Upside-Down History: The Southern Strategy is Built on Fraud
Part 1: A cornerstone of the Party Switch Myth relies on a provably false quotation.
The Party Switch Myth is an attempt to reconcile a contradiction in American politics from the Left’s perspective. How can the historically verified champions—the party of Lincoln, the abolisher of American slavery, the party that battled segregation and ardently supported civil rights—not be on the side I am, the good side of history, the continuation of the civil rights movement? This contradiction requires an explanation.
One major problem with any myth is the lack of evidence to convince skeptics. The Party Switch Myth is no different and relies almost entirely on hearsay, innuendo, and vague notions, which are then repeated with dogmatic adherence. Challenge any true believer about their beliefs, and they will label you a heretic, perhaps rudely.
The Party Switch Myth suffers from a shocking lack of public statements or comments. Peruse Kevin Kruse’s essay on the subject in the best-selling book Myth America. You'll find few public statements by prominent Republicans supporting the Party Switch Myth. This is a clear weakness for a theory that supposedly convinced entire regions to switch political affiliations with barely a mention.
But perhaps the strongest piece of evidence for the Party Switch Myth is the following statement made by Barry Goldwater in 1961, an alleged architect of the strategy:
“We’re not going to get the Negro vote as a bloc in 1964 and 1968, so we ought to go hunting where the ducks are.” To do so, the GOP decided to capitalize on white racial angst [...]
Angie Maxwell; Todd Shields. The Long Southern Strategy. Oxford University Press, 2019.In a 1961 speech to southern GOP leaders in Atlanta, Republican Senator Barry Goldwater verbalized what would come to be known as the “southern strategy”—“We’re not going to get the Negro vote as a bloc in 1964 and 1968, so we ought to go hunting where the ducks are.”
D. Sunshine Hillygus; Todd Shields. The Persuadable Voter: Wedge Issues in Presidential Campaigns. Princeton University Press, 2009.Goldwater had given a speech to Georgia Republican activists proclaiming [...] that since the GOP was never going to win back the Negro vote, the party “ought to go hunting where the ducks are”— that is, among white “states’ rights” audiences like the one he was presently addressing.
Rick Perlstein, Before the Storm.At the RNC’s first gathering of southern leaders that fall, Goldwater insisted that white conservatives represented Republicans’ best hope. “We’re not going to get the Negro vote as a bloc in 1964 and 1968,” he famously announced, “so we ought to go hunting where the ducks are.”
Kevin Kruse, Myth America.
This quote has been a cornerstone of the Party Switch timeline for decades. Endlessly cited, extrapolated, and mythologized. Best-selling narrative writers like Rick Perlstein claim it marks the first recognition of the “Southern Strategy.” Princeton History professor Kevin Kruse insists these words were “famously announced.” Leaders from academia like Chancellor Todd Shields begin their prominent books with this cornerstone. Together these produce thousands of citations for other media and academic endeavors.
One small problem is that Goldwater never insisted that Republicans' best hope was “white” conservatives. This may appear to be a minor detail, but it’s a disreputable editorializing of history that might slip past neutral readers. It signals the writer's disinterest in Goldwater’s true agenda and character while revealing their own. Further racializing the context alongside this reference brings the writing dangerously close to pure narrative storytelling in the style of Howard Zinn.
The critical issue here revolves around the quote that allegedly inaugurated the strategy that shaped 20th-century electoral politics. The earliest and most frequently cited primary source of the quote in question is also the one provided by Kevin Kruse of Princeton; who references the Arizona Daily Star from November 1961. According to the primary source, Goldwater was asked by a reporter if he was writing off the black vote in the South. Goldwater replied:
“We’re not going to get the Negro vote as a bloc in 1964 and 1968”
What Professor Kruse fails to mention is the very next clause from his own cited source:
“But I would say we’re going to change this.”
