Dixiecrat

Dixiecrat (pronounced dik-see-krat)

(1) In US political history, a member of a faction of southern Democrats stressing states' rights and opposed to the civil rights programs of the Democratic Party, especially a southern Democrat who left the party in 1948 to support candidates of the States' Rights Democratic Party.

(2) In historic US use, a member of the US Democratic Party from the southern states (especially one of the former territories of the Confederacy), holding socially conservative views, supporting racial segregation and the continued entrenchment of a white hegemony.

1948: A portmanteau word of US origin, the construct being Dixie + (Demo)crat.  Wholly unrelated to other meanings, Dixie (also as Dixieland) in this context is a reference to the southern states of the United States, especially those formerly part of the Confederacy.  The origin is contested, the most supported theory being it’s derived from the Mason-Dixon Line, a historic (if not entirely accurate) delineation between the "free" North and "slave-owning" South.  Another idea is it was picked up from any of several songs with this name, especially the minstrel song Dixie (1859) by (northerner) Daniel Decatur Emmett (1815-1904), popular as a Confederate war song although most etymologists hold this confuses cause and effect, the word long pre-dating any of the known compositions.  There’s also a suggested link to the nineteenth-century nickname of New Orleans, from the dixie, a Confederate-era ten-dollar bill on which was printed the French dix (ten) but again, it came later.  The –crat suffix was from the Ancient Greek κράτος (krátos) (power, might), as used in words of Ancient Greek origin such as democrat and aristocrat; the ultimate root was the primitive Indo-European kret (hard).  Dixiecrat is a noun and Dixiecratic is an adjective; the noun plural is Dixiecrats.  The noun Dixiecratocracy (also as dixieocracy) was a humorous coining speculating about the nature of a Dixiecrat-run government; it was built on the model of kleptocracy, plutocracy, meritocracy, gerontocracy etc.

The night old Dixie died.

Former Dixiecrat, Senator Strom Thurmond (1902-2003; senator (Republican) for South Carolina 1954-2003) lies in state, Columbia, South Carolina, June 2003.

Universally called Dixiecrats, the States' Rights Democratic Party was formed in 1948 as a dissident breakaway from the Democratic Party.  Its core platform was permanently to secure the rights of states to legislate and enforce racial segregation and exclude the federal government from intervening in these matters.  Politically and culturally, it was a continuation of the disputes and compromises which emerged in the aftermath of the US Civil War almost a century earlier.  The Dixiecrats took control of the party machine in several southern states and contested the elections of 1948 with South Carolina governor Strom Thurmond as their presidential nominee but enjoyed little support outside the deep South and by 1952 most had returned to the Democratic Party.  However, in the following decades, they achieved a much greater influence as a southern faction than ever was achieved as a separatist party.  The shift in the south towards support for the Republican Party dates from this time and by the 1980s, the Democratic Party's control of presidential elections in the South had faded and many of the Dixiecrats had joined the Republicans.

US Electoral College map, 1948.

In the 1948 presidential election, the Dixiecrats didn’t enjoy the success polls had predicted (although that was the year of the infamous “Dewey Defeats Truman” headline and the polls got much wrong), carrying only four states, all south of the Mason-Dixon line and not even the antics of one “faithless elector” (one selected as an elector for the Democratic ticket who instead cast his vote for Dixiecrats) was sufficient to add Tennessee to the four (South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana) won.  Nor did they in other states gain sufficient support to act as “spoilers” as Ross Perot (1930–2019) in 1992 & 1996 and Ralph Nadar (b 1934) in 2000 achieved, the “narrowing of margins” in specific instances being of no immediate electoral consequence in the US system.  With that, the Dixiecrats (in the sense of the structure of the States' Rights Democratic Party) in a sense vanished but as an idea they remained for decades a potent force within the Democratic Party and their history is an illustration of why the often-quoted dictum by historian Professor Richard Hofstadter (1916–1970): “The role of third parties is to sting like a bee, then die” needs a little nuance.  What the Dixiecrats did after 1948 was not die but instead undergo a kind of “resurrection without crucifixion”, emerging to “march through the institutions” of the Democratic Party, existing as its southern faction.

