Politics with Marc Ambinder

« SEIU's Data Footprint In 2008 | Main | Rush Limbaugh Wants To Own Part Of The Worst Team In The NFL »

Oct 6 2009, 8:57 am

The Scots-Irish Vote

The populist fury aimed at President Obama and his fellow Democrats may have roots much deeper than health care. In fact, it may be that it can be traced back to the emigration of the Scots-Irish, the first white group to settle interior America.

They've been called rednecks, hillbillies and crackers. In the modern parlance of political correctness, they've been referred to as the Bubba vote. They live in Sarah Palin's "real America," and they make up the majority of Reagan Democrats. They count as distant relatives at least twelve U.S. presidents, from Andrew Jackson to Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton and even to Barack Obama, yet the Scots-Irish remain largely ignored as an ethnic group in America.

The Scots-Irish were a group of Scots who moved to Ulster, in Northern Ireland, before moving to the U.S. and first settling in New Hampshire and parts of Maine. Within a generation, they had moved down along the Appalachian spine, from western Pennsylvania and southeastern Ohio down into West Virginia, western Virginia, North Carolina, northern Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama and large parts of South Carolina, Kentucky and Tennessee. Many moved further south and west, down to the Gulf Coast and out to Oklahoma, Arkansas, East Texas and beyond. Eventually they migrated out to the Bakersfield region of California (think The Grapes of Wrath), and up the Great Plains to parts of Michigan, Kansas, Nebraska and Colorado (James Dobson and Tom Tancredo territory, not Denver and Boulder).

An analysis of Scots-Irish may help to explain why rural white voters in many areas of the South and West often share similar viewpoints, and why they differ from rural whites in areas like New England and the upper Midwest in their cultural beliefs and voting patterns.

Brandeis Professor David Hackett Fischer writes in Albion's Seed, "90 percent of the backsettlers [in Appalachia] were either English, Irish or Scottish; and an actual majority came from Ulster, the Scottish lowlands, and the [Scots-English] north of England...they established in the southern highlands [of the U.S.] a cultural hegemony that was even greater than their proportion in the population."

Only 1.5% of the U.S. population identified as Scots-Irish in the last census, but there are many more whose origins have been lost to history, and their influence is much stronger than their sheer numbers. Anecdotally, country music is the direct descendant of Scots-Irish folk music. Many Protestants who identify as Irish are likely of Scots-Irish descent: a very high number of Irish Protestants in the 1800s were of Scottish origins. Many Scots who came over in the early years of the Republic are Scots-Irish as well. Finally, the 2000 Census map of the concentration of the 7.2 percent of U.S. citizens who identify their ethnicity as "American" in the census very closely mirrors maps of Scots-Irish settlement patterns. Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA), himself a proud Scots-Irishman, wrote in his book Born Fighting that approximately 10% of Americans, or 30 million people, are of Scots-Irish descent.

Unlike other ethnic groups in the U.S., the Scots-Irish do not overtly identify as an ethnic bloc in politics. As University of North Carolina professor emeritus John Shelton Reed put it, "You ask people what their ethnicity is, and a lot of Scots-Irish people either don't know or if they know it they just [don't] acknowledge it. It's not something they really identify with. They're just plain old Americans, plain vanilla. I don't think they are a self-conscious voting bloc."

Sen. Webb argues, "Few key Democrats seem even to know that the Scots-Irish exist, as this culture is so adamantly individualistic that it will never overtly form into one of the many interest groups that dominate Democratic Party politics." He blames former Vice President Al Gore's loss in 2000 on his losses in Tennessee and West Virginia, which he attributes to Gore's positions on gun rights.

