The Republican South: Democratization and Partisan Change / Edition 1

by David Lublin

Overview

This comprehensive and in-depth look at southern politics in the United States challenges conventional notions about the rise of the Republican Party in the South. David Lublin argues that the evolution of southern politics must be seen as part of a process of democratization of the region's politics. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 provided a sharp jolt forward in this process by greatly expanding the southern electorate.


Nevertheless, Democrats prevented Republicans from capitalizing rapidly on these changes. The overwhelming dominance of the region's politics by Democrats and their frequent adoption of conservative positions made it difficult for the GOP to attract either candidates or voters in many contests. However, electoral rules and issues gradually propelled the Democrats to the Left and more conservative white voters and politicians into the arms of the Republican Party.


Surprisingly, despite the racial turmoil of the civil rights era, economic rather than racial issues first separated Democrats from Republicans. Only later did racial and social issues begin to rival economic questions as a source of partisan division and opportunity for Republican politicians.

Product Details

ISBN-13:	9780691130477
Publisher:	Princeton University Press
Publication date:	01/22/2007
Edition description:	New Edition
Pages:	264
Sales rank:	968,915
Product dimensions:	6.00(w) x 9.25(h) x (d)

About the Author

David Lublin is Associate Professor of Government in the School of Public Affairs at American University. He is the author of The Paradox of Representation: Racial Gerrymandering and Minority Interests in Congress (Princeton).

Read an Excerpt

The Republican South

Democratization and Partisan Change

---

By David Lublin

Princeton University Press

David Lublin
All right reserved.
ISBN: 0691050414

---

Chapter One

INTRODUCTION

SCANNING SOUTHERN POLITICS for signs that the Republicans would replace the Democrats as the majority party used to be as futile as waiting for Godot.¹ In The Emerging Republican Majority, Kevin Phillips foresaw that Republicans would quickly gain an edge in presidential elections.² However, the pace of Republican gains below the presidential level was exceedingly slow in the former Confederate states as Democrats maintained their edge in all offices. The Democratic edge, moreover, was not a small one. For nearly three decades after the Civil Rights Movement transformed southern politics, the Democrats held the preponderance of governorships as well as congressional seats. Democratic dominance appeared even greater at the state legislative and local levels. In some southern states, located primarily in the Deep South, Republicans held almost no local or state legislative offices as late as 1980. A wealth of books and articles appeared trying to explain why the Democrats remained in power and Republican growth was so slow or elusive.³

The waiting finally appeared to end in the watershed year of 1994. In a backlash against the unpopular Clinton administration, Republicans won a majority of the region's U.S. Senate and U.S. House seats for the first time. Their share of state legislative seats also leaped upward, and Republicans took control of several state legislative chambers for the first time. Many analysts expected that Republicans would finally consolidate their majority during the remains of the 1990s. And yet, the Democrats did not collapse. The 1994 results did not represent a fluke, and Republicans did make further gains. However, by the end of the decade, signs appeared that the Democrats would not go gently into a political coma. Democrats actually gained seats in some state legislative chambers and won back control of North Carolina's lower house. At the same time, Democrats ceased losing seats at the congressional level and even temporarily won back some governorships.

CORE QUESTIONS

While undoubtedly dismaying Democrats, the scope of these changes places scholars of southern politics today in an advantageous position relative to their predecessors. Enough has changed that one can now talk about the southern partisan shift away from the Democrats and to the Republicans as a largely accomplished fact, rather than a matter for future speculation or even a process in its early stages. This book explores the following questions related to partisan change in the South:

• How should one measure partisan change and what has been the nature of partisan change in the South?
  
• What issues spurred Republican gains? Scholars have heatedly debated the comparative importance of racial and economic issues in driving Republican growth. More recent work suggests additional attention needs to be paid to social issues.
  
• Even if economic and social issues explain Republican growth more than previously thought, how does racial context influence southern politics? In a political system in which African Americans overwhelmingly support the Democrats and Republicans derive the vast majority of their support from whites, one suspects that racial context plays a key role even if nonracial issues play important roles in shaping the South's political terrain.
  
• What is the role of political elites in propelling or slowing partisan change? More pointedly, how do the actions of strategic politicians systematically affect the pace of partisan change? How much have issue differences between Democratic and Republican officeholders sharpened on the issues that propelled partisan change?
  
• How have institutions shaped partisan change in the South? In the wake of Reconstruction, the South created many new institutions to assure white and Democratic dominance. How have these older institutions, like the primary, that survived the Civil Rights Movement operated in the altered political environment? How have new institutions, like racial redistricting and term limits, aided the Republicans?
  
