Whistling Past Bush Dog Democrats

by: Matt Stoller

Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 09:00


This is a guest-post by Tom Schaller, political scientist and author of Whistling Past Dixie: How Democrats Can Win Without the South.

bush dogs.jpg

As the campaign to reform "Bush Dogs" led by Matt Stoller and the Open Left team moves forward, I wanted to pause a moment to point out something that, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I couldn't help but notice: Of the 40 Bush Dogs, fully half of them are southern white Democrats. (The "South" defined here as the 11 Confederate states.)

Presently, Speaker Nancy Pelosi leads a 230-member Democratic House majority. Of those 230, just 32 are white southerners. That leaves 198 non-southern or minority (black, Hispanic) southern Democrats. And that means the splits for Bush Dog coalition are as follows: About 10% (20 of 198) of the non-southern or minority southern Democrats are Bush Dogs, but a striking 63% (20 of 32) of southern white Democrats made the list. (See chart.)

As I argued in Whistling Past Dixie, this is one of the painful tradeoffs of trying to be a "national" party. Liberals should keep that in mind the next time somebody spews feels-nice, but strategically empty phrases like "Democrats need to compete everywhere"-a "strategy" that is, in fact, the very absence of strategy. Not all Democrats vote the same way- and there are often very clear voting patterns by region. The South/non-South disparity should also be kept in mind when the inevitable arguments arise as to whether 2008 dollars and other resources should be directed toward trying to defeat or replace Republicans like, say, Randy Kuhl or Ray LaHood, or keeping the seats of Democrats Jim Marshall or Gene Taylor. Though Democrats may prefer to do both, politics is often about economics-the need to make decisions about scarce resources-and every seat is clearly not qualitatively the same when it comes time for floor votes in Congress.

Right now, Pelosi has those 198 non-southern and minority southern seats in her delegation; on the Senate side, Harry Reid already has 46 non-southern Senators in his, with upcoming opportunities in CO, MN, NH, OR and elsewhere outside the South. Say what you want about what Freedom's Watch is doing to moderate Republicans on behalf of the White House and the war, but as Eve Fairbanks compellingly argues in The New Republic, it is exactly this sort of clamping down on Republicans that has kept the Democrats from achieving much in the 110th Congress thus far. There's a lesson in that, as there is in the geography of the "Bush Dog" coalition.
Matt Stoller :: Whistling Past Bush Dog Democrats

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Whistling Past Bush Dog Democrats | 53 comments
Red Dog Republicans. (4.00 / 1)
Over at Prairie State Blue we recently had a Republican primary candidate running to the left of Weller (IL-11) post. Here's what I suggested to him:

Ultimately the biggest hurdle that you would face here is that you would not / could not vote for Nancy Pelosi as speaker. The odds are also great that you would not become a "Red Dog Republican", that is to say a Republican that would enable progressive agendas in Congress.

Hmmmm, maybe you could be the first and create an entire caucus around the notion of "Red Dog Republicans."  Fiscally responsible and socially liberal Republicans that stand up for regular folks first and second and third and if you have any left over fourth and leaving corporatate welfare socialists to fend for themselves.

What do you think? Is that a niche you could fill?

So maybe there is an opportunity for northern Republicans here that want to get elected under the Republican label in places like New England and the midwest.

Jeff Wegerson - Prairie State Blue

I'm A Fan of Shaller's Book & His Analysis (4.00 / 1)
But I have a little niggle.  The original list of Bush Dogs had 38 members, not 40, of whom half--19--were from Confederate states.  Two more came from "Greater Dixie"--one each from Oklahoma and Kentucky.  (Additionally, another three came from "Northern Dixie" i.e. Indiana, the great cultural center of the 1920s Klan revival, which was much more anti-Catholic than anti-black.)

To a large extent, what Tom is writing about is so well-known that people simply forget about it.  The Blue Dogs, after all, were explicit successors to the Boll Weevils, albeit with a lite Northern frosting of members like Jane Harman.  But it's precisely the fierceness of that forgetting that makes his work so essential.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

Fierce forgetting, or fierce ignoring? (4.00 / 2)
There's a whole lotta zombie stupid in the ranks.  Currently, there's a recommended diary at dkos about how Doug Wilder says Barack Obama can end the GOP lock on the South:  http://www.dailykos....

If Schaller wants to repeat his core message every day, it's okay by me.

I blog at www.firedoglake.com.

[ Parent ]
I Know About The DKos Diary (0.00 / 0)
I couldn't bear to look.  I know I should, but...

(It's sort of the reverse of slowing down to look at an accident on the freeway.)

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
So if we threw overboard those 20 Southerners... (4.00 / 2)
...we'd still have Speaker Hastert. Great.

Competing everywhere doesn't mean supporting every hack who declares him/herself a Dem. It means recruiting and supporting good candidates -- and sometimes that means the best we can get in a given district -- all over the country in order to make the GOP fight for even "safe" seats and to pick up opportunities that arise, as in Idaho.

