Why Clark Can Let us Reclaim the South (long post)

[WillyBrandt]

As a Clark partisan, I want to explain why I think Clark is good for the party, insofar as he expands its base in the South. (No nastiness please: other supporters should start similar positive threads, so we might all learn instead of bicker.)

The GOP outdoes us in the South. If we want to be a majority--and not merely an opposition, or a sometimes-in-power--party, we've got to take the South back. But how?

FDR, pictured to the left, built a new Deal coalition that fractured the South upon class lines. The New Deal coalition was not a happy place, but the Depression, the New Deal, and the war let Roosevelt unite blacks and whites, Southerners and Northerners, Democrats and Progressive Republicans, who had similar economic pains, and similar distrust of the Hoover Republicans. (Sound a little timely?)

But the new Deal coalition ended when Nixon refractured the South, this time upon race lines. The racial component, which FDR managed to submerge under an agenda of progress and social help, burst through and destroyed us in much of the South. The South went GOP as whites unhappy with the Civil Rights movement flocked to Nixon and his heirs. There is less racism now than then, and a cultural "NASCAR Dad" component came out of that refracturing. Racial fracturing morphed into cultural fracturing, with blacks strongly Democratic, and whites more Republican. (An interesting fact: in the South, the more blacks, the more Republican a state is.)

In other words, now a lot of Southerners vote against their interests, going with the GOP because they feel culturally identified with it, NOT because they think they like tax cuts for the rich. We can explain our policies from now to kingdom come, and we won't get enough ears because we've been branded by sissies and wimps, even by people who support our politics on an individual basis.

I think the party is at a point in history where we can build a new majority coalition to give us 20+ years of power--IF we're smart and don't fuck up.

But how to reclaim the South? How to make Dixie Dem?

We've got to refracture the South once again, this time upon cultural AND class lines:

(1) The GOP is unpatriotic. There are a lot of good Republicans, but those in power now are horrible, and do not care about American values. We need people to know that they are not supporting our troops, that they care more about tax shelters than national security, that they are a bunch of hustlers and jokers.

We know this, and a lot of folks feel something is wrong, but how to drive the message home?

Clark can. He's a four star General, a Southerner, and he has a talent for talking to regular folks. In other words, HE GETS A HEARING, in a way that others won't. He can, with total credibility, show that Bush doesn't support the troops, and the inevitable comparisons of records (pace Cleland) will further hit the point that there is nothing patriotic about the GOP. The GOP is weak, the GOP is lying: Clark can go in for the kill.

CLARK CAN MAKE THE GOP THE SELFISH PARTY, and the DEMS THE PATRIOTIC PARTY. Who else can in the South?

(2) The GOP is against those who aren't rich. We know this, but others don't.

But lots of poor Southerner whites vote for the GOP? Why? It's a cultural holdover from Nixon's Southern strategy. They should be voting their interests, with us.

CLARK CAN REFRACTURE THE SOUTH UPON CLASS LINES.

Again, two factors working for us: the economy is shit and people are unhappy, AND they've got a culturally credible messenger in Clark. Don't underestimate the Southern inferiority complex. It closes minds. We need someone who can relate to them AND impress them. Clark can relate: he is a southern soldier who grew up in poverty; he is obviously impressive. The other candidates have one but not the other (Edwards can relate; Dean can impress; neither does both.)

Only Nixon could go to China, and only a Southerner with macho military appeal, can make the "motherly" case for the poor in Dixie. He can speak about the poor without sounding like a dirty Commie. He can talk about the problems in Dixie without sounding like a snotty northerner. He can paint the GOP as the party that costs jobs, and makes the rich richer.

If we've got blacks and whites and hispanics in the South voting their interests, we can't lose.

Last point:

This isn't just about the White House in 2004. This is about having progressives running the country for a generation.

Other candidates have to go to the South: to capture Southern states they will have to go to the right, like Dean with his "A" NRA rating. Clark can bring the South to US, WITHOUT sacrificing our progressive values.

That's too good of a deal to pass up.

[mhr]

1. All Clark's Ugly Truths Can Be Found Here

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DVNS_Wesley-Clark.htm

http://www.prorev.com/politics.htm#clark

[DoveTurnedHawk]

4. Nice Parrot-Job of Discussed-to-Death "Issues"

Is your horse dead yet?

BTW, you might want to watch the spamming:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=428692

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=428674#428686

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=428649

DTH

[Kahuna]

33. LOL! The horse is saying..

Please shoot me. Just don't beat me anymore. }(

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Julien Sorel]

2. FDR had his 'New Deal;' Truman his 'Fair Deal;'

Clark can campaign on his 'Good Deal.' ;-)

[Loyal]

3. Couldn't have said it better myself

I'm not really supporting anyone, currently, but I want a candidate that can win the South. Bill Clinton in '92 won a heck of a lot of southern states, but not the deep south ones and some east ones. I'm talking Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. I want those states to be D, and I want Virginia too. We need them. I want our victory to be not just a marginal one, where we get 290 EV's and Bush gets 248, etc. We have to completely demoralize the Republicans, by getting 350 or 360 electoral votes, and 55% of the popular vote. We have to KICK ASS, that's basically what I'm saying!

[WillyBrandt]

5. Clark can kick ass

He's the only one, I think who can deliver a total fucking landslide. Others can win, but this guy could triumph.

[Kahuna]

34. The only way we can beat bush is with a landslide victory...

The repukes are already planning how to "maximize" their chances for winning.

[SayitAintSo]

59. His ability to take the military vote is awesome....

I live in SC and there is already a major shift in the military vote here. I don't think these buckaroos will vote for an AWOL draft dodger in a tight flightsuit again... I think many are reeling from having been duped into supporting * over McCain in the ugliest primary battle in political history.

Excellent post - well thought out. The South can and WILL rise again.

[_Jumper_]

6. Good post

I still think racism is a major problem in the South. Remember, in 2000 43% of Alabamians voted to keep interracial marriage ILLEGAL; 38% of South Carolinians did the same in 1998. It is possible that a majority of whites voted to keep it illegal, and most rural voters did. A poll found that just 31% of whites in Alabama support interracial marriage. If the race problem isn't solved we won't take back the South IMO.

Having the South in our corner is a plus but we don't need it to have Democratic dominance for a generation. Demographics and economic change will make Democrats dominant in a decade, without the vast majority of the South. If you haven't read it already I recommend you read "The Emerging Democratic Majority".

[WillyBrandt]

8. I read it

And loved it. Everyone should read it.

The thing is, in some Southern states that are doing well--NC, Tennessee, Virginia--we've got demographic trends going our way. This really is a pivotal moment in American politics. We can just seize the whole shebang, or just the radicals run this country into the ground.

[_Jumper_]

9. I agree

Clark will accelerate the coming of the Democratic Majority by at least one election.

[WillyBrandt]

11. The Emerging Democratic Majority

Yeah, it's hard to read EDM without thinking on every page: "Motherfucker, Clark is the guy! He can make Nostradamus out of these authors."

Clark-Edwards would just be FDR-Truman. It would be a 16 year lock.

[_Jumper_]

13. Amen!

I hope we don't throw away this great opportunity in the name of ideological purity.

By 2020 the Republicans would be so dead Gray Davis could be elected president. Without racism helping them the GOP is a minority party.

[WillyBrandt]

15. It's political purity

I really think Clark is more progressive than Dean and many of the others.

It's more about purity in only having a "real" Democrat (defined as one's favorite candidate) or turning aside Republicans who want someone else to vote for.

[AnnitaR]

20. the Frist factor

One thing that will kill us in TN is if Bush dumps Cheney. Everyone I know is saying that if he does he's going to pick Bill Frist to run. If he does that TN is a goner for us. I know where I live here in E. TN people think Frist is some sort of God or something.

[newyawker99]

29. Hi AnnitaR!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Julien Sorel]

12. I haven't read the book yet, but

I have to point something out here. We look at 'the South' as if it is a homogenous region, with shared values. And it basically is. The problem lies in assuming those values are unique, or largely unique, to the South, and that's a mistake. If the Democrats behave in such a way that the South is alientated, chances are some other voters in key swing states will also be alientated, so we lose not only the South, but a state like Pennsylvania or Ohio on a consistent basis. The South is a voting bloc, true, but it is also a good ideological gauge to use to see if you are swinging too far in one direction or another.

[_Jumper_]

14. Good points

Clark can deliver us the more moderate Southern states such as North Carolina and Florida.

[WillyBrandt]

17. Not an ideological gauge

"The South is a voting bloc, true, but it is also a good ideological gauge to use to see if you are swinging too far in one direction or another."

But it's not. We can be liberals and win the South, or at least the non-deep South.

It's a CULTURAL barrier we have to overcome if we want to be both liberal and successful in the South. Clinton did it (well, he was medium liberal). Clark could do it in spades. Maybe Edwards or Kerry could do it, but I doubt it.

[Julien Sorel]

19. Ideology and culture are so intertwined

that I wouldn't know where to begin in trying to unwind them. How can you attack a cultural barrier without addressing ideology?

[WillyBrandt]

21. By disentangling culture from ideology

Lots of folks associate being right wing with being right thinking, patriotic, pro-America, strong, etc.

All false, all based on GOP caricatures of liberals. Southerners might--and often do--agree with liberal positions when done individually, but it's more of the image of 'dem dirty librulz which turns them off to our party.

In other words, if we could disassociate ourselves from these negative images, we'd have the issues left over, which people agree with us with.

Clark can give us a twofer:

(1) The motherfucker is a goddamn hero and 4-star Southern general who grew up in poverty. Never divorced. Next to Bush/Cheney this is a slap in the face at that association. And when he speaks he makes liberalism seem like common sense, not alien Washington-talk. Just the ticket.

(2) The GOP is SO BAD that Clark has the chance of painting THEM as the anti-American greedy party in the process.

We shift the cultural identification our way, and the political power follows. The alternatives?

- moving to the right, like Dean's NRA "A" rating strategy or Lieberman's whole schtick
- talking down to them, like Dean's claim he'll look for white guys with Confederate flags in their trucks and tell 'em to vote Dem
- ignoring them, like Kerry's (true) claim that we could win (barely) without the South

Clark's better than the alternatives.

[Julien Sorel]

23. We're talking about different things here.

I was addressing the notion that the Dems can succeed by saying to heck with the South; you're talking about Clark as a short term fix to a deeper problem. I'm talking about the deeper problem itself, which is essentially an ideological one. There's only one Clark, and besides, the confluence of events that make him attractive to the rest of the country isn't likely to repeat itself any time in the near future. In the long run if the Dems are going to stay near the center, looking at the South as one extreme is a good way to figure out where that center is.

[WillyBrandt]

24. I've got the faith

That we can pull the South our way in terms of ideology and issues. I really think that its mostly cultural mumbo-jumbo that's holding us back.

And you're right: there's just one Clark. But I think this is a really unique moment in US politics, and Clark is just the perfect freakin fit. In 2000, he wouldn't so great. And in 2008, maybe not either.

But right now? If we've got 8 years of Clark, and a re-energized Democratic party (after the Bush disaster), then we've got a political reorientation in the making.

The reason I think that Clark could be the gift that keeps on giving is that ONCE we've started to slay the cultural associations which hold down progressive politics in the South, then the South would be more receptive to a Northerner.

[RandomUser]

27. Agreed

This is about more than the Whitehouse. Much more.

[lcordero]

16. You are right, we don't need Democratic dominance for a

generation. We need Progressive dominance for three to four generations and I mean enough in order to pack the courts with our own judges.

[GalleryGod]

7. I Concure. In addition, I Had the Opportunity to Add

"2 More Morons:tinfoilhat: :cry: to my IGNORE Roll Call"

[_Jumper_]

10. ?

The second one was me?

[noiretextatique]

18. you make a lot of sense

poor white people (and not just in the south) have no business voting for the GOP. if clark can appeal to them on economic issues more than the republicans can on cultural issues, it would be great for the democratic party. thank you...much food for thought here.

[RandomUser]

22. Good Reasoning

I think many candidates have a chance of winning the general election besides Clark, but I don't want to just win. I don't want to win the south, I want a landslide. I want to fracture the republican base in the south for a whole GENERATION the way they did with us. I want to live to see the day the south becomes a stalwart democratic stronghold untouchable by republicans. And you're right that the best part of using Clark is that we don't have to compromise our liberal principles by appearing like republican-lite in our policies to get the south.

[DoNotRefill]

25. As a Southerner: Kiss my grits.

"Don't underestimate the Southern inferiority complex. It closes minds."

Nice stereotype. I live in the South, and Dean's a better choice if you're trying to get our votes. Clark is pro gun-control (the kiss of death in much of the country, even if your blood doesn't boil about his paraphrasing an old Himmler quote on the issue and adopting it as his own) while Dean leaves it to the States. Clark doesn't have an NRA rating yet (when he gets one, it'll probably be a "C-" or lower) while Dean has an "A".

If Clark gets the nod, there's going to be hell to pay in Dixie (and everyplace else that's rural, semi-rural, or just THINKS it's rural)...and if you think the Himmler quote isn't going to come up, you're wrong....Clark's on tape saying it. I'd rather not give the Repukes a great big bludgeon to use on us....

[RandomUser]

26. He's an avid hunter

and owns 20 guns. He believes in the right of people to have guns, but he doesn't think they need assault weapons (kind of like machineguns meant for killing people, not hunting). Clark won't steal your guns away, he's a novice hunter. He supports REASONABLE gun control, i.e., banning assualt weapons, and allowing people to keep their guns. He supports the second amendment and the right to bear arms.

His words:
"I support the Second Amendment. People like firearms, they feel secure with firearms, they should keep their firearms," said Clark, who has been shooting weapons since he was young.

And:

"I have got 20 some odd guns in the house. I like to hunt. I have grown up with guns all my life, but people who like assault weapons should join the United States Army, we have them. "

Edited to add: Clark's a born and raised southerner, he knows exactly where you're coming from. It's his culture too.
I don't know if this makes any difference to you. Hope it does.

[WillyBrandt]

31. Exactly --

This is a perfect example. Dean has to move to the right with that "A" rating. Clark can be a bit more moderate because he's likes to hunt and owns lots of guns, and is a southern General.

It's all about going against the stereotype.

[DoNotRefill]

52. There's the problem....

"people who like assault weapons should join the United States Army, we have them. "

What on EARTH made him paraphrase Heinrich Himmler on this?

[ShaneGR]

54. What? You're REALLY twisting that quote

Here's what Himmler said, "All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately... The SS, SA and Stahlhelm give every respectable German man the opportunity of campaigning with them. Therefore anyone who does not belong to one of the above named organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps his weapon... must be regarded as an enemy of the national government."

Where do you get this crap from?

[DoNotRefill]

66. You'd be right if that was the Himmler quote I was talking about...

but it isn't. I'm referring to Himmler's statement that "Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or SA." Compare that to Clark's statement "People who like assault weapons should join the United States Army, we have them." See any similarities there?

This brings up two possibilities. Either Clark didn't know Himmler said that (strange, given his graduating from West Point, a place that generally looks at a fair bit of military history, coupled with how smart everybody says he is) or he did, and paraphrased it almost exactly.

If he gets the nod for the party nomination, expect him to be figuratively beaten over the head with this.

[im4edwards]

36. Clark southern ? wheres the accent ?

I'm southern and I don't see the General as one of us. Way off on many issues guns not the least of them.

Best to stick with a real southerner with the accent and understanding of us. Clearly thats Edwards. Not only do Southerners play well in the south, the country elects them with startling regularity.

Pick who you like but do so from knowledge and not bandwagoning.

[RandomUser]

37. He was raised in Little Rock, Arkansas

from the age of 5 until he graduated High School. He was born in Illinois, but his Jewish father died when he was 4. His mother moved them back to her hometown of Little Rock and remarried, raising him as a Southern Baptist. He lived there from the age of 5 till he graduated from high school and joined the army.

I'm not sure why you don't consider him Southern. Arkansas may not be the deep south, but it's still the south. As for Southerns being elected regularly...the last person who ran for president and got elect from Arkansas was Bill Clinton. Saying Clark is not a southerner is like saying Clinton was not a southerner, and yet you say southerners are elected president regularly (including Clinton, right?).

[im4edwards]

38. Clinton has the accent, Clark doesn't

Not sure why Clark is so homoginized, perhaps Army, but he is. More to the point, Clinton's take on things is more southern in nature.

[RandomUser]

39. As a southerner, how do you feel

about the clark quotes regarding guns? He clearly says he loves guns, wants people to keep their guns, but thinks that if they want assault weapons, they might want to join army. He's not stealing your guns, he's an avid hunter with 20 guns, and supports the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. Only a ban on machine gun-like assualt weapons that have no place in hunting or self-defense, but were developed solely for the purpose of killing people in offensive (not defensive) attacks, hence the term "assault" weapons. Is his position on upholding the second amendment and his love of guns and being raised with guns enough for you?

[im4edwards]

41. All talk. At least Dean has demonstrated his position.

I prefer Dean's stance making it a state issue, not national. I agree that noone needs automatic weapons and this is the law of the land.

Please do not confuse Assault weapons with Automatic weapons.

Automatic weapons can be most any sort of weapon from pistol to shotgun. Assault weapons are basically a shape and a range of munition. Specifically they are intended to badly wound but not kill as that requires the enemy to use resources to tend to the person shot. If you kill the person instantly, their comrads in arms continue to fight.

[RandomUser]

45. From his quote

it appears he's specifically talking about assault weapons, the ones designed to badly wound another human beint but not kill. But he supports people keeping hunting rifles and all the other types of guns not considered assault weapons. And I think the fact that he personally owns 20 guns seems to be a bit more than just talk, and indicates that he's not lying when he says he supports the second amendment. He grew up in the south with guns. Guns are a major part of the cultural landscape and childhood memories, with the hunting seasons and so forth, I would imagine.

[im4edwards]

47. Yes, he was referring to "assault" weapons per the definition created

There are a number of people who fight hard for gun control who own weapons. I don't begrudge this, its guaranteed by the Constitution. But it shows that it is possible to say one thing and do another.

I believe you when you talk of what he said on the topic (I saw it on TV too) but I still don't know what he will do.

Regarding the 20 weapons, I would not be surprized if many were gifts intended for a more keepsake role as opposed to something he intends to use.

[DoNotRefill]

53. Would you care to explain....

the different characteristics of weapons that would make an "assault weapon" suitable only for offense instead of defense?

If a gun is offensively useful, isn't it, by definition, defensively useful?

Weren't machineguns originally made for DEFENSIVE warfare? Isn't that why they were not man-portable, and weighed around 150 pounds when set up? (the gun itself, the tripod, and all the water for the cooling system, for example, the Vickers and the Maxim guns)

If Clark "loved guns", he'd know that an "assault weapon" is just like every other semi-automatic gun in both design and performance. "Assault weapons" just "look" bad. Since when did we start banning things because of how they look?

[im4edwards]

55. my understanding is this

small calibre projectile with high velocity to cover moderate distance but the small projectile and type facilitates it staying in the body and causing more damage than if it went cleanly through.

The outward design allows extended use with better dispersion of heat and large ammunition capacity.

We started banning assault weapons with the ban signes into law a few years back. The notion of banning weapons due to looks was a large part of the argument against the ban.

A shotgun for personal protection is more defensive in nature as it is more forgiving of poor aim. If you were trying to kill someone you would be better off not having the victim aware of it which means either stealth or distance. Translate that to handgun (stealth) or rifle (distance).

Hope this rambling makes some sense and addresses your question.

[RandomUser]

40. regarding the accent

in the military, he interacts with people from every state. But that doesn't change the fact that his upbringing and his early life lessons until he left for the army were all in the south, and presumably his values crafted before he graduated highschool. The southern notion of serving the country was probably a reason he joined up.

Don't forget, he grew up in a poor family in the south, and had to work for everything in his life.

[im4edwards]

42. oh yeah, like Edwards !

n/t

[union_maid]

28. If anyone can reframe the debate, it's Clark

That's what I believe. He's got something more than his credentials, too and I think that'll be more and more apparent as his campaign goes on. His style is different than Clinton's but he's got an ability to persuade and to win people over. He does it low key and he does it by only being critical of others when it's absolutely necessary, but he does it. Of course, not just the stars, but the experience and the resume are there, backing him up every step of the way. I'm certain he'll do better in the South and better in other states with the people who belong with the Democrats but have left them.

I think he has the potential to be a truly popular president, even with the bad times the next POTUS is going to inherit and it is the ultimate popularity contest. The job of the next Democratic president is no less than to move the center to the right, not to overcome by the force of getting out every Democrat and hoping that more Republicans sit one out (although a combination of the two would be nice). The former gets us a shot at real change and the latter gets us gridlock and ends up losing us more seats in the next big congressional election.

[JVS]

30. Military+south does not always mean success.

The Fundies will tear him a new one the way McCain got screwed over by Bush. Clark's partially Jewish background could also be a hinderance in the South.

[WillyBrandt]

32. Fair enough

They'll try to ruin any Dem. Clark just has better bulletproofing. The Jewish thing, should it be an issue, applies to lots of them in one way or another.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

35. Clark can withstand the attack better than some

but if Bush is playing defense in the South, and gets hit hard with his abortion, drinking, pedophile rings, draft-dodging, faking uniforms, and his relations with Mr. New World Order Bush Sr., outing a CIA agent, and all the felons in his administration - stuff he could have been hit with in 2000 if the Dems weren't to chickenshit and "high minded" - Clark will just stay above the fray.

Without a strongly populist economic message, Clark goes no where and gets stuck as "Clinton's general".

[robbedvoter]

43. Numbers seem to agree with you

. South Carolina as of 9.24:

> Edwards 23 (14)
> Undecided 23 (26)
> Clark 13 (*)
> Lieberman 8 (17)
> Sharpton 8 (8)
> Dean 7 (4)
> Gephardt 6 (14)
> Braun 5 (4)
> Graham 4 (6)
> Kerry 3 (6)
> Kucinich 1 (1) http://www.dailykos.com/archives/004302.html#004302
>
>

[RandomUser]

48. Interesting

National polls are usually name recognition polls and meaningless. But early primary state polls, especially the crucial states where there's been heavy campaigning by the candidates, are actually meaningful. It seems Clark is actually doing very well despite the heavy campaigning by the others in that state, especially since Clark hasn't seriously campaign there extensively like the others. Seems the people of South Carolina consider him Southerner enough for them, and able to connect. Only one percent behind Edwards.

[zeemike]

46. OK I get it

The porpoise of Clark is to move the Demos to the right in order to get the racists to vote Demo.
And secure power for the next 20 years. This keeps getting scarier and scarier.

[RandomUser]

49. Not quite

If you'll note the parent poster's analysis, the point is that Clark can get the south without compromising our progressive rinciples, and shift the south leftward. Such is not the case for most of the other candidates, who are force to adopt conservative positions and shift the party rightwards. Clark can do it while being liberal.

[zeemike]

50. You mean like

When Bush shifted the Repugs to Compassionate conservatism?
Words and actions much match to be truth.

[WillyBrandt]

57. This proves the point: Bush made the GOP right, Clark can take us left

Bush campaigned--and sounded like a centrist--and used that credo and cover to let him push the country far to the right. (Yes, it's all bullshit, but that was the image: rember the Naderites and others who said that Bush=Gore?) I promise you that if an OBVIOUS right-winger like Forbes had won, he'd have to stay more in the center because folks would be looking more closely.

The same analysis applies to Clark. His centrist IMAGE allows him cover to push forth a progressive agenda. Moreover, he's said all the right things, and as actual specifics begin coming out (like the job plan), they really are progressive.

I mean, your analysis just doesn't make any sense. . . what are you trying to say?

[zeemike]

64. My point is

That he does say all the right things but what he has done in the past, right up to 2001, does not match his speech. And that is just like Bush and his compassionate conservatism.

I am not moved by doublespeak, I am moved by actions

[LoneStarLiberal]

51. Some Interesting Ideas About Southern Politics

As a Texan (as opposed to George Bush who is from Texas but IS NOT AND NEVER WILL BE Texan) and both a student and participant of Southern liberal politics, I applaud your post. You make some very cogent points about the GOP's "Southern strategy" and some possible ideas on how the Democratic Party can reclaim the South.

I do not share your optimism about reclaiming the entire region of the South, however. My thinking is probably tainted by my own experiences here in Texas, but I think a large part of what I have experienced here in Texas is relevant to most of the South given my travels throughout most of the region.

The Democratic Party should take the battle to the Republicans in metropolitan areas and in rural areas; leave the suburbs to the Republicans. You tend to find more disenfranchised people in urban and rural settings in the South. The Democratic Party should get back to the New Deal and Great Society messages of being the party of the disenfranchised as well as the moderates. The suburbanites are all either Republicans or soon-to-be Republicans. While there is a lot of low-level anomie in the 'burbs, it can only be reshaped by messages of racism and exclusivity coded in economic and public policy terms. This is not something the Democratic Party of today needs to engage.

The South is ripe for economic class agitation. Most Southern states are, to use the Republican term, "pro-business." This is economic code for balls-out class warfare. Most Southern states have institutional policies that are some mix of anti-union, anti-worker rights, anti-education, anti-judicial activist (see Proposition 12 here in Texas for a recent example), and anti-social programs. As long as our traditional patterns of voting hold sway, Republicans will continue to own the South because they have the people who spend money on political causes and who vote in every election from local to national.

I hope I am wrong. I do not think I am, though. The Republican Party has twisted their Southern strategy around from co-opting the overtly racist and uber-states rights conservative wing of the Democratic Party in the aftermath of LBJ's Great Society initiatives. They have refashioned their message to code racism, class warfare, corporate welfare, and militarism into the language of the suburbs: Tax policy, national security, public policy, and environmental policy. Being a good American, at least in most of the South's suburbs, means being selfish, bigoted, obedient, irresponsible, and suspicious.

We can't win these people back. Furthermore, we don't need to do so. Let the Republicans have them. Unfortunately that leaves us with two demographics that don't plow a lot of money into the political system and who don't vote on a regular basis. This is why I do not share your optimism about Wes Clark or any other Democrat reclaiming the South as a region, though I would certainly like to see Clark (or someone else should another win the nomination) take the battle to the Republicans in urban and rural areas.

[WillyBrandt]

56. Excellent post. We just need SOME of the South

... for total dominance. If we split the South, pushing some of it our way, and letting demography--Asians, Hispanics, Blacks, the growth of urban centers in the south, the growing intellectual centers of the south (e.g. Research Triangle)--help us out more, the GOP is absolutely doomed.

Their base would be marginal nearly everywhere.

[Donna Zen]

58. We can take Arkansas

and maybe another one. But most of all, we can force the wackos to spend $ and time there. We really need to target the middle where the regime's policies are not playing well.

I live in a poor rural state filled with fundies. Gore did not get 50% although he did take the state. Tonight on the radio, they gave the latest poll for the chimpster...job approval: 35%.

We need to hold the blue states and pick off some red. I'm rather worried about PA...a trip I made this summer shocked me. Anyone else have a take on that? I do think Clark could hold it. I really felt better about WV than I have for a long time.

[whirlygigspin]

60. forget the south

they won't vote for anyone who isn't a white christian born again
retard anyway.

oy.

[WillyBrandt]

61. That's not true

They voted for John Edwards, Robert Byrd, and a lot of other good people.

We're not going to win votes by insulting people. That only hardens the cultural disadvantage we've got there. We've got to disassociate the culture from the politics.

We're playing the GOP's game if we say "they won't vote for anyone who isn't a white christian born again retard anyway."

I want to make the South more progressive, and more Democratic. We can't have a full victory, but more is better than less--for the South and the party and the nation.

[whirlygigspin]

63. My southern strategy

get the black vote out, they're still mad as hell about Florida.
-->Moseley Braun for VP!

[zeemike]

65. That is not a bad idea

Clark/Braun sounds good to me

[Dob Bole]

62. My Deep-South Strategy

moved to an etirely new thread because it's really long.