Writing off the South?

[Ramon de Ramon y Ramon]

chatterbox Forget the South, Democrats Stop coddling the spoiled brat of presidential politics. By Timothy Noah Posted Tuesday, Jan. 27, 2004, at 5:55 PM PT "There goes the South for a generation," Lyndon Johnson is said to have predicted as he signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act into law. Actually, it's been two generations, but otherwise Johnson was dead-on. For 40 years, the Democratic Party begged Southern Democrats to return to the fold. Always undignified, this pleading eventually become futile as well, like Shirley Booth calling for her dead puppy in Come Back, Little Sheba. Now John Kerry, winner of the New Hampshire primary, is taking some heat for saying so. But it's about time somebody did. "Everybody always makes the mistake of looking south," the Massachusetts Democrat said in a Jan. 24 appearance at Dartmouth. And so they have. For two decades, it's been axiomatic that Democratic presidential candidates couldn't win unless they were Southerners. It worked once for Jimmy Carter and twice for Bill Clinton; Walter Mondale's and Mike Dukakis' defeats reinforced the logic. But it didn't work in 2000 for Al Gore—or rather, it didn't work well enough to counterbalance the Supreme Court's decision to hand over Florida's electors to George W. Bush. Gore lost every Southern state, including his home state of Tennessee. Thus Lesson 1: Southerners won't vote for you just because you're a Good Ole Boy. But Gore still came within four electoral votes of winning. If he'd taken Florida, which in many ways is not really a southern state, he'd be president. (Some people still argue that he did.) Thus Lesson 2: Democrats don't really need those southern votes. Since 2000, many Democrats have questioned quietly why they should expend so much effort trying to win votes in what is now a solidly Republican region. The Democrats' ceaseless courtship of Southern votes has fostered an unhealthy sense of entitlement. Southerners now consider it their God-given right to supply Democrats with presidential candidates or, failing that, to force non-Southern candidates to discuss Him using an alien evangelical vocabulary. (God doesn't hear the prayers of Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or Presbyterians. No use even discussing Unitarians, Jews, and atheists.) Overindulgence has also made the South grotesquely hypersensitive to what non-Southern liberals say about it; to quote a famous witticism about the writer John O'Hara, today's South is "master of the fancied slight." Thus when Vermonter Howard Dean made the perfectly innocent remark that he'd like to win votes from "guys with Confederate flags on their pickup trucks"—a comment, incidentally, that indicated he did not intend to write off the South—he had to fall all over himself apologizing to Southerners offended by the shorthand. Never mind that subgroups in other parts of the country are routinely referred to in political discourse as "Joe Six-pack," "wealthy Jews," "blue-collar Midwesterners," "metrosexuals," inhabitants of "McMansions," "buppies," the "underclass," and so on without causing noticeable offense. The taboo extends to discussing whether the South has enough votes to justify Democratic solicitude. Kerry's remarks prompted Dick Harpootlian, former chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, to tell ABC's Jake Tapper, "I'm shocked he would be talking about a strategy of avoiding the South." Tapper also quoted Kerry rival John Edwards, political scientist Merle Black, and Sen. Zell Miller, D-Ga., emphasizing the importance of the South to the Democrats. But they're all Southerners; of course they think Democrats shouldn't write off their region. (Miller, who's starting to sound like a right-fringe crackpot, has the gall to tell Democrats what to do even though he's already endorsed President Bush.) Pressed by Mary Lynn F. Jones of the American Prospect, Black's brother and fellow political scientist Earl Black conceded that the Democrats' loss of the South didn't have to deprive them of the presidency. Republicans don't pretend they're trying to win approval from voters in the Northeast; why must Democrats keep mum about their diminishing returns in the South? In a very persuasive recent essay for the Washington Post's "Outlook" section, Thomas Schaller, a political scientist at the University of Maryland, argues, Trying to recapture the South is a futile, counterproductive exercise for Democrats because the South is no longer the swing region. It has swung: Richard Nixon's "Southern strategy" of 1968 has reached full fruition. The centrist Democratic Leadership Council counters that writing off the South is a "bad idea." Democrats, it says, need a national ticket that's determined to advance a tough, positive message on national security; that convinces middle-class voters that Democrats have a vision and a plan for restoring the broad-based economic and social progress, along with the fiscal responsibility, of the Clinton years; and that addresses the cultural concerns about Democrats that conservatives have spent so much time and money instilling and exploiting. This is another way of saying that the Democratic Party needs swing voters. That's true; Clinton's "New Democrat" strategy of chasing swing voters remains a wise one. But Schaller punctures the myth that the South is a good place to seek them: [T]he South has the fewest independent-minded voters