In the article “A Fault Line that Haunts the Democrats” by John Harwood, he traces the role that race has played in elections from the 1960s’ Civil Rights Movement to the present day, specifically in terms of its impact on the Democratic Party. President Johnson had predicted that the “landmark civil rights legislation he [Johnson] engineered would be met with a powerful backlash from aggrieved Southern whites.” (Hardwood, par 5) His prediction was ultimately accurate, which was made clear when “president Johnson lost five states in his native South – states that had historically voted for democrats.” (Hardwood, par 5) From this point on, Democrats lost multiple elections partly due to the loss of the white southern vote. William Martin’s book, “With God on Our Side,” provides a short description of Jerry Falwell and his ideological conversion from segregation to integration. Martin points out that “It is difficult to know just when Jerry Falwell changed his mind or public position on integration…”(Martin 58), suggesting that despite his public proclamations supporting integration, his ideological change was much more gradual. Southern whites, such as Falwell, lost confidence in the Democratic Party after the party’s move to support equal rights and it has taken southern whites decades to come to terms with the party’s base.
Bill Clinton has been a major factor in the recent expansion of the democratic base, because as Harwood states, “In 1992, Bill Clinton succeeded in broadening the party’s appeal to whites…” (Harwood, par 11) Nonetheless, the current election has brought the issue of race back and to the forefront, as evidenced by the fact that “one in five democratic primary voters in Pennsylvania said race was an important factor in their choice.” (Harwood, par 12) In this election, the Democratic Party is facing issues similar to those it faced during the 1960s because Obama has difficulties “connecting with working-class whites” and this “has become more consequential as the race moved to key electoral battlegrounds in populous states…” (Harwood, par 15) Nonetheless, as the article points out, Hillary Clinton has been able to create that connection with middle class southern whites and has continued to increase the prevalence of the Democratic Party within the white community. Now that she is no longer part of the democratic ticket for the White House, it is up to Obama to get these crucial votes. Will Obama be able to capture the southern white vote before the elections and how can he do it? Has America truly changed enough since the 1960s to see Obama in the same light as a white candidate?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Though I see Eduardo’s point when he compares Falwell's gradual shift to the gradual shift of the South as a whole, I don't think that it's fair to say that Falwell "lost confidence in the Democratic Party after the party’s move to support equal rights." While I agree that the Southern whites—previously the “Solid South” in support of the Democratic Party—I’m not sure Falwell ever had confidence in the Democratic Party since he was always a staunch supporter of the conservative movement.
Eduardo’s last question is an intriguing one (“Has America truly changed enough since the 1960s to see Obama in the same light as a white candidate?”). My answer is unequivocally “no.” I think it says a lot (of negative things) about our country that we still have to discuss the "white" vote and the "black" vote. The fact that there is such a large discrepancy in how the various races in America vote proves that whites AND blacks AND Hispanics AND Asians (and all of the other minority groups in America—this is by no means an exhaustive list) have still not been able to ignore candidates’ race. Americans need to stop defining candidates by their races and start viewing them as equals who just happen to present different ideologies. We all need to be accountable for this flaw in American voting behavior, and once we all recognize that this flaw exists, we can begin to move forward in reconciling our differences.
Eduardo provided a strong summary of the article, but more attention could have been drawn to “identity politics.” Identity politics is a strategy the Democratic Party has been notorious for implementing: appealing to certain pieces of the electorate, as opposed to the complete electorate. I found identity politics to be a major theme of the article, as supported by the historical timeline provided. The author followed the timeline with the Bill Clinton reference, in order to show how identity politics has resurfaced as powerful as ever, due mainly the Barack Obama’s campaign. In conclusion, I believe Eduardo should have mentioned how this strategy has plagued the Democratic Party, having lost seven of the past ten presidential elections. I did enjoy racial perspective Eduardo used in his blog post, which was undoubtedly a central theme in the article.
This is an interesting article, and the connection Eduardo draws between Fallwell's political leanings and the political trends of the South is quite compelling. I do think, however, that Jeff brings up a good point. The article makes it very clear that the Democratic party has found itself involved in so-called "identity politics" for some time now—to no great success. The focus on race within in the Democratic party of today is very similar to the Democratic party’s of President L.B. Johnson’s time. Whereas during the 60’s racial lines were drawn (largely) between the Republican and Democratic parties, there is today a racial divide among Democratic voters. “Identity politics” polarized the Democratic party during the primary season. This, I feel is the major point of Harwood’s article.
Post a Comment