Matthew D. Lassiter. The Silent Majority: Suburban Politics in the Sunbelt South. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006. xiii + 390 pp. $35.00, cloth, ISBN 978-0-691-09255-3.

Reviewed by Craig Kaplowitz

Published on H-Pol (January, 2010)

The idea of the Solid South evokes a region convergence that helps explain the success of a once reliably Democratic, which in recent years center-right political coalition at the turn of the has become nearly as reliably Republican. A dom‐ twenty-frst century. inant explanation for this shift, which was popu‐ The Silent Majority includes in-depth case larized almost as soon as it was perceived, is the studies of school desegregation in Atlanta and "southern strategy" in which national elites con‐ Charlotte, a reconsideration of the politics of re‐ sciously catered to the racist backlash against gion, class, and race during the Nixon administra‐ Great Society liberalism and the civil rights move‐ tion, and a survey across the southern metropoli‐ ment by southern whites.[1] In this engaging and tan landscape to consider the convergence of re‐ important book, Matthew Lassiter recasts the his‐ gional and national suburban politics. As such, it tory of the postwar sunbelt South. By focusing on joins a growing number of studies that examine the complex interactions of race, class, con‐ the intersection of the history of metropolitan ar‐ sumerism, and the politics of metropolitan space, eas and the political history of growth liberalism. he supplants the familiar "southern strategy" in‐ [2] It begins by arguing that the well-known sto‐ terpretation with one of a "suburban strategy" ries of massive resistance to Brown v. Board of Ed‐ driven by color-blind arguments, individualism, ucation, as at Central High School in Little Rock, and free-market consumerism at the grassroots. tend to smooth over divisions within the white Lassiter explores the expectations and demands South. State apportionment practices left rural of the mostly white, middle-class southern subur‐ and working-class whites--those most supportive ban elites, and the arguments they used in strug‐ of massive resistance--with a preponderance of gles over school desegregation--arguments in political infuence at the state level. In metropoli‐ which they defended themselves as middle-class tan areas, however, neither the business elite nor workers, parents, consumers, and property-hold‐ white-collar whites in the elite neighborhoods ers rather than explicitly as whites. In this color- (and, of course, the downtown businessmen gen‐ blind approach to race, Lassiter fnds a national H-Net Reviews erally lived in the afuent neighborhoods) had Parts 1 and 2 of Silent Majority compare the expe‐ much interest in the disruptions and potential vi‐ riences of Atlanta and Charlotte, respectively, and olence that would result from the segregationist ofer contrasting models of suburban politics. hard-line, as both groups saw racial confict as a While Atlanta enjoyed a relatively moderate threat to prosperity and growth. Proposals to ac‐ racial environment with the downtown business complish massive resistance, such as closing the elite and middle-class black leaders cooperating public school systems, threatened the quality-of- to keep the racial peace, the state followed the life that white-collar whites took for granted. general southern pattern: Georgia's county unit When municipal political and business leaders system gave rural areas disproportionate infu‐ shied away from involvement, the elite neighbor‐ ence over metropolitan areas, thus dominating hoods organized grassroots "open school" move‐ statewide issues. When massive resistance threat‐ ments to oppose the massive-resistance agenda, ened the public school system in the late 1950s, but with a mixed legacy. By rejecting overt ap‐ opposition came most aggressively from the elite peals to racism and legal segregation, and instead white neighborhoods north of downtown Atlanta. arguing in favor of open schools and freedom of Mobilizing to defend public education as well as choice within residential areas, whites in these their neighborhoods, men and especially women wealthy metropolitan neighborhoods ameliorated created a grassroots organization to fght the the worst elements of the southern racist legacy state-wide battle. As Lassiter makes clear, Help without confronting its discriminatory founda‐ Our Public Education (HOPE) contained a diverse tion. These opponents of massive resistance gen‐ array of white opinion, including liberals commit‐ erally did not make moral claims about equality ted to racial equality and pragmatic moderates fo‐ and justice as much as they focused on practical cused on more narrow self-interest. As a tactical arguments about the costs and inevitable failure measure for maximum white unity, HOPE ulti‐ of massive resistance. mately focused on a plan for "controlled desegre‐ gation," which it advocated as an alternative to Liberal whites accepted such arguments as a the extremes of massive resistance on the one way to mobilize support for eventual racial inte‐ hand, and radical full integration on the other. gration. But while massive resistance provided Without denying their retreat from the moral one threat to suburban whites, full-fedged sys‐ questions of racial segregation, Lassiter concludes tem-wide integration posed another. Both seemed that the people of HOPE represented the only to threaten the quality of schools, neighborhoods, courageous leadership in Atlanta opposing mas‐ and middle-class lifestyle that residents viewed as sive resistance. theirs by virtue of hard work and individual choice. Ensconced in "island suburbs"--metropoli‐ Unfortunately, the short-term focus on politi‐ tan neighborhoods whose homogeneity was abet‐ cal success undermined the long-term prospects ted by decades of ofcial policies and semi-ofcial for meaningful desegregation. The resulting inte‐ practices--these middle-class whites employed the gration plan provided for one-way integration for language of color-blind policies, neighborhood a few high-achieving black students, while pre‐ schools, and residential prerogatives over that of serving the neighborhood schools of the island white supremacy. Class privilege won out over suburbs and changing little for students remain‐ racial caste, and de facto segregation replaced de ing in the predominantly black schools. When this jure segregation as the explanation for inequality. system came under fre from the federal courts, Atlanta instituted a system of neighborhood This general pattern brought diferent results schools; however, by this time white fight and across the South, depending on local variables.

