Is Dean or Emanuel right?

What the Democrats need is a commedian who can bring the house down with, “he’s conservative.” Conservative has to become a synanom for stupid, stumble bum, space cadet, someone with ideas only an idiot would even listen to. The Democrats let that happen to the word liberal. You can never recover the status of a word or not quickly but you can level the playing field.

How stupid are conservatives. They go to church don’t they? They listen to Par Robertson, Billy Graham, the pope don’t they. The basis of these outstanding people’s morality, the Bible is a proved hoax. Only a stupid. stumble bum, space cadet would listen to people who use a hoax as their basis in fact.

This will not go away. You can’t jump in bed with the Devil and kick his wife out. You have to eliminate the Devil. The Bible is a proved hoax and Democrats must eliminate the strangle hold it has given the GOP on the government by their association with Bible tooters. He’s conservative means he’s a stupid jerk thumping on his Bible and crying to the chaplin. Only an idiot would vote for a conservative. Load your gun at http://www.hoax-buster.org It’s conservative season.

I think what needs to be remembered is that the GOP took over the south not in 2 years or 4 years, but over the course of a long haul. The Democratic party is not going to be able to make serious inroads in the short term because a) the GOP will repeat ad nauseum the trite phrases it has used and b) the party does have serious problems in the south.

It is not impossible for Democrats to win in the south or for the party to at least be competitive, as long as southerners don’t feel they and their beliefs are condescended to, ignored, belittled. I am from Louisiana and went to college in Alabama and these were common feelings either expressed directly or in code. Democratic politicians from the south are not going to be the same as Democrats from California, New York, Illiniois, etc., and the party as well as the Democratic voters, need to stop with the 20-page checklist of what it means to be a Democrat. Sure there is and possibly should be, a many/most list of things that it is assumed a Democrat should believe in (articulated and defended by the party not the GOP), but there should be some room for a local representative to represent his constituents as well as the party without fear of either, if their positions are not exacty in sync.

Tom, there is a letter in this week’s New Yorker that comes to the exact opposite conclusion as your closing line about Emmanuel=offense and Dean=defense, and I think there’s something to it. The 50 State Strategy might appear “defensive” in the short term, but it’s really a long-term offensive strategy. The idea is to establish Democratic beachheads in places that currently are out of reach. It’s not just a logistical strategy designed to eliminate inefficiencies in electioneering ability, it’s an ideological strategy, as well – not just to garner more votes for Democrats in future elections, but to make more Democrats in places where the party is currently a laughingstock. As I understand it the hope is to use the 50 State Strategy to move the party like this in blood-red districts: from not bothering to field opposition to GOP incumbents –> fielding opposition, but getting blown out –> getting beaten more often than not, but being competitive –>winning frequently. But it’s possible I’ve totally misinterpreted Dean.

In much of the Deep South, I would say that the right analogy is not to climbing a tall tree, but, rather, in planting one.

Texas, for example, could be turned into a competitive — maybe even a reliably blue — State. The demographics are there. But, it would be a huge, cultural and institutional shift, and it would require that the local Democratic Party abandon entirely its roots as a conservative Party, and start over as a left-center, liberal and progressive Party, representing urban and oppressed rural interests against the plutocratic establishment. In short, it would be a long, slow revolutionary change.

But, the Democrats in Texas long ago lost the competition to be the conservative Party of conservative Texans. They need to abandon that past, and move on, and exploit urban Texan’s desire to be liberal, to reduce appalling pollution and to replace their regressive system of taxation. But, that is a real long road.

Still, Texas should get some attention.

Ohio, to take one example, might be a much shorter road to Blue Statedom, and investment in that State’s Party infrastructure would have a huge payoff. Do Dean and Emmanuel or any other Democrat anywhere not get that? I doubt it.

A moment, if you will, Scarolina.

