24 The nature of American politics
century, we must not overstate its importance. Although one party might
consistently win elections in a particular state or region over a long period of
time, this fact might mask the existence of a strong minority for the oppos-
ing party. As the century progressed the minority gradually began to achieve
some sort of parity with the previously dominant group. V.O. Key has shown
that even in the Deep South, that most distinctive of regions, it was only
in matters concerning racial problems that the South differed profoundly
from other regions in the make-up of public opinion. Much of the impression
of Southern conservatism in economic and social matters is largely due to
the way in which the one-party politics of the Southern variety distorted the
operation of the machinery of representative government. However, even if
public opinion does not differ radically in different parts of the country, the
fact that the political system produces significant regional differences in the
attitudes of Senators and Congressmen is of the greatest importance. It is in
Congress that the effects of regional differences in political behaviour still
have their greatest impact on the decisions of government.
Sectionalism declines in importance as nationalising forces develop, but
the regional differences still remain as the bedrock of political behaviour.
Thus since the 1930s there have been two kinds of presidential election.
When, for one reason or another, tides of support for one candidate sweep
across the country there are ‘landslides’ which may completely swamp any
regional or sectional differences. But when the election is more closely con-
tested, and popular support for the candidates is more evenly divided, then
the regional differences re-emerge and can become decisive in determining
the outcome of the election. Roosevelt’s landslide victory of 1936 was an ex-
ample of an election in which regional differences were completely irrelevant
to the outcome. Similarly in 1964 Lyndon Johnson achieved an overwhelming
victory over Senator Barry Goldwater, winning majorities in forty-two of the
fifty states. In 1972 Richard Nixon, with 61 per cent of the votes cast, won
every state except Massachusetts, and in 1984 Ronald Reagan also won in
49 states, losing only in Minnesota, the home state of his opponent, Wal-
ter Mondale. Such sweeping electoral victories represent decisive national
verdicts, but in more closely contested elections sectional differences may
be critical. Thus, in 1960 the victory of the Democratic candidate, John F.
Kennedy, was achieved by the slimmest possible margin of 0.1 per cent of the
total votes cast. The significance of sectionalism in the result can be judged
from Map 2.2.
Kennedy won a majority of the states of the South and East, whilst Rich-
ard Nixon almost swept the board in the West and Mid-West. For a number of
reasons, particularly his support of civil rights and his Catholicism, Kennedy
performed less well in some parts of the country than others. In the close
election of 1976, between Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, sectional groupings
again became apparent. With only 51 per cent of the vote going to Carter,
his victory depended on his greater pulling power in the South and the in-
dustrial North, while Ford won every state in the West as well as a number