That role was for generations politically significant and example of why the “third party” experience in the US historically wasn’t directly comparable with political behaviour elsewhere in the English-speaking world where “party discipline” tended to be “tight” with votes on the floors of parliaments almost always following party lines.  Until recent years (and this is something the “Trump phenomenon” radically has at least temporarily almost institutionalized), there was often only loose party discipline applied within the duopoly, Democrats and Republicans sometimes voting together on certain issues because the politicians were practical people who wished to be re-elected and understood what Tip O'Neill (1912–1994; (Democrat) speaker of the US Representatives 1977-1987) meant when he said “All politics is local”.  Structurally, that meant “third parties” can operate in the US and achieve stuff (for good or evil) as the Dixiecrats and later the Republican’s Tea Party Movement proved; it just that they do it as factions within the duopoly and that’s not unique, the Australian National Party (a re-branding of the old Country Party) really a regional pressure group of political horse traders disguised as a political party.

US Electoral College map, 1924.

The 1924 Electoral College results were a harbinger of the later Dixiecrat movement and a graphical representation of terms such as "solid South" or "south of the Mason-Dixon Line".  At the time of the 1924 election, slavery in the South was still in living memory.  Although there was fracturing at the edges, the "solid south" did remain a Democratic Party stronghold until the civil rights legislation of the 1960s and it was was the well-tuned political antennae of Texan Lyndon Johnson (LBJ, 1908–1973; US president 1963-1969) which picked up the implications and consequences of the reforms his skills had ushered through the Congress:  "I think I've just lost us the South" he was heard to remark when the Senate passed a landmark voting rights bill into law.

In recent years, what has changed in the US is the Republicans and Democrats have become the captive organizations of a tiny number of dedicated political operatives pursuing either their own ideological agendas or (more typically), those providing the funding.  The practical implication of that is the elections which now most matter are the primaries (where candidates for the election proper are selected) and because primary contests are voted on by a relative handful, outcomes are easier to influence and control that in general elections where there are millions to nudge.  Party discipline has thus become tighter than can often be seen on the floor of the House of Commons in the UK, not because the ideological commitments of politicians within parties have coalesced but because they’re now terrified of being “primaried” if they vote against the party line.  Re-election is a powerful inducement because the money politicians make during their careers is many, many times what might be expected given their notional earnings from their salary and entitlements.  There are few easier ways to get rich, thus the incentive to “toe the party line”.  This behavioural change, mapped onto something which structurally remains unchanged, is one of the many factors which have produced a country now apparently as polarized as ever it has been.  The nature of that polarization is sometimes misunderstood because of the proliferation of “red state, blue state” maps of the US which make the contrast between the “corrupting coastlines” and “flyover states” seem so stark but each state is of course a shade of purple (some darker, some lighter) but because of the way the two parties now operate, politics as it is practiced tends to represent the extreme, radical elements which now control the machines.  So while in the last twenty-odd years there’s been much spoken about “the 1%” in the sense of the tiny number of people who own or control so much, it’s political scientists and historians who much fret over the less conspicuous “1%” able to maintain effective control of the two parties, something of even greater significance because the state has put in place some structural impediments to challenging the two-party political duopoly.

In the US, the state does not (in a strict legal or constitutional sense of the word) “own” the Republican or Democratic Parties because they are “private” organizations protected by the constitution’s First Amendment (freedom of association).  However, over the years, something biologists would recognize as “symbiosis” has evolved as the state and the parties (willingly and sometimes enthusiastically) have become entangled to the extent a structural analysis would recognize the parties as quasi-public although not quite at the status familiar elsewhere as quangos (quasi autonomous non-government organizations).  Despite being “private concerns”, the parties routinely conduct state-regulated primaries to select candidates and in many cases these are funded by tax revenue and administered by state electoral instrumentalities.  Beyond that, it needs to be remembered that to speak of a “US national election” (as one might of a “UK general election”) is misleading because as a legal construct such events are really 50 elections run by each state with electoral laws not wholly aligned (thus the famous (or dreaded, depending on one’s position) Iowa caucuses) and in many states, it’s state law which regulates who can voted in party primaries, some permitting “open” primaries in which any lawfully enrolled voter is allowed to cast a ballot while others run “closed” events, restricting participation to registered members of the relevant party.  What that means is in some places a citizen can vote in each party’s primary.  That done, those who prevail in a primary further are advantaged because many states have laws setting parameters governing who may appear on a ballot paper and most of them provide an easier path for the Republican and Democratic Party candidates by virtue of having granted both “major party” status.  As objects, the two parties, uniquely, are embedded in the electoral apparatus and the interaction of ballot access laws, debate rules and campaign finance rules mean the two function as state-sponsored actors; while not quite structurally duopolistic, they operate in a protected environment with the electoral equivalent of “high tariff barriers”.

