Ellington

The lefty blogosphere is "atwitter" (with apologies to the Mississippi Press Association) over the notion that the 2006 mid-term elections were not only a repudiation of various Bush Administration policies and GOP scandals, but also represent an emerging regionalization of the Dems and, by extension, the GOP. Dems mopped up in the Northeast, perhaps putting to rest, for a long time, the notion of the liberal Republican in states like Rhode Island, New York and parts of New Jersey. The Dems also did well with independent voters in the Midwest, and some are positing the notion of a "Libertarian Left" emerging in the Rockies, essentially people who have swapped an anti-Dem stance over issues like gun ownership with an anti-GOP stance against issues like marriage, abortion and "culture war" stuff.

Where does that leave the South? Well...a GOP stronghold, for one...the only one left. (A lot of people think that Texas is in the South, so you might say "Texas AND the South" if you're uncomfortable with that notion.) Some Dems say -- "let 'em keep the South" and cotton to the idea of writing it off to the GOP for the forseeable future.

Chris Kromm at the Institute for Southern Studies says different.

In the wake of the 2006 mid-terms, a host of Democrats and progressives are once again saying that it's time to write off the South. Throw out Howard Dean's 50-state strategy, they say, especially in those backwards, southwards states. The November elections prove that the North is the Democrats' base, and the Midwest and West are the Democrats' future.

Nonsense. If anything, the 2006 elections underscore just how critical the South is to Democratic hopes across the country (Virginia Senate, anyone?). They also show that the South is a highly competitive region for Democrats, and that to cut and run would spell disaster for the party's future.

Of course, in a state like Mississippi, Democrats will need to actually run candidates against the like of Chip Pickering if they plan to win in those races...by not showing up, they do a good job of ensuring those seats stay GOP.

Previous Comments

ID

108448

Comment

Chris Kromm is right. The write-off-the-south strategy is worse than Charlie Rangel's Mississippi comment.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-16T15:40:05-06:00

ID

108449

Comment

I don't think Dems should write off the South by any means--heck, they technically have a majority in our state legislature--but I don't think that they should tailor their national races around appealing to Southern voters, and particularly Southern social conservatives, by picking "moderate" positions on important social issues. It's still possible to win Virginia, West Virginia, Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Florida with a socially progressive platform, I believe, provided that Democrats do a good job with black voters, who should be understood as the Democratic base in the South. Which is another thing: Southern Democratic parties are, at their core, black and female. To the extent that they insist on being culturally white and male, they hamstring themselves. It's that paradigm that we need to give up on--not the whole idea of getting Southern voters, because there are plenty of us. Even John Kerry got 40% of the vote in Mississippi without even campaigning here--I'm absolutely sure it wasn't because John Edwards was his running mate. Black voter turnout. Turnout among female voters. Well organized get-out-the-vote efforts. A party that doesn't apologize for being what it is. All that is key. White social conservatism? Don't even try; the Republicans will always be better at it. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-16T16:03:18-06:00

ID

108450

Comment

The south is a lost cause. I don't know why I'm still here. I'm packing my stuff and heading north, east, west or any place else as soon as I can. The repubs no longer even need an agenda to win down here. It's like the majority of the voting south have had this 30 year meeting and was told they're suppose to hate everything progressive, forward, advance, and onward. I have more faith that Bush will find Bin Laden than the south been salvageable. If this wasn't so obviously an optimistic view one could think I'm cynical and pessimistic.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-16T16:07:30-06:00

ID

108451

Comment

I think we've done the larger discussion behind the democrats woes in the South. What they should do is wake up and get smart and clever in their strategies. With Howie Dean still thinking everyone has a Confederate Flag in the back of their pickup, they've got to buy a clue fast.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-11-16T21:14:54-06:00

ID

108452

Comment

Iron, Dean didn't say that, and it doesn't help anything to rewrite what he said.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-16T22:40:16-06:00

ID

108453

Comment

"I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks," the former Vermont governor said in a telephone interview quoted in Saturday's Des Moines Register. "We can't beat George Bush unless we appeal to a broad cross-section of Democrats." Actually, he's right. Now that I go back and revisit his famous quote, it occurs to me he has to appeal to everyone in order to pull his party back. One thing that ruined the South on Democrats was the lack of anyplace for the poor white class. If you want to win, you have appeal to everyone. There has to be a place for everyone.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-11-16T22:48:38-06:00

