Who exactly were the "LBJ Republicans"?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

As I've noted before, trying to identify someone as a "Reagan Democrat" in 2014 is as meaningful as identifying someone as an "LBJ Republican". Neither one has any relevance in modern day politics. And of course the media never gets who the actual "Reagan Democrats" were correct.

But ignoring that, who were the LBJ Republicans? What type of archetype? It's actually kind of hard to pin down a certain type of voter, especially since LBJ voter in 1964 basically means "Isn't a radical movement conservative or a Southernor". How would you though describe the archetype of consistently Republican voters in the era who voted for LBJ?

[Person Man]

Could they be in any way close to those whites of modestly high incomes from the urban and suburban corridors that were turned off by ethno-sectarian nationalism? Eventually, they replaced lower income southern whites as who Clinton relied upon and whom Dukakis, Gore and Kerry tried to rely on?

[Goldwater]

HPs

[Indy Texas]

My grandparents.

[TNF]

The modern Democratic Party.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Probably Republicans who supported LBJ in 1964 because of their opposition to Goldwater and the conservative wing of the GOP.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The modern Democratic Party.

[pbrower2a]

People scared that Barry Goldwater would "loose the fateful lightning" and provoke the Soviet Union to nuke us in return. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Basically everyone missed the point of the question (especially the ones with the Captain Obvious answers.)

I'm basically asking for a type of demographic archetype, like what is commonly attributed to "Reagan Democrats" (and is almost always incorrect.)

[CatoMinor]

Anyone who did not live in the deep south or in Arizona.

[Хahar 🤔]

When I think of the kind of Republican who was for Johnson, I think of Kenneth Keating. If you want some kind of archetype, you could go with Protestant, reasonably well-off, and ancestrally Republican. An LBJ Republican likely wouldn't have much in the way of dealings with black people in their day-to-day lives, and so they might lack the kind of visceral opposition to desegregation that you would see in the South.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

When I think of the kind of Republican who was for Johnson, I think of Kenneth Keating. If you want some kind of archetype, you could go with Protestant, reasonably well-off, and ancestrally Republican. An LBJ Republican likely wouldn't have much in the way of dealings with black people in their day-to-day lives, and so they might lack the kind of visceral opposition to desegregation that you would see in the South.

That's kind of what I was thinking.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Anyone who did not live in the deep south or in Arizona.

Uh, there were plenty of ancestrally Republican counties and places that voted for Goldwater (e. g.  that Bad Place just south and east of Los Angeles County ).

[Goldwater]

Anyone who did not live in the deep south or in Arizona.

Uh, there were plenty of ancestrally Republican counties and places that voted for Goldwater (e. g.  that Bad Place just south and east of Los Angeles County ).

You mean the best place in the country?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Anyone who did not live in the deep south or in Arizona.

Uh, there were plenty of ancestrally Republican counties and places that voted for Goldwater (e. g.  that Bad Place just south and east of Los Angeles County ).

You mean the best place in the country?

I wouldn't call West Arizona the best place.

[CatoMinor]

Anyone who did not live in the deep south or in Arizona.

Uh, there were plenty of ancestrally Republican counties and places that voted for Goldwater (e. g.  that Bad Place just south and east of Los Angeles County ).

You mean the best place in the country?

I wouldn't call West Arizona the best place.

After spending 10 years living there, I can say that is 100% truth.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

From the obvious standpoint, the remaining African-American Republicans in the party largely backed LBJ once it became clear Rocky couldn't get the nod. Jackie Robinson even chaired the Republicans for LBJ National Committee.

[Rockefeller GOP]

The modern Democratic Party.

Will you stop with this BS narrative?  "LBJ Republicans" were GOPers who weren't going to support an extremist.  If Rick Santorum gets the nomination, I'll be a Hillary Clinton Republican in the same fashion.  Honestly, I would not have supported any nominee that year who voted against a Civil Rights Act that got near unanimous support from our party...

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The modern Democratic Party.