Elon Musk (left) and Donald Trump (right), with Tesla Cybertruck (AWD Foundation Series), the White House, March, 2025.  It seemed like a good idea at the time.

Given all that, Elon Musk’s (b 1971) recent announcement he was planning to launch a “third party” (actually the US has many political parties, the “third party” tag used as a synecdoche for “not one of the majors”) might seem “courageous” and surprised many who thought the experience of his recent foray into political life might have persuaded him pursuits like EVs (electric vehicles), digging tunnels (he deserves praise for naming that SpaceX spin-off: “The Boring Company”) and travelling to Mars were more fulfilling.  However, Mr Musk believes the core of the country’s problems lie in the way its public finances are now run on the basis of the “Dick Cheney (born 1941; US vice president 2001-2009) doctrine: “Deficits don’t matter” and having concluded neither of the major parties are prepared to change the paradigm which he believes is leading the US to a fiscal implosion, a third party is the only obvious vehicle.  In Western politics, ever since shades of “socialism” and “capitalism” defined the democratic narrative, the idea of a “third way” has been a lure for theorists and practitioners with many interpretations of what is meant but all have in common what Mr Musk seems to be suggesting: finding the middle ground and offering it to those currently voting for one or other of the majors only because “your extremists are worse than our extremists”.  Between extremes there’s much scope for positioning (which will be variable between “social” & “economic” issues) and, given his libertarian instincts, it seems predicable Mr Musk’s economic vision will be “centre-right” rather than “centre-left” but presumably he’ll flesh out the details as his venture evolves.

Mr Musk can’t be accused of creating a “third party” because he wants to become POTUS (president of the US).  As a naturalized US citizen, Mr Musk is ineligible because Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the constitution restricts the office to those who are a “natural born Citizen” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 5).  Because the US Supreme Court (USSC) has never handed down a definitive ruling on the matter it’s not absolutely certain what that phrase means but the consensus among legal scholars is it refers to someone who was at birth a US citizen.  That need not necessitate being born on the soil of the US or its territories because US citizens often are born in other countries (especially to those on military or diplomatic duty) and even in international waters; indeed, there would appear no constitutional impediment to someone born in outer space (or, under current constitutional interpretation, on Mars) becoming POTUS provided they were at the time of birth a US citizen.  Nor does it seem an interpretation of the word “natural” could be used to exclude a US citizen conceived through the use of some sort of “technology” such as IVF (In Vitro Fertilization).

Lindsay Lohan, potential third party POTUS.

As a naturalized US citizen, Elon Musk can’t become POTUS so his new party (tentatively called the “America” Party) will have to nominate someone else and the constitution stipulates (Article II, Section 1, Clause 5): “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States”.  The age requirement is unambiguous and in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833), Justice Joseph Story (1779–1845; associate justice of the Supreme Court of the USSC 1812-1845) explained the residence requirement was “…not an absolute inhabitancy within the United States during the whole period; but such an inhabitancy as includes a permanent domicil in the United States.”  That means Mr Musk can consider nominating Lindsay Lohan for president.  She’d apparently flirted with the idea of running in 2020 but at that point would have been a few months too young; on all grounds she’ll be eligible for selection in 2028 and many would be attracted to the idea of Lindsay Lohan having her own nuclear weapons.

Whether or not it’s “courageous” (or even “heroic”), to build a new third party in the US time will tell but certainly it’s ambitious but Mr Musk is also a realist and may not be planning to have a presidential candidate on the ballot in all 50 states or even contest every seat both houses of Congress.  As he’ll have observed in a number of countries, “third parties” need neither parliamentary majorities nor executive office to achieve decisive influence over policy, some with comparatively little electoral support able to achieve “balance of power” status in legislatures provided those votes are clustered in the right places.  Additionally, because the polarized electorate has delivered such close results in the House & Senate, the math suggests a balance of power may be attainable with fewer seats than historically would have been demanded and under the US system of fixed terms, an administration cannot simply declare such a congress “unworkable” and all another election (a common tactic in the Westminster system); it must, for at least two years, work with what the people have elected, even if that includes an obstreperous third party. Still, the challenges will be onerous, even before the “dirty tricks” departments of the major parties start searching for skeletons in the closets of third party candidates (in a rare example of bipartisanship the Republicans and Democrats will probably do a bit of intelligence-sharing on that project) and the history is not encouraging.