Still, while the Scots-Irish may not participate in the same group politics that other ethnicities do, they still share many common cultural values that have held on in many parts of the country, especially the Appalachian South. Richard Nisbett and Dov Cohen, psychology professors at the University of Michigan and University of Illinois, conducted an in-depth study in the 1990s examining what they dubbed the "Culture of Honor" prevalent in the South. In trying to find out why violence rates were significantly higher in the South, they discovered that white southerners tended to be much more likely to resort to violence to defend their property or honor than whites in other parts of the country. Their studies controlled for poverty rates throughout the region, as well as for other factors including weather (warmer areas tend to be more violent) and the legacy of slavery (areas with fewer blacks actually experienced more violence amongst whites, they found). This trend was not nearly as strong in the larger, more metropolitan cities of the South but was especially prevalent in the small, more isolated and culturally distinct small cities and towns throughout Appalachia and the rural South. These are the areas where the Hatfields and McCoys, the Turners and Howards (all Scots-Irish) feuded for years. The psychologists then ran a series of experiments where they antagonized both southerners and northerners, and found that southerners were much more prone to violence when slighted.

Nisbett argues that many of the cultural traits of the modern South can be traced back to the heritage of the population's descendants. "The Scots-Irish were a herding people, while people from the north [of the U.S.] were English, German and Dutch farmers. Herding people are tough guys all over the world, and they are that because they have to establish that you can't trifle with them, and if you don't do that then you feel like you're at risk for losing your entire wealth, which is your herd. This creates a culture of honor, and the Scots-Irish are very much a culture of honor, and they carried that with them from the Deep South to the Mountain South, and then out through the western plains."

According to Nisbett, the Scots-Irish were a warlike people distrustful of a powerful central government, a result of the herder mentality as well as centuries of fighting, first against the English and Irish, then against Native Americans, then against the Yankees. As he points out, "The Scots-Irish are very much overrepresented in the military ... and you find them there because they're a fighting people."

The Scots-Irish also tend to be devoutly religious. While the Scots-Irish were originally mostly Calvinists, many are now Baptists, the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S., while others are Pentecostals or belong to other evangelical churches. Sen. Webb argues in his book that the "twin forces of Calvinism and populism came together to create ... the embryo of what would in the twentieth century be called America's Bible Belt."

The states that are dominated by the Scots-Irish and Scots-Irish culture have voting patterns atypical to the rest of the U.S. Voters there, once solidly New Deal Democrats, have been voting increasingly for Republicans at the national level since the 1960s, as the Democratic Party has grown increasingly socially liberal and dovish. It is worth noting that many Scots-Irish broke for George Wallace's militarism, tough on crime message and racism before they moved on to vote for Nixon and Reagan, although Wallace's supporters tended to be in the Deep South and not in the parts of Central Appalachia that had supported the Union during the Civil War. Wallace did poorly in West Virginia, for instance.

Republicans have had success in actively courting these voters. As Sen. Webb writes, "The GOP strategy is heavily directed toward keeping peace with this culture, which every four years is seduced by the siren song of guns, God, flag, opposition to abortion and success in war."

Still, in many of these areas Democrats have done well, at least on the local level. Arkansas, which voted for McCain over Obama by a 59%-39% margin, still has two Democratic senators and more Democratic than Republican House members, as does West Virginia, where McCain beat Obama 56%-43%. Emory Professor Merle Black: "They [southern Democrats] are moderate to conservative Democrats, they're not liberal Democrats, and voters really see a huge difference between national elections and state and local elections, especially in these places like Arkansas, parts of Tennessee, Virginia, most of western North Carolina ... when the national Democrats come in and run very liberal programs, most of these local Democrats put some distance between themselves and the national candidates."

These Democrats are often Blue Dogs (and in the recent past were Boll Weevils and Yellow Dogs), and often look and sound like Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC): they are pro-gun, pro-life, anti-free trade, and loudly critical of both the national Democratic and Republican Parties. Shuler, for instance, vehemently opposed Obama's stimulus package, criticizing Speaker Nancy Pelosi's handling of the bill. Still, he and other Democrats in Scots-Irish territory are high on Republican target lists heading into 2010.

