Mary Salvi

Professor Kaplan

Southern Politics Seminar

7 May 2013

Religion and the GOP in the South

After Reconstruction, the South became almost monolithically

Democratic. The party of Abraham Lincoln, the Republican Party,

was lucky to win a few races in the Appalachian Mountains or in

the peripheral states. Indeed, respected political analyst V.O.

Key wrote, even as late as 1949, that the Republican Party in the

South “scarcely deserves the name of party.”1 At the time when

Key was writing, however, the first fissures in the support for

the Democratic Party appeared. The national Democratic support

for civil rights, President Harry Truman’s integration of the

Armed Forces, and other racial issues alienated some voters in

Dixie, but the Democratic Party was still better in the eyes of

most southerners than the Republican Party. The result was that

“Dixiecrats” remained in the party, but the Southern Democratic

party was somewhat different than its northern counterpart. By

1 Key, V.O. Southern Politics in State and Nation (1949), p. 277

Salv

1964, Republicans began making great strides in the South. The

Republican “southern strategy” worked well, so that by the 1980s,

the South was reliably “red.” One of the most significant reasons

for this dramatic change was the new liberal, more secular

character of the Democratic Party. Just as significant, however,

was the Republican Party’s embrace of the evangelical Christian

vote and “family values.” This embrace successfully solidified

GOP support in the South, but simultaneously has diluted the

Republican Party’s traditional support in the North.

The shift in the South from the Democratic Party to the

Republican Party was one of the most important political dynamics

in the nation at the end of the twentieth century. Even today,

the South is the new political “base” of the GOP. The party of

Lincoln has gone from having trouble even slating Republican

candidates in the South to depending on the region for its very

existence. The graph below shows the shift from Democratic

support for presidential candidates in the South from 1900 to

1992:

Salv

There are many scholarly works examining southern politics,

many of which predicted dramatic change for over 100 years after

Reconstruction. Because racial problems defined Southern politics

for so long, it is understandable that any change in the modern

South would be evaluated through a racial lens. V.O. Key himself,

for example, in 1947, predicted that change would come through

the Republican Party, which he believed would develop and become

the more moderate of the two parties in the South on racial

issues.2 Political scientists disagree on what “moderate” means

on the racial issue today, however. For example, Richard Scher,

in Politics and the New South, proclaims that Keys’ prediction

proved false: “He [Key] thought it likely,” writes Scher, “that 2 This arguably has happened, but not as Key imagined: the Democratic party has become beholden to a coalition of various liberal interests, some of which promote things that would have been unthinkable in America not too long ago. Far from Martin Luther King’s dream of treating people on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, the Democratic Party now supports affirmative action and quotas.

Salv

the Republican Party, as it developed in the region, would become

the more moderate of the two parties on racial issues. In fact,

the opposite occurred.”3

In any event, the point is moot, as the Republican Party’s

success in the new South cannot be attributed primarily to racial

issues. The Republican Party’s success in the South is based

upon the liberal leanings of the Democratic Party on social

issues and the pro-family, more conservative positions of the

Republican Party. The Republican Party, very simply, more

accurately reflects the values of the new South.

This change is not directly related to race. The Civil

Rights Act of 1964, for example, passed the Senate 73 to 27, with

21 Democrats and only 6 Republicans voting “no.” A far greater

percentage of Republicans than Democrats in the House and the

Senate supported this landmark legislation. More recently, the

Voting Rights Act renewal was signed by Republican President

George H. Bush in 2006, receiving a vote of 98-0 in the Senate.

Racism in America today—including the South—is fortunately

overwhelmingly recognized as an evil. For example, Democrat

3 Scher, Richard, Politics in the New South (2nd ed., 1997), p. 7, emp added.

Salv

Barack Obama, a black candidate, did better in the South in 2008

and in 2012 than the white Democratic candidate did for president

in 2004.4 Racial issues, then, were not the primary cause of the

dramatic political shift that occurred at the end of the

twentieth century in the South.

Rather, family and religious issues were at the heart of the

change, and continue to be the reason that southern states vote

Republican. The graph below shows the percentage of white

evangelical or born-again Christians nationwide in the 2012

election (26%) as compared to five southern states for which this

data is available.

4 See graph, page 2: Democrat John Kerry lost in the South in 2004 by more than Obama did in later elections; Obama received more than one point above John Kerry in 2008 and in 2012.

Salv

This voting block, which is overwhelmingly pro-family, pro-

marriage, pro-life, and pro-gun was clearly one of the most

important reasons the Republican candidate for president, Mitt

Romney, won in the South in 2012:

The result is that the South is now the foundation for the

new GOP. A view of the national map showing the 2012 election

results, with the Republican states in red and the Democratic

states in blue, says it all:

Salv

It is notable that the Central-West, which has never had a

history of racism, generally has the same “rural” values as the

South, and has proven just as reliable for Republicans as the

South.

