Politics of Subnational Democratic Consolidation and State Party Elite Adaptation in the Deep South, 1964-1980

POLITICS OF SUBNATIONAL DEMOCRATIC CONSOLIDATION AND STATE PARTY ELITE ADAPTATION IN THE DEEP SOUTH, 1964-1980 by Ayako Hiramatsu A dissertation submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Baltimore, Maryland July 2016 © 2016 Ayako Hiramatsu All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT How do subnational authoritarian enclaves get reinstituted into national democracy and achieve democratic consolidation without a forceful purge of authoritarian holdovers from the seats of power after democratization? This dissertation investigates the democratic consolidation experiences of former segregationist one-party states of Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina from 1964 to 1980. Prior to democratization, the authoritarian enclaves had endured under three Democratic Party institutions: the national party conventions that nominated non-interventionist and enclave-outsider presidential candidates, the seniority rule for the congressional committee chairmanship and the state party disorganization. After 1964, the same state party elites who had defended the enclave autonomy sought to stay in power by influencing the national parties and the presidential elections. Combining the national party records, materials from the presidential libraries, state party leaders’ personal papers and other published sources, this dissertation examines the political adaptations of the state party elites in four phases of subnational democratic consolidation: the 1966 elections of the reactionary governors and their last defense of the enclave autonomy at the Democratic National Convention in 1968; the state level compliance of McGovern-Fraser Commission guidelines on the Democratic delegate selection process and party structure; the national Republican leaders’ interventions in the state politics during President Richard Nixon’s first term; and Jimmy Carter’s pre-presidential party reform in the Democratic National Committee and his presidential campaigns. The state parties constructed upon the legacies of the authoritarian enclaves in ii this period were, by and large, more closely incorporated into the respective national parties. The governors and party elites in the three states demonstrated their political will to follow the national party instructions only when compliance improved their prospect for holding onto power and seeking higher office, including their long foregone bid for the White House. Where authoritarian holdovers remained in power, they sought post-democratization political careers through other political parties. Carter was nominated and elected as the first twentieth century Democratic president whose political career in public office had originated in the enclave regime prior to democratization, with the endorsements of mayors and governors as opposed to the congressional supporters. THE READERS Adam Sheingate Richard Katz Daniel Schlozman Ronald Walters Angus Burgin iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I owe debt to the following people who generously rendered helping hands throughout the course of research and writing. First in the order are my dissertation committee advisors at the political science department of Johns Hopkins University. Adam Sheingate has been a steadfast, generous and patient mentor. Adam valued creativity and clarity in the work: if there were any way to pay back the debt I incurred from his graduate seminars and the countless office hours he has spared for me, it would only be by continually trying to uphold these values in the future works of mine and others. Richard Katz’s dictum, “But there is no there there!” in American political parties – in other words that they lack organizational robustness comparable to the western European labor party cousins of the previous century and such difference matters – still resonates in my head. It started my interests in how the American southern parties have actually operated in any tangible forms, if at all, as statewide two party competition emerged. I thank Daniel Schlozman for joining the committee in the later phase of the dissertation project, Ronald Walters and Angus Burgin for the comments and the critiques at the oral defense exam. Besides the discussions I have had with Adam and Dick, there were graduate seminars that brought about the germination of this dissertation’s ideas. Steven Teles made me to think in depth about organizations and policy failures. Mimi Keck’s contentious politics seminar and Mike Hanchard’s discussion on state theory prepared me to become a better comparative Americanist. The American dreams seminar with Jane Bennett and Jennifer Culbert explored many jewels of the American literature that enlightened me in writing this dissertation. Nathan Connolly kindly spared time to advise iv on the works on the history of southern political economy. As a graduate student, I was given opportunities to teach undergraduate classes on American politics. While leading the discussion sections for Benjamin Ginsberg’s Intro AP and Danny Schlozman’s American Congress, I learned from their pedagogical styles, reading assignments, as well as what the students had to say about the subject. With the Dean’s Teaching Fellowship, I taught my first seminar on contemporary American political parties. I am again thankful for the students. Outside of Hopkins faculty, Robert Mickey’s encouragement that I have the freedom to write a story of my own has literally served as both a lifesaver and a compass onto which I at times clung, as I tried to swim in the vast sea of southern politics literature and oriented myself in the mountain ranges of the archival boxes. I was lucky to have Daisy Kim, Nicole Thornton and Lauren Foley as friends. Conversations with their families also helped me place many facets of America into perspective in ways no books could. Daisy and Karyn Wang offered me kind support when, albeit momentarily, the earthquakes at home seemed to upend life in the spring semester of my second year. Nobutaka Otobe’s wit dispelled many of my initial worries about the new graduate school life at Hopkins. Special thanks go to Mary Otterbein and Lisa Williams, for their administrative support in the department. Without their help, I could not have navigated through the graduate program. The microcosm in the city of Baltimore helped this newcomer grapple with what America has been made of and what it aspires to become tomorrow. The city’s many heritages, ranging from the patriotic glory of Fort McHenry, to the wealth of the nineteenth century philanthropists in Mount Vernon, to the checkered blocks of the row v houses, to the subdued conversation on the Ferguson protest overheard in a packed evening MARC train, to the curious gaze of the onlookers on my face on North Avenue, they all mesmerized me. The juxtapositions of orange, purple, black, white, green and brown in the city have challenged my naïve imagination and at the same time gave me many warm embraces. Though this dissertation is not about Baltimore, this particular space and the time shaped and tested my scholarly growth. Of the generation of Japan’s Americanists that went into graduate school training in the United States around the same time as I did, I specifically want to thank Masako Hattori for her practical advice on research funding, and Yukako Otori for much needed outings in the midst of solitary dissertation writing during the final year. The numerous trips to the Library of Congress, the National Archives, the presidential libraries, and the local archives in the south were funded by the generous research grants from the following organizations: the America-Japan Society, Sheridan Libraries of Johns Hopkins University, Gerald R. Ford Presidential Foundation, and Suntory Foundation. In addition, the Japan-U.S. Educational Commission and the Institute of International Education provided me the fellowship in the Fulbright Program for Graduate Study, which enabled the first two years of study in the PhD program. Randall Conrad and Sally Lawton proofread the manuscript in the very last phase of writing. I am responsible for all the errors in the pages to follow. Half a globe away from Baltimore, there have been people who supported my study in the United States. Professor Fumiaki Kubo of the University of Tokyo had first opened the door of the graduate school and then gave me opportunities to walk across the bridge that connects the two countries. vi My parents, Nobuyasu and Fumiko Hiramatsu, have provided constant love and support, even though I have ventured to see an America that may seem foreign to their beloved memories of the land from more than thirty years ago. My sisters, Midori and Tomoko, have sent me cheers the moments I needed them most. My husband, Taketo Fushimi, and his side of parents, have firmly believed in and supported the endeavor to which I have committed myself. To my family this dissertation is dedicated. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. Introduction: Southern Political Elites and Subnational Democratic Consolidation ……………………………………………………………… 1 Chapter 2. The Authoritarian Enclave Rulers’ One Last Defense, 1964-1968 ………. 54 Chapter 3. The State Democratic Party Elites’ Responses to the Nationally Mandated Party Reform, 1968-1972 …………………………………………………. 98 Chapter 4. National Interventions in the State Party: Nixon’s Southern Strategy as Regime Boundary Negotiation, 1969-1972 ……………………………… 143 Chapter 5. The Visions and Limits of Jimmy Carter’s Democratic Party in Georgia and Nation, 1972-1980 ……………………………………………………….. 191 Chapter 6. Subnational

Load more