio over the years.
 
Your whole justification of the over-hyped sour grapes southern strategy is all about race and not about religion at all.

Racism and fundy Christianity are strongly related among whites in the US and have been for centuries. Theistic politics and anti-intellectual attitudes have been widespread and closely aligned within the American rural midwest and south for centuries. Theistic and anti-intellectual/science rhetoric has been coupled with racism and anti-immigrant sentiments since at least the mid 1800's. The ACLU was founded in 1920 to protect racial minorities who were being attacked for a combination of their ethnicity and "modern" secular politics, which to people in the rural white southerner were and still are parts of the same threat which is why the KKK gained so much popularity at the same time. The Scopes trial wasn't just about evolution, but about a culture war by white rural southerners against minorities, modernism, science, and secularism.

If you are going to get southern racists to switch political parties after generations of allegiance to Dems for their support of the Confederacy, then you need to do more than support racism in isolation because it doesn't exist in isolation. You also need to be the party of anti-secularism and pro-Christian theocracy which had been integrated into southern racism for centuries.

In sum, a desire to win the votes of southern white racists (which would mean winning the majority of southern votes) was the general goal, but appealing to religious sentiments tied into those racist views was a necessary component of any strategy that could hope to win those votes. In addition, once you made southern white racists the core base of your party, the strong theistic worldview that most of these people held would inherently come to determine the party platform on religious issues.
 
Has anyone checked the Democrat platform for 1912? If it was all about the South, then the Democrat platform from 1912 should have lots of references to God. I doubt that it did.

No, your prediction does not in any way follow from the Southern Strategy explanation. The Dems had control of the south because Lincoln was a Republican, as were his strongest political allies. The Dems did not need to market themselves to Southerners in 1912. They had them in their pocket.

In 1912 the Republican nominee was William Howard Taft who was a Unitarian. Politicians didn't mention God or faith because those were taken for granted in those days. Religion was a non-issue at the national level. That's because religion was not under attack.

Wow. You know nothing about US culture in the last century. Religion has always been a major political issue in the US, it just hasn't always been something that divided the two major political parties. The political rhetoric of the rural south during the early 1900s was identical to what you hear today from the most extremist right-wing Christian groups. Racism, anti-secularism, anti-modernism, and pro Christian "values" were referred to constantly and within the same speeches and writings. The KKK rose to power in the 1920s precisely because it was an integration of all these religious and racist sentiments that shared a violent fear of change. Read the transcripts and the popular press surrounding the Scopes trial of 1925 and it is rife with manifestations of the growing culture war between rural white religionists and the multi-cultural, secular, modernist, urbanites. Most of the rhetoric during that time came from cultural leaders, pastors, and organizations like the KKK rather than from national political office holders, because there was no clear party divide over religion, despite their being a strong cultural divide about it and many southerners and those in rural areas ringing alarm bells about the evils of secularism and modernism.
 
Back
Top Bottom