The Party Of Lincoln

The Republican Convention played like conventions past, perhaps enriched by an unusual number of outright lies, but otherwise, pretty much par for the course. Planks of the platform controversial among undecided voters were avoided, attacks were launched, and the rest was pablum for the base.

So why watch? It’s a habit. I’ve been watching since the early 1990s when my work involved studying the political right wing. Keeping an eye on the GOP was critical to that work because it was then becoming and has since very much become the instrument of power of a right wing movement bent on resetting the social, political, and economic clock in America to a time when women were marginalized, the rich were beyond accountability, and overt racism and racial codes were business as usual.

Sound extreme? Hang in there with me.

The majority of the Republican activist base is made up of ideologically inflexible, overlapping rightist factions. They include the Tea Parties, the religious right, libertarians, white nationalists, anti-communist conspiracy theorists, and assorted more exotic white supremacists. That’s why the Republican primary played like a re-run of Barry Goldwater’s famously far right presidential campaign of 1964.

These various factions keep uneasy company with the GOP’s traditional base of old-fashioned economic conservatives. And while the radical factions may often seem at war with one another, they’re mostly unified in their racism and their hatred of liberals, and liberal ideas, including the notion that government, not the private sector, should be responsible for providing a social safety net. Moreover, for the sake of unity, they appear to have conceded to the baseline notion that anybody and anything not not in agreement with them is an enemy of the state.

How, you may ask, did the Party of Lincoln become home to right wing radicals? The answer is, they were invited.

The invitations started going out about 60 years ago. Back then, the GOP was in serious trouble. White Southerners were holding what appeared to be a permanent grudge against them over the Civil War and the abolition of slavery. The stock market crash of 1929 inspired a healthy cynicism of economic elites, and the GOP was rightly perceived as their party. We’d also successfully waged WWII under Democratic presidents, and all while Democratic policy appeared to have pulled the country out of a depression.

Moreover, the Republican elite were viewed as a bunch of aloof aristocrats and intellectuals whose theories were indecipherable and whose policies were all for the rich. Not exactly how they wanted to be perceived at a time when a burgeoning middle class dominated the electorate.

It appeared as though the GOP would have to permanently settle for a role as a pro-capital counter-weight to Democratic liberalism. But as the 1960s rolled around, the libertarian wing of the party started getting organized. They intuited that the cultural fault lines of the time, especially around religion and identity, could be turned into political battle lines. With that in mind, they began rebuilding the party using a dual strategy of 1) splitting liberal coalitions by raising controversial social issues, and 2) building their base by appealing to racism and religiously-based cultural conservatism.

Among the earliest appeals targeted racially sensitive white Southern Democrats. They learned about the power of racism as a political tool by analyzing the failed George Wallace and Barry Goldwater campaigns for president. Both the Wallace and Goldwater campaigns mobilized white Southerners across party lines and attracted more small contributions than any other presidential campaigns until that time.

The lists of both campaigns were used by rightists like Paul Weyrich, co-founder of the Heritage Foundation. Weyrich’s pioneering use of direct mail marketing became the fundraising template of many right wing institutions.

So the first invitation was to racists. They constituted a chunk of the early fundraising base for key rightist organizations and their continued importance to the success of the GOP explains all of that dog whistling in this campaign.

From an ideological standpoint, Goldwater in particular showed Republicans that racism is a powerful lever.  This except from a previous post makes the point –

He ran on a platform of turning Social Security into a voluntary program, and eliminating farm subsidies…But, because he ran against Civil Rights, he won Southern votes, even from white people for whom the programs he promised to destroy were the most popular.

Goldwater’s strategy turned race into a partisan issue. In 1962, a national poll asked which party would more likely ensure Blacks got fair treatment in housing and employment.  22.7% answered Democrat compared to 21.3% who said Republican. 55.9% said there was no difference. By late 1964, another poll showed that 60% of those questioned said Democrats were more likely to ensure fairness and 7% said Republicans, with only 33% seeing no difference…

In the 1950s, poor white Southerners were the third most liberal voters on issues of government intervention for full-employment, education, and affordable health care, right behind Blacks and Jews. By the early 70s, they did a values flip. When it came to poverty alleviation programs, they went from being liberals to being statistically indistinguishable from wealthy white Northerners, the traditional base of the GOP. Given the ongoing poverty of the South, this move was akin to poor white Southerners cutting off their toes for want of smaller shoes.

