The Contested Black Vote

The story of JFK winning the black vote and the election because of the decision to call Coretta Scott King on the occasion of MLK's unjustified arrest could use a little complication. Northern blacks started voting Democratic during FDR's time and were an important source of support for Harry Truman's re-election bid in 1948. But in 1952, the Democrats put Alabama's John Sparkman on the bottom of the ticket, and Ike picked up a bigger share of the black vote than Republicans had been getting recently. In 1956, Eisenhower got Adam Clayton Powell, Jr.'s endorsement and his share of the black vote went up further still to something in the neighborhood of parity.

The second Eisenhower administration featured a couple of high-profile fights on civil rights in which Eisenhower, Nixon, Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson were all playing slightly murky roles with everyone trying to play to incompatible audiences all simultaneously. But the stage had, in essence, been set for the GOP to make a strong play for regaining the loyalty of black voters -- they'd been making electoral inroads, the Eisenhower years had witnessed more progress on civil rights than any administration since LIncoln, and the Democrats were once again "ticket balancing" with a southern vice president. The 1960 election wound up not playing out that way, and then by 1964-65 the Johnson administration secured a civil rights record that left anything the Republicans had ever done in the dust.

Comments

Robert Caro's Master of the Senate does a great job explaining the "murky" role of both parties and each of these figures in the 1950s. Let's just say that neither party comes out smelling like the proverbial rose. Oh, and everyone who cares about politics should read that Caro book -- it's just about the best book on politics ever written.

Posted by IP Guy | February 17, 2008 4:44 PM

Well done, Matt. Caro makes it clear that the black vote was very much up for grabs in the 1950s (or so politicians perceived it), and that was a major reason for the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

Posted by Marshall | February 17, 2008 4:46 PM

Okay, reviewing Matt's post and IP and my comments, it looks like maybe the young liberal contingent ought to expand its reading list.

CARO RULES.

Posted by Marshall | February 17, 2008 4:48 PM

Except for that whole "abolishing slavery" thing.

Posted by Tom | February 17, 2008 4:53 PM

Actually, according to Gallup, Ike pulled only 21% of the black vote in 1952, but then shot up to 40% in 1956, thanks largely to Little Rock -- and then, in 1960 Nixon managed to pull fully 30%, partly, I imagine, because of Kennedy's Catholicism. After that, of course, the Deluge -- Goldwater got exactly 6% of the black vote, which has been pretty much standard ever since.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | February 17, 2008 4:54 PM

As you taught us in the previous post, be careful saying "ever."

Posted by John DE | February 17, 2008 4:56 PM

6% of the black vote, which has been pretty much standard ever since.

If the Dems nominate Hillary, the Republicans have a good chance of getting 70-80% of the black vote. It's a big demographic weakness for her (look at the primary numbers).

Posted by Barbar | February 17, 2008 5:09 PM

Barbar's either joking or wrong. Mildly amusing either way.

Couldn't agree more on Caro and Master of the Senate. Isn't Lisa Simpson shown reading it in one episode? I think that nails down the "young liberal contingent" marking, for sure.

I think Estes Kefauver was the VP candidate for the Dems in '56, and at least according to Caro the Southern senators couldn't stand Kefauver because he was way too liberal for their tastes. That may not argue against Matt's point, but I would guess that other factors were bigger.

I've heard that Hoover's handling of the Katrina-like aftermath of the 1927 Great Mississippi flood is what more than anything else set the stage for the great migration of African-American voters from the party of Lincoln to the party of FDR, but I haven't read anything about it yet.

Posted by mrsaturdaypants | February 17, 2008 5:18 PM

By the way, did we lose Petey? I frequently disagreed with him, but profited from reading his thinking. Have there been any sightings?

Posted by mrsaturdaypants | February 17, 2008 5:20 PM

Surely the relevant book here is Nancy Joan Weiss's Farewell to the Party of Lincoln, which argues that the main factor was FDR's economic policies.

