Talk:Dixiecrat

Wording in article

The original wording in the article used "[racial] conservatism" and "states rights" as a de facto whitewash/euphemism for white supremacist policy and the ability of states to legally institute segregation. Most Southern Democrats at the time couldn't be classified into either modern liberalism or conservatism. Many — including their ideological forebearers who predated them, such as Woodrow Wilson and Benjamin Tillman — supported white supremacy (supporting racial hierarchy; e.g. "right-wing") and economic redistribution (supporting economic equality; e.g. "left-wing") at the same time. (Of course, this didn't apply to all — Strom Thurmond was indisputably on the right in both aspects.) A multitude of historians, political scientists, and journalists in recent years have written about this, saying that summarizing their political thought as "left-wing" or "right-wing" is at best an inaccurate oversimplication and at worst actively misleading. I think it's improper for the article to portray it as "conservative" or "liberal" - and it will likely just confuse people. A lot of Dixiecrats were among the strongest supporters of the New Deal and hated big business... yet supported racial segregation and white supremacy.

Thanks. KlayCax (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

For sources on Dixiecrats being hard to ideologically classify on the political spectrum in the modern sense: see here, here and here. Per FT, Katznelson’s book goes on to show how both Congress and President were kept in a stranglehold by the veto power of the southern Democrats. The segregationist south was intent on preserving the rights of states to run their own affairs as they saw fit, but it came to support progressive political and economic policy from Washington DC. Katznelson suggests this was because it was in the south’s economic interest: it was poor and economically weak relative to the north and the New Deal offered it the chance of economic prosperity on terms the southern Democrats could live with. While the “Dixiecrats” made the New Deal possible, their support for progressive economic legislation was conditional on non-interference with the right to run their states on segregationist grounds. It's hard to characterize many pre-1990s American political parties in the political spectrum. Since many took positions characteristic of "both sides", including the Dixiecrats, Federalists, and Democratic-Republicans, et al. KlayCax (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

That would be called right-wing populism. Andre🚐 20:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

A lot of right-wing populists have made economically progressive-sounding rhetoric. I don't think that almost ever translates into actual distinct policy.

What economically progressive policies have figures such as Donald Trump, Jair Bolsonaro, or Heinz-Christian Strache instituted? Most right-wing populist grievance surrounds cultural, social, and religious concerns, rather than those in relation to economics. (Outside of possibly free trade. Depending on how you classify it.) You could arguably cite Marine Le Pen or Viktor Orban. But the sincereness of their position to "redistribute wealth" is in my opinion questionable at best and/or limited to campaign speeches. In contrast, Dixiecrats often supported actual left-wing economic policy. As The Nation describes it: "The main way the Democrats accomplished this for a very long time — from the 1830s until the 1960s — was by being both the economically liberal party [in terms of supporting economic redistribution; not economic liberalism] and the white racist party; indeed, many pieces of historic progressive legislation bear the names of Southern segregationists.

Additionally, modern conservatism in the United States is generally agreed to have begun as a backlash to Roosevelt's New Deal. The majority of Dixiecrats, including Thurmond's 1948 VP pick Fielding L. Wright, supported the economic aspects of the New Deal, while narrowing its extent to who they considered the Volk. That's why introducing the Dixiecrats as vague "conservatives" is misleading for the average viewer or outright euphemistic. (As the talk page abundantly shows.) Almost none opposed Truman because of his economic policies. A large portion (majority) of Dixiecrats supported stances that could be characterized as left-wing. (At least for whites.) It was Truman's racial policies were the centerfold of their rejection.

This isn't to say that the "Democrats are the real racists".

However, Dixiecrats don't fit into the modern day ideas of "left-wing" or "right-wing" easily; keeping it in the article will confuse readers more than help. KlayCax (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

You make a reasonable argument, but I will say that the area where right-wing populists have actually gone with what is traditionally considered progressive policy is protectionist tariffs. Andre🚐 23:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Andrevan:. Whether free trade is "left-wing"/progressive or "right-wing"/conservative has varied significantly throughout history.