A couple of points, You’re correct…I do harbor “disdain” for “the people around me”…..but only those that spout GOP and FOX news talking points like parrots in a cage, who have no respect for an opinion other than their own and who are convinced that anyone who thinks different is going to hell. I did not mention anything about the hard working African Americans who predominantly vote Democratically in the south because simply put (in the short term especially) they can’t turn the tide here toward a Democratic majority. That’s my point. I live in a very small southern Alabama town where in 2000 (2000!!) they hired a very well educated African American as the new Assistant Principal of our local High School….and he couldn’t find anyone who would even rent him a HOUSE! (I happened to have one that was suitable, so I did)

Seriously, the focus of Tom’s original post was to question the rationale of attempting to get the Deep South back to a Democratic majority and whether we, as a party should, concentrate our national efforts on targets more likely to gain us the vote on a national basis or try to shake the apples from the top of the tree. From a national persepctive the south isn’t going anywhere, Howard Dean has absolutely the right strategy by re-growing our roots in the south….one county and city at a time, and as ET said, “I think what needs to be remembered is that the GOP took over the south not in 2 years or 4 years, but over the course of a long haul.”

Quite right. It won’t happen overnight and not without a big swing in backwoods sentiment (and racism) and even with explosive population growth, it’s going to be hard fought to get rid of “the good old boys” club that permeates our southern society. With that said, even though I dis-agree with much of the redneck ideogology that exists here, I like the south and I hope that one day we can clear the haze that clouds our eyes from time to time.

Your suggestion that I simply move away rather than stay here and pick my battles is a large part of the problem…..don’t like it….then move away and you don’t have to worry about it….right? No thanks, I’ll continue to help elect democrats at the local level and hope that they’ll aspire to higher and higher office whilst changing the hearts and minds of the locals as they go.

The population in the United States is shifting. The South is experiencing an influx of retirees from northern and midwestern states as well as a growing hispanic population.

Southerners have elected Democratic governors, congressmen and senators and there is no reason they can’t be convinced to vote for a Democratic president. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Edwards, and Wesley Clarke are all from the South.

The South of 2006 will look different than the South of 1960. You win elections by looking forward, not backward.

Adam is correct, and let us add to the ‘Dean on offense’ strategy two factors.

1 – You can never tell when scandal or local issue will push that extra 5-6% that turns a sure thing into a real race. If you’re ready for it, there’s, say, another House seat pickup.

2 – Forcing the R’s to spend resources on ‘safe’ seats redounds to the benefit of especially if you cause them to spend more defending than you spend challenging. There is not a bottomless pit of available funds, and incumbents who feel threatened will suck up a disproportionate amount (more than they need, in many cases), to the benefit of candidates in other areas.

For that matter, Heath Shuler is going to take the execrable Charles Taylor, and Larry Kissell is thought to have a solid chance against Robin Hayes.

2 seats could be the difference between retaking the majority and not. Why wouldn’t you want that?

Let’s count the “courtesies” mentioned, shall we?

Lost cause… support traitors… morons… hopeless… idiots… stupid… stumble-bum… space cadet… idiot… brain dead… trailer dwellers.

If the Dem strategy were ever to endorse a policy whereby an entire region is disenfranchised on the basis of their core tenets, then the Democratic Party has absolutlely no business whatsoever mounting a campaign effort anywhere within the United States of America. In addition, one should consider the negative outcome-potential for giving the Confederacy a second shot at secession. Southerners will, instead of enlisting in the armed forces—or the national Guard—simply join local volunteer militias to provide domestic service to the individual States. Southerners will concentrate their economic, industrial, and commercial resources on meeting regional needs only, instead of providing for the entire country (or have you-all forgotten why the Midwest is known these days as “the Rust Belt?”). The South is also the location for a good portion of North America’s oil terminals, bulk offloading stations, cracking facilities, refining plants, and pumping stations. I don’t know of too many oil-tankers hauling into ports in Ohio…or Minnesota…or Ontario.

The point is, Tom, that the Dems cannot carry the South today, merely because of a “perceived” rejection of the South by progressive thinking. Should that rejection become a realistic construct, I’m thinking that the South would very much get the better end of the bargain—and all points north of the legendary Mason/Dixon Line would get something not even equal to “the short end of the stick….”

Steve,

Several of the “courtesies” that you mention (mine were a bit more specific…) are directed at conservatives in general and not toward the south pre-se, however we do happen to be talking about the south as a block in this post. But I will give you credit and say you’re correct in one area… I contend that there are probably just as many moronic, hopeless, stupid, brain-dead, trailer-dwelling, idiots that tote the GOP line in the rest of the country as well the south… so perhaps I should have painted my strokes with a broader brush.