Southern states produce standout moderate and progressive Dems -- Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Jim Webb, John Edwards... It's simply too big a place to blow off.

You read my mind (4.00 / 1)
Nits, perhaps, but I'll pick anyway:

"Liberals should keep that in mind the next time somebody spews feels-nice, but strategically empty phrases like "Democrats need to compete everywhere"-a "strategy" that is, in fact, the very absence of strategy."

Excuse me? Did I just wake up in 2004? What is the preferred outcome here, a Boehner or a Hastert weilding the gavel and quashing oversight at every opportunity, or a Pelosi who knew that "subpoena power" was in the hands of a slender Democratic majority?

" ... but as Eve Fairbanks compellingly argues in The New Republic, it is exactly this sort of clamping down on Republicans that has kept the Democrats from achieving much in the 110th Congress thus far."

OK, holding that thought while off to the Fairbanks story at TNR, last paragraph:

"To really understand the Republicans' unity, don't underestimate the power of sheer depression. After the November election, Republicans were extremely demoralized; one defeated member couldn't even get out of bed. The malaise extended to surviving Republicans, too. "It would be easy for our members to just sink into a hole," Boehner told me in May. "The loss of our majority was devastating." And one major symptom of depression is apathy. To my mind, the Republicans' behavior on Iraq is a kind of depressive lethargy: complaining aplenty, but never mustering the energy to get out of bed and put your complaints into action."

A couple of things at work here:

- The Republicans are going to get savaged at the ballot box 14 months hence if they keep this crap up. The war in Iraq is the focal point, and there's plenty other fuel for the fire - pick a topic.

- The "clamping down on Republicans" is the only thing that works for the Republicans. For 7 years its been the White House calling the shots - why would that be any different today than it was a year, two years, three years ago? "Specter is a moderate when you don't need him" is the epitome of that mechanism - these pols don't know HOW to think independently, I can't imagine why anyone expects them to.

- The 50-state strategy is not an absence of strategy, its what put the Republicans out of the majority last November. To win, you gotta run, and that includes in the South. What's worse - Dems that vote against progressive legislation with a Republican majority, or Dems that vote against progressive legislation with a Democratic majority? If I have to choose between two crummy alternatives, I'll take the latter in heartbeat.

- It took the Republicans decades to get here. Expecting the Democrats to emulate that within one or two election cycles is uninformed. Criticising the Democrats for the same is misguided.

[ Parent ]
Yes (0.00 / 0)
Exactly: The 50-state strategy is not an absence of strategy, its what put the Republicans out of the majority last November. To win, you gotta run, and that includes in the South.
[ Parent ]
hmm (0.00 / 0)
just trying
[ Parent ]
woot! (0.00 / 0)
Closed a left open italics tag that was turning all the downstream comments italicsy...
[ Parent ]
Sorry (0.00 / 0)
I did the same thing just below, and I don't know how to edit a post.
[ Parent ]
NP (0.00 / 0)
Don't worry about it. You can't edit comments and people are always going to forget to close tags. This is actually a bug in that after each comment all tags should be automatically closed. I'll let pacified know.
[ Parent ]
Strategy (4.00 / 1)

- The 50-state strategy is not an absence of strategy, its what put the Republicans out of the majority last November.

I happen to be a fan of Schaller's premise about Democrats shouldn't rely on the south.  That being said, Schaller himself has often written that what he proposes is not completely incompatible with Dean's 50-state strategy.

The 50 state strategy is about putting a little bit of money everywhere.  Make sure the State parties are funded, voting lists are maintained and etc.  Whistling Past Dixie is about ideology.  Let's not compromise our ideals so that we can win more southern states.  Let's now "ease" our stance on reproductive rights so that we can pickup a few more Bush Dog seats!

[ Parent ]
Build The Infrastrtucture, Don't Pander To The Ideology (4.00 / 1)
That's Schaller's attitude toward spending money in the South.  He certainly would want us to control redistricting after 2010 as much as possible. He's not a fool.  Yet all the arguments against seem to simply assume that he is, based on just making shit up.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"
[ Parent ]
This Is Ridiculous! (4.00 / 3)
(1) He's not saying throw those guys overbaord.  He is saying don't try to get a whole bunch more of them.

(2) Your list of "standout moderate and progressive Dems" is pretty much a disaster as far as the Party anf what it stands for goes.  Carter was progressive as Georgia governor--after Lester Maddox--and as an ex-President.  But as President, he initiated much of what Reagan came to be known for--deregulation, military buildup, the war in Afghanistan.  Clinton campaigned as a progresive, but governed as corporatist, and Gore was his loyal VP in this endeavor.  He seems to have changed dramatically in the wake of losing in 2000 and Bush going berserk after 9/11, but he scarcely whispered the words "global warming" in the 2000 campaign.  Jim Webb to this day is proud of his role in putting Reagan's Navy on steroids.  I'm glad he's on our side today, but that doesn't erase his past.  And Edwards--the most progressive of the bunch--is one guy of the bunch who doesn't get knee-jerk "Southern guys will save the Democratic Party" treatment.  I wonder why?  Maybe because he's the exception that proves the rule?  Or at least, might could be.

