Limiting liberalism: the southern veto in Congress, 1933-1950
I Katznelson, K Geiger, D Kryder - Political Science Quarterly, 1993 - JSTOR
I Katznelson, K Geiger, D Kryder
Political Science Quarterly, 1993•JSTORRichard Hofstadter concluded his 1949 assessment of the previous year's Dixiecrat revolt
with the claim that the Democratic party" finds itself in the anomalous position of being a
party of'liberalism,'whose achievements are subject to veto by a reactionary fraction."'The
same year, V. 0. Key published the landmark study, Southern Politics. His chapters on"
Solidarity in the Senate" and" The South in the House" remain the best starting point for
considering Hofstadter's claim. Key's questions were these:" Is the South actually united in …
with the claim that the Democratic party" finds itself in the anomalous position of being a
party of'liberalism,'whose achievements are subject to veto by a reactionary fraction."'The
same year, V. 0. Key published the landmark study, Southern Politics. His chapters on"
Solidarity in the Senate" and" The South in the House" remain the best starting point for
considering Hofstadter's claim. Key's questions were these:" Is the South actually united in …
Richard Hofstadter concluded his 1949 assessment of the previous year's Dixiecrat revolt with the claim that the Democratic party" finds itself in the anomalous position of being a party of'liberalism,'whose achievements are subject to veto by a reactionary fraction."'The same year, V. 0. Key published the landmark study, Southern Politics. His chapters on" Solidarity in the Senate" and" The South in the House" remain the best starting point for considering Hofstadter's claim. Key's questions were these:" Is the South actually united in Congress? If so, on what issues? We have the popular characterization of the South as' reactionary'and as' conservative.'Does the record support such epithets?" 2 Aside from controversies about race, he answered in the negative. Who was right, Hofstadter or Key?
JSTOR