Why have the Democrats struggled so much in this region? As is often the case, the answer lies both in the actions of the Democratic Party and the REactions of the Republican Party. For the Democrats' part, waning support in the South began in the early 60s. Up to that point, the South had long been the Democrats' strongest bastion, hearkening back to the days of Reconstruction immediately following the Civil War, a brutal event in American history perceived at that time by many Southerners to have been inflicted upon them by Abraham Lincoln, a Republican President. However, throughout the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, moves were taken toward sweeping civil rights legislation designed to further codify equality for African Americans. When President Johnson signed the legislation culminating from these efforts (the Civil Rights Act of 1964), he famously predicted (correctly): "There goes the South for a generation."
Of course, even these events would likely not have so polarized the South against the Democratic party had the Republicans not acted decisively to capitalize on the resulting void of political support. This reaction by the Republican party, spearheaded by Richard Nixon, became known as the Southern Strategy. Bluntly speaking, this strategy sought to exploit racism and racial fears among white voters in order to win votes in the South. It was wildly successful. Indeed, if 1960 and 1964 were the key elections in which the Democrats rolled the dice by backing controversial civil rights legislation, then 1972 was the pivotal moment in which the Republicans committed to exploiting this weakness for political gain. Nixon won reelection that year in one of the most decisive electoral blowouts ever seen in American political history:
While deplorable in many senses, it is undeniable that this strategy worked very well. Campaign ads seeking to exploit racial fears continue even up to today. The most notable contemporary example of this is surely the advertisement run by the Republican National Committee during the 2006 Senate race in Tennessee implying an 'inappropriate' relationship between the Democrat, African American Harold Ford Jr., and a white woman. A broader legacy of the Southern strategy today may in fact be the inclination for dirty campaigning. (If I am correct in positing this general connection between the Southern Strategy and the evolution of modern dirty campaigning, then Obama's attempt to paint himself simultaneously as a post-racial candidate who seeks to move beyond such partisan politics seems all the most poignant.)
Regardless, the results from this most recent election seem to demonstrate that a Democrat can resoundingly win without the heartland of the South. Thomas F. Schaller had put forth this idea in recent years, arguing in his book "Whistling Past Dixie" that Democrats could win presidential elections by focusing on regions outside of the South (and should do so as the South is increasingly irrevocably opposed to the Democratic platform). Sure enough, Obama won a decisive electoral victory both as a non-Southerner and as an extremely liberal politician who did relatively little to move to the right during the election. I believe this happens for two primary reasons.
First, the electoral 'strength' of the South has become weakened due to fragmentation. The region's largest state, Florida, has long been considered a world of its own and a swing state which cannot be reliably depended upon to vote Republican (having voted for a Democrat in 1976, 1996, nearly so in 2000, and 2008). Moreover, Virginia has been trending Democratic, particularly in the outskirts of Washington, D.C. Similarly, North Carolina voted for Obama this year, presumably due to the high concentration of college campuses and metropolitan areas throughout the state.
Second, the Republican platform has become perfectly honed to appeal in the deep South (including southern Appalacia). Indeed, even while the remainder of the country was moving leftward this past election, the vast majority of the deep South voted more Republican than it did during 2004. This is bad news for the Republican Party if it is gaining ground in the only region where it is already virtually assured victory. It suggests that the GOP is becoming 'boxed' into an increasingly small portion of the electorate. Compounding this problem is the fact that this most recent election's 'culling' of the Republican party has largely led to the removal of the GOP's more moderate members, particularly in the senate. Indeed, some moderate conservative commentators expect the emerging battle for GOP revival between the reformists (seeking moderation of the party platform) and the traditionalists (insisting the recent failures of the party reflect too much compromise of conservative values, e.g., nomination of moderate candidates like McCain, support of socialist economic policies under President Bush like the bailout).
The traditionalists may well be right, but my sense is that until the GOP begins focusing on widening its appeal to the national electorate, they will continue to be headed south.
