On Sunday, December 17th, author Tom Schaller will be with us to discuss his new book, Whistling Past Dixie:
In this highly accessible book, political science professor Schaller points to political history and research on changing demographics to illustrate why the South is now openly hostile to Democrats, who tend to lack the proper "cultural credentials" to appeal to most southerners. The South is the most militaristic, least unionized area of the U.S., and voters are far more likely to weigh social and cultural concerns than economic ones when voting. Rather than trying to recapture the past when the Democrats could reliably count on the South for votes, the party needs to devise a strategy that concentrates on opportunities elsewhere, advises Schaller. Noting that the Republicans dominated politics in the decades between the Civil War and the New Deal without the support of the South, Schaller outlines strategies for how the Democrats can now capitalize on opportunities to expand in other areas even as the high population of blacks in the South will continue to provide the party with a toehold there. An absorbing look at politics and demographics.
And as a special treat, Digby will be hosting the chat. It's a controversial thesis guaranteed to thrill many and anger others, and it will certainly challenge everyone. I'm looking forward to it myself and invite everyone to join us.
Related posts:
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Paul Starobin, After America: Narratives for the Next Global Age
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes, Marc J. Hetherington and Jonathan Weiler, Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes David Swanson, Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Leigh Stringer, The Green Workplace
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Eric Boehlert, Bloggers on the Bus: How the Internet Changed Politics and the Press
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Balrog!
Whoa, controversy!
Way to go Jane– it’s beyond time to have this discussion!
Balrog!
Digby! Kick Ass!
twolf1 -
Osmosis? The speed of light, you are ;-)
angie @ 2
Certainly timely given this year’s election results–where, as if in confirmation of Schaller’s thesis, the Democrats posted gains nearly everywhere except the south. (And maybe Utah, but unlike the south, Utah seems to have been written off long since.)
Waccamaw @ 5
A true c student.
Waccamaw @ 5
Ted Stevens is my friend ;)
Kind of interesting Gary Null just mentioned Mr Schaller on his show today.
Apparently the people who book the talk shows wont have Mr Schaller on even though he predicted that the Dems would win and that the rethugs are in danger of becoming a regional party based in the south.
which would be great if they did, then maybe they could form their own country and leave the rest of us alone.
klyde @ 9
I think we already tried that.
If Bush has turned the Republicans into a Regional Party mired in the South, we should thank him. For too long, the South has had too much influence on Presidential politics. It is simply wrong that all National candidates have to be filtered through the South. Let the South have the Republicans and no sway over National issues.
EvilDrPuma @ 10
And you see where keeping them around has landed us.
Well, Virginia did pull through and I believe is turning blue and is a portal to the South.
That said, I actually do not agree with Schaller’s thesis as presented above and I admit I have not read the book.
I believe in Dean’s 50 state strategy and I think that the south’s experience with thugs during Katrina, the abuse of our military and National Guard and Reserves, and the hypocrisy in religion should be explored and distributed in a thoughtful manner by the Dems throughout the South.
Let’s not write off the South just yet. Too much reliance on the West might not be wise just yet. The so-called Montana Miracle just went down the tubes with the Republicans taking the House back and installing a far right winger as Speaker. They promise not to have a 50/50 split of committees and intend to obstruct. Schweitzer will not get much passed except his business friendly coal plants. Progessivism has been set back a bit here. So as annoying as the Southern Republicans are and how strange Southern Democrats appear sometimes, I’m encouraged by some of the grass roots organizing that has been taking place there. Best bet for us would be to get rid of the Electoral College
OT – kerry on CNN w/ blitzer’s beard
Don’t abandon us down here, we’re still swinging.
It’s a pride thing and right now the wingers are getting kicked in the nuts. A couple more (Haggards and Iraqs, figuratively) and the south will be a deep blue sea.
As long as Conyers and Waxman pull the skirt up over the elephant’s head in the next 2 years we should be good to go with all but the 1%ers.
