Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Can Democrats Reclaim the South?

By Bob Moser, The Nation. Posted February 12, 2007.


The most misleading, destructive and threadbare myth of contemporary American politics is that the so-called red-state South is a solid Republican block.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also in Top Stories

America's Frightening Alzheimer's Epidemic
Rebecca Hyman, AlterNet

Dire Consequences with a McCain Supreme Court?
Robert Parry, Consortium News

CNN's Lou Dobbs Is Clueless When It Comes to the Drug War
Tony Newman, AlterNet

California Gay Marriage Ban Overturned
Huffington Post

Election 08: Misogyny I Will Not Miss
Marie Cocco, Washington Post Writers Group

Three Things That Won't Help End the Foreclosure Crisis
Dean Baker, Liz Chimienti, Center for Economic and Policy Research

More stories by Bob Moser

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The last thing my daddy wanted to do on a fine crisp fall Saturday in 1972, he made quite clear, was drive forty-five minutes in traffic just to hear "a bunch of Republicans yammering their rich man's nonsense." But I begged and whined until he caved. By the time Air Force One glinted down the runway of the Greensboro airport for the big rally, this die-hard Democrat -- a blue-collar veteran of World War II who would sooner cast a posthumous vote for Mussolini than pull the lever for a candidate of the Grand Old Party -- was straining under the bulk of his fat, nerdy 9-year-old boy, aloft on his shoulders as I chanted with a lusty throng of pent-up crackers: "Nixon now! Nixon now!"

No wonder I was carried away by the excitement: We were, after all, witnessing one of the most brazen acts of political thievery in American history. Not only had Democrats owned the South since Reconstruction (a grip so tight that there was not a single Republican governor or US senator in the region when I was born), the party had also personified the political philosophy that long knit white Dixie voters together almost as strongly as their segregated "way of life": that shape-shifting beast called populism. Before the backlash set off by President Lyndon Johnson's championing of civil rights in the 1960s, the region's Republicans were so anemic that historian V.O. Key wrote in 1949 that the Dixie GOP "scarcely deserves the name of a party," more closely resembling "an esoteric cult on the order of a lodge." My maternal grandfather, a violent yellow-dog Democrat who'd been known to wield his cane against outspoken Republicans, called it the "lily-livered cocktail party," and his opinion had long been nearly universal in the South. Democrats were us; Republicans were meddlesome, superior, pro-corporate Ivy Leaguers endlessly devising fresh ways to screw us over.

Now Republicans were doing the unthinkable: convincing folks they were on their side. Up on a platform erected on the runway, two key architects of the GOP's new Southern strategy, President Nixon and North Carolina's own Jesse Helms, were railing against hippies and atheists and other un-American elements holding down the "silent majority" of white working folk. Mixing pietistic appeals for school prayer and nostalgia for "traditional American values," they were mouthing a neopopulist pitch borrowed from George Wallace's scarily successful 1968 backlash campaign and scripted by Kevin Phillips's The Emerging Republican Majority. And the blue-collar Democrats were eating it up, roaring approval at every racially coded "law and order" applause line and spitting epithets back and forth with antiwar protesters. All except for my father, who had glanced around forlornly when we arrived and seen a depressing array of crew cuts, work shirts with names on the patches and rebel-flag mesh caps. "Good grief," he muttered. "Looks like a bunch of Democrats. What in the world?"

It was a neat trick, really: Stepping into the void created for white Southern conservatives when the Democrats became the party of civil rights and 1960s-style social liberalism, Republicans were adapting the old rhetoric of populism -- the sword so long wielded against them -- to "flip" white Dixie and create an electoral stronghold of their own. But Republican populism would be all about white cultural unity, not economic fairness. The enemy would no longer be the greedy corporate "Big Mules" scorned by legendary Alabama populist Jim Folsom but the broad coalition of "pointy-headed intellectuals" ridiculed by Wallace.

Far more than Nixon, who privately cursed conservative Southerners' "right-wing bitching" while publicly courting their votes, Helms embodied the new Republican breed. The son of a small-town police chief, the owl-faced Helms became the voice of white backlash in 1960s North Carolina with rabble-rousing, "lubrul"-whacking, nightly TV commentaries. "What is needed is a revolt against revolution," he prophesied in 1964. In his '72 campaign to become the state's first Republican US senator in the twentieth century, Helms was facing a Greek-American Democrat with the funny-sounding name of Nick Galifianakis. The culture warrior knew just what to do: Helms boiled down the new Republican populism to a campaign slogan that spoke volumes in four simple words: "He's One of Us."

