Why Do Democrats Lose The South?

BY JAMES TARANTO
The Wall Street Journal



Upon signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Lyndon Johnson is said to have told aide Bill Moyers, "I think we have just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come."

At first blush, these words seem prophetic. Al Gore failed to carry a single Southern state in 2000, and in January John Kerry hinted that he may write off the entire region, with its 161 electoral votes. "Everybody always makes the mistake of looking South," Mr. Kerry said. "Al Gore proved he could have been president of the United States without winning one Southern state, including his own."
___________

Forty years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, it strains credulity to suggest that lingering bitterness over that legislation accounts for today's Southern voting patterns. The act has been law for the entire life of every voter under 40, and older whites have, like Thurmond and Wallace, largely reconciled themselves to it.

So why does the South vote Republican? Part of the answer can be found in the election of 1972. The chief issue that year was another LBJ legacy: Vietnam. The war had split the Democratic Party four years earlier, and in 1972 the party cast its lot with the antiwar side, nominating George McGovern, who advocated immediate withdrawal. Nixon carried every Southern state, along with every state outside the South except Massachusetts.

Mr. McGovern's candidacy established the Democrats as weak on defense, and except for the anomaly of Mr. Carter's post-Watergate victory, the Republican nominee won every presidential election until 1992, when the Cold War was over and national security no longer seemed such a pressing matter.

Yet this is only a partial explanation. War and peace were not central to the 2000 campaign, and Al Gore still managed to lose every Southern state. It's hard to imagine that Michael Dukakis would have won any of them either, even if he had run after the Cold War's end. The South is the most conservative part of America, not just on defense but also on social issues such as crime, welfare, abortion, homosexuality and guns. By Southern lights, the Democratic Party is on the wrong side of all these issues.

Bill Clinton showed that a centrist Democrat can compete in the South. In his 1992 campaign, he touted his support for the death penalty and vowed to "end welfare as we know it"--a promise he kept, with the help of a Republican Congress, in time for his re-election. He signed the Defense of Marriage Act, and although he was solidly pro-choice on abortion, he made rhetorical nods to the other side, declaring in 1992 that he wanted abortion to be "safe, legal and rare." Mr. Clinton still lost most of the South, but he carried Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana and Tennessee, plus Georgia in 1992 and Florida in 1996.

Mr. Kerry, the Massachusetts liberal, seems unlikely to repeat Mr. Clinton's success. In the world after Sept. 11, his weakness on defense is a huge liability. He opposes capital punishment, voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, has shown no sympathy for abortion opponents, and last week left the campaign trail for the Capitol to cast a series of antigun votes. Come November, these issues will be far more salient to voters in the South, as well as in the rest of the country, than a civil rights battle that was settled decades ago.

I know it's old, but I still found it an interesting read: http://home.nyc.rr.com/taranto/south.htm

Working backward from your assertion, we can conclude that if the new Supreme Court declares AA unconstitutional, then the Democrats win Dixie in 2008.

PS: How did Bush get into Harvard Business School?
He was a C student as a Yale undergrad and was later rejected by the University of Texas because he was unqualified to attend a state school. Yet somehow he got a preferred spot at Harvard. I wonder which promising student got shafted by Daddy's phone call to the Legacy Admissions Dept.

:evilgrin:

Southern dems excluded. :thumbsup:

nt

ruled on the usa constitution MADE them be civil to all humans

they want to do away with judges
it was those liberal judges that asked them to be human

so now they want to take over and go back to pre 60's and pre 1900
once they have complete control again they will be happier

until this generation of ignorant bigots dies.

In the meantime, education should be our main focus to keep them from raising a whole new generation of ignorant bigots.

the segregationist south. All the same except without the laws.