EvilDrPuma @ 10
no actually we stopped that… a big mistake in retrospect
hmmm not so sure about the big cities in the south, lots of yankee transplants .. people have had to transfer with their jobs etc. i’m thinking of places like charlotte and atlanta and jacksonville … just to name a few. so there may be more blue there than people realize
Hmm, maybe we should drop Mudcat a line.
Hi Jane,
I heard Schaller on Al Franken’s show the other day, and I thought he made great sense.
Jane Hamsher @ 18
I think you may be onto somethin’! ;)
Bushco’s faith based initiatives need to be exposed much more fully. Kuo started it and I think there’s a lot of junk there.
Why on earth would african american preachers support Allen?
$$$$$$$ and access, I think.
empty chair @ 18
Atlanta, Charlotte, Raleigh, and a few of their respective suburbs are Dem. The rest of the area, however… The rest of GA is bright red. This area will not be changed any time soon.
In NC, the mountain areas can be quite blue (Watauga Co. for instance voted entirely for Dems). But, again, most of the rest of the state will stay Rep.
interesting reversal of the texas bumper sticker from the 1970s oil crisis: “let the yankee bastids freeze in the dark.” so we let them roast in their proud and futile divorce from civilization. longer term, the post-civil-war south has never been anything but one-party. from one-party dem to one-party republican is merely a polarity change as the plantation gave way to the corporation. asset ownership is still more socially stratified in the south than in the rest of the country, and that tends toward one-party interest groupings. if that is changing, dems have a chance to keep chipping away at southern seats. seems like outer suburbs are turning more like inner cities, voting-wise. trouble with the south is, not enough cities to change over entire states. but i like the notion of national dems writing off southern issues as not worth it. however, i do think we can keep lampson outside houston and pick up a few more seats outside san antonio, houston, dallas, atlanta, and maybe birmingham.
T- @ 16
I tend to agree with you that the South is winnable but not by the methods normally adopted by the let’s-stand-for-nothings. I think that strengthening a commitment to workers rights (NAFTA is a four letter word in the south, although right now labor is too) and conducting high profile hearings into war profiteering can ultimately start to swing even the strongest cultural conservatives. But as an overall election strategy, when it comes to apportioning resources, I’ll be interested to explore Schaller’s arguments.
Cafferty’s been on fire the last couple of days……this hour deals w/Newty & his recent comments. Can’t wait to hear what KO has to say about same on his special comment tonite.
Waccamaw @ 25
Cafferty’s questions for today:
5 p.m.: Did the meeting between President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki change your mind about Iraq?
7 p.m.: What other recommendations would you make to the incoming Congress in January?
respond here
angie @ 21
Standard procedure for the powerful is to buy off the popular leadership.
Actually I want to see Dr Dean’s 50 state strategy begin to work across the south. We wont turn the whole thing blue but we may be able to make gains in a lot of places. Like someone said up thread start with Virginia and work from there.
empty chair @ 18
I’ve known some of the transplants, so I don’t doubt you on this. Urban areas often run bluer than rural areas even without the job transplants, for that matter. What isn’t clear to me is how soon we can realistically expect the right-wing psuedo-Christianity that has put down such deep roots in many parts of the south to discredit itself. Ever since Nixon’s people decided to make an election strategy out of pandering to the worst parts of human nature in the southern states, the combination of religious fundamentalism and electoral reactionism has been a powerful force. I’m as yet unconvinced that even Bush’s defeat by the hurricanes has really driven any wedges into that base.
Dems have some senators in the south:
Arkansas two senators
Louisiana one
Florida one
Virginia one
And the border state of Missouri one
They can win there- but their chances are better outside the “deep south” and it takes a certain type of candidate to do the trick..
(Florida is not a typical southern state and will switch to blue within a decade in my opinion.)
It would be a big mistake to write off the south in my opinon- Dean’s 50 state strategy is correct! As Jane has pointed out- populism is attracting attention- and dems do it better.
