« Conservalove | Main | Oil and Those Western Governors »
June 24, 2006
Schaller's Strategy vs. Schaller's Conclusions
When I first read Tom Schaller's piece on how Mudcat Saunders is all wrong and the Democrats can't win in the South, it seemed to me that he had argued against his own conclusion (and spent too much time getting back at Mudcat for being a jerk to him at YearlyKos). He lays out a strategy for how to win in the South -- win the votes of blacks and enlightened urban/suburban whites, and don't go too hard after the rural vote. Matt Yglesias charitably says that we should regard this strategy as the actual message of Schaller's piece, and I guess that's right.
Then Schaller says this:
And it is this model writ large -- winning outside the rural areas and then taking a record of smart, progressive policies to rural voters for their inspection -- which ratifies the strategy of Democrats first building a non-southern majority, governing confidently and successfully, and then appealing to the South, the nation’s most rural, poor, and conservative region.
There are massive differences between winning state and presidential elections (the electoral college, the presence of a regionalist Southern identity) that make me suspicious of this argument. Furthermore, if Schaller's right and you can win with blacks and suburbanites, why not go ahead and try to chip off some Southern states that way from the beginning?
June 24, 2006 in The South | Permalink
Comments
My immediate reaction to the article was that anybody who refers to himself as a 'rebel' (in the peculiarly Southern sense of the word) isn't somebody we want in the party. But that's a whole other issue...
I think the confusion here is that Schaller is talking demographically and culturally rather than geographically. I don't think he's saying we should write off Southern states; I think he's saying we shouldn't make an effort to appeal to Southern (and more broadly, rural) culture and values. Which, and I think this is a subsidiary point he is making, happen to be rooted in the ugly racial history of the region (the homophobic, anti-feminist, Dominionist constituency of today mapping exactly to the segregationist constituency of 40 years ago). Schaller's strategy for the South is to bank on long-term cultural transformation of the region--which seems like a good bet, because that's the direction it's moving in--rather than to appeal to the rearguard reactionary sentiments that popularly define the region.
Posted by: Tom Hilton | Jun 24, 2006 2:13:40 PM
I mostly agree, Tom. I don't want to reinforce those particularly destructive southern prejudices, and I think we can avoid compromising on important issues like gay rights and abortion. But I think it's an attractive thing in a candidate if he or she can get around those prejudices -- the anti-Yankee thing, for instance.
I think Schaller had a mix of reasonable cultural/demographic premises and bad geographic conclusions, and I'm having trouble seeing how a good argument about national politics could be cobbled together out of them.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Jun 24, 2006 2:35:17 PM
Okay, I see what you're saying. But in fairness to Schaller, the 'bad geographic conslusions' really appear only in that paragraph you quoted; elsewhere, he makes much clearer that he's talking in demographic rather than strictly geographic terms. I think if you interpret 'the South' in that paragraph to mean 'the cultural South' (and 'non-Southern' to mean 'non-rural'), his argument makes a lot more sense. (Well...I agree with it, anyway.) I agree that the paragraph you quote does rather muddle things, in any case.
Posted by: Tom Hilton | Jun 24, 2006 2:58:42 PM
Oh, and I also (reluctantly) think we should probably avoid nominating candidates from parts of the country that are subject to regional hostility from large swaths of the country (including the South)--in particular, the Northeast.
Posted by: Tom Hilton | Jun 24, 2006 3:00:58 PM
As you know, I'm pretty strongly in agreement with that last point!
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Jun 24, 2006 3:02:13 PM
Oh, and I also (reluctantly) think we should probably avoid nominating candidates from parts of the country that are subject to regional hostility from large swaths of the country (including the South)--in particular, the Northeast.
No one in any part of the country except the south gives a damn where anyone else is from.
You negate all you said before about not wanting to compromise on core values, not wanting to try appealing to the homophobic, anti-feminist, Dominionist constituency of today mapping exactly to the segregationist constituency of 40 years ago when you show willingness to pander to the same type of prejudice when it is expressed geographically.
Everyone here knows how I feel, and I'm going to try really hard to not just repeat myself. But if we're not going to pander, that means not pandering. If we're going to make being from the south the primary characteristic for our presidential candidates, then we are going to doom ourselves to looking for someone who inexplicably has a (D) next to his (southerners won't want a woman president!) name while maintaining palatability to, and let me say this again, the homophobic, anti-feminist, Dominionist constituency of today mapping exactly to the segregationist constituency of 40 years ago.
White southerners don't want a progressive president. They don't want someone who thinks that the USA is a secular nation. They don't want a woman, they don't want someone friendly to gays, they don't want someone who supports any kind of affirmative action, amnesty for illegal aliens, is against the death penalty, wants to control guns in any way, thinks the USA should pursue diplomacy before armed conflict, wants to expand the so-called "welfare state" in any way - and so on.