New Rule: Southerners have to at least consider voting for candidates from the North. North Carolina Senator John Edwards has a powerful argument in his bid to be the Democratic nominee when he says, "What I give people is a candidate who can win everywhere in America." Translation: "We Southerners ain't gonna vote for no Yankee." "You suckers up north will take our Clintons and Carters, but we just ain't buyin' Kerrys and Deans."

And that's a shame, not just for Democrats, but for democracy itself. And I feel bad for the millions of intelligent people who live in a region still dominated by so much prejudice that anyone who wants to be president better have a twang in his voice and pronounce all four "e's" in the word "shit."

I'm sorry, but responding only to people who look and sound like you is small-minded. So if Southerners don't want to have an inferiority complex, I say, stop doing things that make reasonable people think you're inferior. Like getting rid of slavery was a good start. But don't stop there. Stop being the place that's always challenging the theory of evolution.

What's next to challenge? Gravity? Is that just a plot by the Jews up north to get people to drop spare change?

And I like the South. I love to party there. But Southerners need to let go of the Civil War, beginning with those re-enactments. First of all, you're re-enacting something you lost. It's one thing - it's one thing to gloat about victory, but when you do it about losing, your front porch is a few couches short of being decorated.

The time has come to move on. The time has come to consider - just consider - voting for a Yankee. Howard Dean's Vermont and John Kerry's Massachusetts are no longer where carpetbaggers come from. Carpet munchers, yes. That, we have established.

But there is no good reason that America, at this late date, still needs to be a house divided. At bottom, we all want the same things: dignity, security and someone to slap the shit out of Janet Jackson.

http://www.hbo.com/billmaher/new_rules/20040206.html

Sr. lost his Senate seat?

Winning Back the Heartland
By Scott Galindez
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Friday 5 November 2004

Let's face it, the Republicans won this election in middle America. They won this election in churches and diners in rural America. The Democrats have to work very hard over the next four years to make in roads in small towns in the Midwest and the South.

What people in rural America said was that they liked George Bush's morals.

The Challenge over the next four years will be to paint many Republican policies as immoral and against the interests of rural America. It is not time as some suggest to move to the right, that has been tried and has been a failure. What is needed is a concerted effort to communicate to people that liberal policies are in their interest. Democrats must stop running away from the word liberal and instead make it a good word again.

Democrats must stand up and say that universal health care, a living wage, protecting the environment, and protecting social security are liberal values and they are in the interest of rural America.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/110604X.shtml

I believe Clinton won the heartland, because he didn't defend nor ran away from the word "liberal".
Instead, he touted strongly--without using the word per se--that social programs most in the heartland come to rely on, are progressive ideas that benefit everyone.
We in the progressive states that vote routinely Democrat, and/or Green understand this concept, and that's why we're so baffled when learning that people in the Heartland constantly vote Republican, and therefore, against their own, personal financial interests.
We progressive liberals understand that being "pro-life" is a false mantle worn by people who want to be in power, and who themselves, don't hold true to the very rules they espouse against, since they are usually pro-death penalty (anti-life), and have used abortion many a time within their own private lives.
Being proCHOICE however, means, that we allow the woman her right to choose; leaving that window open, although we hold anti-abortion ideas ourselves.
The word says it all: PRO-CHOICE; open to choice.
Gay marriage is for me unthinkable, but Civil Unions have my 100% vote. I believe that marriage is something done in churches, and the Bible does speak negatively about homosexuality.
However, allowed to be "married" by a Mayor, or a power-invested civil servant for gays, and lesbians, is right, and good.
My husband and I, 22 years ago, never married in a church, but in front of a legal civil servant back in the Netherlands, since he was Netherlands Reformed (Catholic lite), and I, Protestant.
Surely, NO American would be against civil unions like ours to be granted full power in the United States for gays and lesbians, right?
I guess all we need to do, is redefine what marriage, and what civil unions are, so that gays and lesbians gain the same rights in such a union as married people do--minus church and religious constaints.
Just an idea...