Posted by Jeet Heer | February 17, 2008 5:28 PM

Be careful with "ever"- Lincoln is not the "Great Emancipator" for nothing, and the Grant Administration did a lot for civil rights (but a hostile Supreme Court and the end of Reconstruction tends to obscure it).

The 1927 floods did help to shift black voting patterns, but not too much, the New Deal's halting steps towards civil rights, and Truman's support for civil rights, was a much bigger issue. A big change in the '50's was that Stevenson was cool towards civil rights, no better then Eisenhower (who's feelings about civil rights was greatly circumscribed).

Estes Kefauver did have an okay civil rights stance. He was one of only three southern Senators (along with Al Gore Sr. and LBJ) who did not support the state's rights southern manifesto. Had he been at the top of the ticket in '56 (a real possibility), the voting patterns would have probably looked different.

Posted by Clashkid | February 17, 2008 5:42 PM

mrsaturdaypants, never despair. Petey is with us still.

Posted by Matt Weiner | February 17, 2008 5:54 PM

I was talking today with some friends about this LBJ quote about having lost the South for a generation; but might it not in part be the terrible strategy we have seen from the Democrats in my lifetime which explains why they lost it for two generations?

And let me say that if such a thing could happen, wouldn't it be awfully sweet if Barack Obama could be the one to really begin to reverse the Southern Strategy?

After all, at some point if Democratic turnout really did result in a massive victory, wouldn't even Southern conservative whites get tired of having no leadership on the major Congressional committees?

Posted by El Cid | February 17, 2008 6:02 PM

To think that African Americans would vote for Hillary after what they perceive was a huge slap in the face (BET CEO) is ridiculous. Nothing stays the same and I would fear that McCain is the right Republican to pick off many African Americans (who are more socially conservative). I see 60 to 70 percent as a likely number for McCain.

Posted by Eh? | February 17, 2008 6:07 PM

Good explanation, but we shouldn't imagine that black voters responded merely to platforms, policies, or even phone calls. A key factor was organization. During the 1930s, urban Democrats actively courted young black Republicans like William L. Dawson, who had a following in Chicago. Dawson's subsequent success at carrying the 2nd ward for the Democrats produced frustrated disbelief among Republicans and helped turn the 1960 election. Dawson's work on the Kennedy campaign gave him the power to push the Dems in a more progressive direction on civil rights issues.

Posted by AWC | February 17, 2008 6:51 PM

This part briefly made me wonder if I'd slipped into some alternate reality:

In 1956, Eisenhower got Adam Clayton Powell, Jr.'s endorsement

Because that wouldn't have been greatly different from, say, Jesse Jackson endorsing Bush Sr. in 1992.

Boy howdy, have things changed since 1956.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | February 17, 2008 7:00 PM

Thanks, Matt Weiner. Yep, that's Petey alright.

Thanks for the citation, Jeet Heer.

And good point, AWC. And I suppose this should go without saying, but I didn't really think about it in this context: it wasn't just the shift of African-American voters from the Republican to the Democratic party that was important in this context, but also the migration of so many American-Americans from the South, where they largely could not vote, to other parts of the country where they could. That so many of them then voted for the party that still controlled the South, and maintained white supremacy down there, goes a long way toward validating the point MY and others are making here: the two parties were just vastly more complex back then.

Posted by mrsaturdaypants | February 17, 2008 7:52 PM

mrsaturdaypants, thanks for bringing up the points about the Great Migration and Hoover's response to the floods. Those are the kinds of factors that many people, including myself, often forget about when talking about these issues, probably because when discussing major politicians one can be overly focused on their policies and personality and forget about secular social changes when examining why certain historical things happened.