Will you stop with this BS narrative?  "LBJ Republicans" were GOPers who weren't going to support an extremist.  If Rick Santorum gets the nomination, I'll be a Hillary Clinton Republican in the same fashion.  Honestly, I would not have supported any nominee that year who voted against a Civil Rights Act that got near unanimous support from our party...

I suppose the current Democratic near-domination of New England (especially on the presidential level) just "appeared" out of nowhere. Who do you think a Governor of Nelson Rockefeller's accomplishments would be associated with in today's political climate? The only thing he seems to match up with the GOP on is his stance on crime, which itself is opposed by a number of newer additions to the party. While your political matrix score seems to be one associated with moderate libertarianism, the only libertarian thing Rockefeller did was legalize abortion in NY. Do you seriously think that the fact that ah number of former liberal Republicans endorsed Kerry in 2004 is no indication that some of the liberals in Goldwater's party opposed to him eventually left? Lowell Weicker and Pete McCloskey are two members of the GOP's left wing that would eventually oppose the Bush presidency. As well, Clinton was the first Democrat to win all of New England not once, but twice, and since then, regardless of victory or defeat, no Republican candidate for President has gained a majority in even one state from that area. The type of Republicans that championed Planned Parenthood and the legalization of birth control, etc. would have little place in the modern Republican Party. Prescott Bush, beyond even social issues, has a quote on his Wikipedia profile that, as I recall, claims he supported any taxation required to close the deficit, which is both a serious rebuttal of modern-day Republican economics and also seems to disregard the idea of private property, indicating that as long as the federal government failed to make ends meet, they could grab up as much as they wanted from the populace to do so. In 1976, Ford won not only a majority of the New England states, but also Michigan and Illinois. Even disregarding his support on the West Coast, that is a serious indicator of the migration of the GOP's primary voting base Hell, the GOP hadn't won without Illinois until George W. Bush--based on my memory. The same could go for any number of states you might choose to list. The fact stands that the type of Republican that viscerally opposed Goldwater's nomination in 1964 would likely be a Democrat today.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The modern Democratic Party.

Will you stop with this BS narrative?  "LBJ Republicans" were GOPers who weren't going to support an extremist.  If Rick Santorum gets the nomination, I'll be a Hillary Clinton Republican in the same fashion.  Honestly, I would not have supported any nominee that year who voted against a Civil Rights Act that got near unanimous support from our party...

I probably wouldn't have either, except that Goldwater opposed it on constitutional grounds, not racial ones.

[Rockefeller GOP]

The modern Democratic Party.

Will you stop with this BS narrative?  "LBJ Republicans" were GOPers who weren't going to support an extremist.  If Rick Santorum gets the nomination, I'll be a Hillary Clinton Republican in the same fashion.  Honestly, I would not have supported any nominee that year who voted against a Civil Rights Act that got near unanimous support from our party...

I suppose the current Democratic near-domination of New England (especially on the presidential level) just "appeared" out of nowhere. Who do you think a Governor of Nelson Rockefeller's accomplishments would be associated with in today's political climate? The only thing he seems to match up with the GOP on is his stance on crime, which itself is opposed by a number of newer additions to the party. While your political matrix score seems to be one associated with moderate libertarianism, the only libertarian thing Rockefeller did was legalize abortion in NY. Do you seriously think that the fact that ah number of former liberal Republicans endorsed Kerry in 2004 is no indication that some of the liberals in Goldwater's party opposed to him eventually left? Lowell Weicker and Pete McCloskey are two members of the GOP's left wing that would eventually oppose the Bush presidency. As well, Clinton was the first Democrat to win all of New England not once, but twice, and since then, regardless of victory or defeat, no Republican candidate for President has gained a majority in even one state from that area. The type of Republicans that championed Planned Parenthood and the legalization of birth control, etc. would have little place in the modern Republican Party. Prescott Bush, beyond even social issues, has a quote on his Wikipedia profile that, as I recall, claims he supported any taxation required to close the deficit, which is both a serious rebuttal of modern-day Republican economics and also seems to disregard the idea of private property, indicating that as long as the federal government failed to make ends meet, they could grab up as much as they wanted from the populace to do so. In 1976, Ford won not only a majority of the New England states, but also Michigan and Illinois. Even disregarding his support on the West Coast, that is a serious indicator of the migration of the GOP's primary voting base Hell, the GOP hadn't won without Illinois until George W. Bush--based on my memory. The same could go for any number of states you might choose to list. The fact stands that the type of Republican that viscerally opposed Goldwater's nomination in 1964 would likely be a Democrat today.