And as their values flipped, so did their party affiliation,

In a pattern that would repeat itself throughout the South, GOP voter rolls shot up from 49% to 76% in Birmingham, Alabama’s poorest white communities between 1960 and 1964… Macon, Georgia, went from 36% to 71%. Atlanta went from 36% to 58%, and so on.

The next invitation was to the born-again Christian movement, the fastest growing social movement in the world at the time. The evangelical movement was driven in part by backlash against the social liberalism of the 1960s, including a growing acceptance of women’s equality, free love, LGBT rights, and Black civil rights. As such, it was almost entirely white, straight, and socially conservative.

By aligning themselves with evangelical leaders such as Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Robertson, Tim and Beverly LaHaye, et al, the libertarian elites of the GOP formed an uneasy alliance the cracks in which are lately becoming more apparent. This alliance produced both a highly motivated base for the GOP and gave them legitimacy as an arbiter of family values. With this base and from this moral position, they launched a wedge strategy that involved raising social issues divisive to the Democratic coalition.

By attacking abortion rights as murder, they were able to peel Catholics off of the liberal coalition built by Kennedy. By attacking affirmative action as anti-white racism, they softened liberal whites’ support of civil rights. And by vilifying gays they split just about everyone else, and all while raising buckets of money for the non-governmental organizations of the movement. Issue by issue, they fractured their opposition until the evangelical base of the GOP rose to power as the most highly motivated and well-organized plurality (the largest minority) of voters.

The GOP also mobilized evangelicals and working class Southerners to win regressive tax reform. They did so in order to weaken government, especially in terms of its regulatory role, and got the help of rightists by claiming government had been taken over by feminists and the civil rights lobby. They attacked public schools as sources of secular liberalism, and preyed on the economic uncertainty caused by a changing economy to raise resentment against public employees whom they vilified as lazy clock-watchers.

But in order to get evangelicals involved in politics, they had to do more than touch on their issues. They needed to get them to commit to politics as an act of religion. To do that, some evangelical leaders turned to post-millennialism, the belief that there will be a 1000 year reign of godly men on earth before Jesus returns for the final judgement. The importance of post-millenialism is that it calls on Christians to engage in a takeover of all societal institutions, making politics a matter of life or death (or life after death) for certain evangelicals.

One of the principle ways that conservative evangelicals have served this mission is as Republican precinct captains, allowing them to achieve a bottom-up take over of many state GOP organizations. They also ran evangelicals as stealth candidates who focused on economic issues while hiding their radical social agendas. Stealth candidates went after every kind of office from judge to dog catcher in order to build the cadres of those with the political experience and name recognition to run for more influential offices (Rep. Michele Bachman, for instance).

These strategies are now the staple of Republican base building. Accordingly, Republicans reacted to the urban uprisings of the 1960s with a tough on crime campaign the centerpiece of which is the war on drugs, premised on the notion that America’s drug problem is a black people problem. They’ve attacked immigration, accusing immigrants of color of stealing jobs and government funded benefits. And they’ve attacked Muslims, equating Islam with Christian-hating and terrorism.

Lest we forget, of course, they’ve also accused liberals of being so limp-wristed when it comes to war and trade policy that in their hands the U.S. will tumble from it’s status as world’s number 1 bully and become the 98 lb weakling of the global schoolyard. That fall, I guess, is something to fear when you do in fact know you’ve been a bully, but I digress.

Because the architects of this movement were, for the most part, libertarians, they’ve all the while used the openings created by their various attacks to popularize a laissez-faire philosophy of capitalism that conflates freedom with commerce. Variants of the ideology of free enterprise as freedom live within nearly all of these factions, and for that reason they are able to hang, however loosely, together. And because of what holds them together, the Republican corporate elites have been tolerant of their more extreme views, including the views that we ought to build an electrified fence on our southern border, and that we should abolish all abortions, even in cases of incest or threat to the life of the mother, as just two examples.