In short, there are strengths in the South.  But our record of actually capitalizing on those strengths is pretty much a disaster, despite all the chances people have been given.  Sooner or later you just have to notice that something's wrong with this picture.

Living in denial makes you food for crockadiles.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
This sounds like throwing overboard to me (0.00 / 0)
The South/non-South disparity should also be kept in mind when the inevitable arguments arise as to whether 2008 dollars and other resources should be directed toward trying to defeat or replace Republicans like, say, Randy Kuhl or Ray LaHood, or keeping the seats of Democrats Jim Marshall or Gene Taylor.
[ Parent ]
formatting error (0.00 / 0)
adding close ital tag
[ Parent ]
It's More Like They Jumped (4.00 / 1)
And Schaller is talking about prioritizing where to throw the lifeboats.

You also need to remember that money is much less effective when you get into spending the third and fourth round of blanketing the district money.  But this is what embattled encumbents routinely expect, and get.

There's a certain logic to it when they've been loyal, and danced with them what brought them.  But when they've been kissing Bush/Rove's ring, that logic sort of disappears.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
have you read the Politics or Rage? (0.00 / 0)
have you read the biography of George Wallace? He won the 1972 MICHIGAN Democratic primary. The problem with southern politics is America's problem. Giving up on the south does not solve the problem.

By 2008 we will have enough cash to run everywhere. The Republicans will be spending whatever money they raise on their legal defense funds.

We need to compete everywhere and the way to do that is let ourselves be guided by local Democrats with a history of winning elections and not outsiders who think they know everything but are in fact pig ignorant.

[ Parent ]
And Jesse Jackson Won Michigan In 1988 (4.00 / 1)
Lord save me from over-generalizations from individual facts!  No one ever claimed that racism was limited to the South.  But Southern conservatism is qualitatively different from the rest of America, if nothing else due simply to the degree of its cultural hegemony at the local level.

Just look at these charts:

Outside the White South, liberal Democrats outnumber conservative Republicans. Within it, not so much.

And it shows up in racial attitudes, as anyone with their head screwed on well knows.  Thus, even Democrats within the White South are more likely to blame Blacks for their low socio-economic status than Republicans outside the White South:

Yes, we'll be able to compete everywhere.  That's not the question.  The question is where to focus.  And the answer is: focus on those who are most likely to win and to be most loyal, so that winning actually means something in terms of moving our agenda.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Autocratic rule (0.00 / 0)
So what is being suggested here? That the Dem leadership adopt the same strong arm tactics that the Newt and Delay used to keep members in line?

Nothing like the Democratic Party using intimidation and extortion to control its members. A great example for the kiddies.

If there are proposals as to how to get this group to vote against their beliefs then I'd like to here what they are. I tend to think that the reason that some of the congressman are more conservative than their district is because they really are.

Could a party which is more like the North East liberal model gain a majority nationwide? It's never happened yet. The ugly truth is that the population is pretty conservative. They like a strong military, they like "law and order", but they seem to be slightly ahead of the pols on improving federally-administered social services.

Perceptions are distorted because people are unhappy that we are losing the wars, but this hasn't changed their fundamental worldview. They still support a vision of a benevolent US being the world's policeman.

Policies not Politics

How would you say the country is conservative? ... (4.00 / 1)
In what ways? ...  If you look at many issues ... people agree with the Dems a lot more than the Repubs ... the Dems don't do a good job of making the public aware of their stances on issues.
[ Parent ]
Fan of Schaller's Analysis, Not His Conclusions (4.00 / 2)
(sigh)

Calling the southeast "the White south" is unnecessary and provocative-- and, as Tom well knows, masks an important truth.

The South (my south), much to my chagrin, may generally vote like a bunch of racist jerkweeds, but it is also the region of the country with the highest percentage of African-Americans, and has a disproportionately high percentage of Hispanics as well.

So when Tom is talking about isolating/ostracizing this region of the country, he is talking about ostracizing the region of the country with the highest percentage of minorities in the nation.

Sounds like a strategy that racist jerkweeds would love.

Perhaps Tom could even join one of the right-wing think-tanks-- they're always trying to repackage ostracizing and minimizing minorities in ways that are not obvious.

Not that I'm honestly accusing Mr. Schaller of that, but it is an obvious ramification of this strategy-- and calling the southeast "The White South" is the kind of repackaging that hides this important truth.

Personally, I think OpenLeft is on to something, going after the Bush Dogs. (I think they need a different term if they want it to catch on outside the blogsphere though.) Primary and scare the bejeezus out of Democrats that run or vote to the right of their districts.

