Upside-Down History: The Southern Strategy is Built on Fraud

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:

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:

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?