It worked like a charm -- or better yet, a spell. Just three days after my disgusted father and I watched Nixon and Helms clasp hands in a "V" for victory at that raucous airport rally, Helms got his breakthrough win on the coattails of the President's stunning Southern sweep. Not only was Nixon the first Republican ever to ride a "solid South" to victory, he napalmed the old "Southern Democracy," capturing a gaudy 70 percent of the region's votes. Giddy with triumph, Nixon's chief Southern strategist, arch-segregationist Harry Dent of South Carolina, was widely quoted as boasting that "the South will never go back." Southerners, Dent said, "now realize they have been Republicans philosophically for a long time."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: south, elections, party lines, historical

Bob Moser is a contributing writer at The Nation, and is the editorial director of The Nation Institute's Investigative Fund.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Do Your Homework
Posted by: NoPCZone on Feb 12, 2007 12:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the Democrats had run a viable Senate Candidate in Tennessee, Bob 'Chattanooga's Village Idiot' Corker would not be a Senator today.

Harold Ford, Jr. comes from and is a member of one of the most ethically challenged political families currently playing in politics. He has never distanced himself from the litany of ethical troubles and has practiced more than a little of it himself, like getting appointed to committees that his father's lobbying is targeted at.

Despite representing a heavily minority district that is characterized by being low income, low education, worker hostile and having an almost hereditary seat; he pursued typical DLC to Republican-lite positions in the Congress. The Bankruptcy 'Reform' Bill comes to mind, and his old House District has one of the highest Bankruptcy rates in the country. The Steppin' Fetchit routine he played regularly on Faux Newz Channel was particularly insulting to all concerned. His Senate campaign was full of flag, church, etc- not issues. Otherwise, more pandering.

Excuse me, but I want Democrats on the ballot come general election time that act, speak and vote like Democrats. I'm not picking on Ford, just using him as the poster child for what is wrong with the southern branch of the Democratic Party. There's more like him.

What good is it to elect someone with a (D) behind their name when they are going to vote just like a mainline Republican on many critical issues? It's not worth a damn to anybody. There are plenty of progressives in the South and they are largely on the outside of the local party structure, looking in.

What passes for a general election in most of the South is a choice between a hard right NeoCon (the GOP nominee) and a middle of the road Republican (the Democratic nominee). There are a few exceptions, but not many. The DLC types have a death grip on most southern state Democratic Parties, and that's a damn shame.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: homework. agreed Posted by: Urstrly
» RE: homework. agreed Posted by: NoPCZone
Can Democrats regain the South
Posted by: robchapman on Feb 12, 2007 3:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most emphatically yes.
By playing to strengths in the region the Dems can win a significant number of federal and statewide offices and maintain their dominance of state legislatures.
Number one opriority for Dems in Dixie must be racial justice and equity.
Number two Dems must be forward looking and vavor sustainable and future oriented economic growth. Dixie has vast renewable energy resouresec adn an able and eager work force, economic development there ientails enhancing these fabulous assets.
Dems should be party of education and culture.

The way the Dems will continue to lose in Dixie will be trying to hold onto the conservative white base, Conservative Democrats are at best swing voters.
Appealing to them too often de-energizes the base.

R

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

FINALLY! Are we going to listen?
Posted by: medstudgeek on Feb 12, 2007 4:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
See? Class makes a much better organizing principle than culture. The country is socially conservative and economically liberal. So we have to push our economic program--it's our main asset.

I know the party leadership wants corporate money but while money helps you win, you still have to get people to vote for you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well, even in "blue" states in the north and west coast,
Posted by: maxpayne on Feb 12, 2007 4:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
there's plenty of red to fix but the coastal libs would much prefer to call us all "Dumb Hicks". Leave us and lose at your own risk. Pay attention and stop selling us out and we'll support !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All power to Howard Dean
Posted by: Urstrly on Feb 12, 2007 5:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The doctor was right! How can you have a national party and ignore one the fastest growing regions of the country? The Democrats need to make a showing in the South, and turn their backs on the likes of Carville and others who think they need a different agenda down there. By pandering to race and religion, the Republicans have conned working class southerners into tolerating abyssmal wages, lousy health care, and disgraceful schools. Now they're blaming the Mexican workers who take work that won't support an average American family.