ID

108454

Comment

I didn't like Dean's comment. I didn't think it was racist, but I think we should let Republicans have the guys with Confederate flags on their pickup trucks and focus on progressive values that benefit women, the poor, and minorities. If a few guys with Confederate flags on their pickup trucks want to stand with us and vote on that basis, that's great, but that's not the demographic I think the Democratic Party should be actively going for. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-16T23:52:15-06:00

ID

108455

Comment

Tom, you're not recalling history. The dems lost the south that way. They ignored the poor white underclass. Let's forget the Confederate flag part of that comment and concentrate on this; they ignored a part of the south, and it came back to haunt them. Who did the republicans exploit without actually helping? Poor whites. They repeated the same thing with the religious right, courting them, saying nice things, and otherwise totally ignoring them when it came time for proof. One reason they got bit early, I'd wager was that Bush II didn't have the same charisma that Regan did. To win the south back you need a strategy that includes everyone, and doesn't leave an avenue open for your opponent to exploit. The Dems have to prove once and for all that true Civil Rights would be beneficial to everyone. That society would be better off with a truer sense of equality. Playing to the recently enfranchised while assuming the old timers will keep voting for you has hurt both parties. If the Dems want to succeed, they have to include everyone.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-11-17T00:05:47-06:00

ID

108456

Comment

Including everyone, great; targeting everyone for marketing, not smart. There's a difference between not being discriminatory and being indiscriminate. The Republicans know their core demographics. Democrats should know theirs. This doesn't mean that they can't appeal to poor whites--here again, I identified the poor as one of the demographics Dems should target--but if Democrats are strongest among women, that's what their party should look like. If Democrats are strongest among blacks, that's what their party should look like. The Democratic Party didn't lose the South by ignoring poor whites; it lost the South by ignoring women and minorities. Look at the leadership of the Mississippi Democratic Party right now. Does that look like a good representation of the kind of folks who vote Democrat? Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-17T00:16:27-06:00

ID

108457

Comment

This is an excellent discussion. I will have to think a little on this one before saying much else. Overall I agree with Tom's assessment of the matter. However, I must be seriously slipping because I actually have some intrique and affection for Iron's comments. This may shock some of you but I represent lots of poor white folks charged with terrible crimes. The more I meet them, the more I realize that poor and uneducated people are in the same boat regardless of race. Many of them eventually tell me that I seem to care more about what happens to them than anyone they're met before. However, it seems to me that poor whites got mad or offended and left the Democratic party because they felt they were not favored over blacks or women and they're entitled to that by their whiteness. Why else would they not have some or more affinity and commonality for other similarly disenfranchised and situated persons such as women and blacks. Instead of joining forces with others more socially, politically and economically like them they chose to run to others unlike them except for race who likely still despise them and are only using them for their votes. To keep them happy all the repubs have to do is pretend to be against affirmitive action or anything else favoring blacks, minorities or women.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-17T09:45:27-06:00

ID

108458

Comment

Also as a result of representing poor whites, male and female, I get to meet most of their immediate families - parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, and cousins. I get a lot of joy out of showing them their stereotypes about blacks aren't real. In the end, many of them wind up hugging and thanking their first black people of their first interracial encounter.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-17T09:52:22-06:00

ID

108459

Comment

Resentment. Everyone is poor and knows the government doesn't care. Then, they suddenly show up and help one side, while telling the other they've been bad and won't be helped. You create a division there, one ripe to be exploited by someone ready to take the votes away. The other side comes in and plays on that resentment, and wins. I don't care about the past. It's done. Gone. We can't go back. If they Dems actually want the south back (and it sounds for all the world like they don't), they have to include everyone, Tom. They have to be the party for the whole nation, not just the good people. Right now, people don't trust the dems on the whole because they've never proven they want to help everyone.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-11-17T10:01:24-06:00

ID

108460

Comment

I do agree that both parties have to seek ways of ensuring that everyone is included. Otherwise, they should lose out on the ones they omit.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-17T10:06:52-06:00