Please don’t give up on us.
We need some attention down her in NO. We need those poor democrats back in NO so we don’t turn red.
Please! I beseech thee!
Major urban areas in the south tend to be largely african american and largely dem- you get yer gooper vote in the burbs.
Pendulum is gonna swing.
Always does.
I was raised in Virginia, and I am not giving up on the South. Things are changing all over and bushco may just have done enough damage to make the pendulum swing faster, IF we hold the incumbent Dems feet to the fire and make sure their spine is straight and true– no slumping and the DINOS have got to change or they are marginalized, exposed and out.
There has to be a new way forward and it needs to start in January.
You’re right, MsAnnaNOLA, and I put y’all at the top of the help list in this country!
Dems have ta deal with the guns and Jesus issues in ALL rural areas- not just the south. The traditional race issues that have kept the south gooper may be easing in significance.
In the meantime- the issues of an even break for the working man are hotter than ever.
Dems can win if they play their cards right.
Yes rwcole.
50 state strategy. Fight. Every election, every race, every time.
It is the only way to win. Long term party building.
My friend David Gereighty is working on that since his defeat in LA-01. Bobby Jindal pretty much announced he is running for governor within days of winning re-election. The Times-Picayune wouldn’t even do a profile on the race to let people know there was a race. It was egregious!
If Jindal wins the governorship, it will be an open seat! We will need everyone’s help to fight for that seat!
Angie says at 33 .., if we hold the incumbent Dems feet to the fire and make sure their spine is straight and true– no slumping and the DINOS have got to change or they are marginalized, exposed and out.
I am beginning to have some doubt about what dems are going to accomplish. And it will drive people like Tester and Webb absolutely fricking nuts. Charlie Rangle has been making some strange noises lately, unless his are all ‘tax baiting.’ Chris Dodd was on earlier today talking about Iraq and he says that this plan isn’t working but wants to wait for the “Baker boys” to have their say.
Hoyer is going to enjoy all those lobbists gifts methinks. The power has shifted with no new course being planned I fear.
Well, I’d say that Schaller’s book might be prescient after the results of the election. I think that winning without the south may be more than possible, and it may be sustainable.
The key will be the self-destruction of the Talibangelicals and the erosion of the base of “the holier-than-the-rest-of-us” that has been the mainstay of the Not-So-Moral-Christian Right (Ted Haggard, powder-white courtesy phone please).
I think the most recent display of the drift away from the hardliners was the lack of support that ‘Video Bill’ Frist had for his 2008 preznitial run; ditto for ‘Maccaca’ Allen.
I don’t think that the 50 state strategy ought to write off the Southern tier of states, but we damn sure don’t have to obsess about kissing their political asses anymore. They just are not that important in the bigger picture. Or am I wrong?
Oh, and completely OT, I am no longer an unemployment stat today. Got a job offer (and accepted it). 18 months in the “booming bush economy” as a liberal drain on society (707), now I’m back to work, finally.
I’m not sure how OT this really is:
As the GOP leadership selection for the 110th Congress illustrates, that self-examination is going to be an uphill struggle. I’m guessing that Ken “Larry ‘Bud’” Mehlman is happy not to be a part of it.
Jo Fish @ 37
Good to hear. I hope the job is a good one for you.
Congratulations Jo Fish.
These are certainly scary times at so many levels and in so many places.
I caught a little bit of Schaller on Franken, and as I’m no Dixie-phile, I enjoyed hearing him lay out his thesis. However, I must disagree with (my incomplete understanding of) it: what appeals to much of the South, plays well in other areas (I’m thinking about the famous Pennsylvania “T”, a/k/a Pennsyltucky). However, it’s more a matter of candidate personality or style — we don’t need a crop of Dixiecrats, just someone who has a common-man authenticity. While every region has its own authentic type, the appeal of the candidate from the Mountain West is that he would seem to transcend the prejudices of the other regions.