What madness has overcome us that people whom I respect, whose writings I enjoy, would think that the Right Thing To Do is to pander to a group that could not be more diametrically opposed to the progressive vision if we had genetically engineered them?
Posted by: Stephen | Jun 24, 2006 3:12:36 PM
What madness has overcome us that people whom I respect, whose writings I enjoy, would think that the Right Thing To Do is to pander to a group that could not be more diametrically opposed to the progressive vision if we had genetically engineered them?
Well, in my case, the madness is called "utilitarianism". The evils of pandering to such a group are outweighed by the good that we can do after we gain power. So the right thing to do is make relatively harmless panders (eg: nominating a Southern candidate) and then use our power to do good stuff for gay people and women and everybody else.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Jun 24, 2006 3:25:10 PM
I want Senators and Congresspersons, I want state legislators to do the redistricting, and the damn pony, too. Presidents can mostly do less harm without a supportive Congress, we need affirmatice policies.
I think we need to look at the stereotypes more particularly. "They don't want a woman":Hutchinson, Landrieux, Dole, etc. Not true. But there sure aren't any black Senators or Governors. The Repubs have been demonizing Democrats, thru various means, hardest in the South for decades. Some successful candidates at the top might change perceptions for statewide and local candidates.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jun 24, 2006 3:59:15 PM
"and spent too much time getting back at Mudcat for being a jerk to him"
Yup.
Posted by: Petey | Jun 24, 2006 4:11:56 PM
"Some successful candidates at the top might change perceptions for statewide and local candidates."
Yup, again.
Posted by: Petey | Jun 24, 2006 4:12:53 PM
The evils of pandering to such a group are outweighed by the good that we can do after we gain power. So the right thing to do is make relatively harmless panders (eg: nominating a Southern candidate) and then use our power to do good stuff for gay people and women and everybody else.
It's not harmless. Anyone we could nominate is affected by the compromises necessary to gain votes in the south. And Gore is no longer a "southerner," not by his choice, but by theirs. Edwards, I don't know. My gut says that he wouldn't say the things he's saying now if he were a senator seeking reelection, or that he couldn't say them and retain his seat. I know that you'll disagree; this is one that only time will tell.
Some successful candidates at the top might change perceptions for statewide and local candidates.
This is, I believe, a misunderstanding of one of the fundamentals of American politics: all politics is local. Successful statewide and local candidates, and the infrastructure that they necessarily create, are much more valuable to a national candidate than the other way around. Incumbent presidents and particularly popular senators are (slightly) exceptions to this.
We simply must build our infrastructure, a national party that has organizations, PACs and volunteers everywhere. Yes, that includes the south. But not only the south, and certainly not the south and it's idiosyncracies (putting it generously) at the expense of the rest of the nation.
Hutchinson, Landrieux, Dole, etc. Not true.
President is a completely different world, and that is to what I was speaking. Senators, Representatives and even Governors are seen as inferior to the office of the president, therefore acceptable for a woman to hold it.
Posted by: Stephen | Jun 24, 2006 4:23:17 PM
Well, in my case, the madness is called "utilitarianism". The evils of pandering to such a group are outweighed by the good that we can do after we gain power. So the right thing to do is make relatively harmless panders (eg: nominating a Southern candidate) and then use our power to do good stuff for gay people and women and everybody else.
Summed-up Neil: (1) Southern White Conservatives will be so beguiled by John Edwards' Southern accent that they won't notice what he's saying (and more important, not saying). (2) The Dem insider consultocracy can be trusted not to Dixiecrat the campaign, substituting cultural populism for economic.
As I've said umpteen times before: I don't trust the current Dem leadership not to throw gay folks, black folks, and women under the bus -- they've been triangulating toward Southern Grievance Culture for years now. Why would they stop in 2008?
Similarly, while it's offensive that White Southerners are given a pass on their refusal to vote for someone who doesn't pander to their cultural idiosyncracies, I don't think that cultural bigotry makes them dumb enough to be gulled by a North Carolina accent. Morris Dees is Southern born, bred, and accented, and he's hardly a favorite among the people that Neil thinks he can peel off.
Posted by: paperwight | Jun 24, 2006 6:12:15 PM
Stephen:
Thing One: No, it isn't just the South. Much of the nation in between the coasts has a deep-seated resentment toward the Northeast and California. Most of the goddamn country hates us. That resentment is a bad thing. I hate it. It's ignorant as hell, and it drives me crazy to hear people from the South or the 'heartland' complain about regional hostility when they are the most egregious purveyors of same. It is also a reality we need to take into consideration. You go to elections with the country you have, not the country you wish you had.