• Finally, what are the prospects for the future? Are the Republicans destined to continue their inexorable gains and dominate southern politics as the
  
Democrats did during the Solid South era? Or will the Democrats stage a comeback?

DESCRIBING PARTISAN CHANGE

In their seminal and provocative work Issue Evolution, Edward Carmines and James Stimson argue that "realignment" is no longer a useful concept to describe or explain partisan change.⁴ They contend that its meaning has been so debated and its definition tweaked so often to accommodate the latest theory that the term is no longer very useful. In a recent work, David Mayhew forcefully argues that the traditional theory of realignment, in which a critical election surrounding the new issue results in major changes in the composition of party coalitions and in the relative level of partisan support, poorly explains partisan change in American history.⁵ While it is tempting to simply utilize "realignment" as shorthand for "major partisan change" here, I avoid using the term to prevent confusion with the theories of other scholars or their particular use of the term.

Even if one does not discuss partisan change in the context of "realignments," one can nevertheless attempt to develop a typology of partisan change in order to more accurately describe and classify different types of partisan shifts. To prevent this typology from eliding into merely classifying various occurrences of partisan change according to which theory they appear to fit, it should depend largely on easily observable data rather than on theories about the causes of partisan change. Of course, different theories may explain the appearance of particular types of partisan change.

A Typology of Partisan Change

The first major means of classifying partisan change is how rapidly it occurs. Realignments that occur in one election might be identified as rapid realignments. In Dynamics of the Party System, James L. Sundquist outlines his version of "critical election" theory in which the voting behavior of the electorate quickly shifts due to the arrival of a new issue cleavage in the electorate.⁶ The support base of each party changes as does the overall level of support for each party-to the detriment of one and benefit of the other. In some cases, a new party displaces one of the existing parties. Although inspired by past scholarly observations of critical elections, I refer merely to "rapid" rather than "critical" partisan change in order to focus on the pace of partisan change and not on the much more complex question of whether or not a new issue cleavage explains the change.

In contrast, partisan change that occurs over the course of several decades can be labeled gradual. (I avoid the term secular, often used in the realignment literature, because this implies that partisan change is due to generational replacement.) Although partisan change is often described in the context of quick electoral upheavals, analogous to earthquakes, other scholars believe that partisan change can occur more gradually. Robert Speel, for example, argues that the shift toward the Democrats in presidential elections in New England was a slow process over several decades.⁷ As described here, rapid and gradual realignments are extreme types and some realignments may be accomplished relatively quickly over a few elections even if they are not wholly rapid or gradual.

The second major distinction among types of partisan change may be made between uniform and split-level partisan change. Partisan change has conventionally been conceived as the result of major events that cause shifts in elite and mass partisanship and alter voting behavior at all levels of government. In partisan change that is uniform, the shift in voting behavior and partisan officeholding occurs at all levels of government. However, increasing numbers of scholars have identified cases in which, at least temporarily over several elections, voters cast their ballots for different parties at different levels of government. Speel, for example, notes that New Englanders increasingly voted for Democrats at the federal level but often supported Republicans for state and local offices.⁸ Split-level partisan change may result in different voting behavior, and perhaps even different partisanship, for various levels of government. The Republicans may dominate in federal elections, while the Democrats usually win state and local elections.

Scholars have heatedly debated whether the very nature of partisan change has fundamentally shifted in America in the latter half of the twentieth century. Phillips and Sundquist separately argue for partisan change in the more conventional sense of a major shift in the preferences of voters and which party wins elections.⁹ However, Norman Nie, Sidney Verba, and John Petrocik and Martin Wattenberg argue that the electorate has increasingly become independent and less tied to any political party.¹⁰ Gary Jacobson's work on the rise of the incumbency advantage due to increasingly candidate-centered campaigns tends to support these conclusions.¹¹ Harold Stanley suggests a way out of this dilemma.¹² The voting behavior of the electorate may be classified not only according to their central tendency but also their variance. Electorates with a large number of truly independent or candidate-centered voters who often split their tickets have a relatively high variance in their support for candidates of a party and are relatively dealigned. Alignments in which most voters present strong partisan attachments and tend to vote a straight-party ticket are strongly aligned. Note that rather than being forced to dissect the partisanship of the electorate, which may be heavily subject to disputes over question wording on surveys, one can measure the intensity of the partisan commitment by looking at the variation in election returns. Rather than being at odds, the realignment and dealignment literatures are compatible with one another as both the central tendency and variance of the electorate can change over time. The average level of a party's support can remain the same even if there is greater variation between elections and support for individual candidates.

