> Democrats of the time, when making the decision, knew they would lose the South.
But they didn’t—the 1976 map looked like the “solid south” with Carter winning every southern state except Virginia. In 1980, Reagan won Alabama like he did New York. But Carter won most of the rural parts of the state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_United_States_presidentia.... Carter did better in Alabama in 1980 than he did in New York.
> That’s a weird way of framing
It's not weird; it's conventional political history retold over and over.
Told by who to who? It’s a self-serving narrative told by liberals to liberals that doesn’t work timing-wise and ignores the much more important effect of economic changes.
Dems didn't "know" they'd be losing the South, but LBJ certainly feared it. He, of course, was the one who pushed the Civil Rights Act through the Southern-dominated Senate; Bill Moyers recounted that: "When he [LBJ] signed the act he was euphoric, but late that very night I found him in a melancholy mood as he lay in bed reading the bulldog edition of the Washington Post with headlines celebrating the day. I asked him what was troubling him. "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come," he said." [0]
Long-term changes in voting patterns don't happen in one election, and they're a multi-variate phenomenon. In 1976, Carter was the incumbent, a Southerner himself, and a beneficiary of the Watergate fallout and the Nixon pardon. Reportedly, his own pollster "Patrick Caddell stated that televisions ads by the Carter campaign in the south 'were blatant-waving the bloody rebel flag'. To avoid being viewed as a liberal in the south Carter campaigned with [George] Wallace and voice[d] opposition to welfare and support for balanced budgets and national defense. He also campaigned with segregationist senators James Eastland and John C. Stennis." [1]
Before that, in 1964, Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act, and in that year's presidential race, he carried the Deep South, less Florida with its New York retirees, plus his home state of Arizona — and that was it. Previously, the South had been solidly Democratic since Reconstruction (except for war-hero Ike).
In 1968, "segregation forever" third-party candidate George Wallace carried most of the Deep South.
The 1972 election pitted the supposed peacenik Democratic candidate George McGovern against incumbent Nixon.
In 1980, Reagan famously announced his support for "states' rights" and excoriated "welfare queens," both of which of course were dog whistles to Southern segregationists. [2]
> In 1980, Reagan famously announced his support for "states' rights" and excoriated "welfare queens," both of which of course were dog whistles to Southern segregationists
I’m going to start with this point first because it’s the problem with the whole line of thinking. Democrats use the notion of “dog whistling” to brand Republican policies racist based on the premise that republicans are racist. But their support for that latter assertion is that republicans support supposedly racist policies. The reasoning is completely circular (and unfalsifiable).
Republicans opposed the creation of the welfare state in the 1930s when pro-segregation democrats introduced welfare programs. They likewise opposed the expansion of federal government at the expense of the states by vicious racists like Woodrow Wilson. So what are we to infer from Republicans’ continued support of the same policies before and after democrats abandoned their support for segregation?
To circle back to your first point, why would LBJ fear losing the south? Why would southern racist democrats switch to the party that had supported the civil rights act even more strongly? That’s like Muslims switching to the GOP because they’re mad at Biden for his support of Israel.
> based on the premise that republicans are racist
They offer plenty of evidence, and so do the Republicans themselves, some of whom openly embrace white nationalism, Christian nationalism, replacement theory, etc. Openly defying convention and saying racist things is commonplace and cliche. Going back further, someone in this thread even quoted the interview about school busing.
> Why would southern racist democrats switch to the party that had supported the civil rights act even more strongly?
Because the GOP — having had their electoral asses whipped for decades, looking for a way back into power, and with the John Birch Society and Liberty Lobby crowd (backed by ultra-rich folks wanting tax cuts) looking for a seat at the party's table — started espousing "conservative" positions and dog-whistling to the racists.
In essence, the GOP said, "OK, southerners, we get it that YOU don't like what we've been offering for years, and WE don't like that we keep losing elections, so we'll start offering what YOU like."
Once again: Life isn't a snapshot or freeze-frame, it's a movie. The Dems used to be the party of racism and the GOP the party of freedom and equal opportunity; over time, the parties switched roles.
But they didn’t—the 1976 map looked like the “solid south” with Carter winning every southern state except Virginia. In 1980, Reagan won Alabama like he did New York. But Carter won most of the rural parts of the state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_United_States_presidentia.... Carter did better in Alabama in 1980 than he did in New York.
> That’s a weird way of framing It's not weird; it's conventional political history retold over and over.
Told by who to who? It’s a self-serving narrative told by liberals to liberals that doesn’t work timing-wise and ignores the much more important effect of economic changes.