R. Neal at KnoxViews points us to the cover story from this week's The Nation where Bob Moser convincingly argues that the greatest mistake the Democrats have made in the last 35 years, and the mistake they continue to make, is writing off the South.
Moser, like myself, is a rabid supporter of Howard Dean's 50 state strategy. Dean has reinvigorated the party in the South, Great Plains, and mountain states. While Paul Begala and James Carville may call funding Democratic candidates in Alabama and Nebraska a waste of money, Moser shows that populist Democrats who don't run as Republican-lite but instead show they really care about the working and middle class people of the nation can win all over the nation, including the South. Moser excoriates the national party for not following Dean's strategy and not funding candidates in very winnable races across the region. He reminds us that Jim Webb was not supported by the party establishment and he won in Virginia and that John Yarmuth won over Republican incumbent Anne Northup in Kentucky without money from the party. He tells us the sad story of North Carolina Democrat Larry Kissell who ran what seemed like a hopeless race against the incumbent Republican Robin Hayes, the 6th richest person in Congress. Kissell pleaded with the establishment for money. He got none. He lost to Hayes by 329 votes. How many races could we have won if a little less money went to sorta-Democrat Harold Ford and was spread around the South?
Democrats need to be aggressive in the South. They need to stand for what they believe in. We don't have to run Heath Shuler to win in the region. If we run candidates who are locally popular, who have strong beliefs in economic and racial liberalism, and who can get good voter turnout from both blacks and whites (and increasingly Latinos as well), we can win all over the South. More importantly, the longer the national party writes off this entire region, the longer it will be before the Democrats become the nation's dominant party again. The first step is to have a presidential candidate in 2008 who is enthusiastic about campaigning in the South. It doesn't have to be a southerner, as Howard Dean is showing. Edwards obviously would be a good choice here. Richardson too. Obama, not sure. Clinton, hard to say. Bill of course is great in the South. Would she build upon that?
I don't know; I'm pretty convinced by Tom Schaller's argument that, at least in Presidential politics, the Democratic Party should tell the South to go and fuck itself. Congressional and gubernatorial is a different situation, which is what the Dean 50 state strategy is about.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I don't think I've ever heard Carville argue that the Dems should write off Alabama, or really any Southern state...
Oh, and Northrup was extremely vulnerable in any case. Her district is basically just Louisville, and she had won the previous two elections 51-49.
ReplyDeleteWell, Carville is the leading attacker of the 50 state strategy, which is another way of saying to write off the South. As far as presidential strategy goes, I think the idea is to build from the bottom up so that in another decade we can be reasonably competitive in the South without creating some bullshit Republican-lite message.
ReplyDeleteMr. Farley:
ReplyDeleteAnne Northup won her last successful race (in 2004) 60.3% to 37.8%. That's a far cry from your 51-49 suggestion. The raw numbers were 197,736 to 124,040. An independent racked up 1.9%.
Northup's extreme vulnerability came from her strong support for the president and her inability to build the two bridges across the Ohio River she has been promising for six years.
Previous to 2004, she had ran two close races, her first against incumbent Mike Ward, by a few hundred votes and her fourth against Jack Conway, by a few thousand votes. Otherwise, she has ran pretty good. The district has a Democratic lean. It won for Kerry, Gore, and clinton twice.
But your statement of 51-49 is just wrong, based on facts.
Jeff Noble
Louisville, Kentucky
jtn960@hotmail.com
economic and racially liberal? um, it's the "liberal" word that the South has a problem with, and rightfully so, because it is just so wrong. the South won't buy any socialistic bullshit, so you'd better think of another strategy.
ReplyDelete