If Democrats would talk to Southern voters with as much respect as they show voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, things might turn around. There is a better way, but cynicism has no place in it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maybe Obama will help...
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Feb 12, 2007 6:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe Obama will help...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Maybe Obama will help... Posted by: WhatNow?
» What libertarian... Posted by: harpy
» RE: What libertarian... Posted by: kittynboi
Bashing the South
Posted by: xenacat on Feb 12, 2007 6:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
seems to have become a regular past time for the Democratic party. It was and is a foolish strategy to perpetuate the stereotypes of ol' racist Dixie filled with gullible hicks. The Bushs understood just how to exploit the shame and frustration of the region with this negative image and did so with a vengence. The nothern progressives who turned their collective backs on the South have done so at the behest of the moneyed interests, who have a long history of economically exploiting the region. During the last election, I grew very tired of fighting the "war" with my fellow progressives. I don't mean the battle against right wing nut jobs - I'm talking about the great war that ended in 1865. The confederate streotypes thrown about so freely were offensive and degarding, particularly coming from folks who should have know better. The Repubs are skillful dividers; shame on the dumb democrats who buy their crap lock, stock and barrel. That is why the Dems lose so consistently - they have forgotten their populist southern heart and choose to pander to the elitists in D.C.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bashing the South Posted by: gjames
» RE: Bashing the South Posted by: wwittman
Promise to make the South better and then actually do it!
Posted by: pinget on Feb 12, 2007 7:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everyone I know in the South is so cynical about government, they can't imagine it ever making their lives better, so the best they hope for is for it to leave them alone and take as little of their money as possible. The low tax promise is the only reason for GOP support. Surprise the South. Promise to make things better and then actually do it. Health care and schools would be a great place to start. I live in Dothan, AL.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» NOTE TO KITTY Posted by: citizen chump
» RE: NOTE TO PINGET Posted by: citizen chump
Many Progressive Parties/Movements had rascism as a crucial
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Feb 12, 2007 8:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
part. If not racism than an "us" against "them" rhetoical style. Whether its the 'Southern' strategy of the Dixiecrats and later Republicans, the National Social Party in Germany, The Silver Standard movement (which criticised 'easterners', 'british', and by extension Jews for using gold to manipulate the 'people'), the rise of Il Duce in Italy, or the Spanish Flangist movements. You can also see the frequent jew-baiting on Alternet as a modern example.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The south will remain RED
Posted by: dikaiosyne on Feb 12, 2007 8:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem with you libs is that you think that folks down south think exactly the same way as you urban socialists. They don't like Democrats for simply one reason. You're too socially liberal for them to stomach. Everything from Abortion to gay marriage leaves the majority of the socially conservative south retching at the thought of folks like Ted (Cape Cod Orca) Kennedy, ALGORE and John "effin" Kerry obtaining the higher offices in this nation. To them progressive politics is just another means of corrosion of the moral fiber of the nation. Don't think that the past election was a referendum on liberal policies because it was a vote of no confidence on the Iraq war. If the war ends before the next election cycle you can bet good money that the Dems will be out in the cold again. The reason they'll be out is because the South will vote its conservative views. Of course if the war continues as it peresently is then the Dems will continue to control the mechanism of gum'mint because the GOP would continue to pay the price for Bush's inability to bring it to a successful end. That's the only chance you liberals have to stay in power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Told you so! Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: Told you so! Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: The south will remain RED Posted by: kittynboi
» Exactly. Posted by: kittynboi
» Dang Straight! Posted by: activecitizen2007
History Lite...
Posted by: jdub on Feb 12, 2007 8:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An attractive piece, and I agree fully with the premise that the Clintonian-Kerry Democratic Party has abandoned the egalitarian roots of the Democratic New Deal coalition. But the idea that William Jennings Bryan led directly to Wilson's New Freedom thence to FDR's New Deal is indeed history lite. Moser seems to have forgotten that it was TR's New Nationalism, not Wilson's New Freedom, that laid the foundation for FDR's policies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You have to show up to win
Posted by: harpy on Feb 12, 2007 10:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
which is exactly the point of the article. In my "red" district of E Tennessee, I saw a perfectly good Democrat, Rick Trent, totally ignored by the Dem leadership, merely because this district had a long history of electing Republicans. The ultra-right wing wacko Davis that was elected refused to even debate Trent, stating that he didn't want to give a Democrat legitimacy. Trent, without national help, still got over 30% of the vote. Davis and his predecessor, sat-on-his-ass-and-did-nothing Bill Jenkins, both rode in on Jimmy Quillen's coat-tails, who did manage to help this area out tremendously.
Gore screwed up in 2000 because he totally ignored his home state, and therefore gave all the wing-nuts plenty of room to operate their rumor and slander mill unopposed.
There is a very large faction of the South that is liberal to the core, but we have absolutely no help from the national Party. It's a lot harder to stand up for your beliefs and against the status quo when you're in the perceived minority. When your own "party" won't stand with you, it gets pretty lonely down here, but rather than giving up, we've kept pushing on. Areas considered "red" need an infusion of "blue people" and attitudes change when they're constantly challenged and rebutted. That won't happen if all the party money goes to areas that are already solidly blue. I'm in "red" East TN, and am planning a move to even "redder" South Carolina, but will be keeping dual residency. I've already clashed with some right wingers down there, but if they're not re-educated with some good old populist Democratic principles, they won't know they have lost their way.