ID

108461

Comment

I have little time to blog today, but overall I come down more with Ironghost on this one (alert the media). I *hated* the way John Edwards and Al Sharpton and others spun Dean's comment to say something he didn't say. It's a primary reason that I would hesitate to support Edwards, a southerner and supposedly a neo-populist, for president. I disagree with this statement of Tom's: . I didn't think it was racist, but I think we should let Republicans have the guys with Confederate flags on their pickup trucks and focus on progressive values that benefit women, the poor, and minorities. Many of those guys are "the poor," and they have had racist crap pumped to them for so long (like by Lott and Reagan's and Barbour's sneaky southern strategy) that they are divided and conquered. However, that is no reason to write them off, and the Dems do so at their peril. They also have wives and smart children, in many cases, and they work with people of color. Writing them off, to me, is akin to saying in the 1960s that the South would never change. It has; not enough, but we've come a long way. We never would have had a coalition of amazing Americans given up on us. I'm squarely with Dean on this one. Now, Iron, that doesn't mean that we do not deal with the past in order to move forward. I think you would find that Dean was most certainly *not* saying that we should not look bad and deal with race inequities and so on. So build in extra assumptions. More than anything, I believe he was saying that all Americans count, and that Dems focus on a certain demographic to their peril (note what doing that has done to the Republican Party). And if Democrats do not fear the wedge issues and move straight ahead into 21st century populism, this Republican greed crap is in trouble. The real danger, though, is that in ignoring the guys with the Confederate flags in their pickup trucks (or in just assuming that the emblem is there to stay in our state flag because the people "have voted," and are thus never going to change their views, which is hogwash), you risk them gaining more power from being left out of the dialogue. The Southern Poverty Law Center has spoken very eloquently about the re-rise of race hatred because these guys feel ignored.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-17T10:58:45-06:00

ID

108462

Comment

I must admit that in nearly every case I've dealt with poor whites in my line of work I've seen the rebel flag on bodies, in the windows of the houses, on the porches of the houses, in the window of the vehicles and so on. Each time they cause me to hesitate upon entering the house or reaching out to help the person. Yet I do it anyway, and race matters or the rejection of me since I'm black is yet to occur. In some cases, when the family members knew we were coming, they even removed the flag for our visit. Clearly this illustrates to me that these people are reachable and capable of change.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-17T11:22:25-06:00

ID

108463

Comment

Ray Carter writes: However, it seems to me that poor whites got mad or offended and left the Democratic party because they felt they were not favored over blacks or women and they're entitled to that by their whiteness. Why else would they not have some or more affinity and commonality for other similarly disenfranchised and situated persons such as women and blacks. Well put. And before folks get too worked up over the phrase "writing off," remember that I'm a white heterosexual who isn't even poor and I generally agree with Democratic policies. Good people will. If you orient your policies around helping women and minorities and the poor, you'll draw in some people from every demographic. But the Mississippi Democratic Party has been targeting men with Confederate flags on their pickup trucks for too long; it's time to be the party of women and minorities, because the Republican Party sure as hell isn't. Republicans will always do better among heterosexual white men. Accept that and spend all that advertising revenue on the other 65-70 percent of the population, the 65-70 percent that has so far gone pretty much ignored by both parties in this state, and we might actually start winning some statewide elections again. But if we insist on fighting the Republican Party for that coveted 30-35 percent of the population that happens to be white and male, we deserve what we get. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-17T14:55:46-06:00

ID

108464

Comment

Iron or somebody I do have one question though. How shoud Democrats reach out to good ole boys or poor whites? I have to admit that I don't know what they're looking for excepting maybe putting folks like me back in their fields. I have forgotten how to do field work and wasn't any good at it when I did it. I don't mean to be harsh about this. I simply don't know what they truly want from a political party! What is the republican party doing for them other than using them? I'll be gone all of next week, but as vice-president Cheney would say "shoot" anyway. I'll take time to read although I won't be able to comment.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-17T17:45:10-06:00

ID

108465

Comment

We don't need ya in the fields anymore Ray. All automation now. You're obsolete.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-17T17:46:16-06:00

ID

108466

Comment

What we gon do then as we march backgward?

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-17T17:48:45-06:00

ID

108467

Comment

Perhaps I'll head back to West Africa! When can I pick up my money you owe me?

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-17T17:50:18-06:00

ID

108468

Comment

come by and get it. after 2 days there you'll be paying me to bring you back here.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-17T17:53:29-06:00

ID

108469

Comment

Ray, I'm not even going to address that. I'm not in the mood for the "humor".