The Federalists, Whigs, 1860s-1930s Republicans all generally favored protectionist policy during their histories. (Including Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover!)

In some aspects it's just a reversion to form. KlayCax (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Not really, because those parties were all the more progressive party of their time. The policy isn't what varies, but the party's platform. Maybe they wouldn't use the word progressive (but if sources do we should follow what they say, and not use our own editorializing and knowledge) but as you know, the Republicans were the party of abolitionism in the Civil War era. The Republicans were the party of Lincoln and Radical Republicans were pro-civil rights and and pro-voting rights until 1977. Jacksonian Democrats, although they wanted to expand suffrage, as you know, were trying to dismantle the federal bank, and the Whigs opposed imperialism, and advocated modernization and the rule of law. The Democrats and the Republicans, as you know, switched places during the 1960s: which is what this article is about. So I don't think a reversion to form is accurate at all. The Republicans of the pre-modern era were not the Republicans of today, and the Democrats were not the Democrats of today. But the policy itself can have a position if it is described as such. Andre🚐 19:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@Andrevan: I, mean. I think all of this shows how problematic the "left" and "right" spectrum really is. At least in terms of pre-New Deal politics. (Along with applying modern labels to pre-New Deal political movements.) The Federalists, Whigs, and 1880s Republicans all had policies that we would consider both nowadays, although at the time they were considered to be of the "right" of the Democratic-Republicans, Jacksonians, and Democrats. ("Right" and "left" issues often occurred outside of "government interventionism")

The Federalists opposed the French Revolution, advocated for centralization, tended to support more restrictions on the franchise, and emphasized with order and stability. (At the time, being on the "right") The Democratic-Republicans generally supported the French Revolution, opposed centralization, wanted expansions on the franchise, and populism. (At the time, being on the "left") Yet none of these positions can be condensed easy into the modern political spectrum.

Similarly, while it is true that Whigs supported economic intervention, opposed imperialism, and expanionism, ("left positions") they tended to support temperance laws, opposed immigration and a strong executive, and drew much of their support from conservative evangelical Christians. ("right positions") (The Federalists opposed and the Democratic-Republicans mostly supported the French Revolution — which was the original dividing line between "left" and "right" — by those metrics: the Federalists were on the "right" and Democratic-Republicans were on the "left".) The Democrats and the Republicans, as you know, switched places during the 1960s In terms of gaining the support of Southern white voters through the Southern Strategy, yes. I think that's quite indisputable. (See Mississippi and the rest of the Southern U.S. in the 1964 election.) But Democrats were to the economic left of Republicans since at least the 1896 United States presidential election. In terms of racial issues, both parties are far to the "left" of their predecessors. A 1870s Republicans would have almost certainly opposed interracial marriage, for instance. The overton window has simply shifted radically. KlayCax (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's relative, and it changes over time. But all we need to do is find reliable sources that describe it in a certain way. I agree it can't all be boiled down to left or right, but that doesn't mean we should remove all political spectrum descriptors. I agree that it's a bit reductionist and simplistic to say the Dixiecrats are right-wing if they had some left-leaning economic views. However all that really matters for article purposes is how sources describe it. If the sources describe it in a nuanced or conflicting way, we should portray that as well. I'm concerned that we're applying too much analysis when Wikipedia really just regurgitates analysis from experts. Andre🚐 18:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• I wouldn't be too broadly dismissive of the term "racial conservativism" as it has currency in academic works (e.g. [1], [2], or perhaps more revelant to our discussion here, this [3]), though naturally we can call something white supremacist if sources do call it that. With regards to the overall ideology discussion, as a former student of Southern politics I tend to agree that dropping a very broad modern political label into the infobox is probably not the best way of addressing this party's ideology. The Dixiecrats (and the Democratic Party as a whole) had plenty of ideological diversity well into the 1990s. This historical paper on Dixiecrat VP candidate Fielding L. Wright captures the dichotomy of the "left" economic vs "right" racial lean well. The Dixiecrats also included plenty of economic conservatives as well, but I don't think we can really argue one way or another what the economic ideology of this group was, considering the diversity of those opinions in the party at the time and the fact that it was predicated on racial issues, not economic ones. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

  I think that is reasonable - racial conservatism. Andre🚐 20:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

As @Indy beetle: stated: anachronistically applying labels like this is just going to be misleading and I don't believe there's a point in doing so.