Preaching against the South misses the point. Sure, it may be therapeutic, but the bottom line is that Schaller advocates abandoning Democratic allies fighting on the nastiest part of the skirmish lines-- not to mention abandoning one of the most important principles of the Democratic Party.

Along those lines (0.00 / 0)
What Schaller seems to want is a writing off of the "white south". He explicitly includes the minority south along with the "non-south". Maybe that means that Democrats need to do more to encourage minorities in the South particularly. (As an aside, I think that this is, in part, what the idea behind Obama's possible Southern Democratic renaissance is about.)
[ Parent ]
Being a Democrat (4.00 / 2)
I guess I just have a hard time understanding what it means for Politician C to claim that he is a "Democrat" or a "member of the Democratic caucus" when he votes in favor of torture, warrantless wiretaps of US citizens, and destruction of habeas corpus. 

The usual explanation I get is that he will nonetheless back Pelosi/Reid in behind-the-scenes parliamentary maneuvering, so it is worthwhile to accept those public votes in violation of core Democratic principles in order to get the cloakroom backing.  The problem is that for the last 12 years the Democratic caucus whether in the majority or minority has been utterly OUTmaneuvered (let's face it:  smoked and burned) by the Republicans on the parliamentary side as well as the straight legislative side.  So as an inhabitant of a red/purple state I am left wondering why I shouldn't just vote for a Republican because then at least I will know I am dealing with someone who isn't hiding his true nature.

sPh

responsibility without power (4.00 / 3)
I think Schaller correctly points out that Democrats should focus on picking up seats that will make the party more ideologically coherent.  This means focusing resources on seats with populations that could elect progressives.  Generally, the Democratic Party and the netroots  should invest in states outside of the South, although the definition of the South must be refined constantly in line with changing demographics.  For example, Northern Virginia is not the South, and to the extent that Northern Virginia can command Virginia's electoral orientation the way L.A. and San Francisco command California's, we should actively compete in Virginia.  Florida might be another good example.  But places like Alabama and people like Artur Davis are not friends to the Democratic Party, and we should wait until such places become electorally ripe for progressive investment.

Let's be clear: as Chris and Matt have implied, the Congressional Democrats are in a coalition government with the Blue Dogs and the New Democrats.  The latter two groups have enough differences with Democrats that I think we should effectively treat them as separate parties, regardless of the letter after their name.  If the districts they represent cannot elect a Democrat with the progressive values that should define the party, they should be effectively ceded to the opposition. Progressives should take the resources they would have spent on a primary challenge to Jim Marshall and invest them in places like Al Wynn's district -  helping Donna Edwards take safe progressive seat that will not become a wasted perennial worry. 

I prefer not to think of Schaller's strategy as abandoning the South.  Rather, I think it is more accurate and useful to say that we containing the Republicans (and their Blue Dog/New Democratic allies) in the South.  In this regard, I think the Democratic Party would benefit from the advice of George F. Kennan.

Rudy is a Tyrant

Artur Davis would be an example (0.00 / 0)
of the non-white South, actually.

Surely we won't be writing Southern Blacks out of the coalition as well, will we?

Also, how will places like Alabama become electorally ripe for progressives if we don't compete there?

And, on a state and local level, what do you think it will mean for residents of the South, white and non-white alike since government will effect them both even though this analysis attempts to separate them, to have uncontested Republican rule. 

[ Parent ]
A Correction (4.00 / 2)
I feel quite embarassed about this, but I meant to pick on Bud Cramer, not Artur Davis - although Davis could stand to be more progressive.

Where I would differ from Schaller and some other commenters is on the issue of race.  While African Americans are extraordinarily supportive of the Democratic Party, my analysis wouldn't be race-specific.  For instance, there are many minority-majority districts that are quite safe in the South and which have had very progressive representatives.  Cynthia McKinney comes to mind before she went a little soft in the head.  Should we target conservative Democrats like Artur Davis who hold these minority majority districts?  Maybe.  The general startegy should be to focus on electing progressives in Democratic and marginally Republican districts that are trending left.  These districts tend to be outside the South. 

Rudy is a Tyrant

[ Parent ]
Agree 100% n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Shaller's is a Crude Strategy -- Support Southern Progressives (4.00 / 3)
The South has a long history of progressive activity. The non-racist populists made strong efforts in the South back in the 1870s --  with poor black and white farmers working together. And with the migration of a lot of jobs from the North to the South in the last two decades and people following those jobs, there are a lot more progressives there than there were when I was growing up in East Texas. Hispanics now represent a large, significant group in my hometown of Tyler (about 1/3 of the population now), though many of those folks can't vote. Even in the most conservative areas, there are strong anti-corporate, anti-racist, pro-privacy, and pro-environmental sentiments. These can be built upon.

Rather than writing off the South, we need to find the progressives there and nurture them. A relatively small amount of money can keep a campaign afloat. It probably won't lead to a victory in the short run, but it could help build for the future. And in selected places, with a strong, progressive candidate running, we should pump in a lot of money and support.