That "fact" stands?  Yeah, okay.  And has the GOP gotten more conservative as the Dems have gotten more liberal?  Sure.  But that doesn't translate into a corny "old Republicans were liberals and would be Democrats today" generalization.  Go check out the latest post in the inconvenient history thread.  New England is a very, very different place today than it was in the '60s; for much of its history, it was pretty conservative, and it has only very recently the economic populism of Democrats.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The modern Democratic Party.

Will you stop with this BS narrative?  "LBJ Republicans" were GOPers who weren't going to support an extremist.  If Rick Santorum gets the nomination, I'll be a Hillary Clinton Republican in the same fashion.  Honestly, I would not have supported any nominee that year who voted against a Civil Rights Act that got near unanimous support from our party...

I suppose the current Democratic near-domination of New England (especially on the presidential level) just "appeared" out of nowhere. Who do you think a Governor of Nelson Rockefeller's accomplishments would be associated with in today's political climate? The only thing he seems to match up with the GOP on is his stance on crime, which itself is opposed by a number of newer additions to the party. While your political matrix score seems to be one associated with moderate libertarianism, the only libertarian thing Rockefeller did was legalize abortion in NY. Do you seriously think that the fact that ah number of former liberal Republicans endorsed Kerry in 2004 is no indication that some of the liberals in Goldwater's party opposed to him eventually left? Lowell Weicker and Pete McCloskey are two members of the GOP's left wing that would eventually oppose the Bush presidency. As well, Clinton was the first Democrat to win all of New England not once, but twice, and since then, regardless of victory or defeat, no Republican candidate for President has gained a majority in even one state from that area. The type of Republicans that championed Planned Parenthood and the legalization of birth control, etc. would have little place in the modern Republican Party. Prescott Bush, beyond even social issues, has a quote on his Wikipedia profile that, as I recall, claims he supported any taxation required to close the deficit, which is both a serious rebuttal of modern-day Republican economics and also seems to disregard the idea of private property, indicating that as long as the federal government failed to make ends meet, they could grab up as much as they wanted from the populace to do so. In 1976, Ford won not only a majority of the New England states, but also Michigan and Illinois. Even disregarding his support on the West Coast, that is a serious indicator of the migration of the GOP's primary voting base Hell, the GOP hadn't won without Illinois until George W. Bush--based on my memory. The same could go for any number of states you might choose to list. The fact stands that the type of Republican that viscerally opposed Goldwater's nomination in 1964 would likely be a Democrat today.

That "fact" stands?  Yeah, okay.  And has the GOP gotten more conservative as the Dems have gotten more liberal?  Sure.  But that doesn't translate into a corny "old Republicans were liberals and would be Democrats today" generalization.  Go check out the latest post in the inconvenient history thread.  New England is a very, very different place today than it was in the '60s; for much of its history, it was pretty conservative, and it has only very recently the economic populism of Democrats.

Because "economic populism" is, of course, the only thing that makes people Democrats. New England merely found a new way of looking down on people--or, rather, a new party to look down at people from.

[Rockefeller GOP]

The modern Democratic Party.

Will you stop with this BS narrative?  "LBJ Republicans" were GOPers who weren't going to support an extremist.  If Rick Santorum gets the nomination, I'll be a Hillary Clinton Republican in the same fashion.  Honestly, I would not have supported any nominee that year who voted against a Civil Rights Act that got near unanimous support from our party...