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-11-17T21:29:41-06:00

ID

108470

Comment

Well, I guess I'll never learn here then ! This yearning for learning is an arduous task. In the future I'll undertake the distasteful task of asking poor whites whether they're Republicans or Democrats and what, if anything, that party provides them. I think I already know what party most poor or struggling whites belong too. Hopefully, they'll be comfortable and honest enough to tell me the truth.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-27T11:06:39-06:00

ID

108471

Comment

Finally, I must add that I (as a black person who grew up poor in Winston and Madison Counties) didn't know poor whites or any whites were intentionally, systematically, and legally left out of the pursuit of the American Dream or common humanity like women and minorities were, especially black folks. With this being the case, I have a hard time seeing any basis for poor whites or any whites to have justified resentment toward us or believing black folks or women have received unearned advantages and preferences. Yes, I know it's real easy to make up some weak reasons that no honest, independent and reasonable person would accept. Iron, I know you don't care about the past (except yours) but there is a past of 240 years of slavery a 100 years or so of James Crowism, and uncounted years of James Crow, Jr-ism in this country. Phantom or illusionary reverse discrimination can't even compare. But because I'm fair, and will admit the playing field is more level these days, I too would support doing away with most preferences. Sorry for throwing in a little humor to lighten up the subject a little bit. I was seeking honest illumination and enlightenment. You're still my friend though, and I look forward to conversing with you in the future.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-27T11:53:45-06:00

ID

108472

Comment

The point is that the democrats lost the south when they assumed that the white male would keep voting democratic. For them to win them back, they've got to understand why they lost them in the first place; complacency.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-11-27T20:20:51-06:00

ID

108473

Comment

One thought is that Dems should stop assuming that most white voters in the state are racist. Of course, Republicans assume that, too, but they play it to their advantage. In other words, talk to white folks about real populist issues that affect them, as well as folks of other races, and assume the best about them. Let the Republicans keep assuming the worst about our populace, and keep calling out their a$$es for the disgusting race cards. The ones who assume the best will come out on top in the long run—regardless of what party they end up calling themselves. Warning to Dems: Repubs are going to figure this out if you don't first. Move.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-28T10:27:21-06:00

ID

108474

Comment

Thanks. I'd love to see the democrats stop assuming such too, reach out honestly to the estranged ex-democrats and/or usual republican voters, and monitor for a period of time whether there is any change or conversion. However, the south has a past just as Hitler has one and the bodies, brutalization, and proud legacy to unequivocally prove it. And any smart or truly intelligent person would never forget or ignore that past. Nor would any truly smart person risk losing the whole body just to save a festering, intractable, and incurable arm or leg. We can argue all day about whether the south, particularly Mississippi, is intractable and incurable but I suspect history would not be in the south's or Mississippi's favor.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-28T11:12:03-06:00

ID

108475

Comment

And any smart or truly intelligent person would never forget or ignore that past. Nor would any truly smart person risk losing the whole body just to save a festering, intractable, and incurable arm or leg. I agree with you, Ray. To me, as I've said, Howard Dean's plea to reach out to the men with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks was not saying to pander to racists (I've heard him speak on this separately, and know that's not what he was saying). It means to reach out to everyone with truth and honesty and an unflinching understanding of history. It may well be that at least some of those folks embrace the Confederate flag (or wear Dixie Outfitter t-shirts) because they've been told lies all their lives about what its "heritage"—which is, in fact, as a symbol of violent race terrorism, pure and simple. People don't know what they don't know. Thus, it's stupid to simply write them off before you at least try to have a real conversation about what we all have in common, rather than just assume that they are on the other side of an unscaleable divide. I'll say another thing: You are still here. That means you have some degree of hope about the South, as do I. It is up to all of us Real Mississippians, Ray. We can't rewrite our past, but we will write our future. Hope is all we have. And each other.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-28T11:23:44-06:00

ID

108476

Comment

Yeah Donna, I certainly want the South to succeed and be all it can be. That can never happen until white southeners come to grip with a truth greater than the heritage they can't seem to let go of. I blame ole miss (the university of mississippi) more than any place or other thing for perpetuating this terrible disease. I don't actually hate or dislike the South or Mississippi as much as I pretend to. I castigate it just to piss off the people who can't handle the truth or move on. I study southern history in order to counter the deceit that southerners still try to callously spew about the past. Both of us are remaining and residing proof of what Mississippians are cable of.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-28T11:50:26-06:00

ID

108477

Comment

Agreed, Ray. And there are many others. I do agree with you that education is key—and mis-education whether at Ole Miss, in private academies or in public schools where teachers are afraid to teach our real history is a huge part of the problem. That's why it's so important to have these kinds of public conversations, and ensure that the media aren't leaving out whole swaths of our history that make certain people uncomfortable. Making people comfortable is not the goal, and it won't get us to the promised land. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-28T11:58:10-06:00