Bottom line - WE NEED HELP!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You have to not show up to win Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: You have to not show up to win Posted by: MartianBachelor
Interesting
Posted by: WhatNow? on Feb 12, 2007 10:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Democrats were bound to take a hit after Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts of 1964 and '65."

They probably could have gotten past that 20 years ago if they were real populists. A democratic congress showed little resistance to reagan's lousy budget practices.

"But Carter's White House stint, like Bill Clinton's after it, failed to live up to its populist promise."

No shit! Although I never really saw any promise they offered. The last time I voted for a democrat until the last election was the presidential primaries in '92 and it sure as hell wasn't for clinton. I saw and see clinton as a conservative and he helped assure I would not vote for a democrat.

"The party abandoned its New Deal legacy as a positive force for change."

If they had not done that, they would have been making headway in the south for 20 years now. If businesses are going to ship your job overseas, we (democrats) will raise their taxes and use the funds to put you to work in programs like the TVA,CCC, and NRA. We won't leave you out in the cold.

"But rather than call for a recommitment to core Democratic values, the loudest voices blamed the South."

That's not going to get anybody anywhere.

"Everybody always makes the mistake of looking South"
"Al Gore proved he could have been President of the United States without winning one Southern state."
""Fuck the South," began the most popular in a parade of blogs laying blame for Bush's re-election on the dimwits of Dixie."

What dumbasses! You could at least disguise your contempt. If your goal is to win an election or to try to changes things, I can't imagine rhetoric like that is going to help. Oh yeah, Gore is not president. Why could he not have won two or three southern states and assured his election? More campaign work and an economic platform to help the low and middle class probably would have done the trick.

"Rather than attempt to "neutralize" the GOP Southern strategy by mimicking it"

That's stupid too. You could use that against republicans. "Would Jesus want poor people to suffer or die because of a lack of healthcare?" Why not try to get people to live up to their religious doctrine instead of using it to divide people as republicans do (god hates queers. abortion is murder, these issues should be minimized as much as possible)?

"And yet a stubborn belief in the poor, backward, reactionary cracker South of myth still shapes and distorts American politics."

That's more contempt and it is becomes less prevalent everyday.

There are alot of ignorant and wasteful people here but more education, less divisive rhetoric, and more incentive to improve can help that.

Kerry got 40% of Alabama's vote. To me that's not even a close to a mandate for bush although less than a percent to him is a mandate. If Kerry were an economic populist I bet he could have made serious inroads towards winning the 2004 election even in Alabama. All the republican lite democrats do nothing more than turn people away and make the party look worse.

