Thursday, November 20, 2008

Is a New South Rising ?




The Institute for Southern Studies demolishes every argument of the "Schaller school" in their analysis of the 2008 election. I would encourage everyone to check out the link and read the full essay.

http://new.southernstudies.org/2008/11/a-new-south-rising.html

A NEW SOUTH RISING

2008 proved that the South is politically competitive and growing in importance. But the pundits are telling a different story.

On the day before Election Day -- that final moment when candidates decide where they want to make their last case to the voters they want to win the most -- Barack Obama chose to visit three big battleground states: Florida, North Carolina and Virginia.

Since 1968, these Southern states had voted Democratic for president only six times between them. And president-elect Obama was about to ask voters in these states -- all members of the old Confederacy -- to vote the first African-American ever into the White House.

Obama's Southern Strategy worked: the states went blue, and history was made.

But just as Southern Democrats were clinking glasses of sweet tea in celebration, the powerhouses of political punditry -- especially in the North -- made a bizarre move: They turned against the region that had just given one-third of its Electoral College votes to the President-elect.

Ignoring McCain's dominance in, say, the Great Plains and Upper Mountain states -- Obama's most crushing defeats came in Idaho, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming -- legions of commentators instead curiously trained their guns on the South, dismissing the region as politically irrelevant, a bastion of red-state conservatism uniquely out of touch with national trends.

Gawker, a popular New York-based website, put a finer point on it: "North Finally Wins Civil War."

SCHALLER RIDES -- AND FALLS -- AGAIN

It's a familiar refrain. The Obama campaign heard it when they first began talking about changing the political map, including putting several Southern states in play. Leading the pack, as always, was the relentless Tom Schaller, the oft-quoted political scientist whose passion for downplaying the South's political significance has frequently put him on the wrong side of history.

Just this past July, Schaller declared with typical bombast in a New York Times column that "Mr. Obama can write off Georgia and North Carolina." That certainly would come as a surprise to Obama, who won N.C. and made McCain fight for the Peach State.

It would also be news to McCain and Sarah Palin, who scheduled seven campaign stops in North Carolina in the final month leading into the election. As for Georgia, McCain is now headed there to help fellow Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss, forced into a run-off largely because of the surge of Obama voters.

This wasn't the first time Schaller's "forget the South" thesis was proven wrong. In 2006, Schaller famously declared he was "certain" now-Senator Jim Webb (D) would lose in Virginia. But the string of bad calls and Obama's success in the South hasn't silenced Schaller and the rest of the "write off the South" crowd -- oddly enough, it seems to have emboldened them.

THE REAL LESSONS FROM THE SOUTH

In fact, the 2008 elections provided two important lessons about the South, clear to any willing to see them: First, the South is rapidly changing in a way that makes it a more -- not less -- politically competitive region.

And second, despite the fevered hopes of certain wings of the Northern intelligentsia, the South's political clout is rapidly growing -- making the South a centerpiece of any strategy for national political power.

Read the full article at:
http://new.southernstudies.org/2008/11/a-new-south-rising.html

4 comments:

David Lindsay said...

What sort of Democrat can win in the South? Oh, that sort of Democrat.

But why is someone like that in the Democratic Party at all? For reasons of economic populism and (these days, since the GOP sold out completely) foreign policy realism.

Which are, of course, the right reasons.

upinVermont said...

It will be no news to you to point out that, in certain ways, it's not that the Democrats "won" the south, but that the Republicans lost it.

Bush's incompetence, the collapsed economy, the dithering in Iraq and Afghanistan, Katrina, have all favored a skillful challenger like Obama. If John Kerry had run again, I don't think he would have won the South.

My hope is that Howard Dean's electoral strategy will continue.

Once the economy turns around (which could be a while, esp. with Nero fiddling away in the White House) social conservatives (read "real" Christians) will start agitating again. God's chosen don't like to be marginalized.

Democrats are going to have to take on some of their signatory issues, maybe not now, but within the next four years. Democrats are going to have to talk about abortion, gun rights, homosexuality (civil rights), health care, etc... and not run away from these issues. If the Democrats run from them, the Republicans will own them, and the south will all too eagerly carry the Bible back into the parade.

What happens two and four years from now will hinge on how the Democrats, as a party, respond to the multi-million dollar think tanks and socially conservative Christians who are, even now, planning their return (with every fiber of their righteous beings). There is a power vacuum, and some new Robertson, Falwell, or Reed is going to fill it.

RightDemocrat said...

Democrats must focus right now on solving economic problems. If Obama and the Democratic Congress can get the country's economy back on track, we can greatly expand the base of the party.

The culture war needs to be put on the back burner. Our party needs to look for ways to bridge the divide on cultural issues.

Democrats need to be the "big tent" party and allow for a diversity of views on the social issues.

I will let the Republicans have the free market fanatics and the most extreme right-wingers but there are many religious and traditionalist voters who don't fall into either of those categories.

ross said...

A case could also be made that democrats, wishing to escape from the mess that they have created in northeast, are migrating to the South where living conditions are better.

Question is, will they change, or will the South change in a way that a rotten apple spoils the bunch?