The split between Obama and Clinton in the primaries closely mirrors the schism between Scots-Irish "Bubba voters" and what can be called "Mondale Democrats." While Obama took the states with high minority populations or with white voters from mostly WASP, Scandinavian or Germanic heritage, such as in Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota, Clinton won every state with a significant Scots-Irish population and low concentrations of African American voters. Even in Scots-Irish states like North Carolina and Virginia where Obama easily won, the Appalachian counties broke decisively for Clinton.

Dave "Mudcat" Saunders, a self-described "Scots-Irish hillbilly," is a former senior adviser to Sen. Webb, Sen. (then Gov.) Mark Warner (D-VA), and former Sen. John Edwards's (D-NC) second presidential campaign. As Saunders points out, "If you had told me in 2005 that by that time the 2008 nominating battles had come along that Hillary Clinton would redefine herself as pro-gun and anti-trade, I would've told them that they were crazy. But she did it -- she redefined herself. At the same time, they redefined Barack Obama as a globalist, 'secret meeting with the Canadians,' 'gonna take your gun right now'... it was cultural issues" that gave Clinton the edge with the Scots-Irish.

In the general election, while McCain was losing voters who had gone for George W. Bush in droves across the nation, the only regions where he outperformed Bush were the Deep South and Appalachia. McCain easily increased Bush's margins of victories in areas from East Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas up to West Virginia. The only other areas where McCain routinely did better than Bush were in his and Palin's home states, Arizona and Alaska, and in Catholic southern Louisiana.

Democrats saw their share of the white vote fall from 19% to 10% in Alabama and remain unchanged in Georgia despite Obama's strong campaign operation there and John Kerry ignoring the state in 2004. Obama also ran roughly even with or slightly trailed Kerry's numbers in Appalachian North Carolina and Virginia, despite campaigning heavily there as well.

John Murtha (D-PA) took a lot of heat for his assertion before the last election that Obama would perform poorly in Murtha's 12th district because "there's no question western Pennsylvania is a racist area." Yet Murtha may have been correct -- the 12th, in the southwest corner of Pennsylvania, went narrowly for McCain after both John Kerry and Al Gore had won it.

As Saunders put it, "There ain't fifty cents' difference in a Scots-Irish redneck up there and one down here. They want their guns, it's just who we are. And everybody thinks of going after the Scots-Irish vote in a geographic sense, 'Go into southern Appalachia and the South.' Listen, you can get a lot of 'Yankee' votes with that too, and Midwestern votes, Southwestern votes."

Black argues that racism only played a small part in the 2008 election. "If there's a racial difference, it may be 4 to 5 points ... the vote in '08 [from whites in the Deep South] actually looks very much like the Reagan-Mondale vote."

Still, that Obama won three large states in the South despite losing badly among Scots-Irish voters indicates that Democrats may no longer need the Scots-Irish in the same way they once did. The Southern states where Obama won have large African American populations, as well as large numbers of immigrants, from other parts of the U.S. as well as from overseas. Northern Virginia, the research triangle of North Carolina and urban and suburban Florida are populated by many non-natives who have not been heavily influenced by the local, Scots-Irish and Southern culture.

The Republican Party, in wooing Scots-Irish Reagan Democrats with foreign policy and social issues, has made them an increasingly important part of their coalition. If Democrats want to better compete for these voters, they need to better understand them. As Saunders stated, "There is a definite thirst for understanding on how the Democrats might get to the culture."

Still, even the Scots-Irish themselves might be changing. As Nisbett put it, "I think the tectonic plates are shifting in the South. People are becoming more cosmopolitan, and cosmopolitanism is not consistent with most fundamentalist aspects of the religious right or with the South. I have the suspicion that some of the traditional culture is being reexamined in some of these changing areas."

Comments (8)

I read James Webb's book about the Scots-Irish. I was fully prepared to like it, but I found it very, very strange. I think in was borne of inchoate grievance, but the grievance never gels in the book.