The most recent guests to the Party are the Tea Parties. They’re a hybrid of all of the above, with a dose of anti-authoritarianism and distrust of large institutions in general thrown in for good measure. They weren’t invited guests so much as crashers until Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor extended the invitation.

And now that all of these factions have arrived, Reince Priebus, Mitt Romney, and company have a management problem on their hands. As ye sow, so shall ye reap, as they say, and they deserve every bit of their bitter harvest.

But while a little gloating over Priebus’s and Romney’s dilemma may be justified, never doubt that the movement is bigger than the Party. However the various factions entered the fray, they truly are a movement and they pose a very real threat to all of us.

Avatar photo

By Scot Nakagawa

Scot Nakagawa is a political strategist and writer who has spent more than four decades exploring questions of structural racism, white supremacy, and social justice. Scot’s primary work has been in the fight against authoritarianism, white nationalism, and Christian nationalism. Currently, Scot is co-lead of the 22nd Century Initiative, a project to build the field of resistance to authoritarianism in the U.S.

Scot is a past Alston/Bannerman Fellow, an Open Society Foundations Fellow, and a recipient of the Association of Asian American Studies Community Leader Award. His writings have been included in Race, Gender, and Class in the United States: An Integrated Study, 9th Edition,  and Killing Trayvons: An Anthology of American Violence.

Scot's political essays, briefings, and other educational media can be found at his newsletter, We Fight the Right at He is a sought after public speaker and educator who provides consultation on campaign and communications strategy, and fundraising.

10 replies on “The Party Of Lincoln”

I enjoyed this paper. Very informative. I reconize the spirit in your writing. Is this the start of the race war? A lot of your insights I share. I fancy myself a seed sower and servant. I believe the threat is real… Pride comes before a Fall.

And as their values flipped, so did their party affiliation,

In a pattern that would repeat itself throughout the South, GOP voter rolls shot up from 49% to 76% in Birmingham, Alabama’s poorest white communities between 1960 and 1964… Macon, Georgia, went from 36% to 71%. Atlanta went from 36% to 58%, and so on.

Somethings amiss. Republican party identification in the entire south was a measly 18% in 1964.

Yet, in the poorest communities, we are to believe it was at 76%, 71%, and 58%? I mean, the first southern seats to flip were the richest ones.

Al and GA didn’t have a Republican Governor until 2003. Senate, ’81 (for both, again). Going by the 65vra, there was only one Repub House Rep in GA and he doesn’t appear to represent Macon. It’s possible that Birmingham was represented by a Repub in ’65.

But party affiliation lags actual voting. I’m pretty sure those districts voted for Wallace and Carter on the Presidential level and straight Dem on the local, Gubernatorial, and Senatorial ones…for a long time after 1960.

I doubt those numbers are accurate.


The authors of “Chain Reaction: The Impact of Race, Rights, and Taxes on American Politics” appear to using Republican % Share of Presidential Vote as their metric, not Party Affiliation.

“Goldwater demonstrated that the socioeconomic class structure of the New Deal alignment of the deep South could be fractured by the issue of race. In the poorest white neighborhoods of Birmingham, the Republican vote shot up from 49 to 76 percent between 1960 and 1964; in Macon, Georgia, from 36 to 71 percent; in Atlanta from 36 to 58 percent; in Montgomery, from 45 to 73 percent; in Charleston, South Carolina, from 57 to 82 percent. In these cities, the vote among the lowest income whites, which had been 22 percentage points more Democratic than in the most affluent white precincts in 1960, became virtually indistinguishable from the vote in upscale white neighborhoods in 1964.”

They cite a telephone call they had with folks over at the Dept of Labor, so I can’t get to the original source.

Even as Presidential Vote, it sounds fishy or at least cherry-picked. I’ll elaborate later.

“Al and GA didn’t have a Republican Governor until 2003.”

Remember Fob James? An Alabama Democrat is indistinguishable from a Massachusetts Republican. The only difference between an AL Dem and an AL Repub is that the Republican is even farther to the right.