I doubt that McCain will get a huge number of the black vote, probably no more than 25%, but that the bigger factor with the black vote will likely be many African-American voters just staying home, voting Green, etc. With that said, there is some anecdotal evidence that some African-American public intellectuals are starting to push the idea of a McCain protest vote. Then again, McCain is probably the Republicans' best chance of getting more black voters because he actually has suffered from anti-black racism once, back in the SC primary in 2000 when Bush or somebody race-baited his adopted daughter.

He's admitted that his previous stated support for Stars and Bars being flown over the SC state house was just pandering to racists and that he was wrong to do it (which somehow just once again feeds into his "maverick" persona because he admitted to it), so he opens himself to be the Republican who publicly admits that the party has been wrong for far too long on race, especially if he asks for penance and forgiveness on the issue in a religious manner (although that is a bit unlikely that he would do that). Bob Costas on Bill Maher was warning about how there is already talk about nominating Rice for VP to negate the effect of either white guilt or male guilt if either Obama or Clinton is nominated. If Clinton gets the nomination, we had better pray that Rice doesn't get the VP nod, especially if Clinton tries to win back African-American voters by blaming their economic woes on Latino immigration again (like she did in the debate), which would likely just mean that she would end up pissing off both African-American and Latino voters. McCain, after all, is the best major Republican for picking up the Latino vote as well due to his legislation sponsored with Kennedy and previous support for amnesty.

Posted by Reality Man | February 17, 2008 9:16 PM

Reality Man, the Republicans are looking to pick up the Latino vote is Obama wins the nomination, and the black vote if Hillary does. But not both, never both.

Posted by Thomas | February 17, 2008 9:39 PM

"Reality Man, the Republicans are looking to pick up the Latino vote is Obama wins the nomination, and the black vote if Hillary does. But not both, never both.

Posted by Thomas | February 17, 2008 9:39 PM"

Hopefully, but campaigns are dynamic, organic things. McCain's people may be lazy idiots when it comes to policy, but they are good at gaming the media and public opinion. If they see an opening to squeeze both on black voters and Latino voters, which can happen if we nominate Clinton, they'll take it. After all, if she continues on her path of bashing Latinos for hurting African-Americans economically as her way of shoring up black support, she will create an opening that the guy the far-right has nicknamed Juan McCain would be functionally retarded not to exploit. If it looks like he can get enough Latinos to outnumber the number of immigration restrictionist who would stay home (plus, the controversy is very much focused in states like Arizona, which he is going to win), they'll take it. Meanwhile, Clinton's gambit would probably not work because enough African-American voters know that the white politician who has race-baited you and is now race-baiting another non-white group will do it to you again, especially considering how often white racists in this country hate everyone who isn't white and how this same group often hates blacks, Latinos, Jews (which partly explains why all three have voted Democratic the past few decades) and now Arabs and Muslims most of all.

Posted by Reality Man | February 17, 2008 9:49 PM

Reality, I'm just think of realistic probabilities. Blacks and Hispanics have similar demographic and ideological positions. As groups, however, they--roughly stated, and in my view (I know there's disagreement)--see each other as rivals, and they just don't like each other much. That's what provides the Republican opening, not policy or personality so much as plain-old identity politics.

Posted by Thomas | February 17, 2008 10:22 PM

"Reality, I'm just think of realistic probabilities. Blacks and Hispanics have similar demographic and ideological positions. As groups, however, they--roughly stated, and in my view (I know there's disagreement)--see each other as rivals, and they just don't like each other much. That's what provides the Republican opening, not policy or personality so much as plain-old identity politics.

Posted by Thomas | February 17, 2008 10:22 PM"

To some extent. However, while there are some major disagreements between Latinos (and let's be honest: in the US for our purposes this means Puerto Rican and Mexican) and African-Americans in this country. However, the second-most common interracial marriage in the US is black-Latino couple. From my own experience, there are stronger social ties binding together black and Latino communities than either one to white communities. African-Americans, according to the polls I've seen, are less likely to hold negative views of illegal immigrants than just about anybody. There have been some major cases of black-Latino animosity relating to gange violence, but the vast majority of both populations are not in gangs. After all, Democrats could never really get elected in states like New York and New Jersey if they couldn't reach out to Latinos on Monday and then African-Americans on Tuesday without screwing over one community at the expense of the other. Hopefully McCain won't be the Republican to be able to make some inroads into doing both, but you never know.