It was the Republican party which in the 1850s was the last “third party” to make the transition to become a “major” and not since 1996 has such a candidate in a presidential contest secured more than 5% of the national vote.  In the Electoral College, not since 1968 has a third-party candidate carried any states and 1912 was the last time a third-party nominee finished second (and 1912 was a bit of a “special case” in which the circumstances were unusually propitious for challenges to the majors).  Still, with (1) the polls recording a general disillusionment with the major parties and institutions of state and (2) Mr Musk’s wealth able to buy much advertising and “other forms” of influence, prospects for a third party may be untypically bright in 2028 elections and 2030 mid-terms.  There are no more elections for Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025) and it seems underestimated even now just what an aberration he is in the political cycle.  While his use of techniques and tactics from other fields truly has since 2016 been disruptive, what he has done is unlikely to be revolutionary because it is all so dependent on his presence and hands on the levers of power.  When he leaves office, without the “dread and awe” the implied threat of his displeasure evokes, business may return to something closer what we still imagine “normal” to be.

Filibuster

Filibuster (pronounced fil-uh-buhs-ter (U) or fil-e-bust-ah (non-U))

(1) In US politics, the use of irregular or obstructive tactics by a member of a legislature to prevent the adoption of a measure generally favored or to attempt to force a decision against the will of the majority.

(2) An exceptionally long speech, as one lasting for a day or days, or a series of such speeches to accomplish this purpose.

(3) A member of a legislature who makes such a speech.

(4) By extension, delaying tactics generally.

(5) Historically, an irregular military adventurer, especially one who engages in an unauthorized military expedition into a foreign country to foment or support a revolution.

(6) By extension, to engage in unlawful and private military action; a mercenary soldier (obsolete).

1580–1590: From the Spanish filibustero (pirate), from the Middle French flibustier, a variant of fribustier and probably from the Dutch vrijbuiter (pirate (literally “one plundering freely”).  The construct in Dutch was vrij (free) + buit (booty) + -er (agent), hence the later English noun “freebooter”.  Etymologists note the alteration in the first syllable in French was due to the word being somewhat conflated with vlieboot (light, flat-bottomed cargo vessel with two or three masts) when it was borrowed from the Dutch.  By virtue of the Dutch colonial empire, filibuster was picked up by Indonesian and, as fèilìbǎshìtuō (費力把事拖／费力把事拖), by Chinese.  Filibuster is a noun & verb, filibusterer & filibusterism are nouns, filibusterous is an adjective, filibustering & filibustered are verbs and filibusterist is a noun & adjective; the noun plural is filibusters.

There’s some murkiness about the word’s entry into English, perhaps because the first use was among sailors at sea.  The first recorded instance seems to have been flibutor meaning “pirate” and referring to buccaneers operating in Caribbean waters (almost always French, Dutch, and English “adventurers” (ie pirates)) and that was some sort of variant (possibly an imperfect echoic) of the Dutch vrijbueter (the modern spelling vrijbuiter) (freebooter), the word used of the regions pirates and picked up in Spanish (filibustero) & French (flibustier (earlier fribustier)) forms.  If was this origin which led to the later use in English of “freebooter” to mean “a mercenary; a soldier of fortune” and later still to those irregular combatants, organized into loose (but still structured) formations in the US and travelling during the mid-nineteenth century to Central America or the Spanish West Indies, usually after being hired by a state or insurrectionist force, either to put down or conduct a revolt.

Although now most associated with US politics (notable the Senate), the use of “filibuster” to describe the parliamentary tactic appears not widely to have been used in this context until 1865 although the practice was first this described in 1861, the curious linguistic adoption is explained by the appeal of the notion of obstructionist or recalcitrant legislators acting “like pirates” on the floor of the chamber to “plunder and overthrow” the established order of authority; because of events in Central America and the Caribbean, the word (used in the paramilitary sense since 1853) was in the news  Originally, “filibuster” was used to describe the “ringleader” senator but so institutionalised did it become in Senate procedures that by the early 1890s it was understood as the actual mechanism.  As a delaying tactic, then, as now, it wasn’t exclusive to the Senate bit because of the Senate’s rules, composition and numbers, it was there it could be most effective.  As a tactical mechanism in the US Senate, filibuster continues to enjoy its historic meaning but it’s long been used in many contexts as “verbal shorthand” for “delaying tactic; obstructionism; act of procrastination” and in the US Senate, filibusters can be ended by an act of “cloture” (from the French clôture (closure) and a doublet of closure and clausure (from Late Latin clausūra, from the Classical Latin clauses) (the act of shutting up or confining; confinement).