ID

108478

Comment

Ray: Why else would [poor Southern whites] have some or more affinity and commonality for other similarly disenfranchised and situated persons such as women and blacks. (Nov 17, 06 | 8:45 am) Philip: Don't forget the other R word - Religion. Totally aside from race, the Republicans would still be competitive among poor White voters. "Getting God out of our schools and public life", "special rights for gays", "filth on TV", "defend Israel because they're God's chosen nation/the Apocalypse" are plenty sufficient to motivate a vote for the Religious Right, if not actual Republican. I fully agree that the only progressive movement that can succeed in the South will HAVE TO be religious based. There is hope though. Two links named "Rise of the Religious Left" by: Our own Casey Parks and another one by James Dodd of Petaluma, CA. Dodd links an article from The Seattle Times about The Religious Left gaining more visibility through the websites, books and conferences. Given the South's strong history of religiousity (among both the region's primary ethnic groups), a "leftist" version of a "Christian Agenda" is the only hope for the Democrats in this region.

Author

Philip

Date

2006-11-28T13:12:45-06:00

ID

108479

Comment

You're right, Phillip. Libs have had trouble gaining traction with poor whites in the south precisely because the Right has effectively mixed religion and politics in such a way that people who might have otherwise voted Democrat for economic reasons end up voting Republican for moral reasons.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2006-11-28T13:55:13-06:00

ID

108480

Comment

True. But if there has ever been a time when the hypocrisy of that strategy is apparent to about everyone, it's now. In other words, the Dems need a new, more confident attitude—including right here in Mississippi. I mean, good Lord. Look at Barbour's record on pandering to tobacco companies and pushing for manufacturing to be moved out of Mississippi, to name a couple. Where the morality in that crap?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-28T13:57:34-06:00

ID

108481

Comment

Just saw your link to Casey Parks' religious left article. Note that she did that piece in 2004, right after the last national elections.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-28T13:58:59-06:00

ID

108482

Comment

Re: ejeff1970 on Nov 28, 06 | 12:55 pm Philip: Oh Yes. For proof, look no further than Louisiana's Acadiana Region. The Catholic Church is as strong there as the Protestant fundamentalists are in Mississippi. The rural parishes in the region formerly leaned right for economic reasons as late as 10 years ago (Clinton took Louisiana in both 92 and 96). Since then, Bush has made a lot of gains in Cajun Country, indicating that at least in presidential elections Acadiana is pretty much in the Republican pocket these days.

Author

Philip

Date

2006-11-28T14:16:33-06:00

ID

108483

Comment

Correction: I said above: "The rural parishes in the region formerly leaned right for economic reasons". What I intended to say: The rural parishes in the region formerly leaned liberal for economic reasons"

Author

Philip

Date

2006-11-28T14:18:18-06:00

ID

108484

Comment

Phillip, as usual, I think you're probably right. I had certainly discounted or ignored religion as a basis for winning some democrats back. That was a wonderful and enlightening article by Casey. Many of the people in that column, if not all, are my kind of folks. I hope the Democrats are reading what's been written in this regard. The thing that makes this column so interesting to me is the unexpected likeability and commonality I have experienced in so many poor white southerners whom I expected to detest. I hate to have to meet so many of them under trying circumstances as the ones that brings us together, but I'm touched and often overjoyed by the love and affection I see in them toward one another, and later toward me/us. Some times I'm so touched by this that I share it with other more prominent white friends who often seem more foreign or surprised by this happening than I am. Go figure. I can't understand this. Or maybe I can!

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-28T15:34:49-06:00

ID

108485

Comment

I think I failed to make my point. Ya'll have fun.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-11-28T21:12:09-06:00

ID

108486

Comment

Okay, here's what I don't get about the white male strategy: Start off with 100%. 38% of that figure is non-white. That leaves 62%. Half of that 62% is female. That leaves 31%. Why the hell are Democrats and Republicans fighting trench warfare for 31% of the population? Why doesn't the Democratic Party focus on the other 69% and let however many of that 31% choose to follow along follow along or not, as they may? Republicans do better with white males. That's no secret. But they also do much worse with minorities and white women, who collectively outnumber white men by a margin of more than 2:1 in this state. Get out the vote. Be the party of women and minorities. If white men happen to choose to follow along, that's great, but it's not about them. It's about the 69% of the population that the Republican Party has no real interest in serving--and those are the folks who are going to put Democrats in office, if the Mississippi Democratic Party is willing to give up its single-minded focus on that other 31%. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-28T21:22:13-06:00

ID

108487

Comment

...and then the republicans can continue to breed resentment and hate. Right Tom. Think ahead, not behind.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-11-28T22:33:53-06:00

ID

108488

Comment

Head, where do you get your percentages, and do they reflect the percentage of VAP that actually goes to the polls consistently?

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2006-11-30T09:01:08-06:00