2 H-Net Reviews residential segregation, already under way before he stopped here, Lassiter would have made a sub‐ the school issue came to the fore, meant that stantial contribution to our understanding of the neighborhood schools were as heavily segregated desegregation struggles, grassroots activism, and as the Jim Crow system. Now, however, segrega‐ racial and class identities in the postwar South. tion was seen as a result of class privilege and in‐ But his goals are more ambitious. Despite the dif‐ dividual choice rather than policy. ferences in long-term results, the general pattern of an emerging color-blind middle-class approach Lassiter fnds that school desegregation in to desegregation leads Lassiter to connect these Charlotte, North Carolina provides a more hope‐ southern developments to regional and national ful model. Charlotte difered from Atlanta in a few political developments in part 3. The dominant key respects: North Carolina law provided for au‐ trend that for Lassiter best explains the emer‐ tomatic annexation of outlying areas, allowing the gence of a center-right coalition through the 1970s city to recapture those residents leaving the city and 1980s is not the southernization, but rather neighborhoods; the city and county schools sys‐ the suburbanization, of American politics; not the tems consolidated after 1960, prior to the segrega‐ "southern strategy" of racial backlash, but the tion conficts; and metropolitan areas had far "suburban strategy" of class privilege, consumer more political clout in North Carolina. When a rights, and individual choice. From the case stud‐ district judge insisted that the school system de‐ ies of Atlanta and Charlotte, Lassiter moves to the segregate in 1969, white middle-class parents in‐ politics of the Nixon administration. This can be a sisted that they opposed not integration, but bit of a jarring transition--from detailed case stud‐ forced busing of their children to other, less desir‐ ies of the sociopolitical context of school desegre‐ able schools. The school board proposed token gation to a broad survey of postwar southern poli‐ busing similar to that in Atlanta, but the decision tics and a study of Nixon administration strate‐ evoked unanticipated outrage within the black gies. But Lassiter remains focused on his argu‐ community and vocal opposition from working- ment, and his careful readings of the language class whites from outside the "island suburbs." and strategies employed by the Nixon team are in‐ They eventually formed an alliance to demand a sightful. Here he relies on the papers of Harry county-wide desegregation plan that eliminated Dent, certainly a key fgure in Nixon's eforts in the protections aforded to afuent suburbs, and the South; there remains plenty to be examined in the district court judge approved a county-wide the full range of the Nixon presidential papers to two-way busing plan. A call for boycotts divided continue exploring the argument introduced here. white opinion, with some parents refusing to en‐ Oversimplifed, that argument is as follows: dorse the lawlessness of non-compliance. The Sol‐ Richard Nixon's original "silent majority" of the id South, even the Solid White Middle-Class South, 1968 campaign was much closer to the heart of was not as solid as is sometimes thought. The sys‐ the new conservatism than was the race-based tem-wide desegregation efort resulted in substan‐ "southern strategy" advocated by Kevin Phillips tial integration and also limited white fight, ofer‐ and others for the 1970 midterm elections. In an ing a reasonably successful model for metropoli‐ efort to steal the thunder of George Wallace, the tan desegregation. Nixon team tapped into a racist backlash that of‐ Atlanta and Charlotte ofer divergent models fered no long-term benefts. In fact, Lassiter ar‐ of school desegregation--one resulting in substan‐ gues for the failure of racial backlash--in the Dix‐ tial re-segregation and massive white fight from iecrat revolt of 1948, the presidential campaigns the city, the other holding onto school integration of Barry Goldwater and George Wallace, and the and maintaining its racial balance over time. Had 1970 congressional midterm elections--and points