As someone who's had anthropology and sociology courses in college, that seemed to be well sourced and valid interpretation. As someone who's worked in Matewan, Hazzard and Big Stone Gap, I have to say you swing pretty wide of the mark. Crackers and 'billies aren't like that because they're genetically (or culturally even) herders. Until you actually get into some of the hollers you don't understand how utterly *isolated* people can become. It's *not* genetic inbreeding but until very recently there was almost no inflow of information and very little inflow of population. Because no one there was prepared for any life outside the one they knew, those that escaped were the ones who had the most ability, talent, drive, adaptiveness, resilience- whatever you want to call it- and they didn't normally come back. Those left are under-employed (how much of the violence comes from yahoos without jobs), under-educated and under-motivated but they're not stupid. They know America is moving beyond them and if they can't move along with it they're going to go down screaming trying to hold it back so they don't get left behind again. That leaves them very open to exploitation by politicians without a conscience who couldn't care less about getting schools, broad band, hospitals, roads or other infrastructure out to them once they've pocketed the vote.

And sorry, but while racism, like bermuda shorts, is rapidly becoming out of fashion, it's still very much "in" for the older set.

Gen, written like a true urban elitist. People in cities (this sentiment is very strong in my hometown of San Diego) can't imagine why someone would want to live in the hills:

"those that escaped were the ones who had the most ability, talent, drive, adaptiveness, resilience- whatever you want to call it- and they didn't normally come back."

But you are missing the point: an independent nature can lead to the rejection of massive city collectives.

I prefer to look at them as Crocodile *Dundee* types: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090555/

So, what we have here are people who do not form groups, do not consider themselves a part of a group - grouped. Doesn't that strike anyone else as a little dehumanizing?

What I seem to be witnessing here is an attempt to understand what motivates people to vote for a particular political party, using a thought process employed by the same group that is unable to figure this out. How about using enough respect to listen or enough respect to accept what most voters cannot express to the satisfaction of the everyday political science professor? Has anyone considered that evaluating voters should be based on personal priorities and values?

I have an advanced degree in political science too, but over the years I have learned that we cannot find a magic key where none exists. When it comes to politics, people with freedom are free to make their decisions on what cannot be measured. Even to us political scientists. When this is attempted, we don't end up with a magic key, we end up with a something that may resemble a key for which no lock exists.

Voting is a subjective process, not an objective one. Employing objective measurements here is a waste of measurements. It forces arbitrary patterns where none really exists. The patterns are too similar to the past acclaimed patterns, which are now tossed aside, to be acceptable.

We are not pure bred. We are a nation on the move. Whom we marry is not based on societal preconditions as it had been in the past or currently exists in other cultures. There isn't any way to accurately determine voting patterns based on this kind of criteria in a land where interpersonal couplings are the norm. When the Hatfields marry the Goldsteins, how could anyone with credibility claim that their children are going to vote GOP? It is nonsense.

But worse, the attempt could be abused. We have continually witnessed the dehumanizing of groups based on supposed political considerations. We are just as wrong to use this kind of subjective groupings to label voters, as our ancestors did when they claimed phrenology determines IQ. It is not science, but can be abused by those who wish to use it to attain political goals that differ from this supposed group.

After 233 years, we should be at a point where we can honor one another as individuals, not as science projects. Voting is personal. It is done in a closed polling station. We cannot allow any arrogance to label people after we have been striving for years to honor one another's diversity.

I'm glad to see you citing Albion's Seed, which is a fine introduction to the four major waves of settlement from Britain to America. This book gave me many insights into the cultural contrasts between the upland south (the Scots-Irish in this essay -- I think Fischer might say they came from the midlands hollows to those of the southern uplands) and the lowland, or coastal, south, from a region of Britain physically and culturally (and politically, as things have played out in the U.S.) very different from each other.

Living as I do in the upland region of Arkansas, I have watched the contrast of these cultures -- the once-thriving plantations of the rich soils of the SE, the now-thriving yeoman region of the hills and mountains -- play out in our politics and economy. In several states that outsiders think of as just "southern," one can find this divide: Georgia, Alabama, even Mississippi, but certainly in Arkansas and Tennessee and Virginia.