In line with this discussion, changes in voting behavior must persist for several elections in order to be considered a long-term partisan change rather than merely a deviating election. Temporary circumstances may cause voters to depart from their normal voting behavior. However, if they quickly return to the previous partisan pattern, it seems reasonable to classify the election as deviating.

Classifying Partisan Change in the South

Certain aspects of partisan change in the South are relatively easy to classify according to this typology. First, it is easy to declare that the South has experienced long-term partisan change rather than a few deviating elections. The Democrats have often bounced back after an especially dreadful election performance, such as 1980 or 1994, but they almost always have not regained fully their previous level of support. Nor have the Democrats been able to prevent the Republicans from achieving steady long-term gains. Even the Watergate scandal and the election of southern Democrat Jimmy Carter as president in the mid-1970s gave the Democrats only a temporary boost. The detailed description of Republican gains at the local, state, and federal levels presented in the next chapter shows that Democratic gains during this period were ephemeral and did not derail the steady process of Republican growth.

Although southern partisan change has been punctuated by elections of especially impressive Republican success, it is also not especially difficult to classify partisan change in the South as gradual.¹³ Since the mid-1960s, scholars have searched high and low for a specific election that transformed southern politics with nearly the intensity of Indiana Jones's search for the Ark of the Covenant. Claims have been made for many different presidential elections: 1948, 1964, 1968, 1980, and 1994. Much like cubic zirconia lacks the lustre of a real diamond, none of these elections quite fits the bill. In most cases, Democrats still held far too many offices in the wake of the election. Alternatively, the GOP made too many gains prior to 1994 for one to argue convincingly that rapid partisan change centered around this particular contest. Tracing the pace of Republican gains (see chapter 2) strongly suggests that partisan change was gradual. The pace of GOP gains may have varied over time in response to events with periods of relatively slow growth punctuated by impressive gains in one election, but they made relatively steady headway over several decades. Perhaps more important, they were clearly not the product of any one election. Many scholars suspect that even rapid partisan change tends to be accomplished over the course of several elections rather than a single contest.¹⁴

The debate over whether dealignment has accompanied partisan change in the South is a fierce one. Voters certainly became more likely to split their tickets in the 1970s compared to the 1950s.¹⁵ Scandals and a highly critical media encouraged voters to take a negative view of government and political parties.¹⁶ New scholarly evidence suggests that dealignment was relatively temporary and that partisanship is once again on the rise. Dealignment may have been a temporary side effect of the process of gradual realignment. Older conservative Democrats may split their tickets to express displeasure with national Democratic nominees. Alternatively, young conservative voters inclined to support the Republicans due to their stances on issues may often split their tickets if one or both of their parents are Democrats. Republicans frequently do not offer candidates for local or state offices, making it difficult to express support for the GOP for all office levels. Voters from the Solid South generation have joined the heavenly electorate in ever larger numbers as time has passed, so the share of southern white voters with strong long-term ties to the Democrats has shrunk. Additionally, the Republicans have run more candidates at all levels of government. Both trends likely have a positive effect on the willingness and the ability of new voters entering the electorate to both identify with and vote for Republicans.¹⁷

Larry Bartels contends that split-ticket voting reached its height in the late 1970s and that partisan voting has steadily grown since then.¹⁸ In the 2000 election, southern Democrats and southern Republicans both overwhelmingly supported their party's nominee for president.

Continues...

---

Excerpted from The Republican South by David Lublin Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