Southern Democrats were not very civil rights minded, to be charitable. They had a lock on the Senate for decades. The Republican Lincoln freed the slaves and made the first moves towards civil rights.

The Democratic Party broke with itself over civil rights in '64. LBJ was right. Gradually the Senate shifted from Democrats who were anti-civil rights to Republicans with much the same philosophy.

Many Democrats simply switched parties. Labels have changed more than politics.

and fukk the south. Until the 1920 or about, the GAR was the one group that no politician messed with, a kind of honest NRA whose members had fought, suffered and killed for the country, and who tolerated NO INSULT towards president Lincoln.....it's strange that relatively few americans have heard of the GAR (the KKK remained an underground, subversive organization while the old Union Army vets still lived, it's only really been since the GAR disappeared that the bushit KKK suddenly became a big deal; today everybody heard of the ka ka klan but no one the GAR!)
btw to love the south is to see its flaws, like william faulkner and hunter thompson etc did...and bullying hypocrites are common the world over: only in the south they make statues to them

This is what I'm drawing from looking at things in the South, given that I live here. There are simply many who are against civil unions, let alone gay marriage, and there are many who are anti-choice.

Obviously, that's gonna hurt us, but that doesn't mean the south is totally lost. Economic issues is where the Democratic Party was traditionally strongest. When it comes to health care, public education, and labor, Democrats have historically held the advantage everytime, while the Republicans are still seen as the party of the wealthy if it weren't for their "moral values" wedge issues.

I live here in Mississippi, and I can say it is possible for the Democratic Party to win in a battle of economic issues vs. "moral values." Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson won re-election here in Mississippi. A black man who is pro-choice! The progressive-populist message of compassion for those who need help and representing the workers can overcome. It just needs to be done right.

If we're anti-Christian for being pro-choice, then by their logic, they're also anti-Christian for refusing to help their fellow man by electing people who wish to do away with social programs and giving themselves tax breaks.

it can be done but it's hard and takes special leaders.

Look at the % spreads, look at the black/white ratios in Mississippi and Alabama and try to imagine all those black people voting republican. Hard to imagine Oz isn't it.

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

It's okay to disagree with folks for whatever reason, but railing and ridiculing them won't change things. This is why the message that liberals are elitists is starting to get more traction.

...that hurts people for generations. I also think after the last election, I'm just going to tell the truth (nuanced truth didn't seem to work).

Fuck the retards who elect state governments that give them the highest infant mortality in the United States, fuck those who smile and applaud the educational efforts and mandates of an administration that leave their states in the bottom 2%.

Blue States pay the bills of the red states...red states were founded by convicts and slave holders...I could give a shit about bringing any of the "thinking" republicans under my tent.

Those that have been decieved are more than welcome.

It's tiring to apologize all the time, and say "hey, it's not my fault, I hope you get to keep your tips"

Depressing.......

And it really is that ugly

Perhaps it too is filled with "bigoted, ignorant, uneducated, stupid, backwoods hicks."

Stupidity, bigotry and ignorance know no geographical boundaries.

As a proud Southerner, I say, with all due respect, shut the hell up.

What's your excuse?

I'd rather lose than stand for greed and bigotry - and that's what it is.

i don't think we're going to get the south without some dirty tricks.

Thats why the Big Dawg was so great. He played to the Southerners. He played the "Good Ol' Boy" with the black sheep brother and everything. Made sure he showed up at church and looked serious.

Shrub wasn't the one who started that whole act - he copied it from the president BEFORE him.

We need our own Manchurian Candidate :(

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1352409&mesg_id=1352409

There are many reason's why the south votes Republican.

Moral values, yes.

But most interests are self-interests.They vote their pocketbook.

I live in the Reddest of the Red, NW Florida. The primary concern is the economy. Everyone here knows what happened in Presque Isle, Maine after Loring's closure. And right before election, new base closures are always announce. The democrats are seen a soft on national defense. Therefore they favor base closures, so the rhetoric goes.