Schaller's analysis is very useful, but his strategy seems to be simply writing off the South. If so, this is a crude, unsophisticated strategy. For the short term we need to look carefully, district by district and support the progressive gems. For the long-term, we need to do a lot of organizing and build a progressive movement and a progressive Democratic Party. After the 2010 census and re-apportionment, there will be a lot more Southern House districts and we can't afford to let the Right-wing Republicans grab those new districts.

This Is A Strawman Argument (4.00 / 1)
Schaller isn't saying "write off the white South."

He is saying "don't cater to it."

Big difference.

But, of course, that's not how the white Southerners see it.  They are accustomed to calling all the shots, and denouncing anyone who doesn't bow down to them.

Boo-hoo!

Schaller's underlying thesis--behind his book, and behind this post--is that the party should play to its strength.  The GOP doesn't go trying to cater to urban bohemians.  It demonizes them.  He's not advocating demonizing anyone, but he is saying, "Don't betray our base for the sake of theirs."

This is like, not even PolySci 101.  It's high school-level running-for-student-council common knowledge.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
I WISH it were a strawman (4.00 / 1)
> Schaller isn't saying "write off the white South." He is
> saying "don't cater to it." Big difference.

Schaller said nothing of the kind in this article. If he HAD said this, I would utterly and completely agree with him. Unfortunately, it's YOU, not Schaller, who's been making sensible comments (between cheap, stereotypical swipes at southern males).

Now, he may make a brilliant case in his book, I haven't read it. And a big reason is horrible pieces like this.

His pieces (this piece, his piece at Salon) are very frustrating because he never says anything like you just did. Generally, he just makes a bunch of embarrassingly banal observations (the South has elected a disproportional number of regressive politicians-- well, duh!). He makes weird, unsubstantiated assertions (national strategy is not a strategy-- gee, could you unpack that a little? Some of us are pretty happy with a 50-state strategy, rather then defending an ever dwindling number of swing states). And they are devoid of any concrete correctives, unless of course, you count "spend the money where it does the most good" as incisive and specific.

> But, of course, that's not how the white Southerners see it.  They
> are accustomed to calling all the shots, and denouncing anyone
> who doesn't bow down to them. Boo-hoo!

Talk about a strawman-- and doesn't this kind of belie your "Schaller and I aren't saying screw the south" thesis here?

Look, Schaller gets under my skin for one reason-- despite any brilliance he might show in his book, his online articles are nothing more than butt-obvious observations that more bad politicians come from the south than elsewhere, full of implications that "the south," (whatever shifting definition of that he means at any given moment) is at fault.

That's not a strategy-- that's a pet peeve. And minus some sort of corrective strategy accompanying it, it's not merely a pointless waste of everyone's time, it's counter-productive.

And that, my friend, is high-school running-for-student-council common knowledge.

[ Parent ]
Well, If You Think I'm Being Sensible (4.00 / 1)
Then you should read the book.  Because I think the book is very sensible too.  This is a very short post, and there's no room in it for lots of subtleties.  The book does have room for them, although his basic points remain the same:  (1) we should pick the low-hanging fruit first, and (2) we should recognize and fight southern conservatism as our enemy.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"
[ Parent ]
He chose to make it short. (0.00 / 0)
And, as far as I know, no one here disagrees about either point 1 or point 2. I certainly agree with them both.

My problem here is that A. I don't need to be lectured on the evils of southern conservatism by anyone, since what white progressives there are from the South already know way more about how evil it is than anyone would ever wish to know and B. framing it as an issue of identity instead of ideology is counterproductive, as demonstrated on this very thread (where there is, as far as I can tell anyway, NO substantive disagreement about the issues involved, but plenty of hard feelings)

[ Parent ]
Identity IS Ideology (4.00 / 1)
As I noted in my comment here

And it wasn't anyone but White Southerners who started this game.  So I have zero sympathy when they want to cry "foul!"

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
I Certainly Don't Support Conservtive Southern Democrats (0.00 / 0)
I'm sorry, I responded to what was written in this post rather than what Schaller wrote in his book, which I haven't read. I completely agree that we shouldn't "cater to" conservative Southern Democrats. As someone from the South (though I haven't lived there in 35 years), I fought against all the Dixiecrats (and I left when I didn't have much impact). Most of those Dixiecrats switched to the Republican Party in the 1970s and 80s, but we certainly shouldn't support those who remain.

As best I can see, Schaller is challenging those who say we should support conservative Southern Democrats and I completely agree with him in this. But his way of saying that in this post sounded more like we should just write off the South.

My assumption about the 50-state strategy is that it means we should not immediately ignore every race that is not obviously a swing race, not that we should suppport every person who calls him/herself a Democrat across the country.

My point is that there are progressives in the South and we shouldn't ignore them -- we should support them when we can.

[ Parent ]
Southern Progressive? (0.00 / 0)
I'd love to hear your example of a White Southern Progressive in Congress?