Posted by Reality Man | February 17, 2008 10:33 PM

Hey Reality Man, thanks for the response. I see your points. My thinking has been that the bigger factors right now are (1) the fallout from Hurricane Katrina, which I think would dissuade most African-American voters from voting Republican in 2008 (if McCain were running strongly against Bush I would feel differently, but I don't see that happening), and (2) the reaction by Hispanic voters against the anti-immigration agitation by various Republican lawmakers. I think you're right that McCain is less vulnerable here than most Republicans, but I still think this will work against his candidacy.

But again, I see your points. But I think Katrina and the Tancredo Effect are the closest equivalents to the 1927 flood and the Great Migration here. We'll see in November.

Posted by mrsaturdaypants | February 17, 2008 10:36 PM

mrsaturdaypants, love the name. Hopefully you're right, but from a Democratic point of view, the Republicans have put forth the worst candidate for us to go against no matter who we would nominate. We stand a chance of him being enough of a crotchedy old man and campaigning like one that he'll sabotage himself, but I would have been a lot more comfortable if either Obama or Clinton would be running against Romney.

Posted by Reality Man | February 17, 2008 10:45 PM

"By the way, did we lose Petey? I frequently disagreed with him, but profited from reading his thinking. Have there been any sightings?"

I commented over at Ezra's post that he was oversimplifying the issue a bit. Matthew has added the proper shades of grey here, so I felt I had nothing to really add.

"Oh, and everyone who cares about politics should read that Caro book -- it's just about the best book on politics ever written."

Each of the Caro books on LBJ should be read and savored. They are the absolute cream of the political book crop.

Posted by Petey | February 17, 2008 11:00 PM

Condi Rice is a non-starter as McCain's running-mate. She is pro-choice and that's the last thing he needs, given his problems with the religious right. And given his rather advanced age, people are going to care more than usual about the Veep Candidate's positions.

Beyond that Rice is associated with the failures in Iraq. Running with her would make it impossible for McCain to distance himself at all from the Bush admin's shortcomings -even while remaining hawkish-as he has done so often successfully in the past.

Posted by Vito Marzullo | February 17, 2008 11:02 PM

The idea blacks and Latinos don't like each other seems a tad exaggerated. Indications are that Hispanics feel more tension than blacks, but neither views it as high.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/713/blacks-hispanics

If anything I think it's sort of reverse of what Thomas is saying. They have noticeably different demographic and ideological views. Religiously Hispanics are far more likely to be Catholic while blacks are far more likely to be Baptist or Muslim. So far Catholic Democrats are breaking in favor of Obama for some strange reason. Pentecostalism is relatively common in both groups, but Hispanic Pentecostal churches owe more to white US missionaries. Hispanic Pentecostals go Republican much more than Black Pentecostals. On average Hispanics are less enthused about affirmative action and somewhat more open to Republican ideas on the economy. Although Catholic Hispanics, in percentage terms, are more like Catholics in general and therefore somewhat less socially conservative than Black Protestants. Disbelief in evolution and belief that homosexuality can be "cured" are, I believe, more common in the black community. There are also differences in views of immigration and even in economic situation.

In some respects Blacks and American Indians would be more similar. American Indians are less Catholic ans more Baptists. They also have a longer history of grievance with the US than most Hispanics would. (There are Hispanics in parts of the Southwest with roots going back to when Mexico ruled there, but the majority are first to fourth generation as I recall)

Posted by Thomas R | February 18, 2008 12:29 AM

"Catholic Democrats are breaking in favor of Obama for some strange reason."