available for Democratic conversion. Protest candidates John McCain, Ralph Nader and Perot all bombed there. Of the 10 states where Perot fared worst in 1992, all were Southern. … The South is where insurgents and independents go to die. What about African-Americans, a key Democratic constituency? Even after the Great Migration northward, the South continues to harbor a majority of the nation's blacks. Unfortunately for Democrats, though, they're outnumbered by a white majority that prefers Republicans. Ironically, Schaller notes, this problem is compounded by the Voting Rights Act because the creation of overwhelmingly black congressional districts gives less-politically committed black voters little incentive to maintain the habit of going to the polls. (It would be different if black incumbents faced a serious risk of being unseated by white challengers.) "Low turnout may not threaten the election of black legislators," Schaller observes, "but it severely damages the chances of Democrats running for statewide offices and for president." Democrats do much better seeking black votes in places like Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, where they can be combined with the votes of white and Latino Democrats. Rather than seek votes in the South, Schaller suggests that Democrats place greater emphasis on the Southwest, where there's a large Latino community and growing numbers of Democrat-friendly "ideopolises" (as John Judis and Ruy Teixeira have dubbed the high-tech yuppie colonies proliferating throughout the country). They'd have to carry the Midwest, too, including unreliably Democratic Ohio. As the DLC points out, this doesn't leave a large margin of error. But shouldn't Democrats seek votes where they're likeliest to find them? Teixeira, oddly, told the Philadelphia Inquirer last November that while it's tempting to write off the South—"It's common sense, you go hunt where the ducks are"—Democrats should resist "wholesale abandonment" because it's … impolite: It would imply that we see all Southerners as a culturally alien mass that we don't know how to talk to. And that would further skew our image, identifying us even more with upscale social liberalism—which is a tendency that we already have. But abandoning the South doesn't have to mean abandoning the white working class; indeed, Democrats can't hope to win the White House unless they win white working-class votes elsewhere. Teixeira surely knows this. Chatterbox won't deny that there's a long cultural history of Northerners snubbing Southerners, going back to 1917, when H.L. Mencken dubbed the South "The Sahara of the Bozart." (In addition to being snotty, Mencken was wrong; at the time, the South was germinating the musical forms—jazz, the blues, and what would become rock 'n' roll—that now dominate American music. It was also getting ready to disgorge a literary renaissance that would include the work of Thomas Wolfe, Alan Tate, Robert Penn Warren, Flannery O'Connor, and Eudora Welty.) But there's an even longer political history of Southerners whining and wheedling their way into disproportionate and undeserved power. For all its resistance to Big Government, the South is arguably the most socialistic region in the country; nearly half of all U.S. military personnel are stationed there, and the region was only lightly affected by the post-Cold War base closings of the 1980s and 1990s. This is the legacy of the Southern congressional barons on Capitol Hill, who blocked civil rights legislation from Reconstruction until 1957. Before that, Southerners successfully turned defeat in the Civil War into an occasion to erect Jim Crow laws. Before that, the South treasonously separated itself from the Union. Before that, the South successfully battled all attempts to end the practice of slavery, which the Founding Fathers well understood was incompatible with the principles of the American Revolution. In this, Garry Wills points out in his new book, "Negro President": Jefferson and the Slave Power, the South was greatly assisted by the Constitution's provision that each slave be counted in the Census as three-fifths of a person. That boosted the South's representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College, in effect allowing Southerners to make the owning of (disenfranchised) slaves the very basis for maintaining the necessary political clout to perpetuate slavery. If only "real" votes had been counted, Wills argues, John Adams would have defeated Thomas Jefferson in the election of 1800. In addition, slavery would have been excluded from Missouri; Andrew Jackson's policy of removing Indians from territories they occupied in several states would have failed; the 1840 gag rule, protecting slavery in the District of Columbia, would not have been imposed; the Wilmot Proviso would have banned slavery from territories won from Mexico. Moreover, the Kansas and Nebraska bill outlawing slavery in Nebraska territory and allowing it in Kansas would have failed. Of course, without the three-fifths rule, there wouldn't have been a Constitution of the United States—not one that governed the American South, at any rate—because the South wouldn't have ratified it. But that only underscores further the perils of paying the South too much attention. For Democrats, the South has become the Sahara of the Electoral College. Give it up. Timothy Noah writes "Chatterbox" for Slate. Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2094552/