As for "racial conservatism", there's nothing obligating us to use the term, and there's many reasons not to. Using the word "conservatism" — particularly in that era — carries foreamentioned connotative baggage. Many politicians and activists of the time don't fit neatly within the modern-day "left-right" spectrum and/or "liberalism"/"conservatism". That's just how history is.

We should avoid anachronisms if possible. KlayCax (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, "racial conservative/racial conservatism" is a term used by some experts to describe the ideology of the Dixecrat group e.g. [4] and one will often find it applied by political scientists/historians when talking about the South generally in the 20th century. "Racial conservatism" is a much more specific term than just "conservatism"; I was arguing that the latter would be inappropriate to use in the infobox, not the former. I do not know whether or not "racial conservatism" is a good label to use - I'd like to see more than one scholar explicitly apply it to the Dixiecrats before we adopt it as shorthand for the party's ideology. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I think there's definitely far better ways to describe their ideology. The term "racial conservatism" is in my mind far too euphemistic, isn't universally accepted in the academic literature, will just confuse readers, and is unnecessary. (e.g. Note that the way "racial conservatism" is usually measured is a rejection of this statement: If your party nominated a generally well-qualified man for president, would you vote for him if he happened to be [black]?”) Describing their policies accomplishes the same thing; it's more clear, to. KlayCax (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

We should describe it how ever the RS describe it, and indeed in this "white supremacist" and "racial segregationist" seem perfectly applicable. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I do agree we should stick to RS, so we should discuss how many use the term racial conservatism, and how much weight the sources that use this term have. The interpretation is always up to the reader, and we should avoid trying to interpret it for them. Hence, sticking to what RS say. We can certainly add more recent interpretations by scholars and journalists along with attributions etc...DN (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Is this not an anachronistic framing of 1940s-1950s politics?

@Darknipples:

This statement has multiple problems — for the reasons stated above — and in the contexts of the times a Dixiecrat could support both the New Deal and white supremacy: In a 2016 article written by David Neiwert for the SPLC, Niewart stated that "When the members of the Klan were Democrats, as in the 1920s, as well as in the '40s when they called themselves "Dixiecrats," they were conservative Democrats." A majority of historians — including Michael Kazin in What It Took to Win: A History of the Democratic Party — have stated that Dixiecrats couldn't easily be put in terms of modern day "liberalism" or "conservatism". Kazin, for instance, writes that the Dixiecrats predominately combined left-wing stances on economics with support of white supremacy.

Usage of "liberal" or "conservative" here is clearly anachronistic. "Conservative" in the 1940s means "opposition to the New Deal" — and per talk a lot of readers have already interpreted the quote this way. The Neiwert quote is predominately talking about the racial attitudes of Dixiecrats and it seems to be more of an opinion piece.

Sadly, at the time, progressives as much as conservatives combined white supremacy and left-wing economic positions together. (Until the 1960s)

As The Nation notes:

The main way the Democrats accomplished this for a very long time—from the 1830s until the 1960s—was by being both the economically liberal [In terms of economic redistribution; this is different from the European usage of "economic liberalism"] party and the white racist party; indeed, many pieces of historic progressive legislation bear the names of Southern segregationists. Even if the party can no longer live with that central contradiction, there will inevitably be many others.