NW Florida, The Panhandle

Here is what I have found after looking up Federal dollars spent in the South. Bold indicate NW Florida (Panhandle) military base. I know that Okaloosa County also has a Duke Field. Why it is not listed I do not know. It has been here a long time.
Duke Field link

http://www.florida-edc.org/Military.htm

http://www.floridadefense.org/info/state_assessment/doc...

County Name Base Name

Bay County ** Panama City CSS, Tyndall AFB

Brevard County Patrick AFB

Duval County Blount Island MCC, Jacksonville NAS, Mayport NS

Escambia County ** Corry Station, Pensacola NAS, Saufley Field

Hillsborough County MacDill AFB

Monroe County Key West NAS

Okaloosa County** Eglin AFB, Hurlburt Field, Duke Field

Orange County Naval Air Warfare Center

Santa Rosa County** Whiting Field NAS



<http://www.uwf.edu/uwfMain/press/topstoryarch.cfm?email... >

e>New Page 1
Base Realignment and Closure.

Four words that send tremors of uncertainty throughout the numerous counties in Florida that depend on the military for economic stability. Last year, the United States Department of Defense announced the second round of Base Realignment and Closure, a campaign charged with eliminating excess physical capacity and rationalizing military infrastructure with the U.S. defense strategy by 2005. In simpler terms, some U.S. bases will be shut down. In an effort to highlight the economic value of Florida 's military installations and protect the state's third largest industry, the University of West Florida Haas Center for Business Research and Economic Development was contracted by Enterprise Florida to conduct a Florida Defense Industry Economic Impact Analysis.

According to the study, the economic impact of military-related spending in Florida is about $44 billion, which accounts for 9.8 percent of the state's gross product. Northwest Florida relies most heavily on defense-related spending which represents 34 percent of the gross regional product, while it comprises 10 percent for Central Florida and 18 percent for Northeast Florida . Ranked fourth nationally in terms of economic impact from military spending, Florida has 24 military installations and unified commands that are potentially threatened by the base realignment and closure campaign.

"Our findings show that defense-related spending generates sizeable economic activity in Florida ," said Dr. Sonny Cushing, interim director of the Haas Center for Business Research and Economic Development. "Every county in the state benefits from defense spending. In 58 of Florida 's 67 counties, spending exceeds $3 million."

Locally in 2002, the Department of Defense expended $1.7 billion in Escambia County , $2.9 billion in Okaloosa County and $218 million in Santa Rosa County. Following these expenditures as they circulate through each county's economy, gross sales revenues of $5.4 billion, $6.1 billion and $1.1 billion where generated in Escambia , Okaloosa and Santa Rosa Counties respectively. Defense-related spending directly or indirectly accounts for 714,500 jobs in Florida of which 56,590 are in Escambia County , 69,380 are in Okaloosa County and 8,205 are in Santa Rosa County .

"More than half of the active duty military in the state work in Northwest Florida ," said Cushing.

Over the long-term, the UWF study predicts that by 2010 defense-related spending will produce $12.8 billion of the gross regional product in Northwest Florida and $57.4 billion of Florida 's total gross product.

<snip>

The center's state-funded analysis was praised by government officials and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush when it was released at a meeting in Orlando Dec. 11. The study will be used by the Governor's Advisory Council on Base Realignment and Closure to create a strong case against realigning or closing.


Set up a basic proposition-then develop its consistent, logical consequences. --John W. Campbell

i grew up in a big city and have spent the last 27 years in the south, in mostly rural settings. the pace, and the way people reflect upon life are dramatically different. pwerhaps it is education, but who really knows

with the pace of a big city, folks do not have time for bullshit or frequently, even niceties, rural people are willing to let things slide and not get all bent out of shape by problems as much. the latter do not have much of a sense of urgency about things and don't worry about esoterics like city folk are prone to do.

IMHO