You seem to take offense as a Southerner and I apologize if you or someone that you know and care for might live in a trailer, I meant no offense, I really didn’t (my own brother lived in one for a long long time and apparently loved it). And toward your wider assertion about name calling, I get tired of liberals being called names that are just as devisive like “weak on terror” “baby killers” “gay lovers” “un-patriotic” etc. just because we disagree with what this administration is doing to our country.

The Republicans do it all the time, but absolutely hate it when we terrible liberals take the same cheap shots in their direction.

I want to go on record here: I do NOT have a problem with the south in general, lots of great people (aside from the ones I previously mentioned….you know who you are….) I do, however have a problem with right wing conservatives who are out take over the world and I reckon that if you’re still ready to take another stab at secession and form a local militia, then perhaps you’re not the audience I was trying to reach, so I apologize for honking you off.

Timmy,

Actually, I’m from Ohio. My point is that the comments employed, when only vaguely directed at the GOP machine, still bear the appearance at being aimed at the general populatrion of the South. To taunt of insult the general population of a region is to invite that population to support your adversary. And to the contrary, you shouldn’t employ a broader brush when a narrower brush might serve the better purpose….

I just want to say that this is one of the most civil and intelligent threads I have ever read. I’m going to have to stark lurking and build up courage to jump in one day.

There has always been a liberal/democratic(with a small “d”)/populist tradition in the south that was in opposition to the traditional planter aristocracy who still reign (perhaps not literally, but figuratively). These were mostly the mountain people, who came down the Appalachians from Pennsylvania. They were Jacksonian Democrats. They deeply opposed the “confederacy” South, to the point they created the state of West Virginia, and there was a movement in east Tennessee, western North Carolina, northern Georgia and northern Mississippi and Alabama to create The Free State of Nickajack. 100,000 people from that region served in the Union Army, not the CSA. Unfortunately, the mythology of “the lost cause” has been used by those who want to keep coming up with ways to keep the common people down – as they have been kept down since the 18th Century – with this mythology that has no basis in fact.

However, there has been a political ideology there throughout the history of the country, that can be called “Southernism.” It’s many things, has grown and evolved over the years, but you know it when you see it, just like pornography. Since it can’t take over and run the country, it takes over one of the major national parties and exercises control that way – before the Civil War it was not only the party of slavery but of “manifest destiny,” the avaricious, conquering piratical philosophy that levied genocide in the name of “civilizing a continent”. Before and after the Civil War, this influential control of national policy was through the Democratic Party, up until the 1960s – with the period from 1865-1932 being one of being out of power and finding ways to regain it. When the Democrats would no longer put up with “Southernism” starting in the 1960s, it migrated to the Republicans through Nixon’s “southern strategy,” to the point that with the election of 2004 the turnabout was complete. Look at the powers-that-be in the Republican party: reactionary Southerners (they aren’t even close to being “conservatives”). Look at who the powers-that-be were in the Democratic Party from 1932-68: reactionary Southerners. They control congressional committees, they provide “the base” on which the rest of the national party depends for national victory – the “solid south” was how FDR stayed in office -it was the same thing during the New Deal. The difference is now that the Southernists learned from their time as Democrats, during which they “allowed” liberal progressivism to operate the rest of the party outside the South (though originally they allied with the northern machines, which were neither liberal nor progressive) which eventually assumed control of the party – today they work to grow and develop “conservative” control of the Republican Party so no such change of sentiment can come along and bite them again.

With regard to my saying that most Southern whites have voted against their own best interests for 200+ years, look at the non-slaveowning Southerners who allowed themselves to be run by the slaveocracy, whose system guaranteed that the southern white workingman would never be able to achieve anything because the slave society kept pulling the rug out from under. After the Civil War, the progressive movement of poor southern whites and blacks for real change was co-opted by racists who wanted power and were able to make Southern “Populism” into the system that created Jim Crow, disenfranchising blacks who voted Republican, so that the “populists” could win. Of course, who ended up back on power? Ol’ Massa sure did, in the likes of every Southern pig from Theodore Bilbo to James Eastland. The southern state legislatures were anti-union, and the south has traditionally been the place most likely to see working people of any race screwed – this is still the basis of their “fantastic economic growth” today.