I suppose the current Democratic near-domination of New England (especially on the presidential level) just "appeared" out of nowhere. Who do you think a Governor of Nelson Rockefeller's accomplishments would be associated with in today's political climate? The only thing he seems to match up with the GOP on is his stance on crime, which itself is opposed by a number of newer additions to the party. While your political matrix score seems to be one associated with moderate libertarianism, the only libertarian thing Rockefeller did was legalize abortion in NY. Do you seriously think that the fact that ah number of former liberal Republicans endorsed Kerry in 2004 is no indication that some of the liberals in Goldwater's party opposed to him eventually left? Lowell Weicker and Pete McCloskey are two members of the GOP's left wing that would eventually oppose the Bush presidency. As well, Clinton was the first Democrat to win all of New England not once, but twice, and since then, regardless of victory or defeat, no Republican candidate for President has gained a majority in even one state from that area. The type of Republicans that championed Planned Parenthood and the legalization of birth control, etc. would have little place in the modern Republican Party. Prescott Bush, beyond even social issues, has a quote on his Wikipedia profile that, as I recall, claims he supported any taxation required to close the deficit, which is both a serious rebuttal of modern-day Republican economics and also seems to disregard the idea of private property, indicating that as long as the federal government failed to make ends meet, they could grab up as much as they wanted from the populace to do so. In 1976, Ford won not only a majority of the New England states, but also Michigan and Illinois. Even disregarding his support on the West Coast, that is a serious indicator of the migration of the GOP's primary voting base Hell, the GOP hadn't won without Illinois until George W. Bush--based on my memory. The same could go for any number of states you might choose to list. The fact stands that the type of Republican that viscerally opposed Goldwater's nomination in 1964 would likely be a Democrat today.

That "fact" stands?  Yeah, okay.  And has the GOP gotten more conservative as the Dems have gotten more liberal?  Sure.  But that doesn't translate into a corny "old Republicans were liberals and would be Democrats today" generalization.  Go check out the latest post in the inconvenient history thread.  New England is a very, very different place today than it was in the '60s; for much of its history, it was pretty conservative, and it has only very recently the economic populism of Democrats.

Because "economic populism" is, of course, the only thing that makes people Democrats. New England merely found a new way of looking down on people--or, rather, a new party to look down at people from.

It's been their most consistent party plank since its foundation and easily the most unifying force within their party.  And let's just stereotype an entire region.  New England has MOVED left, it hasn't simply shifted into another party after always having been the same...

[Mechaman]

I have to say that I agree more with Rockefeller GOP than I do with Cathcon on this argument.  I mean yes, liberal Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller and Lincoln Chafee do fall well to the left of many modern Republicans on economic issues that their politics is more both of the time and the place than it was of actual old school northern Republicanism.  The whole bit about Prescott Bush saying the federal government needs to close the deficit by any means possible could be seen as a rallying cry for taking over private property and selling off assets and raising taxes to 95% to get it done, or it could be seen as a traditional old school "government must be responsible with it's money" kind of statement that would go for a tax cut if it was guaranteed to generate more revenues that it did deficits.
Really, the Rockefeller Republicans were fiscal cons, they just tried to implement their vision of fiscal conservatism by means that would be seen as quite liberal by today's standards.  And also, their moderatism (forced by the dominance of the New Deal) on economics was more of a way of trying to get old school conservatism (which was by no means anti-government and small spending, just more focused on "internal improvements" like road construction and maintenance, bridges, national parks, conservation, etc.) sold on the newer middle class that included large numbers of blue collars and union members, who for reasons I've hammered on repeatedly in the past had little reason to be pro-GOP to that point.  The GOP's brand as the party of rich white protestants was seriously damaging it in the wake of the Great Depression and they needed a rebranding as a more "middle of the road" party who realized the necessity of Democratic programs like Social Security and the public works projects passed in the New Deal, but could run them more efficiently and without the waste.
It should be viewed for exactly what it really was: a strategy, not an ideology.
If you wanted to see a Republican "idealogue" you would get Robert Taft, and even he was in support of government subsidized public housing.  However, it is a stretch to say that he would be a Democrat now days.

