Changing Party Coalitions: The Mystery of the Red State-Blue State Alignment

Sound Bite

Where did the so-called 'Red' states and 'Blue' states come from? What really occurred in the transformation of American politics, and why?

The author shows that narrow cultural issues are used to fragment the electorate, not because these issues are important but because of party strategies. Prof. Hough then explains how we can return to the healthy debating role that a two-party system is supposed to play in a democratic nation and why this is so crucial.

About the Book

In Changing Party Coalitions: The Mystery of the Red State-Blue State Alignment, Jerry F. Hough delivers a compelling exploration of the seismic shifts in American political alignments, offering insights into the origins of today’s polarized political landscape. This incisive work examines the evolution of party coalitions in the United States, unraveling the complex interplay of historical, social, and cultural forces that transformed the Democratic and Republican parties.

The Foundations of Political Realignments:

Hough begins by tracing the origins of the traditional North-South divide, highlighting how racial tensions among European-American groups historically shaped party loyalties. As these tensions dissipated in the 1960s and 1970s, European-Americans began to collectively identify as “whites,” paving the way for a dramatic realignment of political coalitions. This racial convergence marked the decline of the North-South conflict, setting the stage for a reshaping of America’s political system.

A Nation in Flux:

Hough provides in-depth analysis of the pivotal events of the mid-20th century—the Civil Rights Movement, anti-Vietnam War protests, and women’s liberation—that captured public attention while obscuring the deeper structural shifts within the political landscape. These movements, combined with the gradual erosion of traditional party alignments, led to the emergence of the Red state-Blue state dichotomy.

The Polarization of Political Culture:

Hough critiques the rise of cultural and social issues as central themes in electoral campaigns. He argues that this focus is often strategically employed by party elites to polarize the electorate and divert attention from substantive policy debates. This polarization fails to reflect the true diversity of opinions in America and undermines the potential for meaningful democratic discourse.

Challenges to a Healthy Two-Party System:

Drawing on his expertise in comparative politics, Hough provides a critical analysis of modern political strategies. By prioritizing wedge issues over core policy concerns, both parties have hindered the constructive debate necessary for a thriving democracy. Hough calls for a return to principled, issue-based coalition building that fosters unity while respecting ideological differences.

A Vision for the Future:

Hough concludes by proposing a path forward, emphasizing the importance of restoring balance to America’s two-party system. He advocates for political strategies that genuinely reflect the diverse needs and opinions of the electorate, urging both parties to rise above cultural polarization and focus on the broader challenges facing the nation.

A Scholarly Yet Accessible Exploration:

As James B. Duke Professor of Political Science at Duke University, Hough leverages his expertise in comparative political development and his extensive archival research to provide a nuanced perspective on American political evolution. His work offers a rigorous yet accessible analysis that is essential reading for political experts, students, and anyone seeking to understand the forces shaping modern American politics.

Changing Party Coalitions is a vital resource for readers looking to navigate the complexities of the Red state-Blue state divide and reimagine the future of American democracy.