---

Table of Contents

List of Figures xi

List of Tables xiii

Preface xv

Acknowledgments xix

Chapter One

Introduction 1

Core Questions 2

Describing Partisan Change 3

A Typology of Partisan Change 3

Classifying Partisan Change in the South 6

Explaining Partisan Change in the South 8

The Historical Role of Race in the South 9

Political Elites and Partisan Change 15

Institutions and Partisan Change 20

Racial Issues, Racial Context, and Partisan Change 23

Racial, Economic, and Social Issues and Partisan Change 28

Outline of the Book 31

Chapter Two

The Pace of Republican Gains 33

Federal Elections 34

Presidential Elections 34

Congressional Elections 36

State Elections 40

Gubernatorial Elections 40

State Legislative Elections 46

Local Elections 53

Top-Down Republican Gains? 60

Conclusion 64

Chapter Three

Strategic Elites and Partisan Choice 66

Why Focus on Local and State Legislative Contests? 67

An Indicator of Partisanship 67

Strategic Behavior by Elites 70

The Local Elections Database 73

Candidate Recruitment 74

Republican Contestation of Southern Elections 75

The Incumbency Advantage in Local Elections 81

Conclusion 93

Chapter Four

The Role of Institutions 95

The History of Institutions in Southern Politics 96

Racial Redistricting in the Nineteenth Century 96

The Establishment of Primary and Runoff Elections 98

Racial Redistricting 99

Criticisms and Defenses of Racial Redistricting 101

Racial Redistricting Stimulates Partisan Change 104

Primary Elections 115

Enfranchisement, the Democratic Primary, and Partisan Change 116

Louisiana 123

The Initiative Process and Term Limits 126

No Party Labels on the Ballot:The Case of Virginia 127

Conclusion 131

Chapter Five

The Impact of Racial Context 134

Race Remains Central to Black Partisanship 135

The History of Black Partisanship 137

Maintaining Black Support for the Democrats Today 141

Racial Threat, Electoral Outcomes, and White Voting Behavior 146

National Elections 151

County and State Legislative Elections 155

County and State Legislative Elites 159

Submerged White Backlash? 162

Conclusion 170

Chapter Six

Issues and White Partisanship 172

Explaining White Partisan Change in the South 172

Racial Explanations 173

Class or Social Issue Explanations 174

Multiple Factors? 175

The Overemphasis on Racial Issues 177

Assessing the Relative Importance of Racial, Economic, and Social Issues 183

Racial Issues and Democratic Officials 183

Class, Economic Issues, and Partisan Change 187

Social Issues and Partisan Change 192

Comparing the Impact of Racial, Economic, and Social Issues 207

Economic Issues Remain Paramount 207

Racial and Social Issues Have Grown in Importance 210

Conclusion 213

Chapter Seven

The Future of Southern Politics 217

A New "Solid South"? 218

Issues and Southern Politics 221

Do Long-Term Trends Favor the Democrats? 223

Rising Minority Population 223

Supreme Court Attacks on Racial Redistricting 230

Appendix 233

Index 239

What People are Saying About This

Aldrich

This book offers a broad examination of factors relating to the development of the Republican party in the South, includes new and valuable data sets, and reflects what is now expected of David Lublin-his distinctive mixture of good social science, normative consideration, and commonsensical understanding of politics.
— John H. Aldrich, author of "Why Parties? The Origins and Transformation of Political Parties in America"

Stanley

This is an important, knowledge-enhancing, subject-enriching work on a topic of major significance in understanding American politics: recent decades of Republican growth in the South. It adds to our understanding of realignment and political change more broadly by its detailed consideration of the state of the parties. Issues, elites, and institutions--an appropriately broad but rare range of topics--figure prominently in the discussion. While many contend racial attitudes realigned southern whites from the Democrats to the Republicans, David Lublin emphasizes economic and social issues while recognizing the place of racial issues.
— Harold W. Stanley, Geurin-Pettus Distinguished Chair in American Politics and Political Economy, Southern Methodist University, author of "Voter Mobilization and the Politics of Race"

From the Publisher

"This is an important, knowledge-enhancing, subject-enriching work on a topic of major significance in understanding American politics: recent decades of Republican growth in the South. It adds to our understanding of realignment and political change more broadly by its detailed consideration of the state of the parties. Issues, elites, and institutions—an appropriately broad but rare range of topics—figure prominently in the discussion. While many contend racial attitudes realigned southern whites from the Democrats to the Republicans, David Lublin emphasizes economic and social issues while recognizing the place of racial issues."—Harold W. Stanley, Geurin-Pettus Distinguished Chair in American Politics and Political Economy, Southern Methodist University, author of Voter Mobilization and the Politics of Race

"This book offers a broad examination of factors relating to the development of the Republican party in the South, includes new and valuable data sets, and reflects what is now expected of David Lublin-his distinctive mixture of good social science, normative consideration, and commonsensical understanding of politics."—John H. Aldrich, author of Why Parties? The Origins and Transformation of Political Parties in America

Editorial Reviews

"The democratization of Southern politics, coupled with economic issues rather than racial issues, best explains Republican ascendancy in the South over the past half century of gradual partisan change. So concludes David Lublin in his valuable study challenging the conventional presumption that GOP gains in the South are premised primarily on the politics of race. . . . The book is clearly written, well organized, and well documented."

Political Science Quarterly

One of Choice's Outstanding Academic Titles for 2004

From the Publisher