Look how your "non racist populists" ended up from the 1870s: Senator Tom Watson of Georgia.

Schaller's analysis is simple.  Progressives have a lot harder time winning in the White South than Bush Dogs.  I for one would love to throw small amounts of money on White Southern Progressive candidates for Congress, even while realizing that they have a low chance of winning. 

But in looking for the important key races where Democrats can pick up seats and convert them into solid members of a Democratic majority, I'd look outside the South.

[ Parent ]
Examples (4.00 / 1)
In North Carolina alone, there are five Dem Congress Members who are white. Here are their ADA ratings for 2006

Butterfield - 95 percent
Ethridge - 80 percent
Price - 95 percent
McIntyre - 50 percent
Miller - 90 percent

In contrast, the average GOP M.C. ranking that year was 10 percent. So the most conservative white Dem from N.C. was five times more progressive by ADA accounting than the average GOPster.

[ Parent ]
Ehteridge Is A Bush Dog (4.00 / 1)
And his Progressive Punch score is 77.6.  Certainly better than a Republican.  But he'd be a whole lot better if we were to organize a nationwide network of activists to monitor an regularly lobby these guys.

Others are significantly more problematic.  But North Carolina has always been more progressive than the Deep South.  (See V.O. Key's Southern Politics, 1950.) Virgiania, North Carolina and Florida represent our best shots at electing white progressives in the South.  Schaller has never said we should ignore such opportunities.  Indeed, he has said that these will become increasingly good opportunities well before the Deep South.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Bush Dogs (0.00 / 0)
Ethridge and McIntyre are both Bush Dogs.

I'm more than happy, as noted in other comments, to support progressive Democrats in unusual areas of the South that have always been more progressive.

[ Parent ]
southern history (0.00 / 0)
The non-racist populists made strong efforts in the South back in the 1870s --  with poor black and white farmers working together.

huh?
Someone hasn't read his C Vann Woodard. There were no nineteenth century non-racist politicians.

poor southerners didn't vote, white or black, they didn't vote.

On what planet were Ben Tillman and Tom Watson not racist?

[ Parent ]
Famer's Alliance (4.00 / 1)
I didn't say "politicians", I said "farmers". Read this wikipedia entry on the Farmer's Alliance, especially this quote: "In the South Alliance included separate "Colored Alliance" chapters for African-American farmers, but overall, it was arguably the only biracial organization at the time in the South."
[ Parent ]
Also... (4.00 / 1)
Also, read The Populist Moment: A Short History of the Agrarian Revolt in America by Lawrence Goodwyn. It has been a long time since I read this book, but as I remember, Goodwyn details all the allliances between poor black and white farmers in the South. Unfortunately, the power elite in the South was able to use classism and racism to destroy these bonds just as the power elite in the North used racism and nativism to bust labor unions.

I haven't read it, but the book description for C. Van Woodard's The Strange Career of Jim Crow says "The book offers a clear and illuminating analysis of the history of Jim Crow laws, presenting evidence that segregation in the South dated only to the 1890s. Woodward convincingly shows that, even under slavery, the two races had not been divided as they were under the Jim Crow laws of the 1890s. In fact, during Reconstruction, there was considerable economic and political mixing of the races. The segregating of the races was a relative newcomer to the region."

AndThe Era of Reconstruction, 1865-1877 by Kenneth M. Stampp seems to suggest that during Reconstruction, Republicans tried to enforce civil rights for Southern blacks, but also tried to imose economic policies that worked against poor Southerners. The "populist" backlash was then both anti-power elite and racist. The natural economic alliance of poor white and blacks that the Famer's Alliance had built upon was broken.

What I learned from my reading was that there was a lot of progressive sentiment in the South, but it was thwarted by the power elite using racism and terror.

Now, over 100 years later most of this has faded into irrelevance. Still, I think it is important not to apply our stereotypes of Southern racists too broadly. The George Wallace segregationists have a lot less sway than they once did. It looks like the South is changing, though, of course, we still have a long ways to go.

[ Parent ]
Hmm. This analysis argues that (4.00 / 1)
it is not the member, it's the district. Or apparently, the whole of white Southern culture.

First, let me say, I am sure it is possible to win without the South. That's a different question from whether its a good idea - especially now, when there has been massive immigration to the Southern states (both from other countries and other parts of this country) that is changing the South fast, and when states of the old confederacy such as Virginia and North Carolina are trending purple, at the very least.

Second, on behalf of my grandfather who helped fight the Klan outside of Lumberton, NC in the late 1950s, my mother who marched for civil rights in Raleigh in the 60's, my other grandfather who worked high up in the administration of several Southern universities as they were integrated, and my 7th grade girls group right here in Brooklyn, New York who attend 100% Black schools that teach them very little and no one really seems to much notice or care, I'd like to note that the fight for progressive values happens all over, regardless of how much we do or don't do to support it.

We shouldn't shy away from selling progressive values in the South. We have better ideas and we can convince people of that.