Thing two: it isn't just the Dominionists. Regional resentment is not just geographically widespread, it also cuts across the political spectrum. Yes, it's much more prevalent on the right; it's much more prevalent among bigots, racists, homophobes, nativists; but it isn't exclusive to them. There are people whose votes we want, whose votes we should get, who are simply less likely to vote for a candidate from the Northeast.
Thing three: I'm not saying we have to run someone from the South. (My three favorite candidates--Clark, Gore, and Edwards--do happen to be from the South, but that's not because I think the candidate has to be Southern.) I'm saying we have to take into consideration the fact that if we do run someone from the Northeast (or the coastal urban centers of California), they will start at a significant disadvantage.
Thing four: There is no politics without pandering. Politics. Is. Pandering. More precisely, politics is the art of calculating when and how and how much to pander in order to accomplish what you hope to accomplish. Reasonable people can disagree about these things, but don't try to tell me we shouldn't pander at all. If you want politics without pandering, what you need is an autocratic society without sordid, messy things like elections.
Thing five: Given that there will be pandering, Nicholas is right: this particular form of pandering is relatively harmless. It's certainly better than a lot of other kinds of pandering (e.g., selling out gays or ditching the whole pro-choice platform) people are suggesting.
Thing six: I will think you, in the future, not to get all self-righteous at me. It is not conducive to civil discussion...although god knows I am trying like hell to keep this civil.
Posted by: Tom Hilton | Jun 24, 2006 6:17:11 PM
That's right, paperwight! And further:
(1) It worked in North Carolina, 1998. And it's worked better than anything else in past presidential elections. Most importantly, the media has bought into the image of Edwards as a drawling small-town mill-worker's son, and will sell him that way.
(2) Do you honestly think they're not going to put Edwards' economic populism front and center? That's the guy's bread and butter. It's all he ever wants to talk about. If they don't, I don't think they'll be working for him very long.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Jun 24, 2006 6:19:30 PM
I am honored to be mistaken for Nicholas.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Jun 24, 2006 6:20:39 PM
I wish pro-South people would get that there is actually a growing anti-South sentiment. It doesn't make it right, but we can pander to that just as easily as we can pander to the South. And it might make for a durable coalition. (It might also be bad for the country, and the South in particular, though.)
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Jun 24, 2006 6:31:01 PM
Oops! Sorry, Neil. When you get as old as I am, the brain just doesn't work as well as it used to...
Paperwight, for me it isn't so much about fooling dumb crackers into thinking our candidate is also a dumb cracker; it's about running someone whom 40% of the country doesn't reject before he or she opens his or her mouth. (This is where Neil (Neil, Neil, Neil...okay, I think I have it now) and I differ slightly; I think he is arguing for a specifically Southern candidate, while I'm cautioning against a specifically Northeastern or Californian candidate (unless this candidate is so extraordinarily appealing in other ways as to make up for what, let's face it, would be a handicap in a national race).
Posted by: Tom Hilton | Jun 24, 2006 6:39:27 PM
Neil -
As I've also said before, I don't think that Edwards would be a bad candidate, and I would vote for him. (And again, if I refused to because of his accent, what kind of jackass would I be?)
I just think that you're optimistic about (a) whether the current Dem leadership lets anyone who's a non-cultural populist get through the nomination process, and (b) whether in a presidential run Edwards' accent will be enough to withstand the constant attacks on his cultural authenticity.
Last, I think there's no way around the fact that the particularly nasty strain of Calvinism that's endemic in American fundamentalism identifies "poor" as a moral failure (and often simultaneously with skin color), and a candidate running to help the poor will be viewed as a bleeding-heart do-gooder who doesn't really understand how the world works.
Posted by: paperwight | Jun 24, 2006 6:41:23 PM
Most of the goddamn country hates us.
Speak for yourself. I live in Overland Park, KS. I grew up in Alamogordo, NM, and spent my summers as a kid in Hominy, OK.
I know I'm blunt in all of this, but where exactly am I self-righteous?
Posted by: Stephen | Jun 24, 2006 7:41:50 PM
I know I'm blunt in all of this, but where exactly am I self-righteous?
Well, try here for example:
You negate all you said before about not wanting to compromise on core values, not wanting to try appealing to the homophobic, anti-feminist, Dominionist constituency of today mapping exactly to the segregationist constituency of 40 years ago when you show willingness to pander to the same type of prejudice when it is expressed geographically.
Posted by: Tom Hilton | Jun 24, 2006 8:47:10 PM
Tom,
Much of what you consider to be "self-righteous" is a quote from you. The rest of it is merely pointing out that you think southern prejudice is bad when expressed in one way, but just fine when expressed in a different way.
An expression of prejudice, by the way, that plays into the GOP's fondest dreams. I have to wonder at our willingness to believe the GOP campaign lies. Is there anyone who comments on this blog who lives in the Northeast? Who drives a Volvo? I would even bet that most of us don't drink lattes every day. Yet the "Northeaster liberal elites" label is applied within Democratic circles just as much, it seems, as without.