This omission drastically alters the context and meaning of Goldwater’s statement, transforming a narrative of racial exclusion into one of inclusion and even aspiration. The selective editing turns history upside-down, from a Southern strategy to a Southern Strategy; from reality to mythology.
The inferred reference to duck hunting, supposedly for white voters and at the expense of blacks, lacks evidence and requires ignoring Goldwater’s true intent: acknowledging Republicans weren't on track to win the black vote but aiming to change this. This omission completely subverts the cornerstone quote and its peddlers, fundamentally damaging the Party Switch Myth and the academic authority used to further it.
This upside-down history also has to ignore the vastness of the counter-evidence. Another report of the conversation further corroborates what Goldwater clearly said, from the Courier-Journal:
The senator said he would not write off any bloc of votes, nor advise his party to try to appeal to a specific bloc.
“I don’t think we can out-promise the Democrats, who are willing to offer gold Cadillacs if necessary to get votes. I think the Negro will, in time, realize that the Republican Party has been his friend for the last 10 years and he will come back.” [emphasis added]
The Courier-Journal, 19 Nov 1961.
This is an odd thing to say for an alleged strategy designed to appeal to segregationist sentiments; that the future of the party will attract black voters just as the Republican Party has in the past.
And finally, wouldn’t it be pertinent to the subject of Republicans courting segregationists if its alleged architect wrote a syndicated column, published nationally including in the largest Southern papers, on the very subject of segregation? Might this carry similar or perhaps more weight than the previous alleged back-and-forth with a reporter?
Goldwater did precisely this, publishing his column less than a month after he “famously announced” his “Southern Strategy.” Shouldn’t ivy league historians be obligated to mention, explain, or at least argue against what Goldwater really told segregationists? Wouldn’t this provide exceptional clarity on what Goldwater was trying to accomplish? We think so.
The title of the column as it appeared in the Atlanta Constitution and Atlanta Journal perhaps reveals why the Left wants it forgotten: All Citizens’ Rights Must Be Protected. Goldwater explains his principles with unambiguous clarity:
I am opposed to segregation. When I was serving on the city council, I was one of those who insisted that our airport facilities be open to all travelers. When I helped activate the Arizona Air National Guard, I insisted that it be integrated. I suppose, in the views of the white supremists, these two actions constitute an unpardonable sin.
Because I’m a conservative, I believe that we should deal with our fellow human beings on a personal basis. I am opposed to categorizing any segment of the population and to the suggestion that, because of ethnic origin, some segments of the population should be treated separately. [...]
As an individual, I refuse to accept the notion that we should have one stated position for the Irish, one for the Italians, one for the Poles, and one for the American Negro. We are, if I understand the language of the Constitution, all citizens, all entitled to equality before the law and all precious individual souls in the eyes of God.
How do you stand, sir?
Barry Goldwater. All Citizens’ Rights Must Be Protected.
This is Goldwater’s Southern strategy. While one can disagree with how best to achieve Goldwater’s ideals, one cannot argue against the clarity with which he shared them. Goldwater could have easily chosen not to publish this column, let alone direct it specifically to Southern readers. But he did, and that matters.
Compare the reality of what Goldwater said and meant to what media and historians have claimed for decades. This extends naturally to the 1964 Presidential campaign, where he is also accused of courting segregationist sentiments. The Party Switch Myth must ignore Democratic Party advertising like this:
The Party Switch Myth has to ignore almost everything significant about Goldwater, personified by this 1964 Republican Presidential Campaign advertisement:
The Party Switch Myth isn’t a simple matter of differing interpretations; it is a discrediting distortion. This distortion also extends to how history remembers people like Barry Goldwater. The Myth requires ignorance and deserves its dismantling.
If you share our goals, we hope you join the effort by following along and inviting your friends as we continue dismantling the mythology of American history.
There is no such thing as history: there are historians; and historians, eighty-five percent of them are on the Left.
Richard Nixon
The culmination of our research and analysis on this subject can be found in the upcoming book Dismantled: The Party Switch Myth. Available now for pre-order.