In parts a bit polemic, for sure, but on the other hand wonderfully spicey and politically interesting.

[John D Harris]

ROTFLMAO!!!!
I hope the Dems do give up on the South, my prayers will be answered.
To paraphase a line from the old southern Balad: "I hope the Dems will remeber, A southern man don't need them arround anyhow" [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

Articles like this perpetuate anti-Americanism. Look. A german from Cologne posted this article.

It paints the south in a very bad light. So... a reader can walk away with a very bad view of the south.

Now... just say there is an article hammering the North in similar fashion. 'Why the republicans should give up the Northeast" or something.

A reader would thus walk away with negative opinions of both the North and South. What else is there?

Because the American culture is so dominant, internal discussion is exported overseas.
How many Americans are aware of the failings of John howard or Paul Keating. Do you even know who they are?

When I was in Oz, I was made painfully aware of Clintons sexual indescretions, Regans lunacy, Bush's probs. etc etc etc.

Every writer is representing their country. I would think it prudent to be balanced in criticism. To balance criticism with praise. Remembering that external opinions will be formed from your words.

Just my little piece of advice.

H

[ 01-29-2004, 12:55 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Timber Loftis]

Nah, Repugs just need to give up on IL and PA.

Growing up in the south, I always felt the proclivity of the voters was for Dems. That's changed recently.

Now, the repugs are the ones who can't balance a budget, and ALSO are the nanny culture. Dems may want to make us all drive mopeds instead of cars, but the Repugs have showed a definited nanny tendancy of late, particularly GWB -- who espouses freedom everywhere else but seems to end his ravings of freedom inside our borders.

Time Magazine's most recent issue has a great article on Nanny Bush, and I'll go see if it's online for me to post tomorrow -- or maybe I'll just type it in.

[Chewbacca]

That Time article about the "Nanny-in-Chief" is excellent. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Nah, Repugs just need to give up on IL and PA. Growing up in the south, I always felt the proclivity of the voters was for Dems. That's changed recently.

That was back when us southerners was backwoods bumk'ns, with 5 teeths, and a desire to make yankee's squeel like pigs. Now we'uns all citified, and so-fistacated. Shoot fire we even ware shoes now But cus'sons still make the best wives/husbands, Thar's only so much so-fistacate'n even a southerner can stand. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

LOL, John D. Hey, did the recent weather knock down the flamingos in your yard?

Since most "yanks" (New Englanders) tend to vote Dem, I guess southerners are still seeking to make 'em squeel.

Seriously, though, I think the shift in the South was due to the Dems being a party fond of telling others how to live. Now, it seems the REpugs are doing the same. Check out the Nanny-in-Chief thread, it's worth a look.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

The article also contained one significant but common error. The decision of the Southern States to secede from the Union was NOT "treasonous"...in fact, the Constitution grants individual states the RIGHT to secede from the Union of they wish to.

Ironically, it was Abraham Lincoln that violated the Constitution by not allowing the Southern States to secede. Don't get me wrong, it was the right decision to make, because the U.S.A. wouldn't even exist now, let alone be the worlds only superpower had he allowed the secession to take place.

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Ahh, but Cerek, you forget something. "Treason" in this day and age has, as a word, lost its true meaning. "Treason" and "Traitor" and "Terrorist" and "Unpatriotic" are this generation's answer to earlier catchall labels like "Communist" and earlier, "Witch". It works for Ann Coulter, it works for Bush... It's being used so much that popular usage has almost mutated its meaning.
Oh, and what do historical facts matter, if it *sounds* right and backs someone's point?

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: LOL, John D. Hey, did the recent weather knock down the flamingos in your yard? Since most "yanks" (New Englanders) tend to vote Dem, I guess southerners are still seeking to make 'em squeel. Seriously, though, I think the shift in the South was due to the Dems being a party fond of telling others how to live. Now, it seems the REpugs are doing the same. Check out the Nanny-in-Chief thread, it's worth a look.

If the Reps don't get their act together we'll drop them like a "hot tater", potatoe for you Quale fans atleast Reagan had a tax & spend House to deal with. President Bush has what he needs to control spending and Gov't intrusion, everything that is execpt the testonerone producing glands! The worst thing to happen to the Reps was letting Newt get forced out. Like him or not, the people He got into the House with the "Contract WITH America" went in and cut spending looked after our money, keep their word and left after 8-12 years like they said they would. Now the Reps got a lot of folks who don't posess the "jewels" to look the problem in the eye and solve it. They're CYA with bringing home the bacon to protect their turf. If some cuts aren't made soon the Union is doomed.

"Hale" we may have to fire on "Ft. Sump-ner" again