On the nuts and bolts issue of how much money and resources to devote to unproductive areas, which I think is more of Schaller’s point, a balance is needed between prioritizing commitment of scarce resources and the lessons learned from the 50 state strategy.
I’m one of those Yankee transplants, and I’m not sanguine about the chances of winning down here – at least not at this time. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for appeals on economic self-interest – it’s about all we’ve got going for us here. But I recall arguing with one of my union members on that very score – voting for Republicans being against our self-interest as federal employees. His response: that stuff’s not important. In the real bible belt, a lot of people are so sold on their own concept of moral superiority that it trumps everything else.
Don’t know that I can get to Schaller’s book; I’m already swamped with reading material. But this is an important subject and I hope that many of the regulars here at FDL will pick up the slack for me and read and report.
In regards to Dems in the South, I have to say that this recent post by Sara at The Next Hurrah was EXTREMELY enlightening. It’s not just that the voters chose social/cultural issues over economic issues; it’s that there was NO Democratic Party to which voters could look for information on the issues, let alone a party infrastructure that could do persuasion, ask for the vote and get the vote out.
What exactly can we expect from a local party that is little more than old sheaves of paper in a file cabinet drawer?
OOOH RAAH Jo Fish, way to go!
Rayne, that’s why I applaud Dean’s strategy.
If we build it, they will come.
rwcole @ 34
Yes but it’s time for us to start framing the so-called moral issues better. We have a lot of self-described conservatives in CT who don’t “like gay marriage or abortion.” I think that I had this argument over and over again that being prochoice has nothing to do with “liking” abortion. It has more to do with keeping the government out of our personal lives. Always that person ends up agreeing with the “keep government of our personal lives” part. Morality isn’t the government’s business, etc. etc. I think most Americans have a Patrick Henry streak.
One of the best things LBJ did was rid the Democratic party of the pro-lynching segregationists. I can still remember “Democratic” Party Senators filibustering any and all civil rights legislation. The worst was the blocking of Federal anti-lynching laws. Glad to be rid of them.
mui @ 46
In more ways than one, I fear. Apart from his “give me liberty” rhetoric, Henry was the closest thing to a fundamentalist that this country had in its starting days.
OT – Shakeup At “The Daily Show”
MsAnnaNOLA @ 31
I was in Alabama on a video shoot a few months back. I thought I’d have to put up with Republicans and their loud mouth political chat at the local eateries, but was surprised by the number of folks I met who were Democrats. And strong, passionate, had-it-up-to-here, sick and tired of the idiot in the White House, kind of Democrats.
So, we should not write off the South as unwinnable and abandon our brothers behind enemy lines (excuse that war metaphor).
EvilDrPuma @ 48
I donb’t know about the Fundamentalist part. I do think that a good number of conservatives are in the process of being disenfranchised by their own party partly but definitely exclusively by the so-called moral issues and that they are among the “paeons” who get squashed by the party when it is in power.
Rayne @ 43
Good point; in 2004 I was disgusted to find that there was not even a Democrat running for Congress in my district. But with the 50 state strategy, we had one in 2006 (although he lost by a landslide). More importantly, we had 3 state party positions funded by the good doctor.
angie 45 — yup, you got that right. At some point the economics do trump the social stuff, and the economics can encourage a change of perspective on values. But if there is no organization in place, there’s no alternative for comparison.
The next step in states like MS is building the Blue Tiger organization; if we walk the walk, reaching out to help people, they will trust us with their votes. At least that’s my personal take; can’t wait to see the Blue Tigers move from the first 3 states to the South.
As someone who actually lives in the part of the country Mr. Schaller wants to write off I’m dismayed. Me, I much prefer Dr. Dean’s 50 State Strategy. This last election seems to have proved that the majority of the country is starting to wake up. Sidney Blumenthal had an article about this in today’s Salon. I hope this link will get y’all behind their firewall so you don’t have to watch their irksome ads:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/b…..print.html
(I’m also a Salon subscriber, so if anyone needs anything from there let me know…)
The gop is form over substance and we all know that.