3 H-Net Reviews to the moderate racial positions of the new south‐ race and class. Indeed, Lassiter argues that resi‐ ern Democratic governors of the early 1970s as dents of the island suburbs ignored the construct‐ evidence. Had Republicans in the 1970s focused ed nature of their neighborhoods, the conscious on Nixon's "silent majority" of the 1968 campaign, and unconscious eforts in metropolitan planning Lassiter suggests, they might have closed of the and practice to segregate neighborhoods by race space aforded to moderate Democrats by the and class; as a result, they were free of any re‐ race-baiting "southern strategy." sponsibility for the plight of the disadvantaged, and could more easily believe their own rhetoric Having suggested the links between national of free-choice and de facto segregation. Readers politics and the suburban grassroots of places may desire more of the history of how these poli‐ such as Atlanta and Charlotte, Lassiter moves on cies and practices unfolded to create the island to survey the broader metropolitan South. His suburbs--here Lassiter provides general sum‐ case studies suggested that structural realities are maries with a relatively thin reference base. The signifcant for explaining the divergent results in argument on this point would have been strength‐ Charlotte and Atlanta: more successful Charlotte ened, for this reviewer, by greater attention to the had a consolidated county-wide school system; re‐ intentional ways the built environment rein‐ quired a substantial white majority in the overall forced race and class lines, but it remains highly school enrollment; and included class as well as suggestive of the role of metropolitan space in our racial integration in its desegregation plan. This political and ideological battles. conclusion is reinforced through much shorter ex‐ aminations of developments in Richmond, Finally, as the title suggests, Lassiter argues Raleigh, and Memphis. Lassiter fnds that only that these developments in the metropolitan Raleigh exhibited all three characteristics, and it South are neither unique to the region nor short- alone approached the relative success of Charlotte term in signifcance. Ideas and commitments that in integrating its schools. Furthermore, he sug‐ emerged at the grassroots in suburban areas pro‐ gests that most school desegregation eforts na‐ vided not just a regional but a national con‐ tionwide since the early 1970s have followed At‐ stituency for particular political arguments--the lanta and Richmond more than Charlotte and solid suburbs rather than the solid south. At a Raleigh. time when once solidly Republican enclaves (the western suburbs of Chicago, for example) are be‐ The Silent Majority concludes that the com‐ coming more diverse and susceptible to incursion mon thread of suburbanization, with its focus on by Democrats, Lassiter's fne book ofers provoca‐ de facto rather than de jure segregation, con‐ tive ways to examine the role of race, class, con‐ sumer choice, and individualism, best explains sumerism, and metropolitan space in our local the Republican ascendance in the South and the and national politics. nation at large. On the way to that conclusion, it contributes to southern, urban, and political his‐ Notes tory in a number of ways. This deeply researched [1]. For employment of this explanation at the and elegantly written study draws needed atten‐ time, see Kevin P. Phillips, The Emerging Republi‐ tion to complexity within the Solid South, even can Majority (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington among middle-class whites. Easy references to the House, 1969). Recent histories using it include Dan Solid South become difcult to employ after read‐ T. Carter, The Politics of Rage: George Wallace, the ing Lassiter's careful case studies. The book also Origins of the New Conservatism, and the Trans‐ brings into sharp relief the infuence that local formation of American Politics (New York: Simon politics and geography can have on our ideas of

4 H-Net Reviews and Schuster, 1995); Carter, From George Wallace to Newt Gingrich: Race in the Conservative Coun‐ terrevolution, 1963-1994 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1996); and Joseph A. Aistrup, The Southern Strategy Revisited: Republi‐ can Top-Down Advancement in the South (Lexing‐ ton: University Press of Kentucky, 1996).

[2]. See, for example, Thomas J. Sugrue, The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit (Princeton: Princeton Universi‐ ty Press, 1996) and Kevin M. Kruse, White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of Modern Conservatism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005).

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-pol

Citation: Craig Kaplowitz. Review of Lassiter, Matthew D. The Silent Majority: Suburban Politics in the Sunbelt South. H-Pol, H-Net Reviews. January, 2010.

URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=13055

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

5