E.g. the 1964 civil rights act vote. Hard to over generalize that vote. Well, yes and no. I suspect you would love Caro's latest volume on LBJ. He digs deeply into the various measures LBJ used to get the vote he wanted. The key was getting the Republican vote, which had been difficult up to that point because they copped out on procedural grounds. LBJ found no end of ways to box them in.
So in Caro's view, what made the difference that time around was LBJ's superior knowledge of congressional rules, personalities, and political bases. And his willingness to use all of it to get the bill passed.
He also had to get it discharged from the House Rules Committee. Another legislative marvel.
As for the comments about "science", we aren't even close to dealing with that creature. My problem with your original comment was not the generalization, had it been couched in some sort of language befitting a generalization. I was bothered by the overgeneralization of "the south is anti-intellectual." In that form, it's wrong.
Ah, another recommendation. If you don't know C. Vann Woodward's work on southern history, I recommend it highly. I particularly liked his book on Tom Watson, the Georgia populist who started his political career as a genuine populist, Tom Watson: Agrarian Rebel. It was my introduction to Woodward's work and gave me an appreciation for the complexity of southern politics, particularly deep south politics. |