Webb also knows it and proved it by not being afraid to poke bush in the eye.
These puffed up rednecks down here love that shit and its not ground we can afford to cede to the repugs again. A few more instances like that directed at their heroes will further demonstrate to the kool-aiders that bush is a northeastern elitist draft dodgin’ pussy (not that there is anything wrong with that, but the south ain’t ever going for it).
Jane is right, the issues down here need to be focused to convince the wingers that they should vote their economic self interests.
Controlling the agenda will keep the wind at our backs by staying away from abortion and gay marriage.
The Democratic congress has to mitigate the gop military advantage by exposing the war profiteering and intelligence manipulation by leaving gop corpses strewn about with their investigations.
If that doesn’t happen, neither will a blue south.
Steve @ 47
Now they’re Republicans.
MayDaze @ 56..right where they belong along with the christianists. Hopefully the little psychopath GWB has driven a stake through the heart of the GOP.
Forgot to tell everyone: new thread, gang. Ooops.
I think Schaller’s book deals with the South in two different ways, and it seems to me that most arguments about the book confuse the two.
On the one hand, he discusses the South in terms of region, and the political tactics that should be used for Dems to win nationally, despite our current political weakness in said region.
Of course the reason we’re weak in the South is the other thrust of his book — namely, that certain aspects of Southern culture need to change before we will succeed to any great degree there.
Now my family comes from Georgia and Arkansas — I’m a Cobb after all – so Schaller’s thesis will cause a ruckuis at family reunions. But it’s also right — trying to woo Southern conservatives, either Republican or Democrat, distorts liberal positions beyond recognition and wastes valuable resources that could be far more successful elsewhere.
Hence the West and the Midwest. As Schaller points out, the further West you go, the fewer Americans on both the right and the left you find committed to social conservatism.
As I read it, the strong implication of his book is that liberals can be more successful by co-opting certain parts of the quasi-libertarian culture of the West to counterbalance the embeded socal conservatism of the South. After all libertarianism is an offshoot of liberalism, not conservatism. As a result the two are much more compatible on issues like personal liberty, and much more opposed to conservatism’s underlying ethos of authoritarianism.
I’m for one am very intrigued by the ideas Schaller puts forth, and look forward to the discussion.
whoa Ho Digby! What a score.
.
I just got the book yesterday; I saw Tom Schaller on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal. They should have him on all the time instead of boring people like Donna Brazile.
Schaller is very assertive and doesn’t ever pander, from what I saw of the C-SPAN interview. I like that. A caller told him that the South believed in the Constitution more than the rest of us and Schaller took it apart piece by piece for how the South obstructed and delayed and was recalcitrant about everything we think of as the founding of this country and the rights enshrined in the Constitution, from the Declaration of Independence to the post Civil War amendments to Women’s suffrage, child labor laws, integration of the military, civil rights law.
I love it that Texas screwed itself with that redistricting and will have little power in the Congress. The rest of the South should get weaned off the federal teat as quick as the Democrats can accomplish that; only black areas in the South should get a nickel of federal spending.
ccobb 59 — I’m not ready to concede the south, for these reasons:
Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter and family
Sam Nunn
Max Cleland
Lloyd Bentsen (RIP)
These people still represent the values of a large number of Americans outside the South. I can’t argue with President Carter’s efforts towards fair voting, promotion of peace, and helping the disadvantaged here and abroad. I am grateful to Sam Nunn for his work on nuclear non-proliferation (which this administration has handled abominably). Cleland stood by our troops. Bentsen did a wonderful job supporting the Clinton Administration’s early efforts towards fiscal responsibility and economic development; find me a Dem of Bentsen’s calibre and I’m okay with him.
And yeah, about him too: Bill Clinton.