We wouldn't say that Woodrow Wilson (who passed a ton of progressive policy but also combined that with utterly horrific attitudes towards race) was a "conservative" thinker. Would we? How would we classify someone such as William Jennings Bryan in 1896? Was he conservative (religion/evolution) or liberal? (on government intervention)

Attaching anachronistic labels to things is just misleading. KlayCax (talk) 02:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not clear what your basis for exclusion is, other than it being anachronistic. Frankly it feels a bit off topic, no offense. If you mean to say we should change it to "racially conservative" [5], that may be more plausible but requires sources and consensus. Are you unfamiliar with the SPLC? The context you are referring to in this article is clearly attributed, on topic and reliably sourced to that organization. That said, opinions from authorities on article subject matters are not usually meant to be disallowed from articles, unless they are FRINGE, off topic or there is no consensus for inclusion etc...

As far as I know you are the first editor I've seen with this objection, not to dismiss, just worth noting. If it is a WP:MOS issue that might make sense, but I think removing reliably sourced content will require more than your personal distaste for seemingly anachronistic context. Removing it assumes the reader is incapable of making that distinction themselves, and IMO is not strong enough to use as a sole reason for exclusion. We are not supposed to omit RS just because it may be considered by some to be confusing. There may be a way to fix this other than simply throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but again, it requires sources and consensus. Cheers. DN (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

If you mean to say we should change it to "racially conservative" I think we should use terms like white/ethnonationalism, white supremacy, and segregation, since this is what we're really saying in that context, rather than a term that's almost certainly going to lead more confusion than clarity.

"As far as I know you are the first editor I've seen with this objection, not to dismiss, just worth noting." There was an extensive discussion about this in mid-2022 on this talk page, with a general agreement that using terms such as "far-right", "conservative", "racial conservative", and the SPLC article, were either anachronistic or misleading in the context of 1940s American politics.

Without getting into the weeds here, it's important to note that many figures traditionally categorized as being on the "left" in American history at the time of their political careers, including Andrew Jackson, Benjamin Tillman, and Woodrow Wilson often supported white supremacist ideals. As a social democrat, it's sad, but just a fact.

@YB10: expressed the concern that: "this classification might not be appropriate in the US context, where the modern right-wing movement had emerged from the opposition to the New Deal. Similarly, @Cullen328: stated: ...most reliable sources describe their ideology as segregationist, or anti-integrationsist, or simply racist. We should summarize [that]...

On the matter of the SPLC article - there was similar widespread disagreement (and general opposition) to inclusion.

@Toa Nidhiki05: stated: "SPLC is not a good source for this"

@Rhododendrites: also opposed inclusion: "SPLC is generally a fine source when it comes to issues of racism in the US, but what's the point here?"

Social Democratic historian Michael Kazin states that the Dixiecrats can neither be considered comfortably conservative or liberal, for instance. Many other historians take similar stances.

The SPLC article only makes passing mention to the Dixiecrats and there's substantial issues that come along with including it. KlayCax (talk) 07:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

[6] Are you really so desperate as to use archived discussions to try and start an edit war, and avoid having to build consensus? Wow...I'm interested in what the other editors here think of this. Let's wait and see...DN (talk) 08:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

While I was trying to AGF, I'm also now concerned this could be seen as an attempt at WP:CANVAS...I'll step away for a while and let others decide. DN (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Lastly, and just to clarify, that archived discussion you linked to was about whether or not to label Dixiecrats as Far Right, not about inclusion of the reliably sourced context that you keep removing. DN (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Darknipples: I'm not trying to start any form of edit war. That's why I responded and tagged you (and previous people involved in the discussion) on the talk page.

I referenced the previous discussion in response to: "As far as I know you are the first editor I've seen with this objection, not to dismiss, just worth noting." I linked it to show that other editors, including the aforementioned, generally opposed the SPLC reference within the article. (It was later added back in by another user without consensus.) The archived discussion was linked to showcase that other users expressed significant concern about the source in question and that I was not the only one to express this.

Toa Nidhiki05 in particular (along with several others) repeatedly stated that the SPLC article shouldn't be included.

As for WP:CANVAS: it's expected that editors who are involved or cited are tagged. It would be bad etiquette of me not to. Rhododendrites, Cullen328, and EvergreenFir in specific (given their previous discussions on this talk page) disagree with me greatly on how the article should look - radically from my own perspective. (Whether it would be improper "racial conservatism" should be mentioned for instance.) Tagging the specific individuals involved in the previous discussion is normative and expected and was an attempt to build consensus.

