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
Top Related