There are Democratic voters in the South who elected each of these folks to office; they may be more conservative overall than Dems from the North, but the entire country has shifted right since each of these folks were elected to office. They may no longer be seen as conservative if measured against today’s scale. And they may support the same kind of candidates I support here in the northern midwest, if the right candidate emerged: someone who is fiscally responsible and committed to improving the lot of Americans.
Somehow, I don’t recall this being a topic of conversation before the election. So we busted our ass down here, only to find out folks I thought were in the foxhole with me want to kick me out.
1. Plenty (granted, not enough) of Dems hold southern political office, at the local, state and federal level. NC has a Dem gov, and a lady Dem lt. gov. She’ll probably be our next gov. We just sent three incumbent Dems back to the state house, and one is a lesbian (I can’t tell you how much I love the notion of stirring up the powers that be). We’re not where we need to be, but we are getting there.
2. Fundies are taking a big hit down here (ties to corrupt Reps, Haggard, Ralph, Reed), and I expect to see their influence diminish. Not fast enough, but trending right.
3. Guys like Edwards, Webb and Testor have a message that will sell down South. There is no “I reckon” we lag the rest of the country economically. The way to frame the message is “you are getting hoo-doo’d out of the earnings of your hard work.”
4. Either you believe in the 50 state strategy, or you don’t.
5. Either you believe were all Americans, or that some deserve less.
Having said all of that, should Dems be smart with campaign dollars and time spent? Well, duhhhh. If there is $1 million on the table, and it could swing 10 Dem seats outside of the South, or 1 Southern seat, that’s not a hard choice.
Republicans and all of their brown shirts cannot keep me from working hard for Dems. If this shit takes hold, Dems can.
diogenes — I got your back. Keep on keeping on. Concede not one seat anywhere.
(And that includes the provinces of Canada, too. Go Liberals!! 10-Province Strategy Begins!!)
Rayne @
62
… and you then round up the usual suspect rationales.
First, language matters. No one says concede the South. You show me where Schaller has proposed that and I’ll run naked down my street. It’s the typical emotional argument, rather thin on both facts and strategic thinking.
When I did more marketing however, we went where we thought the brand would play best first, built it up, then went after more difficult markets. What Schaller proposes is no different.
diogenesdiogenes @
63
Excuse me but I just have to say that is lazy lazy thinking. I would say Magical Thinking, but we’re using that for BushCo. and I don’t want to be any more insulting than I am already going to be.
I believe in the 50 state strategy. But I don’t think you win them all at once. So you have to triage — what gives us the best shot first, then cascade down the list from there.
This stuff is Strategic Planning 101. At the moment, the South is somewhere near the bottom of regions that we can win national elections in. So we put in the effort for local and regional elections, build up the grassroots, etc. All small dollar stuff.
The big dollars we use where we can win national elections first. We strengthen our hand and our brand, and chip away at the South from that stronger position, not from the weaker one we’ve had for far too long.
Rayne @
64
Apprech, Rayne!
We had this brou-ha-ha over at Digby
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com…..1740921157
and if you read the comment section, you can understand why I brought a case of the ass to this thread.
ccobb @
66
And I intend to be exactingly insulting back.
Had I not incorporated “Having said all of that, should Dems be smart with campaign dollars and time spent? Well, duhhhh. If there is $1 million on the table, and it could swing 10 Dem seats outside of the South, or 1 Southern seat, that’s not a hard choice.” into my comment, your response would be appropriate.
Cherrypicking portions and interpreting them out of context is how we got into Iraq.
I am the Sara from over at The Next Hurrah.
We can’t expect the South to change all that much until the structural matters are dealt with. The reason so many parts of the Democratic Party went essentially into Bankruptcy in the south has to do with Race.
Democrats can and do and will continue to elect African Americans in the South, because for the Majority-Minority districts, once they elect members and send them to DC, they have the advantage of the now near 40 member strong Black Caucus, and collatoral support from the Progressive Caucus. They derive their strength from membership in the national party, and associations with new chairs such as Conyers and Rangle. This is authentic African American leadership and true Seniority, and in contrast to the old days of the all white segregationist Democratic Party, those so represented are better off. Way better off.