You're Misreading It (4.00 / 2)
Schaller is simply pointing to the data.  He's not trying to pretend that the White South is a monolith.  He is simply showing that it's current crop of representatives is far less loyal to and consistent with the party as a whole.  And he's arguing--implicitly here, explicitly in his book--that the way to grow a permananet majority is to build on solid consistency, rather than going after numbers for numbers sake.

His approach is actually more supportive of Southern progrssives than simply throwing money at Southern Bush Dogs.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
You may well be right. I haven't read the book, (0.00 / 0)
so it's likely I am missing some nuance that he didn't fit into this short post.

To the extent the argument is about compromising core values to appeal to *anyone* I think it's a mistake. I am completely opposed to throwing money at Bush Dogs, Southern or otherwise. I also agree that we don't do Southern progressives any favors by supporting Bush Dogs.

From a framing perspective, however, I also think making it about 'white Southerners' is a mistake. Especially so if what we're really talking about is not appealing to the Republican base. Those are certainly overlapping groups, but they are not one and the same. Making it about identity creates unnecessary division.

[ Parent ]
But It's ALREADY About White Southerners (4.00 / 1)
And it has been since Nixon's "Southern Strategy."

Wake up and smell the chicory coffee and grits!

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
THIS IS SCHALLER HERE (4.00 / 3)
Sorry i was not around earlier to make some comments, but here goes:

1. first, paul rosenberg generally gets and understands my arguments. maybe he read the book and maybe he didn't, and same with those who are arguing here with him. but as i make VERY CLEAR in the book i argue for democrats running against the 'conservative south', which by and large means (parts of) the white south. bush still had, as recently as Nov06, about 55% support in the white south---TWICE HIS SUPPORT AMONG THE REST OF WHITE AMERICAN AND THE NON-WHITE SOUTH COMBINED. please dont' tell me there's not a difference here just becuase you friend Kenny is from SC and he voted for kerry or whatever. anecdotes and gut feelings are no substitute for evidence. wake up: the white south is still with W.

2. relatedly, i'm not talking about writing off minority (black/hispanic) southerners; indeed, that's why i grouped them in the chart along with the non-southern democrats--sure, that makes the percentages more dramatic, but notice that there aren't any hispanic/black southern dems in the Bush Dog coalition. they are not a price/consequence of having a national strategy that includes the south; they are an exception to that consequence, which is precisely why i treat them separately. you don't see bennie thompson getting criticisms from me; but you will see heath shuler getting criticized by me. the "he dismisses all the black folk" argument is one of the favorite,  convenient canards of people who like to criticize the book--and often, as i find when interacting personally with them, despite never having read it. (i've also written a book on black state legislators, fwiw.)

3. this whole notion of strategy is about making decisions at the margins or with scarce resources. if the yankees could have as many pitchers on their roster as possible, and their were no salary cap limitations, they would have all their current staff and probably five other teams' worth of starters. but they don't--they have to make economic decisiosn. i never say in the piece "let's dump marshall." but what i do say (or suggest) is that if you came down to a last dollar to spend, and it could either elect randy kuhl's replacment or re-elect marshall,  i would advise to do the former. i also never say the dems should dump all the white southerns so they lose their majority and make boehner Speaker...another canard and convenient straw man offered by people  who don't wnat to actually address my arguments, but dismiss them with silly statements and by putting words in my mouth they wish i had said so their counterarguments would be easier.

4. as to the basics of "strategy": look, running everyone, everywhere, with unlimited resources is not a strategy; it's called a fantasy xmas wish list. strategists are paid to make tough choices, so the next time you hear a strategy say they way to go after every voter, you should be calling for their resignation, not their coronation.

5. read the goddamn book first, please.

Conservative Identity Politics (4.00 / 1)
The problem with your thesis is that liberals don't enjoy demonizing folks nearly as much as conservatives do.  So  running against the "Conservative South' is psychologically much harder for them to do--as some of the opposition (and even misreading) here indicates.  That's not to say I disagree with your analysis, because I don't.  It's just that I recognize that part of the problem with implementing it comes from us just not being mean enough as a group. This may be the most difficult obstacle we face, and overcoming it depends a great deal on being able to distinguish between individuals and a pernicious political culture in which they may happen to live.

On a related matter, indicating part of why I found your argument so sensible and self-evident, I wrote a short series of posts last year about conservative identity politics, inspired in part by some data from Free and Cantril's 1967 classic, The Political Beliefs of Americans: A Study of Public Opinion, summarized in this chart:

Their "operational spectrum" was based on support/opposition to five forms of social spending.  The above chart shows a very clear relationship between operational spectrum and willingness to share power with other groups.  Operatinal conservatives are the hard core.  A majority of ideological and self-identified conservatives in their survery were not operational conservatives.  But identity has a much broader appeal, which is why they use it, and why they can win.