And I don't want you to step aside in this discussion: I want to establish a consensus here that everyone can agree on. KlayCax (talk) 10:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

"I'm not trying to start any form of edit war" [7] Is that why you keep reverting without building consensus on the talk page first? Ignoring not just my arguments but the other editor's arguments as well. I noticed you didn't ping them too, by the way... "I linked it to show that other editors, including the aforementioned, generally opposed the SPLC reference within the article." - Your original complaint was in regard to it being "anachronistic", which was never brought up in archived discussion. They did not approve of the SPLC citation because it didn't explicitly support Dixiecrats as Far Right, which you would know since you read it and felt like sharing that discussion would help your case, especially after pinging the ones that disagreed with me there. It looks more like you are using a strawman argument as an excuse to ping other editors to come take your side. See WP:INAPPNOTE and WP:VOTESTACK. I'm unclear as to how I am expected to WP:AGF at this point, so by your own doing, we are done here for the time being. DN (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax appears to have misrepresented me above. I never said I was opposed to including the SPLC. Nearly the opposite. What I said was that we need good sourcing that used the term "far-right". That, and not the use of SPLC in the article in general, is the extent of it. I've reverted their removal of SPLC under those pretenses, as it was a line that did not include "far-right" and thus not that thread wasn't sufficiently relevant. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The Klan Is Right Wing?

Robert Byrd Democrat Senator and Klan Organizer/Leader

Bill Clinton said in his eulogy, "There are a lot of people who wrote these eulogies for Senator Byrd in the newspapers -- and I read a bunch of them -- and they mentioned that he once had a fleeting association with the Ku Klux Klan. And what does that mean? I'll tell what you it means. He was a country boy from the hills and hollers of West Virginia. He was trying to get elected."(as a democrat) "The family feeling, The clan loyalty, the fanatic independence,. the desire for a hand up, not a hand out, the willingness to fight when put into a corner -- that has often got the people from whom Senator Byrd and I sprang in trouble, because we didn't keep learning and growing and understanding that all the African-Americans who have been left out and left down and lived for going to church and lived to see their kids get a better deal, and have their children sign up for the military when they're needed -- they're just like we are"

According to wiki, Byrd's political career spanned more than sixty years. He first entered the political arena by organizing and leading a local chapter of the [Ku Klux Klan] in the 1940s

He then served in the West Virginia House of Delegates from 1947 to 1950, and the West Virginia State Senate from 1950 to 1952. Initially elected to the [United States House of Representatives] in 1952, Byrd served there for six years before being elected to the Senate in [1958 United States Senate election in West Virginia|1958]. He rose to become one of the Senate's most powerful members, serving as secretary of the [Senate Democratic Caucus] from 1967 to 1971 and—after defeating his longtime colleague [Ted Kennedy] for the job—as [Senate Majority Whip] from 1971 to 1977. Over the next 12 years, Byrd led the Democratic caucus as [Senate Majority Leader] and [Senate Minority Leader].

https://www.historynet.com/robert-byrd-consorts-kkk-grand-dragon/?f https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/wjclintonrobertbyrdeulogy.htm 184.170.78.152 (talk) 05:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

To answer your initial question: yes. Who have they politically endorsed the past few decades? Also check out Southern strategy. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Leading wording

Is there any idea what the mealy-peely wording in the lead is supposed to mean?

After the 1948 election, its leaders generally returned to the Democratic Party, at least for a time,[6] prior to the realignment of party ideologies that occurred over the next several decades.

Shouldn't we just say something like: 1.) "The GOP attracted the support of white supremacists/segregationists" 2.) While pointing out that many held "left-wing economic views" (at least for whites.)

I feel like we should just say that. KlayCax (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2024

change "faction" to "fraction" 151.251.246.140 (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Faction is the correct word EvergreenFir (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)