Grasping For Straws While Drowning in a Sea of Lies: The “Southern Strategy” Myth Rides Again

In 1981, Lee Atwater was recorded responding to an interviewer’s question by outlining a hypothetical strategy that would work for a political party to get Southern voter support. An audio version of that interview is here:

Well, not the entire interview, only the surgically edited “select” portion. Be sure to note the prejudicial introductory screens. Then, if you’re interested go here for a typical Leftist self-righteous view of Atwater’s interview.

What, exactly does the taped interview with Atwater actually say? In other words, what sort of historical facts does Atwater use in his hypothesis? Note that it is a hypothesis he is offering, not a revelation of an actual program, and also note that the tape stops well short of revealing the nature of Atwater’s thoughts. Now why would such editing be done? Why do network news crews do similar cut jobs? Are actual facts not in their favor?

What Atwater describes is a political party approach to appeal to white southern voters where…

“…you start out in 1954 by saying nigger, nigger, nigger. By 1968 you can’t say nigger, that hurts, there’s a backlash, so you say stuff like forced busing, states rights and all that stuff. And you’re getting so abstract now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all of these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites. [the tape stops here] And subconsciously maybe that is part of it, I’m not saying it.

But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract and that coded, then we’re doing away with the racial problem one way or another. You follow me? ‘Cause obviously sitting around saying, we want to cut taxes, we want to cut this, and we want–is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than nigger, nigger. So any way you look at it, race is coming on the back burner.”

Atwood describes three types of concerns that must be exploited in order to appeal to white southerners:

1) Racism, in 1954:

In 1954, which party was saying “nigger, nigger, nigger” in order to get the white southerner vote? Democrats. (Bull Connor; the defenders of Democrat conceived and perpetuated Jim Crow laws to suppress the blacks).

2) Racism and independence in 1968:

In 1968, which party was saying “forced busing, states rights” etc. in order to get the white southerner vote? Democrats. (e.g. Jesse Helms, D. S.C.)
http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-postwar/6101

3) Economic Concerns after 1968:

Starting with Kennedy and going through Johnson, Keynesian tax cuts were a Democrat program, renounced by Republicans due to the inflationary consequences.
http://chuck.hubpages.com/hub/Democrat_vs_Republican_Tax_Cuts_

So to which party was Lee Atwater referring? Not Republicans. He was describing the historical path taken by the Democrats as the race platform was being transformed by the actions of the Republicans.

Historically, Johnson turned the Democrat Party to Northern Democrats, as the Democrat party capitulated to its uber-leftist wing, turning from overt racism to covert racism via proto-socialism.

Nixon was pro-black, and Affirmative Action was passed under him.

When Reagan beat Carter, it was not due to race because the race issue was obsolete; it was due to twin disasters of Carter’s years: economic stagflation (which hurt blacks disproportionaltely), and cowardly foreign policy. Tax cuts held universal appeal, and the Iranian hostage crisis showed Carter to be weak and indecisive and irrational (he had already revealed the names of CIA operatives on the ground around the world, endangering their lives before they could get out of their operations). A further incentive for the southern voter to turn Republican was disaffection with unions. Plus, many southerners had long since soured on the New Deal progressivism, and the big government being espoused by contemporary Democrats.

Considering the South to be monodimensional around race is a stereotype necessary to the survival of the Leftist Narrative, which includes the generation of the myth of the Southern Strategy as a Republican conspiracy.

The myth of the racist Southern Strategy is based on purposeful misinterpretation of Atwater’s theory of how Democrat racism was phased out of the political conversation and into covert Leftist programs – due to pressure from Republican anti-racial accomplishments. It is accompanied frequently by the careful prejudicial editing of Atwater’s statement. When coupled with willful ignorance of actual history, Atwater’s “Southern Strategy” is morphed into a conspiracy theory regarding Republicans based on nothing whatsoever of rational value, and it is easily refuted by looking at historical facts and comparing them with what Atwater actually said.

As an unsupported conspiracy theory, it is useful in using faux racism for blaming Republican opposition to the Democratic Messiah/Victim programs which maintain the blacks in their Victimhood perception of too inferior to compete without the direct help of their Messiah grantors of largesse.

Not looking into facts while pursuing their tribal Narrative is specific to those who irrationally pursue conclusions which have false premises; this is done because the tribal Narrative is a moral imperative which must be rationalized however necessary. Truth must not defeat the Narrative. Desperation requires desperate actions.

Well, truth does, in fact, defeat the Leftist tribal narrative. QED.

In a worldview where there is no Truth, there also are no lies. Re-read "Rules For Radicals" occasionally to refresh your understanding of the Left and its claims. RFR, pg 26: "The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means."