See especially the appendix of Fischer's book, where he traces the effect of the regional settlements in our presidential elections over two centuries. Fascinating.

I'm glad to see you citing Albion's Seed, which is a fine introduction to the four major waves of settlement from Britain to America. This book gave me many insights into the cultural contrasts between the upland south (the Scots-Irish in this essay -- I think Fischer might say they came from the midlands hollows to those of the southern uplands) and the lowland, or coastal, south, from a region of Britain physically and culturally (and politically, as things have played out in the U.S.) very different from each other.

Living as I do in the upland region of Arkansas, I have watched the contrast of these cultures -- the once-thriving plantations of the rich soils of the SE, the now-thriving yeoman region of the hills and mountains -- play out in our politics and economy. In several states that outsiders think of as just "southern," one can find this divide: Georgia, Alabama, even Mississippi, but certainly in Arkansas and Tennessee and Virginia.

See especially the appendix of Fischer's book, where he traces the effect of the regional settlements in our presidential elections over two centuries. Fascinating.

I tend to disagree with the characterization of these folks as individualists. I would recommend Jack Weller's "Yesterday's people" as a good book on this topic. I would also rely on the dated, but still historically petinent, Campbell's "The Southern Highlander and his Homeland" Growing up in one of these communities I can tell you that group concensus is huge. Even when "rebelling" these folks follow accepted and tried and true methods of rebelling- the "sin on Saturday night and repent on Sunday morning." I'm not disputing the fierce warrior spirit, but I'm not sure that it was entirely a product of Ulster or Northern England. I think the emphasis on the lone cowboy and lone frontiersman says more about American myth-making then about reality. These mountain people have been used, and characterized by writers and myth-makers for roughly 120 years depending on the situation. They have simultaneously been pure Anglo-Saxon, untamed Celts, mixed race mongrels, Scotch-Irish yeomen, staunch Calvinists, and the descendents of the flotsom and jetsom of London, Glasgow, and Dublin. Well, maybe they are all of these things. I would furthermore add that many of these "Scotch-Irish" people have German ancestry. Many Germans settled in WV, VA, and NC and their Americanized descendents were part an underepresented [not romantic enough?] part of the frontier population in KY, TN, and elsewhere. So we can't assume that German= peaceful Midwestern Lutheran Republican. And if "Celticness", as described by Jimmy Webb, leads to clannish and violent behavior then why don't we hear that much out of areas of the country settled by Highland Scots or Welsh? Also, why were Southern Lowlanders in Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia who were not of Scotch-Irish descent also very capable of frontier violence and brawling?

Trying to figure out a way too fool the Scots-Irish into voting for a Democrat President is a waste of time. Why search out keys to moving the vote of a particular group if you don't wan't to change your issues to support the issues important to them. Democrats are never going to support gun rights or abandon a presumed right to remove an unborn child from his Mothers womb. President Obama's waffling on Afghanistan just confirms Scots-Irish suspicions of him as a weak leader. Democrat elites look at us as stubborn and resistant and clannish, but I don't see them flexing in their convictions, or moving outside of their ideologies. They also prefer to think of themselves as smarter than Republicans. This summer has proved otherwise. Sixty percent of the public now disapproves of Obama's (really Congresses) plans for changing the healthcare structure. The opposition party has put out a stronger argument. As usual Democrats resort to name-calling. Mobsters, racists, violent protesters, Tea-baggers etc. After this summer Redneck sounds kind of tame , but thats alright. For whats it's worth, the original meaning of Redneck was used for the red collar of a Presbyterian Minister. Same as it was in 1700, it requires a PhD to be ordained as a Presbyterian Minister.
A helpful hint to Democrat Party leaders, if you would like Republican support you could start by speaking respectfully. Write a bill in clear language, add a spreadsheet showing the costs and who pays what, post it on the internet (egalitarianism is important to Scotsmen), and then come out and use words that convince people that it is in their best interest.