But we need to comprehend that this has been accomplished by maintaining a form of Segregation — the rural people, the working class whites, to some extent the skilled and semi professionals have not had to mix it up in the political arena with African American leadership and politicians, many of whom are very influential in the National Party. Why not? Because the Majority Minority districts are “packed” leaving the rest to the Republican Right. In otherwords, Race has still not really been addressed.
Some may remember back in 2004 in the South Carolina Primary, Howard Dean got shot up big time for making the observation that the guy who drives around in his pick-up with a gun rack in the back window, with a confederate battle flag sticker on his bumper, needs to understand that he needs affordable health care for his kids just as much as the African American voters need it for their kids. What Wisdom. Dean got it. Dean actually talked about race and how structural racism can kill kids. And look at the reaction he got…..
The Elite of the South have always feared the possibility that Working Class whites and African Americans might get to talking and find they have a common cause. The classic book on this was written way back in the 1930’s, Cash’s “The Mind of the South” a classic that figured it out when the Civil Rights movement was still a very distant dream. That is why the south is so underunionized, it is why Social Security was so discriminatory up into the 1960’s and LBJ’s time. And it was why, post Voting Rights in 1965 the elites preferred to move to the party of Lincoln and bankrupt the state democratic parties in the south, rather than to nurture them and bring in the African American leadership and voters, and yes indeed that might mean the State Chair of the Party might sometimes be black.
If the Racial backbone of this structural problem is not squarely faced, talked about in adult terms — and by people who have read this part of American Political History — we will never get over it. Now I like what I see of what Dean is doing, and I trust the instinct he showed when he commented on pick up trucks. But we have to make certain that the conversation about this clearly comprehends the core of the problem is about Race.
diogenes @
63
Au contraire. This attitude of you are with us or against us is how we got into Iraq, as in your notion that we either believe in the 50 state strategy or we don’t. Magical Thinking and ridiculous stuff and you should be embarrassed that it’s all you’ve got to defend your position. I am for you.
As for cherry picking your comment, there were no cherries to pick. It was all nonsense. I just picked the least nonsensical bit of it.
Finally, to be insulting you have to try a lot harder and have better stuff than this. Otherwise the only thing you insult is the intelligence of those you’re trying to convince.
That’s a pretty strawman!
50 state strategy means we’re building the party in all 50 states. Write-off means we’re not. We can do one or the other, but not both. That’s a phenomemon that happens all the time. I can be wet or dry, but not both at the same time. In the light, or in the dark. Inside or outside. See? Basic reality. Can life be more complex? Certainly, and generally so. Just not always so.
Since one general area of agreement is to wisely marshal finite campaign resources – I would venture to say even you and I agree on the principle – just what is your issue? You’re jumping around so much I need a scorecard.
Feeble brain, and all that.
Sara 69 — thank you so much for coming by. Your observations you’d posted at Next Hurrah were exactly the kind of thing that needs wider distribution for us to understand the challenge we face. I also wonder whether Carville’s negativity has any relationship to his Southern roots.
ccobb – I believe I did indicate above that I hadn’t read Schaller’s work. If you have, great for you.
I already live and breathe the 50-State Strategy. When I say “concede no seat”, I mean we actively build a Democratic organization in every district, develop and recruit a progressive candidate by way of those organizations. Sara at Next Hurrah shared information indicating how very fundamental and rudimentary the work is in districts in the South; we start where we are, even if it’s to unlock the cabinet containing the charter for the local party.
But we cannot build a local brand in any district if we do not provide funding. We cannot establish identity within the local population if we do not have a 7/24 presence. We cannot attract and train activist volunteers if there is no presence, nor will potential candidates seek help and training to emerge. For this reason I believe there is a pointed limit to what you refer to as triage.