Good points. Of course, the stats are meant to indicate the beginnings of a phenom that took decades to unfold. And, the post isn’t meant as a pro-Dem rant. The Dems have their own history of supporting racism and inequality, not to mention conceding to conservative economic policy and even serving as champions of those policies.

Remember Fob James?

I stand corrected…didn’t account for the James switch. 1995 then.

An Alabama Democrat is indistinguishable from a Massachusetts Republican.

Ok. I don’t know much about Fob, but his wiki entry makes him appear decent on civil rights for Af-Ams.

The only difference between an AL Dem and an AL Repub is that the Republican is even farther to the right.

George Wallace can’t be described as “right wing” on economic issues. For example, his NYTimes obit describes him as “an ardent New Deal Democrat”. I mean, he endorsed Carter and feuded with WF Buckley.

This is a critical point. What Scot gets right is the ideological leanings of (poor, white) southern segregationists during the Jim Crow era. A lot of lefties fail to see this, as they position the South as Right Wing full stop. But the whole point is, on issues outside of civil rights, the South went from left-leaning moderates (using the elite level now, ie House and Senate) to far-right.

I dispute that poor whites are responsible for this, but this is indeed what happened after the passage of the 64 civil rights act. (Or, more accurately, 30 years after the passage).

I agree, Manju. I don’t think poor whites were responsible for the shift, but I think that the fact they went along while being poor, in other words the folks probably best and most immediately served by leaning left, is indicative of something.

But, I do believe they got played in much the same way that I don’t think born-again Christians were responsible for the culture wars in the sense that they also got played in order to gain an advantage that took many years to fully realize.

But there’s a pretty strong difference between organizing people in their own interest and exploiting people’s weaknesses against their interests (or at least without their interests at heart), and, in both cases, I think some of that happened. Hence my sense that they are reaping what they sowed. They cultivated this base to create a grassroots activist wing and to split key opposition coalitions. Now Party elites are stuck with a crop of members who think they own the place and are wrecking it because the interests of the elite of the Party aren’t their primary concern.

I also agree with Manju about George Wallace not being truly a right winger. He was truly a white supremacist, at least during his active political career, but not a right winger. His attitude toward the New Deal and commitment to the Dems really helps to illustrate a key dynamic here that’s still active. I don’t think poor white folks are necessarily playing out “false consciousness” when they rail against, say, welfare. I think they are ultimately fine about a welfare state so long as only those they perceive as “deserving” benefit from it, and, sadly, for racists, black people don’t “deserve” to be on the dole.

Wallace, I believe, was a strong supporter of welfare when welfare was white. He would have opposed welfare for black people because it would give the most exploited class of workers as option to working in highly exploitative and poor jobs. It’s the logic of slavery that black people were considered only in terms of their value as free or cheap labor. That logic extends through history to this day, when the availability of other easily exploitable and cheap labor in the form of undocumented immigrants and foreign labor markets makes blacks expendable. Conveniently, we’re warehousing many of them in prisons, but at social and economic costs that are unbearable.

Anyway, on the welfare point, lots of white liberals were also white supremacists. Hence the rule in parts of the South that welfare recipients who were black were ineligible for benefits during cotton picking season.

Obviously, I focus on the GOP much more than on the Democratic Party because I see the GOP as an instrument for the exercise of power of fascistic forces with a much broader agenda.

Very insightful. The missing piece of this, however, is the opening that the Democrats gave the GOP when they did their own flip and went from being the party of segregationists – at one point they were identified as the party of the KKK – and decided to embrace Civil Rights as a platform agenda item. As far as I can discover, this was laregly due to Bobby Kennedy, as an individual, agitating for what he had come to see as a basic moral imperative. When the Kennedy Administration began to listen to him, racist Democrats began to stay away, as they say, in droves. The GOP decided to collect this windfall… and the rest is a very sad history.

I am hopeful that the fallout from this time of crisis in the GOP party may lead to a future in which neither party stoops to racist pandering. Perhaps not. But I can dream.

Thanks! I appreciate you adding to the story and pointing out what seem like important historical details.

Comments are closed.