Southern Strategy

Published in El País
(Spain) on 18 August 2017
by Jorge Galindo (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Megan Smith. Edited by Elizabeth Cosgriff.
In 1964, Republican Barry Goldwater was faced with both the establishment wing of his party and the Democratic presidential nominee, Lyndon Johnson, in one of the most important United States elections. The Civil Rights Act had just been passed following decades of campaigning by African-Americans. Goldwater took the first steps in what later became known as the Southern Strategy, collecting predominantly white votes from the center and south of the country. Such votes had historically been held by the Democrats, but had been lost in their movement towards equality.

Since Nixon, this movement ceased to be a minority in the party and was becoming the official stance. The Northeast urban and capitalist elite who dominated the Republican Party were then obliged to maintain a delicate balance between the pro-market proposals and economic freedom, as well as the anti-Washington discourse loaded with a racial charge—which was implicit at times, but not so much at others. In short, the organization welcomed the reactionary right into its orbit. However, the party always remained careful not to legitimize the most extreme of these reactionaries.

Trump, being an almost direct continuation of this mixture of Deep South, anti-establishment voters and the rich Northeast, has blown this balance to smithereens. Feeling cornered, with his popularity in decline, he has sought refuge in the support of those who will never abandon him.

According to the polls, there are around 25 percent of people who will stand by Trump, no matter what he does. And around 5 percent agree with white supremacy. The president is entrenched between those two figures. Aside from this, there are another 20 to 25 percent of potential voters who tolerate Trump and the reactionaries because they prefer them to the alternative. The polarization has worked, consolidating the massive gap between both parties.

The question is when will he stop?

At what point will Trump have gone too far for moderate Republicans? But, if they abandon the party, the Republicans will head in the same direction that they started in five decades ago.


En 1964, el republicano Barry Goldwater se enfrentaba al mismo tiempo al establishment de su partido y a la candidatura demócrata de Lyndon Johnson en unas elecciones decisivas para Estados Unidos. La Ley de los Derechos Civiles acababa de ser aprobada tras décadas de lucha por parte de los afroamericanos, y Goldwater dio los primeros pasos en lo que después se conocería como Southern Strategy, o estrategia sureña: recoger los votos, sobre todo blancos, del centro y sur del país que los demócratas, antes fuertes en aquellas tierras, dejaban de lado con su acercamiento a la igualdad.

Desde Nixon, este movimiento dejó de ser marginal en el partido y fue convirtiéndose en la línea oficial. La élite urbana y capitalista del noreste que dominaba el Partido Republicano se vio entonces obligada a mantener un delicado equilibrio entre las propuestas promercado y de libertad económica, y el discurso anti-Washington con fuerte carga racial: a veces implícita, otras no tanto. En definitiva, la organización acogió a la derecha reaccionaria en su órbita. Pero siempre cuidándose de no legitimar la versión más extrema de esas posturas.

Trump, siendo una continuación casi obvia de esa mezcla entre sur-interior antiestablishment y noreste rico, ha hecho saltar por los aires este equilibrio. Sintiéndose acorralado, con una popularidad en descenso, se ha refugiado justamente en el apoyo de los que jamás le abandonarán.

Según las encuestas, hay alrededor de un 25% de ciudadanos que aprobarán su gestión haga lo que haga. Y alrededor de un 5% está de acuerdo con los supremacistas blancos. El presidente está atrincherado entre esas dos cifras. Fuera queda el otro 20-25% de votantes potenciales: aquellos que, más bien, toleran a Trump y a los reaccionarios porque los prefieren a la alternativa. La polarización hace aquí su trabajo, claro, consolidando el abismo entre ambos partidos.

La pregunta es cuándo dejará de hacerlo. En qué punto Trump habrá ido demasiado lejos para los republicanos moderados. Pero, si esto sucede, lo hará recorriendo la senda que ellos mismos abrieron hace cinco décadas.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Ireland: We Must Stand Up to Trump on Climate. The Alternative Is Too Bleak To Contemplate

Australia: Australia Boosts Corporate Law Enforcement as America Goes Soft

Germany: The President and His Private Army

Poland: Ukraine Is Still Far from Peace. What Was Actually Decided at the White House?

Luxembourg: Thanks, Daddy: Trump Is Imposing Putin’s Will on Europe

Topics

Peru: Blockade ‘For Now’

Japan: US President and the Federal Reserve Board: Harmonious Dialogue To Support the Dollar

Austria: The EU Must Recognize That a Tariff Deal with Trump Is Hardly Worth Anything

Mexico: The Network of Intellectuals and Artists in Defense of Venezuela and President Nicholás Maduro

Hong Kong: Cordial Cross-Strait Relations Will Spare Taiwan Trump’s Demands, Says Paul Kuoboug Chang

Germany: The Tariffs Have Side Effects — For the US Too*

Ireland: We Must Stand Up to Trump on Climate. The Alternative Is Too Bleak To Contemplate

Canada: Carney Takes Us Backward with Americans on Trade

Related Articles

Peru: Blockade ‘For Now’

Japan: US President and the Federal Reserve Board: Harmonious Dialogue To Support the Dollar

Germany: The Tariffs Have Side Effects — For the US Too*

Ireland: We Must Stand Up to Trump on Climate. The Alternative Is Too Bleak To Contemplate

Canada: Carney Takes Us Backward with Americans on Trade