What Dean Doesn't Get

Over in the "Dean On Hardball Now!" Diary, someone wrote:

I will never understand why impoverished southern whites would rather vote for a person who will continue to deny civil rights to 10% of American society than a person who could provide away out of their poor economic situation.

The reason you don't get this is the same reason Howard Dean is ALSO totally tone deaf on this issue in the South. It's what Edwards and Sharpton couldn't say out loud, but every Southerner knows: the guys who put Confederate flags on their pickup trucks do it in large part because they believe that black people are being UNFAIRLY given "their" jobs by the Democratic party, who are, they believe, dictating the elevation of race over every other consideration in hiring.

ECONOMIC racism has been an underlying fact of life down here since Reconstruction. The only thing any white man ever felt confident of in the days before Civil Rights was that he was going to get a job before any black man did. Since the 60s that automatic assurance was taken away from a certain socioeconomic class of white people, and they simply WILL NOT forget it.

As long as the Democratic party remains, as it should, the party that takes racial concerns seriously, it is a freakin' PIPE DREAM to believe that Confederate flag types will ever see their economic interests coinciding with those of blacks of the same class. Economic racism, the resentment of a perceived unfairness in favor of blacks these days, is practically what the Flag thing is all ABOUT.

So Dean's idea that those CF guys could somehow come together in common cause with blacks under the Democratic banner was sheerest fantasy. It showed all too clearly that he Does. Not. Get. It. And that is what Edwards was saying, in code, when he spoke of us not liking to see Northerners coming down here telling us what to do.

Dean's mistake with this is also typical of the way he approaches a lot of issues. They're a series of bloodless logical problems to him, not breathing cultural complexities with histories and social boobytraps that he might possibly be unaware of.

So, for example, he says, "Budget problem? Repeal the whole tax cut!" without thinking through the emotional consequences to the middle class. He sweeps out his big smartass sword and instantly cuts the Gordian Knot, without for a moment considering that it might be tying his whole election contraption together.

He doesn't consider it because it is beyond his consideration. The intellectual arrogance of that attitude is what makes Nascar/Rodeo people think: "Pointy-Headed Liberal Snot."

•  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

  I agree as a Southerner I think Dean's comment was arrogant and unwarrented.  I definately sided with Edwards and Sharpton in that debate.  I think Edwards comment about the north was taken out of context.  I know Edwards doesn't have anything agaisnt the north.  Dean seems very ignorant when it comes to racial issues though, but is that suprising for a governor of a small homogenous state?  I don't really think so.

  by Democratin2004 on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 03:12:50 AM PDT

  •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

    I think Edwards comment about the north was taken out of context.

    There is no way to take "We don't need people like YOU telling US what to do" out of context.  And no better example why John Edwards is not ready for prime time.  Far more objectionable than anything Howard Dean has ever said about the South or race relations.

    by KevinA on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 03:21:17 AM PDT

    •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

      I thought so too, my whole opinion of Edwards changed at that point (and I was rooting for Clark not Dean at the time, if I was rooting at all).

      I think I'll forgive him over the next decade though.

      by pyrrho on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 03:43:08 AM PDT

      •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

        I thought so too, my whole opinion of Edwards changed at that point

        Same here. When do the sensitivities of people in the north start being taken into account? As Katha Pollitt asked, after smacking down some criticism of Dean's "tin ear,"

        "We'll leave for another time the question of why there is no such thing as a tin ear for the North."

        On my site there was a very interesting thread a few weeks ago where one southerner grumbled that the South is treated "like a foreign country" and another went on about how we northerners will never understand the South.

        It is to laugh.

        by J from VJ on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 09:02:34 AM PDT

        •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

          It is to laugh.

          Is it, honestly?  Do you honestly believe these things are symmetrical and parallel?  Is there an entire culture industry focused on ridiculing "the North"?  Is there an accepted reading of history anywhere that sees the North as having historical and genetic (exaggeration) faults that run to the core of its very existence?  The two simply aren't the same and trying to compare them (Edwards' comment was as insensitive as Dean's) constructs a false symmetry that makes the issue "easy" but distorts what is going on.  

          Julia's post is dead on; the unspoken part of what is going on is economic and these questions (like all important social questions in the US) remain racialized.  Dean (and other pragmatic middle class folk) who want to ignore that or pretend the issue isn't "race" but "class" don't get it.  

          BTW: What the entry is pointing out is also primarily responsible for the "anti-big government" crusade and acceptance around the country.  When people say they don't want the government doing things, they really mean they don't want the government hiring black people to do things that private industry will hire white people to do, hence more "efficiency".  That's also what they mean when they talk about government "incompetence".  This is what people in the south mean when they say this, its also what republicans in many areas mean when they say this.    

          by a gilas girl on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 10:50:49 AM PDT

          •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

            Is it, honestly?