I would believe that most Republicans who pulled for LBJ in 1964 would've likely be Democrats today if it weren't for the fact that many Massachusetts and Rhode Island Republicans still do run as outright fiscal and economic conservatives while running on socially liberal issues and they do a bit better than the national ticket does.  Yes, you do have your "party switchers" like Lincoln Chafee and Jim Jeffords who were basically Democrats who probably didn't like the class based association with being a "Democrat", but a lot of New England Republicans like Charlie Baker, William Weld, and Jodi Rell do fit the kind of profile that Rockefeller Republican is mentioning.

However, I do disagree with the idea that New England has only recently gone over to the "economic populism" of the Democrats.  That was a process that has been going on since time immemorial (or whenever the first paddy landed in Boston harbor) and really gained strength in the wake of the Great Depression.  I mean Massachusetts elected James Curley to the Governor's office for god's sake!
I could buy upper New England being "pretty conservative" (and even then you are ignoring that many rural Vermonters who were Republicans were pretty removed from the going ons of the national party), but by 1960 there was a very clear and strong left wing Democratic presence in at least Rhode Island and Massachusetts.

[/off to work rant]

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The modern Democratic Party.

Will you stop with this BS narrative?  "LBJ Republicans" were GOPers who weren't going to support an extremist.  If Rick Santorum gets the nomination, I'll be a Hillary Clinton Republican in the same fashion.  Honestly, I would not have supported any nominee that year who voted against a Civil Rights Act that got near unanimous support from our party...

I suppose the current Democratic near-domination of New England (especially on the presidential level) just "appeared" out of nowhere. Who do you think a Governor of Nelson Rockefeller's accomplishments would be associated with in today's political climate? The only thing he seems to match up with the GOP on is his stance on crime, which itself is opposed by a number of newer additions to the party. While your political matrix score seems to be one associated with moderate libertarianism, the only libertarian thing Rockefeller did was legalize abortion in NY. Do you seriously think that the fact that ah number of former liberal Republicans endorsed Kerry in 2004 is no indication that some of the liberals in Goldwater's party opposed to him eventually left? Lowell Weicker and Pete McCloskey are two members of the GOP's left wing that would eventually oppose the Bush presidency. As well, Clinton was the first Democrat to win all of New England not once, but twice, and since then, regardless of victory or defeat, no Republican candidate for President has gained a majority in even one state from that area. The type of Republicans that championed Planned Parenthood and the legalization of birth control, etc. would have little place in the modern Republican Party. Prescott Bush, beyond even social issues, has a quote on his Wikipedia profile that, as I recall, claims he supported any taxation required to close the deficit, which is both a serious rebuttal of modern-day Republican economics and also seems to disregard the idea of private property, indicating that as long as the federal government failed to make ends meet, they could grab up as much as they wanted from the populace to do so. In 1976, Ford won not only a majority of the New England states, but also Michigan and Illinois. Even disregarding his support on the West Coast, that is a serious indicator of the migration of the GOP's primary voting base Hell, the GOP hadn't won without Illinois until George W. Bush--based on my memory. The same could go for any number of states you might choose to list. The fact stands that the type of Republican that viscerally opposed Goldwater's nomination in 1964 would likely be a Democrat today.

That "fact" stands?  Yeah, okay.  And has the GOP gotten more conservative as the Dems have gotten more liberal?  Sure.  But that doesn't translate into a corny "old Republicans were liberals and would be Democrats today" generalization.  Go check out the latest post in the inconvenient history thread.  New England is a very, very different place today than it was in the '60s; for much of its history, it was pretty conservative, and it has only very recently the economic populism of Democrats.

True.  New England has a history of fiscal conservatism and independence, but yet Democrat dominance has destroyed this and given us Taxachusetts and other overtaxed New Englanders.