Southern Slavery Turns White People Into Republicans 150 Years Later

[Mighty AC]

A recent study by three University of Rochester political scientists found that:

"Whites who currently live in Southern counties that had high shares of slaves population in 1860 are less likely to identify as Democrat, more likely to oppose to affirmative action policies, and more likely to express racial resentment toward blacks."

The study shows this to be quantitatively true. It then offers the theory that beliefs shaped historically by slavery have since been passed down through generations. In short, it states that the sudden enfranchisement and emancipation of blacks seriously undermined southern white economic and political power. This led southern whites to enact racist policies and encourage violence towards blacks. This major event shaped the southern racist norms and cultural beliefs that have to some degree been inherited by subsequent generations.

The authors hope this study will encourage more researchers to explore historical roots when examining current political topics.

Think Progress Article: "Study Suggests Southern Slavery Turns White People Into Republicans 150 Years Later"

The actual paper: "The Political Legacy of American Slavery"

[TimG]

Edit: --decided i dont want to get involved in discussion--

Edited September 9, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

This is just a biased blog entry but it contains some pretty damning points which can be verified with other sources including the awkward fact that the KKK was started by and largely affiliated with democrats. In other words, the history of violence against blacks in the South is a largely associated with the democratic party.

Yes, of course. And what happened in 1964 ?

^] Johnson signed the revised and stronger bill into law on July 2, 1964.^[63] Legend has it that, as he put down his pen, Johnson told an aide, "We have lost the South for a generation", anticipating a coming backlash from Southern whites against Johnson's Democratic Party. Moreover, Richard Nixon politically counterattacked with the Southern Strategy where it would "secure" votes for the Republican Party by grabbing the advocates of segregation as well as most of the Southern Democrats.^[64]

The Democrat lost the racist vote.

[Michael Hardner]

I just figured, if we're going to admit there's a racist vote, let's look at the big picture, analytically.

[Moonlight Graham]

Nothing about this is surprising to me in the least, nor should it be to anyone. But it is interesting that scholars have attempted to use quantitative methods to back up the theory.

Still amazing that practices from hundreds of years ago still have such a big effect on peoples thinking and political ideology. I don't even know what we can discuss here, I just don't find the results of the study very controversial (though how they quantified "racial resentment" is not the greatest IMO).

[Shady]

The Democrat lost the racist vote.

Tat's a common misconception from people that think they know what they're talking about, but don't really. In reality, blacks had been drifting toward the Democrats, and whites to the Republicans since the mid to late 40s. Part of that had to do with FDR and the new deal, ie big government on steroids.

[Shady]

Nothing about this is surprising to me in the least, nor should it be to anyone. But it is interesting that scholars have attempted to use quantitative methods to back up the theory.

Still amazing that practices from hundreds of years ago still have such a big effect on peoples thinking and political ideology. I don't even know what we can discuss here, I just don't find the results of the study very controversial (though how they quantified "racial resentment" is not the greatest IMO).

In a way you're right. Practices still do have an effect on people's voting and policitcal ideology. Democrats tend to be anti-2nd amendement, that doesn't sit well with many southerners. Either does high tax, high regulation, big centralized government policies. Regardless, this is just another stereotyped, bigoted thread, started by the same usual suspects that have a history of anti-Christian, anti-Southern threads. I can't wait to see their new topic, Islam turns arabs into terrorists. But of course, that will never happen. Because in that regard, they suddenly undersand context and nuance. Why this forum continues to tolerate this garbage is beyond me. But to each his own I guess.

[Mighty AC]

So you feel the strong correlation between counties with high slave populations and Republican support is just a coincidence then?

[sharkman]

Edit: --decided i dont want to get involved in discussion--

You know, sometimes it's just not worth it. There are too many idiotic "studies" by the misinformed, the zealots and fools to bother correcting those who think something is true because they read it on the internet. There's a sucker born every minute.

[Michael Hardner]

Tat's a common misconception from people that think they know what they're talking about, but don't really. In reality, blacks had been drifting toward the Democrats, and whites to the Republicans since the mid to late 40s. Part of that had to do with FDR and the new deal, ie big government on steroids.

You don't think that the Civil Rights Act had a huge impact on the Democrats' image in the south ? Read about LBJ's career and his ascension thanks to the Southern Democrat bloc. There's more to it than just a drift towards parties - the Democrats had a lock on states like Georgia thanks to power brokers like Richard Russel, senator from Georgia. They saw LBJ's legislation as a stab in the back:

"After Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Russell (along with more than a dozen other southern Senators, including Herman Talmadge and Russell Long) boycotted the 1964 Democratic National Convention in Atlantic City.^[6]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Russell,_Jr.

I think you can trace historical voting patterns based on such things, but it's ridiculous to moralize far into the past as sometimes happens. We're talking about 50 years ago now, which was a different time. Even progressives would probably be considered racist by today's morals.

[Argus]

And it is mostly in the Southern states where the efforts at disinfranchising the black vote is strongest in 2013, esp with the new voter Id laws.

[TimG]

And it is mostly in the Southern states where the efforts at disinfranchising the black vote is strongest in 2013, esp with the new voter Id laws.