These demographics, however, only tell part of the story.

More important than anything else in understanding the shift in

the South to the Republican Party are legitimately held

principles. Too often, scholarly works on southern politics are

written from the perspective of northerners looking down their

noses at the “problems” of the South. This type of prejudice is

ironic. Southerners today are not in fact the “rubes” or “hicks”

that academia and the media often portray them as. In most works

examining politics in the South, the region is seen as a problem

that needs fixing, with “bitter” voters who “cling to their guns

or religion.”5

It is true that the South is largely more conservative on

social issues than the North. This is the case even when

Republican voters in the South are compared to Republican voters

in the North. Former United States Senator Rick Santorum of

5 This is an actual quote by then-candidate, Barack Obama, about “rural” voters, made on April 10, 2008.

Salv

Pennsylvania, for example, was the most openly conservative

candidate on the social issues among Republicans in the 2012

Republican primary. Santorum swept the primaries in the South

held on March 13, 2012. This strengthened his campaign: he won

Mississippi by almost two points, and Alabama by 5 points. These

victories were even more notable in light of the fact that there

was a southern candidate, Newt Gingrich, on the ballot. Santorum

then lost to Mitt Romney in Illinois 47% to 35% on March 20,

2012. It appeared after the Illinois loss that his race was

finished. Then, four days later, on March 24, 2012, Santorum

trounced Romney in Louisiana 49% to 22%. This primary campaign

ended in a loss for Santorum, but proved that Republican voters

in the South are far more receptive to the social conservative

message than Republican voters elsewhere.

The fact that the South is generally more pro-life, pro-

marriage, and pro-gun is not a negative attribute—these are

deeply held convictions and principles which are consistent with

American values. Unlike the racism of the past, southern

activism today with regards to these issues should be welcomed.

It is a sign of political maturity; the South, which for a

Salv

hundred years carried the stain of slavery, an unsuccessful

rebellion, and racial bigotry has advanced past the shame of

those years. The South now is engaged in a very important

political battle, and many decent people in the North ally

themselves with several of these principed causes which are

popular in the South. The position of the majority of southern

voters on the issues of life, the support of marriage, and the

defense of the Second Amendment proves that in the last forty

years, the South has finally wiped off the dust of its checkered

past, and is now a respected partner in American Democracy.

This analysis might run contrary to the scholarly community

and the media, but let’s look at the issue of abortion/right-to-

life and gun control policy to examine if southern values are

antiquated or on the “wrong side of history” yet again. Below is

a graph of American attitudes on the issue of abortion and gun

control:

Salv

These graphs display in a dramatic fashion the fact that

America is moving toward the position long held by southerners on

these two very important social issues. Unlike the issue of race

during the twentieth century, the South appears to have been on

the right side of history: America is more pro-life and more pro-

gun today than ever. Regarding gun control, according to Gallup,

in 1991, 78% of Americans supported stricter gun control. By

2012, that number fell to 43%. While the recent Newtown

shootings may have a temporary effect on these numbers, the fact

is that support for gun-control has falled 34% in the last twenty

years, while opposition to gun-control has increased 26%.

Similarily, regarding abortion, according to Gallup, in 1995, 56%

of Americans considered themselves “pro-choice,” whereas only 33%

Salv

considered themselves “pro-life.” By 2010, for the first time in

American history, Gallup reported that more Americans consider

themselves pro-life than pro-choice (47%-46%). More

importantely, in what could portend a change in future policies,

young people are more pro-life than their elders. A 2003 Gallup

youth survey found that a full third of teenagers believe that

abortion should be totally banned under all circumstances.

Interestingly, this poll showed that teenagers in the Midwest are

more pro-life than teenagers in the South.

Other polls confirm this Gallup poll of teenagers on this

issue. It is interesting that only 33% of teens consider

themselves “pro-choice” compared to almost 50% of the adult

Salv

population. Also, statistically the younger the person, the more

likely that person is pro-life.6

The point is that while being pro-life, pro-gun, and pro-

marriage may not be popular among academic or media elite,

America is slowly progressing toward a more conservative

position, at least on the right-to-life and Second Amendment

issues. So, the South, famous for its social conservatism which

is at the heart of the huge shift to the Republican Party there

in recent years, may in fact be on the cutting edge—not at all

“backward.” The issue of marriage is a difficult one to

evaluate, as virtually everyone was supportive of traditional

marriage until recently (even the President, who changed his

position just last summer). While we may be on the cusp of a

dramatic change in attiudes on this subject, at this stage it is

too early to tell. There is no doubt, however, that those who

support the idea that marriage is between one man and one woman

can count on solid backing from voters in the South.

6 PROOF

Salv

Works Cited