Honesty would help too. Gubner riley touted that he created 75,000 new jobs in two years which is 37,500 new jobs a year on average. This was presented as a positive when in reality it is nothing to crow about. That is a .84 % increase in jobs per capita in a state of 4,447,100 (2000 census figures) when the population growth is approximately 2.5 %. That's one new job for three new people. When I would point out those statistics to people who thought the gubner's claim was positive, it was something most never knew and realized it wasn't good after all. Shine a light on reality instead of cherrypicking numbers like republicans do and the democrats could make more progress.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Interesting Posted by: kittynboi
Economics isn't the answer. Part 1.
Posted by: kittynboi on Feb 12, 2007 10:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many of these people who hate our "social" policies hate our economic policies just as much. They rail against welfare, "handouts", and social programs of almost every sort. Even if many of them USE these same programs, they still despise them and see it as the government giving "lazy people" something for nothing.

And there is a VERY strong racial component to this as well. When many of the highly conservative southern whites rail against welfare, "handouts", and giving "lazy" people something for nothing, they aren't talking about all the WHITE people who benefit from those things, they're thinking of all the blacks and (increasingly) hispanics, because they think every single black and hispanic person is on welfare or a parasitic illegal immigrant.

You want them to get on board because of our economic policies? Thats not going to be easy. The Democrats get just as much flak from people on the right for being "the party of welfare" than from the more absurd and unrealistic impression that we are "the part of gay marriage".

It's a common fantasy on the left that social conservatives are secretly waiting for us in droves to drop "social" issues because they really really want to vote for our economic platform, but the people who believe this clearly have never spoken to these very people they think want to vote for us.

Welfare, food stamps, and what little is left of the government saftey nets gets these people hopping mad as much as "social issues" do.

I can't tell you people how many times I've heard conservatives of this nature go on about how "THOSE PEOPLE keep having more kids to get more welfare!" and saying stuff like "After their second kid we should cut them off entirely!" or even saying we should sterilize "those people" so they won't be such an economic burden on society. And these people don't go around burning crosses or sieg heiling, they're people you wouldn't give a second glance to if you saw them at the bank or something.

The ugly reality is, (and I think more people on the left know this than they let on, which is why this myth of hordes of social conservatives waiting for us to drop social policies persists,) a lot of these people still see us as the party who give all their tax dollars to the blacks and the mexicans who don't want to work.

I've talked to many of these people, probably more than a lot of the people commenting here have, and if you look at their online discussions and postings you'll see these sentiments.

Many people on the right hate our economic policies just as much as our social ones. Some even moreso. I've even seen and heard people say that they don't like how authoritarian the right has becoming, but they won't vote for us because we're "socialists" or give away their hard earned tax dollars. It may surprise many of you that, as antiquated as it may seem to the people here, many on the right still hold extremely strong anti-tax sentiments, and they're not going to get on board with some liberal economic plan to create all these social services at the cost of raising taxes. Why do you think low taxes always works so well as a GOP message? (Even though they don't REALLY follow through with it.) The anti-tax sentiments is not just the richest of the rich, its often the poorest of the poor.

You should remember that, during the estate tax debacle, there really were blue collar people who were angry, and sided with the right, calling it a "Death tax".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Part 2. Posted by: kittynboi
» Framing the debate... Posted by: harpy
» RE: Framing the debate... Posted by: kittynboi
» excellent post! Posted by: EasterBunny
» Challenge isn't good enough. Posted by: kittynboi
» Minimum Wage. Posted by: kittynboi
Not a chance.
Posted by: cmaukonen on Feb 12, 2007 10:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only reason the Democrats had the south in the first place was because they turned a blind eye to how the south treated their "Niggers". After JFK and LBJ, that evaporated.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Hundred Reasons
Posted by: noblerot on Feb 12, 2007 1:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There must be a hundred reasons the Democrats lost the South, and a hundred more reasons they will have trouble regaining it. That being said, even the cleverest political calculation may be so speculative as to be positively counterproductive; in the long run, the slickest strategy could be simply to stand for something and stick to it.

I don't think anyone ever suggested that Bryan's populism was insincere, or that Teddy Roosevelt triangulated his way into the White House.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yarmuth
Posted by: jtn960 on Feb 12, 2007 1:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is fair to use Yarmuth's victory, as Kentucky is part of the South. But Louisville, Yarmuth's district, is a midwestern river town, rather than a southern city. Louisville has since the 1960s been a left-of-center Democratic town. In the 1960s, it was governed by left-of-center Establishment-type Republicans.

I served a Field Director for Yarmuth's campaign. We defined Louisville's voters into seven shades of purple, and one zone of pure red. But, the message never strayed from the words you printed in your article, irrespective of where we were in the district. Whereever Northup was, we were 180 degrees away.