Voter id laws have nothing to do with race since there is nothing preventing blacks or anyone else from getting the requiring ID if they are an eligible. If they choose not that is not the fault of the law but rather the people that make that choice. Edited September 10, 2013 by TimG

[cybercoma]

You have a such a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of systemic racism in the Southern states that it's not even worth explaining to you how and why voter ID laws disenfranchise black voters. Just because some rule or law is applied equally that doesn't mean that it's not a disproportionate barrier to access for some people and thus a racist limitation.

[TimG]

Just because some rule or law is applied equally that doesn't mean that it's not a disproportionate barrier to access for some people and thus a racist limitation.

I am quite familiar with the ridiculous rationalizations used by democrats. But rationalizations do not make something true. As I said, there is nothing stopping eligible voters from getting ID. If they choose not then that is their choice.

And even if the one accepts the premise that such laws will mean fewer black people vote that does not make people who advocate such laws racist. Such laws are a perfectly reasonable requirement in a democratic system and it is perverse that democrats think that people should not be required to produce ID before voting.

Edited September 11, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

And even if the one accepts the premise that such laws will mean fewer black people vote that does not make people who advocate such laws racist. Such laws are a perfectly reasonable requirement in a democratic system and it is perverse that democrats think that people should not be required to produce ID before voting.

You are right about this but I ask whether the call for ID at the polls comes in response to a real problem, or rather whether it's a form of devious demographic gerrymandering.

[TimG]

You are right about this but I ask whether the call for ID at the polls comes in response to a real problem, or rather whether it's a form of devious demographic gerrymandering.

It is a rather ineffective form of gerrymandering because it can be easily defeated if people got off their butts and acquired the appropriate ID. If democrats really cared about black voter disenfranchisement they would organize campaigns to help people get the required ID instead of blocking what is a reasonable requirement in a democratic system. Edited September 11, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

It is a rather ineffective form of gerrymandering because it can be easily defeated if people got off their butts and acquired the appropriate ID. If democrats really cared about black voter disenfranchisement they would organize campaigns to help people get the required ID instead of blocking what is a reasonable requirement in a democratic system.

"If" - part of the genius is that they likely won't. There is always a demographic group that is last in certain respects.

The Democrats did organize such campaigns to get out the vote in 2008 and it was effective.

[Bonam]

The Democrats did organize such campaigns to get out the vote in 2008 and it was effective.

So what's the problem then? They can do it again. Getting an ID is no harder than registering to vote.

[Michael Hardner]

So what's the problem then? They can do it again. Getting an ID is no harder than registering to vote.

That's my question - what's the problem ? Why is this such a problem that the Democrats need to get their resources to help people get this done ?

[dre]

It is a rather ineffective form of gerrymandering because it can be easily defeated if people got off their butts and acquired the appropriate ID. If democrats really cared about black voter disenfranchisement they would organize campaigns to help people get the required ID instead of blocking what is a reasonable requirement in a democratic system.

Actually it could be very effective. Its easy to say that so and so can just "go and get an ID", but when you place even a small obstacle in front of one demographic that does not exist for another (because more of them have IDS in the first place) then you are guaranteed to see some kind of statistical swing in the numbers by placing that extra hoop to jump though.

Lets say most people voting for Jack had memberships at the yaught club, and those memberships cost 40 bucks. But only a minority of those voting for Jill had a membership at the yaught club. You would climb on here and say "Its fair! Jills supports can easily just go get memberships!". Problem is you are guaranteed to swing the vote at least a bit.

[dre]

So what's the problem then? They can do it again. Getting an ID is no harder than registering to vote.

That doesnt matter. Any obstacle at all will result in a swing in the numbers. I didnt vote in the last provincial elections because they moved the polling office from school gym a block away to the community center down town. I stopped by the school, and the parking lot was empty and I just went back to work.

[TimG]

Its easy to say that so and so can just "go and get an ID", but when you place even a small obstacle in front of one demographic that does not exist for another (because more of them have IDS in the first place) then you are guaranteed to see some kind of statistical swing in the numbers by placing that extra hoop to jump though.

My point is the small obstacle is easily overcome. If people are not willing to over come it then voting is obviously not that important to them. Edited September 12, 2013 by TimG

[jacee]

My point is the small obstacle is easily overcome. If people are not willing to over come it then voting is obviously not that important to them.

The point is that some people can't afford the cost of ID as they need food for their kids. So it has nothing to do with the importance of voting to them: They're effectively disenfranchised by low income.

And that disenfranchisement of the poor effectively benefits the wealthy and the established collusion between corporate power and political power.

Those of you who benefit from that established collusion will obviously try to keep the poor disenfranchised, dismissing and denigrating them as you have. If the 40+% of the population that doesn't vote suddenly started doing so, it could really upset your applecart!!!

I'd love to see that happen!

[TimG]

The point is that some people can't afford the cost of ID as they need food for their kids. So it has nothing to do with the importance of voting to them: They're effectively disenfranchised by low income.

If the cost of the ID is problem then the correct response to voter ID laws is ask that low cost/no cost IDs provided to people who don't need an ID for other purposes.

It is not acceptable to reject a reasonable requirement or, as is more typical, call people racist for proposing such requirements.

[Argus]

Voter id laws have nothing to do with race since there is nothing preventing blacks or anyone else from getting the requiring ID if they are an eligible

Voter ID laws are explicitely designed to prevent blacks and other poor people from voting. There is no argument to be made that they serve any other purpose.

Edited September 12, 2013 by Argus