There are two other strategic reasons why we cannot withhold funding to Southern Dem development.
1) Brand Dem cannot and should not be a regional brand. Ever. It is a national brand built on a fundamental set of ethics and values that every American can share.
2) Spending money in districts that are not seen as competitive or viable has a direct impact on the opposition, hence Liddy Dole’s plea for help to pay down NRSC debt. Even in a state like MI, which folks outside this state perceive as blue, we must force the opposition to spend money in non-competitive races. MI has been sliding red (perhaps in part because of large number of Southern transplants) for some time; we forced the opposition to bring in outside money that they didn’t spend on other races, like George Allen’s.
This same strategy should apply EVERYWHERE inside the U.S.; it has had a profound impact on red and leaning red districts, has rejuvenated a dying party in areas that have been blue. It can do the same in the South.
diogenes @
71
Ah the strawman strawman.
Where to begin? First of all, the most clever and coherent thing you’ve got going here is your call sign and you didn’t even create that yourself. And having read through your so-called arguments, you might want to try out something more to your mark like, say, Jethro or Billy Bob.
Because the fact is you have no argument except for the patchwork you’ve created from better thinkers than you’re proving to be. Every word you struggle to type just proves you haven’t read the book and are arguing from the very strawman position you seem to project onto others. But you obviously know nothing about the book and the real argument in it. Nice work if you can get it. What are you, Republican?
And “feeble brain” huh? Wow. That’s so clever. Just impressive. I can only imagine how the gears must clang and grind away in your enraged little head until you come up with something that cutting, that pithy.
But there’s this thing on the Internets called snark. Yeah, s-n-a-r-k. Like shark with an n if you can’t figure out how to pronounce it. From my reading of what you write, it’ll probably take you a few years to get adequate at it, but you might want to look it up. It only requires writing skills and a bit of cleverness… oh wait. Sorry. Forget I brought it up.
Best of luck in all you attempt to argue on these Internets. Keep it up. You’re bound to win on some day.
Rayne @
72
We’re in violent agreement on most of these issues. But the point of the book is pretty straightforward. In the near term, more resources go to where we can win first, best and biggest. Less resources go where we can’t. That is the South.
My family lives there; I have a vested interest in their well-being, which is not being served by the GOP. But Schaller’s key idea is that by shifting the regional focus, we quit trying to squeeze the liberal camel through the eye of the social conservative needle. Doing so only distorts progressive values until they are almost unrecognizable.
Schaller’s other key finding is the elephant in the room — despite enormous progress, white Southerners voting patterns can still be tracked mostly by their attitudes toward race. That is not something we can get rid of by 2008 or 2010 or 2012. And from a position of powerlessness, we can’t tackle it at all.
So we win without the South for however many cycles we have to until we can move the needle on the more intractable problems we face there. Any clear-eyed analysis indicates that Dems best chances are to win that way, whether we make it a strategy or not. But not recognizing that Schaller’s approach is a key part to a winning strategy would mean we continue to focus too heavily on the least likely areas and and not enough on the most likely.
Actually, I was having fun with your projection that I am feeble-minded, and going with it. It’s called irony, which can be too subtle for some.
I am pleased that you choose to attack me personally. That generally means I am ahead on points. Keep it up, because while you are kvetching, I’m working. Got some more southern democrats to get elected in 08 – I’m a big Edwards fan. Got a party meeting next week to start 08 planning.Part of that 50 state thing.
I also don’t do pissing contests.
The last word is yours.
The last word is simple — you do do pissing contests; you just lost this one. Or maybe you forgot the other comments you made above, which is understandable.
As for dissembling about intending to be ironic and lamenting that I somehow attacked you personally, good one! But non-sequiturs about feeble minds do not irony make. More importantly, I don’t know you to attack you personally, I just know the disjointed argument you set forth and the tone you did it in. Neither serves your cause very well.
But thanks for playing.