Talk:Dixiecrat

Party flag?

Following from these edits (@EvergreenFir), was the Confederate battle flag the party flag of the States' Rights Democratic Party? And if so, which version of the battle flag?

My edit substituted the text "Flag (representative example)" for "Party flag" because I could not find a source saying that the party officially recognized this flag, only that they adopted it as a symbol. So by way of analogy, is this a situation like the Gadsden flag and either the U.S. Libertarian Party or Republican Party—where members/factions of those parties have clearly adopted the symbol, even if the organization (I assume) formally has not—or is this like the BJP where the party actually refers to something as the party flag? Although there are probably more sources that we haven't found, PBS said "In 1948, the newly-formed segregationist Dixiecrat party adopted the flag as a symbol of resistance to the federal government." and NPR said "It was also the symbol of the States' Rights Democratic Party, or "Dixiecrats," that formed in 1948 to oppose civil-rights platforms of the Democratic Party.". Was the symbol used only used in the context of opposing the federal government, or generically to identify the party itself? To me, this isn't clear, so I went with the most conservative reading of the text. (Note also that "party" has multiple meanings that can refer to the members collectively, or the organization singularly—I read either as possible in this instance, because it isn't clear whether the party had coalesced into a formal organization with strictly defined rules, or was still nascent and generating norms based on individuals' own expressive choices.)

Then there's the issue of which battle flag, since it comes in different versions. Did the party care which one? Was there a specification or consensus, or was it that anything with the general appearance was sufficient to get the message across? If the latter, then the particular SVG in this article really is just a representative example (and not a definitive version). TheFeds 00:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

A brief search suggests you're correct that it was never the offical symbol. Pages 173-174 (link) here say that explicitly. But it does appear to be the de facto symbol. I don't think we need go as far as to say the image is a "representative symbol". Maybe just label it the de facto one? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

"Party flag (de facto)" is fine with me because it expresses that this apparently was not directly specified by the organization itself, while clearly noting that it was used as a symbol of what the party stood for; I'll edit accordingly. TheFeds 21:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@TheFeds Sounds great! Thank you for doing that. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@TheFeds:@EvergreenFir: To quote historian John M. Coski's The Confederate Battle Flag: The battle flag was not the official symbol of the National States' Rights Democratic Party—which the headline writers dubbed the "Dixiecrat Party". In fact, party leaders shunned symbols that implied a strictly regional identity. Significantly, it was party supporters, primarily young men, who most often waved the flag for the Dixiecrats. He goes on to note that Confederate flags appeared frequently during the party's formation and at rallies etc. and mentions Ralph McGill's critque before saying (p. 104) Instead [of the flag], the party's campaign materials featured bust portraits of candidates Thurmond and Wright with the legend 'states' rights'. One fundraising brochure carried an image of the Statue of Liberty with [various slogans about state's rights]... He goes on to note that some state executive committees of the party, namely the one for Alabama, did use the battle flag on their own materials, and that flags were to be found in many places Thurmond and Wright campaigned, despite their attempts to appeal to a more national audience.

I think it might be worth more fully discussing the party's use of symbols in the body text of the article. I also recommend removing the PBS News Hour article as a source with the quote "the newly-formed segregationist Dixiecrat party adopted the flag as a symbol of resistance to the federal government" which, in light of the scholarship, is misleadingly simplistic. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Your citation [1] goes on to say..."Significantly, it was party supporters, primarily young men, who most often waved the flag for Dixiecrats. The same young people who made the flag more visible as a symbol of collegiate high jinks and regional pride were the ones who thrust it into an increasingly ideological political arena. This coincidence inevitably tainted the ostensibly innocent uses of the flag and established a well-defined pattern for subsequent decades." page 101 (second paragraph) The Birmingham convention nominated Strom Thurmond for president and Fielding Wright for vice president. Thurmond reportedly strode to the dais to deliver his acceptance speech escorted by the Stars and Stripes and by the Confederate battle flag"...DN (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

It’s not far-right, it’s far left.