I understand that most southern whites know how to read, and that very many of them have their teeth, don't lust after their cousins and live in houses and apartments, not trailers.
But even Petey and Neil recognize that southern prejudice (for them, geographic) is a huge obstacle for the Democratic Party. And I don't see anyone rising up to say that the American south is not actually a hotbed of prejudice and jingoism. The most anyone will do is say that "not every southerner is like that."
I can do one better with Democrats: the vast majority don't live in the Northeast, aren't Ph.D's, and think that America is a pretty good place to be from. Since I've never asserted that southerners are all inbred hicks with no teeth, drinking moonshine and pickin' their banjos, how about we do away with the caricatures about Democrats as well.
Posted by: Stephen | Jun 24, 2006 10:31:11 PM
Since I've never asserted that southerners are all inbred hicks with no teeth, drinking moonshine and pickin' their banjos, how about we do away with the caricatures about Democrats as well.
I'd be very excited to see those caricatures go away, Stephen. But right now I'm not writing on a blog that's read by a large number of Southern regionalists who have bad stereotypes of Democrats. (I promise you that if I ever do write on such a blog, I'll do my best to break down these stereotypes.) My audience is made up of Democrats who are interested in winning elections and implementing progressive policies. So I give advice on how to do so successfully.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Jun 25, 2006 12:45:24 PM
Well, in my case, the madness is called "utilitarianism". The evils of pandering to such a group are outweighed by the good that we can do after we gain power.
You're big assumption is that pandering to rural white southerners will actually work. It won't. It will just prove to them that Democrats will do and say anything to get elected. Doing "good stuff for gay people and women" is exactly what they think you're trying to accomplish.
Remember, John Kerry is a bad Catholic, because the Republicans say so. Al Gore and Bill Clinton aren't "real southerners" either. If you want Zell Miller for president, maybe your pander will work.
Most importantly, the media has bought into the image of Edwards as a drawling small-town mill-worker's son, and will sell him that way.
Maybe you don't remember Al Gore's image when he ran with Bill Clinton. He was the the trustworthy, straight-talking, social conservative. That was his reputation right up to the 2000 election. Edwards is a rich, liberal trial lawyer. If you don't think he's going to be portrayed that way, you're going to be very surprised in 2008.
Worst of all, you don't seem to realize that your whole "vote for Edwards because he's a Southerner" line is an insult to those of us from the rest of the country who think that we're being ignored by both major parties. It comes with the implicit assumption that you can dis the rest of us because what are we going to do? Vote for an independent? Ask Bush Sr. and Al Gore if that's a smart move.
Finally, I have nothing against Edwards, but everytime I read another of these "Southern Strategy" articles, I like him a little bit less. You risk alienating a lot of your potential support base unless you stop pushing pragmatism and start pushing ideas.
Posted by: Mike | Jun 25, 2006 4:22:28 PM
If you don't think he's going to be portrayed that way, you're going to be very surprised in 2008.
That's not the characterization the media has bought into. The media has defined him around the "Two Americas" speech, and his mill-worker upbringing.
You risk alienating a lot of your potential support base unless you stop pushing pragmatism and start pushing ideas.
I don't say this to people often, but you're being ridiculous. At the end of your comment that contains nothing but pragmatic arguments, you're talking about how I shouldn't make pragmatic arguments. As I see it, we need to have both discussions -- the substantive policy discussion and the pragmatic discussion, and have them all the way out. If talking about how to win elections alienates you, you probably shouldn't be reading this blog. (Of course, it doesn't alienate you, because you just spent several paragraphs doing it.)
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Jun 25, 2006 5:00:20 PM
Neil,
I don't doubt your intentions or why you have come to your conclusions. The impasse for us is that I cannot countenance the accomodation of the "Coastal Liberal Elites" stereotype. Even if such accomodation works, which I doubt it will, it would be a short-term gain at the expense of long-term goals.
Mike does have a point, that there are large parts of the country where Democrats feel ignored by the national party. I would include in that even places like the California coast and New England. Democrats in those places, from what I have experienced and heard, feel that their status as die-hard Democrats is taken for granted, that issues important to them are routinely pushed out of the limelight or betrayed openlyl for the sake of trying to win over the southern white male.
There's no real reason for places like Iowa, Missouri and New Mexico to go for the GOP in presidential elections. But aside from a flurry of activity at the beginning of primary season (only for Iowa), there isn't much attention paid to these places and others like them, because none of them are in the deep south.
Again, despite my deep, deep antipathy for the American south, I don't really want the Democrats to abandon it. I just want the national party (thank you Howard Dean) to make commitments to the rest of the country as well, and for us to not try and create a geographical litmus test for our presidential/vice presidential candidates.
Posted by: Stephen | Jun 25, 2006 6:31:56 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