This is the tradition that has to be overcome to bring about change in the South. No matter how many people want to say that “racial politics are over” down there, they are not. The White Southernist Party masquerading as Republicans works just as hard today to keep down African Americans – who are mostly Democrats – just as relentlessly as they did before. Just because there is no longer any official “separate but equal,” no “white” and “colored” public fountains, does not mean that the southern politics of race have gone away. The more the south changes, the more it stays the same politically – wearing a different color jacket does not make you a different person. Today’s Southern Republicans are yesterday’s Southern Democrats are the day-before-yesterday’s Confederates. It is a separate country from the rest of the country.

So, for those southern progressives who think I am “dissing” the south, you couldn’t be more wrong. However, calling an actual halfwit a “halfwit” is not “name-calling” – it is accurate description. And the results of the policies that Southern whites who are outside the ruling circles have so steadfastly supported against their own better social and economic interests, can fairly allow for a description of political halfwittedness.

The debate on the “South” seems to have become one of the “hot topics” of discussion in Democratic circles these days. I’d like to address a few points, but first let me mention that I grew up in a Democratic stronghold of the north and now live in Chattanooga, Tennessee, where the majority of my friends are Republicans, and I’ve had plenty of debates with them and have even found some areas of agreement. Admittedly, they are not really the “rural voter” segment, but Chattanooga is not a “big city” like Atlanta and there is a significant number of people who work in the city that come from the various small satellite towns and rural areas.

Now, I think that one thing that seems to be missing from the discussion of “game theory” as applied to politics is that the metaphorical tree is not a static construct. The wind, she’s a-blowing… sometimes branches will come lower, and sometimes they will drift higher. The risk/reward equation keeps changing. Making a broad assumption that the South consists completely of “high branches” is not a very good evaluation of the actual “risk/reward” equation. Sometimes the risk becomes lower, and the reward is large enough to justify more focus. The danger of over-focusing on low-lying branches is that the reward may not always be high enough to justify a large level of investment. There may be situations that arise that justify some focus. I don’t know if this might be one of them, but the current Senate race for the seat vacated by Frist seems to present a potential opportunity for Democrats, since in some polls, Ford does not trail the leading Republican candidate by much. The picture should clear up better after the Republican primary is decided, but this is just one example that I know a little more about. Keep in mind that Tennessee does have a Democratic governor, so all is not lost!

With regard to the “NASCAR guy”, “values voters”, etc. paradigms, the key issue to understand is that people tend to feel very strongly about a small group of issues, and thus focus on these issues. In the South, there are certain issues that many people feel strongly about because these issues are part of the cultural ethos that has developed. The reason that many people seemingly “vote against their own interests” is simply because the Republican Party has successfully framed the issues so that for the issues that people feel strongly about in the South, the Republican way is the way to go. The Democratic Party hasn’t really made much of a effort to develop a consistent framing of these issues that would appeal to these voters in the South. Whether it is possible to do so without alienating other voters is a good question, but people who advocate focusing everywhere except the South are doing nothing to help the discussion. There seems to be too much of an immediate gratification mentality sometimes in politics!

I’ll also add that the “consultants” don’t seem to contribute that much to the discussion. They make suggestions to politicians on what they could do to make themselves appeal more to specific groups of voters. That can be useful, but not for an overall strategy. What I feel the Democratic Party really needs is a better infrastructure for developing and grooming candidates that have the desired qualities and mindset in different areas of the country. That means doing what Dean is doing. Focusing on the rest of the country, and coming back to the South later has a high risk of alienating local party infrastructures, or leaving them out of the process of developing a suitable framework for the party platform. It may make more sense in the short term, vis-a-vis winning national control of the government soon, but it is not a terribly practical strategy in the long range. Ultimately, to put into place ambitious programs or policies that can have significant results, we need to have support from all over the country, not just 51% of the country. Look at what happened when the current president tried to put into place ambitious programs when he only barely had a majority of the country support him during the last election. I suppose the question facing people who consider strategies such as the one proposed by Tom in this post is, are we in damage-control mode or do we want to move forward a progressive strategy?