Introduction

The 1950s through the 1970s were a period of great political turmoil in the United States. The media directed its attention at the dramatic events of the black revolution, the anti-Vietnam demonstrations, and the women's liberation movement, but some of the most fundamental changes were less visible. The relations between North and South were highly confrontational, but the period actually led to the end of the historic North'South conflict that had defined the America political system since the Revolution. This required a fundamental change in party alignment. The two parties have been groping for three decades to find a satisfactory new set of coalitions, but they have thus far failed. The red state'blue state alignment produces narrow and polarized electoral results in a society that is not polarized. Both parties have structured their economic policy so as to try to maximize their support in the upper class of the population ' the 25% of the population that makes above $75,000 a year in family income. Without any meaningful choice on economic questions, voters have been forced to choose between the parties on the basis of cultural issues alone. Those of middle income are highly alienated because neither party focuses on their economic interests, and the result may be explosive if major economic difficulties develop. In essence, the two parties have gone back to the period prior to 1933 when they did not compete on economic issues. The Constitution had been designed to guarantee autonomy for the South, and this was restored after the Civil War. The Democrats formed an alliance between the conservative Southern elite and the conservatives of New York and New Jersey, while the Republicans united well-to-do Easterners with populist Midwesterners. This pushed the Republican Party just marginally to the left of the Democratic Party on both economic and social issues, and Theodore Roosevelt correctly called the Democrats a party of 'rural toryism.'1 Today the middle income whites vote as if they believe that the Democrats are once again to the right of the Republicans on economic questions. In 1933, however, Franklin Roosevelt moved the Democratic Party from the right side of the economic spectrum to the left side, and he took measures that clearly were unconstitutional by existing Supreme Court interpretations and by the rules of the game that the Founding Fathers had established. Then in 1937 the President proposed an expansion in the number of Supreme Court Justices to force a change in its interpretation of the Constitution. The highly credible nature of the threat induced the old Court to reinterpret some of the powers of the federal government. Roosevelt's intention was to legalize his New Deal economic policy, but in the process he inevitably ended the historic guarantee of autonomy to the South. The redefinition of the powers of the federal government made a party realignment inevitable. Yet the actual realignment was to take over three decades. It only began when Truman proposed civil rights legislation in 1948 and when Dwight Eisenhower and Lyndon Johnson then enacted it. It was not completed until the 1980s. Indeed, the current alignment seems very unlikely to survive for any length of time in its present form. In part, the process of party realignment took so long because the old alignment itself had lasted for almost two centuries. But, in addition, ancient antagonisms greatly complicated the formation of new party alliances. Those between Northern and Southern white Protestants dated back to the British civil wars and probably earlier. If the South were to feature party competition, Southern Protestants would have to ally with at least some Northern Protestants and/or with different Northern non-Protestants. A new sense of community had to be created between North and South ' and at a time when the North was forcing the South to change its behavior toward blacks. The attitude of many Northern and Southern Protestants toward non-Protestants was even more hostile. The European-Americans outside the South had called each other 'races' prior to World War II, and the word connoted the kind of emotion we attribute to it today. Indeed, the phrase 'race, creed, and color' was not redundant, and 'race' referred primarily to white 'races.' A firm in the 1930s could answer a survey on its hiring practices by saying 'no colored hired in office [and] no discrimination as of race.' The greatest problem for European-Americans in the North in the 20th century resulted from World Wars I and II. Since almost all their homelands were at war, the European-Americans naturally reacted to US policy in Europe as the Cuban-Americans have reacted to policy toward Cuba. Yet the two main protagonists, the British-Americans and German-Americans, were not tiny minorities like the Cubans; each constituted a quarter of the white population. The conflict among European- Americans over European policy remained so intense after World War II that it produced McCarthyism from 1946 to 1954. In addition, while new coalitions and programs would be part of the new party alignments, their nature was not foreordained. As late as the 1950s and 1960s, politicians and political observers usually foresaw a continuation of the old party strategies. The Republicans had been the culturally liberal party of the middle class in the mainline Protestant churches of the North, and the party was building its Southern base among like-minded voters. It seemed likely to continue to do so. Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman had added Northern Protestants to the Democratic non-Protestant base with a New Deal economic policy and a moderately conservative cultural policy associated with the Catholic Church. This policy should have been attractive to many of the poor Evangelicals of the South who were suspicious of the mainline Protestant churches. The spectacular failure both of Barry Goldwater's 'red state' strategy in 1964 and then of George McGovern's 'blue state' cultural strategy in 1972 strengthened the expectation that old party programs would continue. Yet, in practice, the Evangelicals came to define the cultural face of the mainstream- Protestant Republican Party, and the McGovern supporters came to define the cultural face of the Catholic Democratic Party. The Democrats abandoned the New Deal economic strategy, and the two parties essentially ceased to compete on economic issues. The result was a highly unnatural and polarized party alignment based on cultural issues in a country that was not culturally polarized. The result was the neglect of economic issues in a country deeply worried about the economic situation and alienated from both parties because of it. The main purpose of this book is to analyze the unexpected change in party strategy since 1975 and to explain how such an unnatural new party alignment occurred. In addition, however, the book deals with the future. The stability of the present party alignments seems to depend on a high level of personal consumption based on personal debt, on the use of housing equity for consumption, on a foreign trade deficit, and on a low saving rate. If, as most economists agree, this is not sustainable, then the present party strategies and the strange red state'blue state alignment will be very difficult to maintain. If so, the political stratum needs to be thinking about new party strategies. This book is intended to help in that process. THE FORGOTTEN POLITICAL WORLD OF THE PAST In the two elections of the 1990s, the Democratic presidential and vice presidential candidates both came from Confederate states, and that Democratic ticket won each election comfortably. In 1994, the son of a prominent Connecticut Yankee family was elected governor of Confederate Texas as the candidate of Abraham Lincoln's party. He then won reelection in 1998 in a landslide. In the 2000 presidential election, both major-party candidates came from states of the Confederacy. The Republican Texan swept all the states of the Confederacy and also the three most southern slave states that had stayed with the Union. White Southerners voted overwhelmingly for this Republican. The only exception was Florida south of Orlando, an area that was settled largely by Northerners. When the National Cathedral in Washington, DC held a memorial service for the victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush approved every detail of the program. The closing number was the battle song of the Union Army in the Civil War, The Battle Hymn of the Republic. No one thought that this was strange. Instead, the service was universally hailed as a healing event that brought the country together. None of this would have been remotely possible as recently as the early 1970s. The Republicans had no chance in the South until 1952 and made no effort to compete. The Democrats had not nominated a presidential candidate from a Confederate or even a border state between 1848 and 1948.3 Indeed, no candidate from a former slave state was nominated until 1976 except for two vice presidents, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson, each of whom had become President when their predecessors died. A person driving through the United States in the 1940s and 1950s might hear The Battle Hymn of the Republic on the radio in the North, but never in the South. Instead, Southern radio played Dixie, the battle song of the Confederate Army. In other respects, too, the American political scene today would be unrecognizable to a sophisticated observer from the 1930s. The Democratic Party had primarily been the party of the South, and it had been on the right side of the political spectrum prior to 1933. It was truly revolutionary when Franklin Roosevelt shifted it to the left side of the spectrum during the Great Depression. Conservatives worried that Roosevelt, like the first moderate revolutionaries of the French or Russian Revolution, was unintentionally preparing the way for a more violent revolution and for dictatorship. The quite responsible Robert Taft, the son of President William Howard Taft, thought in 1936 that Roosevelt was introducing a socialist policy and worried that 'no democracy has ever succeeded in operating a socialistic state.' He added, 'I do not say, and no Republicans have said, that President Roosevelt is a Communist, but his policy of planned economy, if persisted in, will make democracy impossible.... Every radical party feels that four years more of Roosevelt will put it in a position seriously to enter the contest in 1940.' Racial concerns and issues were crucial in politics in the 1930s, but they were totally different from those we take for granted today. When top New Deal reformers were later interviewed, they asserted that no one gave any thought to blacks at the start of the Roosevelt Administration because the issue had no political importance.

Table content

Chapter 1. Introduction Chapter 2. The Old 'Irrational' Regional Alignments Chapter 3. Ethnic Diversity and the Old Party Alignments Chapter 4. The Making of 'the Whites' and Party Change Chapter 5. The Institutional Base for Party Realignment Chapter 6. The Republicans and the New Red'State Strategy Chapter 7. The Democrats and the New Suburban Strategy Chapter 8. The Red State'Blue State Polarization Chapter 9. Toward New Party Strategies Chapter 10. Conclusion Bibliography Index