Inane trolling

The Dixiecrats were far-left, not far-right.-174.199.234.91 (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC) Provide references to reliable sources that support that ludicrous claim. Cullen328 (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC) I don't even know if it was far right, except in relation to the U.S. mainstream. Basically they opposed the Democratic Party's attempt to desegregate. But 37 senators would vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, including Robert Byrd, Sam Erwin, William Fullbright and Al Gore, Sr. TFD (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC) I have no idea what a Senate vote 16 years later has to do with this article about a political party in 1948. None of the four senators you mentioned were prominent Dixiecrats. Byrd probably voted for Strom Thurmond but his political career was in its infancy in 1948. The fact of the matter is that the Dixiecrats were the farthest right US political party in 1948. The left wing parties were the Progressive Party with former vice president Henry A. Wallace heading the ticket, the Socialist Party with Norman Thomas heading the ticket and the Socialist Workers Party, with Farrell Dobbs heading the ticket. Again, what reliable sources call the 1948 Dixiecrats far left or left wing? Cullen328 (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC) The relevance of the Senate vote 16 years later is that the Dixiecrats were a single issue party whose single issue continued to be supported by mainstream Southern Democrats at least 16 years later. Political parties generally aren't categorized according to current attitudes, but what they were at the time, otherwise any politician before the 21st century would be far right. Most literature on them do not refer to them as far right. And no, they were not left-wing. Their presidential candidate, Strom Thurmond, would later move to the Republican Party, becoming president pro tem of the Senate. While today, no one supports segregation except the far right, at one time it was supported by moderate Democrats in the South. Note that 4 of the 7 members of the Watergate Committee had supported segregation as politicians, but that didn't make it a far right conspiracy. TFD (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC, ) How is it “ludicrous?” They split from the Democrat Party. -24.227.34.10 (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC) At that time in 1948, the Democrats had many conservative voters in their base, especially in the south. It was not until 1972 that most conservatives left the Democratic Party. It is ludicrous because no reliable sources that I am aware of describe the Dixiecrats as far left. Cullen328 (talk) 06:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC) I don’t need reliable sources. That’s your job. -24.227.34.10 (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC) Actually you do to get an article changed if the content is sourced. Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Sources

Is nobody talking about these sources? There are two sources linked, literally from the same article but reposted on a different website. The original post, from WaPo, is also an opinion piece. This is blatantly incorrect sourcing.23.240.160.134 (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

That is indeed weird; I've removed the redundant HNN reference. (By the way, in the future, it would be helpful if you provided more precise information in your comment about what part of the article you're talking about.) --JBL (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Dixiecrat article likely falls under the umbrella of right wing populism

After noticing a recent edit [2], I did some searching... Atlantic, Wapo. It seems likely the Dixiecrat party falls under the definition of Right wing populism, as Strom Thurmond is clearly listed on Wiki's Right wing populism page. Populism is defined as "a range of political stances that emphasize the idea of "the people" and often juxtapose this group against "the elite" and is frequently associated with anti-establishment and anti-political sentiment". Political Science Professor Joe Lowndes "traces conservative populism, as we know it, back to the post–World War II Dixiecrat revolt against the New Deal" in the book "Populism's Power" by associate professor Laura Grattan... DN (talk) 06:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Politico " In Trump, many of the kind of white working-class voters once called Reagan Democrats have found a tribune who represents their views and values more consistently than conservative populists like the Dixiecrat George Wallace, the Old Right paleo-conservative Pat Buchanan or the “theo-conservative” Pat Robertson, all of whom faltered in their bids for the presidency...DN (talk) 07:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Campaigning for president in America 1788-2016 page 237 "Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat revolt both exhibited populist strains;"...DN (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

"Sixty-eight years ago, the public watched a dynamic similar to the Trump-Sanders moment play out as Harry Truman sought the Presidency, an office he had held since Franklin Roosevelt’s death, in 1945. Truman was pitted against the Republican Thomas Dewey but faced additional challenges from Henry Wallace, whom he had replaced as F.D.R.’s Vice-President, in 1941, and Strom Thurmond, the populist segregationist and South Carolina governor." The New Yorker - Jelani Cobb...DN (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

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)

• I wouldn't be too broadly dismissive of the term "racial conservativism" as it has currency in academic works (e.g. [3], [4], or perhaps more revelant to our discussion here, this [5]), 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. [6] 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)