The Heterogeneity of Southern White Distinctiveness

Abstract

This article documents and assesses subregional variation among white southerners in presidential voting behavior and a variety of issue attitudes. I demonstrate that whites in the South remain consistently distinct from those in the rest of the nation, but heterogeneously so: whites in the Deep South are generally far more conservative than their Peripheral South neighbors. I also assess how the region's disproportionate concentration of bornagain Christians can confound assessments of regional and state coefficients when properly accounted for in regression models. By demonstrating the continuing distinctiveness of the white South, the significant variation present within the region, and the interrelationship of region and religion, these results have theoretical and methodological implications for the study of American politics.

A Tale of “Two Souths”: White Voting Behavior in Contemporary Southern Elections*

“…Instead, we move beyond the more common discussion about the differences between electoral politics in the Southern and non‐Southern states, and make a more specific within‐South claim. Like the recent large‐ N study by White (), which finds significant differences in the political behavior of Deep and Peripheral South whites, and building on the work of Key () and Black and Black (), we emphasize the continued presence of subregionalism in the contemporary South, and show that Deep South whites are more Republican than their neighbors in the Peripheral South. The presence of a subregional distinction as evidenced by different patterns of voting behavior in the Deep South and Peripheral South is central to our “two Souths” argument.…”

Race, Religion, and Obama in Appalachia*

“…A number of potential venues for research are open. For example, scholars interested in assessing variation in the deep and peripheral parts of the South (Key, ; Black and Black, , ; Shafer and Johnston, ; White, ; McKee and Springer, ) can also ask whether Appalachian parts of the South are different than non‐Appalachian parts of the region. Such an approach would build directly on existing work in southern politics, but also offer a novel variation on a classic theme.…”

“…Scholars of southern politics would most certainly say yes. Drawing inspiration from Key's definition of the southern region as defined by political behavior—one‐party dominance and the existence of a voting bloc in national politics—scholars have long debated the contours of the continuing distinctiveness of the ex‐Confederate states in matters ranging from congressional voting behavior to individual‐level white attitudes (Key, ; Black and Black, , ; Lamis, ; Kousser, ; Hood, Kidd, and Morris, ; White, ; McKee and Springer, ). The persistence of attention by political scientists to the American South suggests that political scientists do think region is at least potentially an important variable to consider.…”

“…A more general way, however, is that a particular combination of religious identity and behavior—operationalized in this article as identification as a white born‐again or evangelical Christian and weekly church attendance—creates a worldview antithetical to the Obama candidacy that operates at least somewhat independently of conventional racial animus . Looking to voter behavior more particularly, there is evidence white southern regionalism is partially mediated by accounting for the disproportionate concentration of born‐again Christians in the region (White, ), so asking similar questions of Appalachian whites seems reasonable.…”

Black Votes Count: The 2014 Republican Senate Nomination in Mississippi*

“…Further, we employ the commonly used subregional classification of Deep South (Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina) and Peripheral or Rim South (Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia). This sectional distinction within the South is based first and foremost on the fact that the Deep South states have proportionally larger black populations and this contributes to greater racial polarization in all manners of behavior (see Black and Black, ; Hood, Kidd, and Morris, ; Key, ; Matthews and Prothro, ; McKee, ; McKee and Springer, ; Valentino and Sears, ; White, ).…”