She had two problems, one national and one local. She was a 91% to 94% solid voter for a president who had not won her district in either of his races - and she had been building or alleging to build two bridges across the Ohio River for six years, neither one of which is anywhere near started, much less completed.

Can the Democrats retake the South? Not easily, but the answer is hopefully yes. I'm not smart enough to know how - I wish I were. I'm just one of those optimistic silver-linings-behind-all-the-clouds liberals.

Jeff Noble
Louisville, Kentucky

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ensemble
Posted by: ensemble on Feb 12, 2007 5:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"While no President had ever been elected without winning a sizable chunk of Dixie..."

I can think of one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Need a better system of democratic representation.
Posted by: aouie01 on Feb 12, 2007 7:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Instead of merely pushing for IRV or proportional representation (PR is the best widely used system as of now), we should come up with something a lot better. Think and share the ideas over time. I will hopefully share details about "Direct Representation" later on (yet to pen down the concepts in detail).
No matter how good a democratic system is technically, much needs to be done about the participants and their access to unbiased information before the resulting government is "good enough" (from my point of view and hopefully yours too). We need to ensure that the participants are good thinking people whose votes are relatively free of unjustifiable biases (biases resulting from religious / social / cultural conditioning that don't stand up to analysis devoid of the conditioning). It would help if people are reasonably knowledgeable about issues that they vote on.
Sincerely,
Aouie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rural and Southern is About Personality
Posted by: stealthisbook on Feb 12, 2007 11:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ever notice how wacky Representatives from the South can be? It comes from the tendency to vote for personality over politics. You'll find that genuinely charismatic politicians carry the day 9 times out of 10 whatever their issues are if they're running in a rural district. It's those pointy-headed liberals that will think through a platform, but the folks in my neighborhood are willing to forgive most sins so long the candidate sounds reasonable enough (all politicians are blowing smoke anyhow) and sound like they can argue convincingly for their constituents when the legislative push comes to shove.
That might also be why the South has always been notorious for bringing home the pork. Your rep could be voting to nuke Europe or allow priests to marry each other, but if they're earning their keep we might as well keep them around.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well, we did it here in western North Carolina - just the way the man said!
Posted by: UP58 on Feb 13, 2007 8:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From a review of Democratic victories in the South in November on www.democrats.org:

"Republicans have had a strong voter base in much of the North Carolina mountains since the Civil War, when farmers tended to support Abraham Lincoln and preserving the union over the cause of Confederate plantation owners. Democratic state party chairman Jerry Meek made the region a priority after his election in early 2005.

'I never thought western North Carolina was out of reach,' Meek said.

Meek hired a western regional staff director before the Democratic National Committee agreed to pay for three regional leaders as part of national chairman Howard Dean's "50-state strategy." He also assigned a task force to look at ways to improve the party's fortunes in the area.

But the key was reaching out to voters.

Party volunteers working on a "marginal voter project" made contact with people in five state House districts - most in western North Carolina - who had previously voted only in presidential years.

Ashe County Democrats canvassed neighborhoods for the first time that Jones could remember. They got training from Democrats in Watauga County, which Meek and others hold up as a model. Even though Republicans hold a 6 percentage point advantage in Watauga County in voter registration, Democrats now hold all five commissioner's seats, both legislative seats and the sheriff's office.

'From day one, we surrounded ourselves with bright, energetic people who worked hard,' said Steve Goss, a retired Southern Baptist minister and coach who upset heavily favored David Blust in the 45th Senate District, which includes Watauga County.

With the help of Appalachian State University students, the Democratic Party in Watauga County contacts voters year-round to remind them the party is working on local problems. And when they have a success at finding a solution, Meek said, the party lets voters know about it.

Blust, who lost by about 320 votes, said scandals and out-of-control spending by Republican in Congress hurt voter perceptions of the GOP and kept the party faithful at home. But he acknowledged the Democrats' activity swamped him and other Republican candidates in the west.

'All over the mountain area, the Democrats were organized,' Blust said. 'They smelled blood two years out. They outworked Republicans, no question about it.'"

We were strong supporters of the entire Watauga Democratic ticket, but especially of Steve Goss. who, incidentally didn't get any state party money. He is a super guy and is already making a positive mark in Raleigh.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]