Constructuing the White Southern Male as the prototypical American is simply the logical culmination of these longstanding attitudes.  You don't have to hate anyone to say that this just isn't so.  We are all prototypical Americans.  And we need a politics that reflects that basic truth.

How shall I put it? 

Oh, yeah: E pluribus unum.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Thanks Tom (0.00 / 0)
I agree with you.
[ Parent ]
Wow. Just wow. (4.00 / 1)
> 5. read the goddamn book first, please.

I am speechless. This one sentence pretty much undoes all the yoeman's work Paul did throughout this thread, although the red herrings, mischaracterizations, and ad hominems don't help much either.

If this was a discussion of the book, this post would be marginally defensible. But people here are discussing the post-- they have no more obligation to have read the book before criticizing the post than they have to have read my senior thesis before criticizing what I write here.

Somebody, please tell me this isn't really Tom Schaller.

If this isn't Tom Schaller, the author of this post should be ashamed. Actually, either way the author of this post should be ashamed.

[ Parent ]
Agreed (0.00 / 0)
Up to #5, I was actually hanging on. No, Tom, I'm not going to "read the goddamn book" if its' only value is to decrypt posts like this, and throw some coin into your next royalty check.

A tip: statements like "Liberals should keep that in mind the next time somebody spews feels-nice, but strategically empty phrases like "Democrats need to compete everywhere" - a "strategy" that is, in fact, the very absence of strategy" are going to require ample qualification right there on the screen or at the very least linked to some other supporting or corroborating material. A lot of progressive Democrats put a shitload of time, money, effort into making the 50-State Strategy happen. Throwing harpoons at it on the way to shilling for your book will obscure the content and objectives of your arguments, whatever they are.

And right now, that's about all I got out of this post, this thread - Go Read Tom's Goddamn Book.

Thanks, but no.

[ Parent ]
Schaller is spot on (4.00 / 1)
As a Virginian I'm painfully aware of the almost complete dearth of anything resembling a progressive politics in the South. I know of only five white Southerners in the last 50-years that would qualify as progressives--LBJ, Ralph Yarborough, Al Gore, Sr., Estes Kefauver, and Claude Pepper. Carter and Clinton did not govern as progressives. Edwards and Gore, Jr. had many bad votes while in the Senate, their current progressivism is welcome, but belated. The Southern Democrats after about 1938, until about 1964 were nothing more than a bloc of militant obstructionists. They returned to that role after about 1974, and have remained that way ever since. 

If progressive Democrats are going to challenge in the South, they need a secure base to operate from. In other words, we've got to solidify the progressive majority outside the old confederacy before making a major push to elect progressives in the South. I think that's Mr. Schaller's contention. Changing ideologies in the South will require a  concerted effort over a period of many years, and decades. The right didn't get where they are today overnight. It took decades of fighting in conditions that were far more bleak for the right, then what progressives are faced with today.  After LBJ crushed Goldwater, there was no end of liberal triumphalist rhetoric, the New York Times going so far as to state in an editorial that conservatism was dead in America, and we were more, or less, a liberal country (I guess the editors at the NYT thought we were on our way to becoming Sweden.)

I'll gladly exchange 15 Blue Dogs for 15 Republicans, if the short term trade-off is 15 hardcore progressives in seats already occupied by Democrats elsewhere. If we can replace the Costas, Lipinskis, Wynns and Hoyers with real progressives, the loss of a dozen, or more Blue Dog seats is not of as much consequence as is commonly assumed. A smaller, more disciplined majority can be more effective than a larger, ideologically incoherent one. Once the Democrats have solidified themselves as a more ideologically coherent unit they can both legislate more effectively, and if they are in the minority, they can obstruct more effectively. There is a joke among religious folk in the South that the Episcopals will tolerate any heresy to prevent a schism, the Baptists will welcome any schism to prevent a heresy. The Democrats have been like the Episcopals for too long, tolerating any ideology for the sake of a unity that never delivers a result. 

We've got to strengthen the hold that progressives have in areas where they are most likely to make gains in the short-term, that is, outside the South. This doesn't mean you don't lay the foundations in the South, or run progressive candidates if you have them. The South has always been an area that has had the biggest need for progressive governance considering many of the intractable social and economic problems in the Deep South that have persisted for hundreds of years. A 50-state program is essential to eventually winning in the South, but I agree with Mr. Schaller that in a system where resources are finite, they should be designated in a manner calculated to maximize progressive (not Democratic) gains in the short-term. This is what the right did in the sixties and seventies, strengthening its hold on areas where conservatism was already strong--plains states, Dixie, and a few pockets in the west--then spreading their reach into areas that were never sympathetic to such politics, that's how we ended up with extreme right-wingers in places like Oregon, Washington, Montana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, etc in the last 20-years.

Add one more progressive to your list: Jim Hightower (0.00 / 0)
These examples don't negate Schaller's thesis (which I largely agree with), but do point out that the South isn't hopeless.
[ Parent ]
Whistling Past Bush Dog Democrats | 53 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox