Burnt Orange Report

Southern Strategy

By Vince Leibowitz

The New Orleans Times-Picayune has an interesting article regarding Democratic party strategy and the South.

In particular, the article focuses on the desire of some Democrats to "write off" much of the South entirely.

The article notes:

With Republicans having tightened their grip on the region in 2004, some Democrats openly advocate writing off the 11 states of the Old Confederacy as a lost cause. But others are busy hatching plans to regain a footing in a region the party dominated for much of the 20th century.

[...]

Hewing to the adage that success in life mostly involves just showing up, Dean believes that visibility in the South is the key. He said in his DNC acceptance speech that he plans to replicate the success of his own Internet-powered, grass-roots fund-raising efforts and will hardwire a network of activists throughout the South. He also said he plans to spend a lot more time below the Mason-Dixon line.

"People will vote for Democrats in Texas, in Utah, in West Virginia if we knock on their doors," Dean said. "I believe more people are aligned with the beliefs of the Democratic Party than they are with the beliefs of the Republican Party."

That's a curious conclusion to draw judging by the most recent presidential election. In 2004, President Bush expanded his margin of victory in every Southern state except North Carolina, the home state of Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards. According to one post-election analysis, Bush won 85 percent of all Southern counties and 90 percent of those that have white majorities.

I think Dean's right about alignment of beliefs, but the people don't know it. Clearly, since the South is ripe with poverty, unemployment, and with states generally regarded as being some of those usually considered "near the bottom," in areas like healthcare, education, and what not, the average voter should realize that his or her beliefs, wants and needs are most clearly aligned with or will most likely be met by the Democratic Party. However, the "3 Gs," (gays, guns, God--not necessarily in that order) tend to shift those people over to the R's column on election day. And, he's right about people voting Democrat "if we knock on their doors." During the last election cycle, heavily Republican Smith County had more than 3,000 new Democratic voters for president than in the previous cycle--likely thanks to serious "knock and drag," efforts by the Congressional campaign of Max Sandlin--which I believe clearly had a role in the number of "up ballot" Democratic votes cast.

As for Bush winning 85 percent of the Southern counties, those stats are a little skewed. I'm not sure how many counties Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Virginia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, and the other Southern states have a piece, but Texas probably has at least one quarter--or perhaps more--of all the counties in the South within its borders. With this being the home state of Bush, it's no surprise that many of our counties went Bush. So, that "85 percent," stat is probably a little misleading. And, even in the President's home state, we had counties like Hays County which made tremendous gains and Rockwall County--a huge GOP stronghold which also made good gains in terms of numbers of new Democratic voters over 2000.

The article continues:

The news doesn't get any better for Democrats as they glance down the ballot. All five retiring Democratic senators from the South, including Louisiana's John Breaux, had their seats claimed by Republicans in 2004. And University of Maryland political scientist Thomas Schaller said even Democrats' once-solid grip on statehouses in the South has loosened. In state legislative races in the region last year, Democrats lost 36 House seats and 11 Senate seats, he said.

Schaller, a Democrat, said the party should fold its tent and abandon the South. That's essentially what Democratic nominee John Kerry did in the 2004 presidential contest, pulling campaign finances from every Southern state except Florida after Labor Day to boost his campaign operations in other parts of the country.

Though the "36 House seats and 11 State Senate seats," sounds pretty dire, Texas alone lost at least half that number of house seats in 2002, after redistricting. Plus, he's made no allowances for competitive races--like several we had in Texas but didn't result in Democratic victories. And, there is no mention that in the GOP stronghold of Texas, we actually gained more seats (one) in the House than we have in more than a decade. Schaller also doesn't evidently turn his eye to some statewide races in which Democrats were competitive (and perhaps more competitive than they were in recent years) even though they didn't win.

Too, in Texas, in races that could and should have been much closer like the Glaze/Hughes race in HD 5, where "independent voters" who would have voted for Bush but for downballot Dems like Sandlin, Nickerson or Hughes, we had the GOP sending out mailers coupling their GOP opponents with President Bush and intimating that if a voter was voting for Bush, they should also be voting for the other guys with their smiling faces right along his. If a marketing study were done on this, you'd better believe this does alter voting patterns.

As for "folding our tents and abandoning the South," that's a pretty dumb idea--and certainly not a way to regain control of statehouses, much less put Southern electoral votes in the Democratic column come November, 2008.

The entire reason the South is in the shape it is in is because the national party--though it didn't fold its tent, did evidently put up a big "out to lunch" sign, resulting in us being written off when it comes to national campaigns. Remember that national campaigns often generate the momentum necessary to win or make competitive down-ballot races. When Southern Democrats know that their vote in a Presidential election has no impact whatsoever, there is at least some desire among a select portion of the voting age populous not to bother to go to the polls at all. Too, keep in mind that (at least in my experience), most people who are going to vote for a Democrat for President in the South are going to vote a straight Democratic ticket.

More:

Schaller said the party should attempt to portray Republicans as the "Party of the South," in a negative sense. He would attempt to tar the GOP with the South's legacy of opposition to civil rights and remind voters elsewhere that some Southerners are still fighting over displaying the Confederate flag.

"Don't conservatives talk about Democrats as Northeastern liberals?" Schaller said.

Schaller said Democrats could make some inroads in the South if voting districts with black majorities were redrawn to make them more racially diverse. Some, he said, are 70 to 80 percent African-American, which virtually ensures minority representation from those areas in Congress but stifles black turnout for what are frequently uncontested races. With more than 90 percent of African-Americans voting for Democrats in many elections, Schaller said it takes a toll, albeit an indirect one, on Democrats running statewide.

I'm not sure how the "Party of the South" argument would really work, and I'm not sure it's worth a try, either. The good folks who go to the honky-tonk on Saturday and then sit in a Baptist church on Sunday morning are so easily brainwashed with "moral" issues (abortion, etc.) that we could do everything possible to point Republican hypocricies (and, by the way, using "the GOP voted against Civil Rights" as a "wedge issue" in the South is still about 15 years ahead of its time--the generation who wouldn't vote for Ron Kirk because he's black and Tony Sanchez because he was Latino is still alive) and still not come out ahead.

Until we're able to reframe the debate on abortion and the "Three G's," and discipline our candidates from the top down to deliver the party's message consistently in that regard, we could have some trouble. Reframing the debate--especially over abortion--is essential to our survival in the South. The debate has to shift from "baby killers" vs. "The Godly Saints of Christianity" to "government telling you what you can and cannot do with your own body" vs. "the people who think they know what's best for your uterus". And, this is where Democrats--especially in Texas and at all levels--fail miserably. Dozens of Democrat I've heard on the stump or in a debate have botched questions about this that they should have been able to answer better. Instead of answering with a "it is not the government's place to decide what's best for a woman, period," they go into long, drawn-out, spiels about "I'm a Christian and I don't believe in abortion but..." and end with either a "if we make them illegal we'll have people in back alleys with coat hangers" argument, or a "that's what the Supreme Court says we've got to do, and I'll uphold the law if I'm elected," type argument. Both are no-gos, period.

Too, far too many Democratic candidates want to get off the issue quickly and say something like, "What I want to focus on is all the kids without healthcare, etc.," while Republican candidates will use all of their alloted time talking about the evils of abortion. We look like we're running from a question where we should be standing our ground. It wouldn't hurt for us to point out that this isn't a "religious" issue, it's a constitutional issue.

Anyway, more from the TP:

The candidate doesn't have to come from the South, but in the words of North Carolina political consultant Mac McCorkle, "It sure helps."

McCorkle said Clinton was successful in the South--he captured five Southern states in his two campaigns--not simply because he hailed from Arkansas, but because he had his regional bona fides in order.

"He could sing 'Amazing Grace' without looking at the hymnal," McCorkle said. "The candidate has to look comfortable with the traditions and the culture of the South. If he does, people will give him room to maneuver even if he's not from there."

Makes sense, but I don't think that's all of it. I think message had more to do with it. And, inasmuch as I've become no fan of the DLC message of late (I guess I'm getting more liberal, if that's possible), I do think it was the message that put Clinton over the top. After all, though he may have been able to sing 100 hymns verse by vers sans a hymnal, Hillary, sadly, was no help to him here. She was bashed relentlessly, and not just for the infamous "cookies and tea" remark. And, likely as Teresa Heinz Kerry did to her husband, it cost Clinton votes. (Yes, no one likes to admit that a politician's spouse could cost him votes, but remember, sometimes voters do make up their minds based on strange things).

More from the article:

A key to Democratic acceptance, strategists say, is not alienating Southerners on social issues. At a conference in Atlanta in 2003 called "God, Guns and Guts," the Democratic Leadership Council counseled Democrats to embrace what it called "values centrism."

Will Marshall, president of the Leadership Council's think tank, said Republicans have been successful at framing issues such as gun control, abortion and affirmative action in a way that puts Democrats on the defensive. He said Democrats shouldn't avoid those issues, but rather change the terms of debate.

[HEY! I just said that!]

Democrats should acknowledge a constitutional right to bear arms, he said, but emphasize the need for responsibility in owning guns and the need for better enforcement of gun laws. And whatever you do, he said, don't be snooty.

What the hell is "values centrism?" Sounds like an herbal supplement you get at 7-11. Seriously, though, while some of that is perhaps appropriate (if we look at the country as a whole, the majority do fall in the "middle," and not necessarily on the far left or (we hope to God) on the far right. We've also done exactly what he said about guns. Clinton did it. It's already been done, and proven to work.

But, do we go so far as selling out everything our party stands for to be adopt an attitude of "values centrism?" I think not. The Republican Party is a prime example of why such selling-out is a bad, bad idea. A lot of rank-and-file, non-radical-right-wing Republicans I talk to recall a time a few decades ago when their party focused on things like budgets and stuff, and not the fire-and-brimstone, Pat Robertson-esque garbage they're focusing on now. Why did they change? Because they knew playing on religious values would get them more voters.

Should we change because we know it's going to get us more votes?

The jury's still out on that one. Do we sacrifice to be able to serve, and ultimately do more good in the long run? I mean, Clinton ran on the DLC platform, and still did more good (and promoted liberal ideas after getting in office) than Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, and perhaps even Carter combined. After all, a lot of Democrats in Texas already do this by necessity. You run to the right of the middle and go to Austin or DC and come back with a voting record that gets you hammered come November because, by God, you voted your consience, your party and what's really best for the people you represent.

Vince Leibowitz is County Chairman of the Democratic Party of Van Zandt County.