I'm reading "A National Party No More", by Zell Miller, so you don't have to. I'm panning for nuggets of Appalachian wisdom among the dung-bombs the Senator from Georgia has been throwing at his own party.
This is part three in a series as I get through the book. More dung than nuggets to wade through today, as I've come to the parts where he declares "liberal Democrats" are responsible for situations that are more accurately attributable to politicians in general, Southern Senators, and Republicans...
I have never decided with certainty whether Zell has been completely blackmailed or co-opted into repeating the same old fraudulent Republican spin, or whether he really believes what he's saying. Either way, it's scary.
Nevertheless, it is undisputed that the South has over half the electoral votes that the Republicans need to win national elections, and that Karl Rove, Ralph Reed and the rest of the latter-day Uruk'Hai have made it a special priority to get the Atlantic lowlands and the Appalachian Highlands into the solid red column for a generation or longer--not just the "South" proper, but extending out through Missouri, up the Ohio river, and encompassing south Ohio, West Virginia and central Pennsylvania as well.
We must not let that happen. And cutting through Zell's falsehoods and learning to resonate with those voters as he does is crucial to making up lost ground.
The biggest nugget so far has not come from Zell himself but from reading between the lines. The man has serious self-esteem issues. He's like a country boy walking into a college bar in the midwest and ostentatiosly warning everybody not to mess with him. He also reminds me of the rural undecided voters I've canvassed who look at me like they're playing poker, and after we bend each others' ears for half an hour, say, "Yuh know, you're a lot smarter than I figured at first"--by which they mean I don't talk down to them and I admit it when I don't know jack about something and they do.
For all the high tech improvements, mostly around Atlanta, and for all the strides in education under Zell's Gubernatorial leadership, Zell's Georgia still sees itself as undereducated, underpaid, and utterly disrespected. They respond to Bush Republicanism because it teaches them that America is number one, that we get to swagger around with our military might commanding respect. It teaches them that their guns will enable them to command respect. It teaches them these things even in the face of increasing disrespect from other nations, and it does so in a way that such disrespect, in the odd moments when it is perceived, is portrayed as unforgivable insolence to the international world's betters.
Hence the spectacle of blue-collar country boys declaring that they need to teach manners to the French aristocracy.
They also respond to the Roves, rushes and Hannitys who pretend to let them into their country club, stroke their egos, and whisper that ThoseDamnLiberals are a bunch of snoots who call them "fly-over" peopleand who disrespect them, their country, and their God.
We can play that game too. I can't tell you how many rural whites I've met in Oregon (and if you think Cascadian rural whites are much different from Appalachian rural whites, I'd love to hear you explain why) who rail about Kerry as "Hanoi John", but who get silent and thoughtful, and then come around, when I turn the subject to elitist Enron Republicans, eating two-inch thick sizzling steaks with Grey Poupon while "guys like us" eat beans in cans.
Show me a rural white voter who sees the REPUBLICANS as the snooty elitists, and I'll show you a Democrat.
Many of Zell's issues are really red meat Democratic issues, or at least nonpartisan. "On the liberal side, we believe in helping those who have fallen on hard times, in fostering equal opportunity, and equal rights; in providing broad access to housing, education, and health care. But, in pages right from conservative ideology, we also believe that traditional families do the best job of raising children, that hard work and self-reliance should be encouraged and rewarded, and that destructive behavior should be punished." Are there many of us who would really argue with that?
"They don't want government to do everything for them, as die-hard liberals suppose. Nor do they want substantially less government, as die-hard conservatives espouse. What they want is common-sense government that works...for them."
Again, that sounds good. So what made Zell decide the Republicans had any intention of giving us common-sense government that works, and that the Democrats did not?
so far, it hasn't been anything that makes sense.
In chapter 7, he denounces "partisanship". Fair enough. The parties should cooperate more with one another. Except who was it who described bipartisanship as "date rape"? Who said that working with the other party was swapping spit with vermin? (hint: It wasn't James Carville). Whose pundits report a reach across the aisle as a sign of weakness, and who feels the need to whip the more moderate members of their own party into line under threat of punishment? When Tom Daschle broke ranks with his party, we made him Majority Leader. When Jeffords did it, they took away his committee chair and borked him from White House events until he finally decided he'd had it with the party completely.
In chapter 8, he denounces the filibuster. "The US Senate is the only place on the planet where 59 votes out of 100 cannot pass anything because 41 votes out of 100 can defeat it. Try explaining that at your local rotary club..."
A bit late for that particular rant, Zell. Do you remember 1994, when 43 Republican Senators ground 57 Democratic Senators, a Democratic House and a Democratic President into inactivity by blocking absolutely everything on the President's agenda? If it was right for the "opposition party" to OPPOSE then, then it's right now. Or should we roll over and not use the one tool we have at our disposal?
Of course, during the rest of Clinton's term, the filibuster was not used by Republicans. They didn't need it. If they didn't like our Judicial nominees, Orin Hatch would simply fail to schedule a confirmation proceeding of any kind.
Oddly enough, Zell DOES point out that the filibuster was the special tool of Richard Russell, Strom Thurmond, and the other Southern Senators who used it to block civil rights legislation for over four decades. He also points out that it was two northern Democrats, Harkin and Lieberman, who sought meaningful filibuster reform. But even this information does not stop Zell from claiming that the filibuster is a big black mark against Northern, liberal Democrats.
And in Chapter 9, Zell rails against the corruptive influence of big money. And blames Democrats. And yes, Democrats as well as Republicans spend an inordinate amount of time whoring themselves for bucks. However, the Republicans do it more and resist change more steadfastly. Why go after Democrats on this point? Why not join the likes of Jim Hightower and Granny D, progressive champions of campaign finance reform? Why not turn your venomous tongue on Mitch McConnell, who decries the "chilling effect on free speech" of a $10 million cap on contributions. Why not proclaim loud and clear that the Democrats are the party of campaign finance reform and the Republicans are the little guy on the Monopoly board?
As to why not, Zell doesn't say, unfortunately. Not yet.