I meant Clinton.

Posted by Thomas R | February 18, 2008 12:31 AM

Good post, interesting comments. I'm always keen to see some nuance on this subject. Having grown up in the segregated South in which Democrats were the most ostentatious racists, and being aware that Eisenhower was the one who sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock to enforce Brown vs Bd of Ed, and that liberal Northern Republicans in Congress were crucial to the passage of the civil rights legislation of the Sixties, I've always been irritated by the automatic assumption that racism is just a Republican problem.

Posted by Robert Powell | February 18, 2008 1:54 AM

I know. Up to 2002 white Democrats were more likely to "Favor Law Against Racial Intermarriage."

http://sda.berkeley.edu:8080/quicktables/quicksetoptions.do;jsessionid=899915EEE0CD78F24C29971FD0AB66D0?reportKey=gss04%3A2

That link might not get you to it, but basically on the first deal select "Favor Law Against Racial Intermarriage" then pick "Political Party" for the breakdown. After that limit it to whites and 2002. It also indicates that in the 1990s white Democrats and Republicans were virtually identical in the percent supporting the idea "Whites Have Right to Segregated Neighborhood. White Democrats were slightly higher in "strong agreement" for the "segregated neighborhood" notion, but also somewhat higher in strong opposition of it.

(Although by political orientation liberals usually are less racist, against blacks anyway. Although the image of a white liberal New Englander who is basically clueless/patronizing about other races is almost a cliche)

Posted by Thomas R | February 18, 2008 3:19 AM

I have to ask all of those who keep predicting better, if not huge, numbers of blacks voting for Republicans in 2008, what in the world makes you think this is going to happen? Even though Bush did better overall by a point or two, and in some states like Ohio by a few points, he didn't do particularly well with black voters. The idea that McCain, who is every bit as conservative as Bush, if not more, is going to get 25% of the black vote, let alone 60-70%, is ludicrous. Even with several breaks in the campaign working against the Democrats, I just don't see where this newfound enthusiasm for conservatism is coming from. If Bush and the Republicans could only do marginally better in 2004 at or near the height of their popularity, what chance does this party have in 2008?

Posted by Brian | February 18, 2008 8:59 AM

"If Bush and the Republicans could only do marginally better in 2004 at or near the height of their popularity, what chance does this party have in 2008?"

Brian is right. The idea that the GOP stands a chance to pick up significant African American votes in the 2008 presidential election is bunk.
The GOP, Bush and the Iraq War all have much lower support among African Americans than anyone else. Most Blacks have not benefited in any way from the Bush tax cuts and were more likely to be shoved into subprime loans (even when qualified for prime loans). More households are living on the edge and the GOP's plan offer little relief.
The administration's horribly inept immediate response to Katrina, as well as the corrupt actions afterwards such as no-bid crony contracts, lack of rebuilding in lower-income areas of MS, appropriation of funds for stadiums, casinos, luxury real estate, continually remind people that Bush and his GOP enablers "don't care about Black people".

Posted by CParis | February 18, 2008 12:39 PM

I think the hope is, or should be, more that McCain will do better with Hispanics. In the beginning of the decade Hispanics were becoming more Republican, but in the last few years any such gains have ebbed. McCain's seen, rightly or wrongly, as more pro-immigrant and more sympathetic of the situation in Mexico. Likewise he's strongly critical of Castro, which is still appealing to large segments of the Cuban population.

The average black voter who identifies as "conservative" is most often conservative on social matters. At present the majority of black conservatives vote for socially conservative Democrats. Huckabee would, theoretically, do better with black conservatives than McCain. The average black voter who identifies as "moderate" is generally more US-liberal than McCain on economic and crime policy matters. McCain's maverick/liberal positions are in areas not often of great relevance to black voters.

I think he could do better than normal if Hillary wins and there's an urge to protest that.

Posted by Thomas R | February 18, 2008 11:14 PM