In its pure form (under rules which permitted “unlimited debate”, subject only to a closing vote by a two-thirds majority among an assembled quorum) the filibuster existed only to 1917 when the first cloture act was passed.  Since then there have been a number of refinements, all designed to limit the extent to which the filibuster can be used to defy the will of a clear majority and in certain situations, most notably votes confirming the appointment of judges to the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US) only a bare majority (ie 51 out of 100) is now required, a significant change from what prevailed for most of the republic’s existence when at least 60 votes were needed, something which meant at least some bipartisan support was usually essential.  That applied also to other presidential appointments such as federal judges and cabinet members.

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.

It was during the administration of George W Bush (George XLIII, b 1946; US president 2001-2009) that the Republican Party began exploring a way to neuter the filibuster which was slowing up (in some cases stopping) their project and what they wanted as a change to the Senate rules which would allow judicial nominees to pass with a simple majority, something obviously topical because the GOP then held 51 Senate seats.  The Republicans plotters first gave their scheme the code-name “The Hulk” but it was them majority leader Trent Lott (b 1941) who gave it the name which stuck: the “Nuclear Option”.  That had some resonance because the point about the use of nuclear weapons is that things can get out of hand and the ensuing conflict can be equally damaging to both sides, something which may explain the long historical reluctance by senators to tinker too much with the filibuster, both sides aware they may need it one day.  In one of those charming coincidences, Senator Lott was compelled to resign the majority leadership because he made a speech praising old Strom Thurmond’s (1902-2003; US senator (Republican- South Carolina) 1954-2003) segregationist policies when running as the Dixiecrat candidate in the 1948 presidential election.  It’s old Senator Thurmond who still holds the record for the Senate’s longest single-person filibuster, his mark of 24 hours: 18 minutes set in August 1957 in an attempt to prevent the passage of the Civil Rights Act (1957).  The act passed into law.  Trent Lott is a confessed Freemason.

Three wise men who, as senate majority leaders, would, from time-to-time, change their views on things: Harry Reid (left), Mitch McConnell (centre) and Trent Lott (right).

As things worked out, the Republicans increased their majority in 2004 and they were never compelled use the nuclear option but by 2013, with the Democrats now enjoying a majority, it was them being filibustered, frustrating their (many) attempts to fill judicial vacancies.  Accordingly, the Democratic majority leader, old Harry Reid (1939–2021; US senator (Democrat, Nevada) 1987-2017), pulled the trigger, changing the Senate’s rules to permit nominees for cabinet posts and federal judgeships to be with a bare majority of 51 votes, the Republican & Democratic positions on the issue now reversed from a decade earlier.  Then Republican minority leader, old Mitch McConnell (b 1942; US senator (Republican- Kentucky) since 1985) warned darkly: “You'll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think.”  It’s believed Harry Reid’s middle name (Mason) was a coincidence and it’s not believed he was ever a Freemason although he did as a young man convert to Mormonism.

Notably, Senator Reid must have understood Senator McConnell’s words because he didn’t aim the nuclear option at Supreme Court nominees, meaning it was still necessary to gather at least 60 votes to confirm an appointment.  However, control of the Senate shifted back to the Republicans in the 2014 mid-term elections and in one of his sneakier moves, Senator McConnell decided the house wouldn’t consider the matter of SCOTUS vacancies and delayed things in the hope it would be a Republican in the White House to make the nomination(s).  That attracted much criticism as both naked cynicism and an “unprecedented breach of political conventions” but Senator McConnell knew the rules and his faith was rewarded when Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) won.  Quickly, Senator McConnell pressed the nuclear button, saying that although he led the opposition to what Senator Reid had done in 2013, that had set a precedent and it was one the Republican majority was going to follow.  That was quite a stretch given the simple majority rule had never been applied to the SCOTUS but again, Senator McConnell knew the rules and he had Mr Trump's nominee confirmed in a 54-45 vote.