            Yes.

            Do you honestly believe these things are symmetrical and parallel?

            Yes.  Or, if they aren't, the problem is the South's, not everybody else's.

            Dean (and other pragmatic middle class folk) who want to ignore that or pretend the issue isn't "race" but "class" don't get it.

            So, as I understand it, the hypothesis is that Dean is wrong for appealing to poor Southerners regardless of race, and Edwards is right for appealing to those same Southerners' worst racist instincts?

            by KevinA on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 12:25:54 PM PDT

            •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

              So, as I understand it, the hypothesis is that Dean is wrong for appealing to poor Southerners regardless of race, and Edwards is right for appealing to those same Southerners' worst racist instincts?

              Then you understand it badly.  

              Dean is not wrong because he is appealing to poor Southerners (and poor other regioners), his wrong in the way he is doing it, by pretending that race doesn't matter, when everyone who lives in that region knows that it does.  Of course race matters in this country.  He'd be better off speaking plainly about it. (That's how he managed to offend both Edwards and Sharpton at the  same time).  Edwards wasn't appealing to a "racist instinct" but to the "protection of home and Southern identity" instinct.  Now, those two are closely tied up with racism, no doubt, but if you reduce them to this parallel, then you miss how the whole racial coding works.  And if you want to break up the racial coding you need to first understand it.  The fact that your parallelize these things, shows how you, like Dean, are reducing the issue down to components that, while important, aren't enough to fix anything.  Continuing to make parallels where there is no symmetry will only obstruct the process.

              by a gilas girl on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 12:32:24 PM PDT

          •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

            Dean (and other pragmatic middle class folk) who want to ignore that or pretend the issue isn't "race" but "class" don't get it.

            Well, then it's really fortunate that that's not what he's saying.

            by cdmarine on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 02:09:58 PM PDT

    •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

      There is no way to take "We don't need people like YOU telling US what to do" out of context.

      You just did.  

      Of course there is a way of taking it out of context, by removing the comment that sparked it, so that the "people like YOU" would clearly refer to an upper middle class white guy from a state with very little black-white racial history or social interaction.

       

      by a gilas girl on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 10:40:22 AM PDT

      •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

        Oh come on.

        Rather than address the substance of what Dean was arguing, Edwards demagogued and implied that what matters was not what Dean was saying but who he is (apparently, according to Edwards, making his arguments irrelevant).  

        Either he believes that certain types of people shouldn't be talking about certain things, merely based on where they're from or the color of their skin or how rich they're parents were (a deplorable position) or he was simply pandering to the southern pride vote.  

        Neither of which are very appealing.

        by J from VJ on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 10:54:42 AM PDT

        •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

          No, you come on.  Try for once, not to see something through Dean-colored glasses.  I say this as someone who loathes John Edwards campaign and what he stands for.  

          It was clearly obvious that Edwards' reaction was emotional, not contrived.  Whether or not it is "correct" and you all have debated this on the threads for a long time -- tired of "pandering" to southerners feelings, etc. it does exist. You can't have it both ways.  Even though I agree with the sentiment of what Dean was trying to say, it was foolish and foolhearty on several levels, the first two of those being the albeit emotional but nonetheless very real responses that both Edwards and Sharpton evidenced.  

          The main reason it was foolhearty is the reason Julia has suggested in this entry.  He is trying to wash over what really is the core and is thinking far too simplistically about race not just in the South but in the entire country -- a problem that liberal whites have had for a very long time.  All of the discussions that say well, of course poor white southerners should vote with us and throw up their hands in desperation at the stupidity and racisim of Southerners miss how powerful and meaningful this is.  I'm not sure I agree with Julia that it can't be overcome, it probably can, in fact it must at some point, but the way to overcome it is NOT to ignore the racial part of it or to pretend that racial questions are passe in 21 century US.  That's what makes the comment foolish, because it shows how unaware he is of the entire sets of interrelated and interlocking issues, thinking it can be dealt with purely pragmatically.  

          Both of the comments that Dean supporters want to reduce to political opportunism on the part of Edwards and Sharpton are really indicative of the incredibly complex sets of social, historical and ideological issues that are tied up around race relations, economic questions, southern identity and the confederate flag.  They should have been expected and we all need to pay attention to them because they offer a glimpse of what is tied up in the package that Dean has tried to open.  I don't fault him for opening it, but I do fault him for thinking its a simple one-dimensional issue.  

          If you want to dismiss Edwards and Sharpton's comments as "pure politics" you miss something much more important.  That moment could have been a great one for opening up a new conversation, a difficult one but a great one.  However, in classic Democratic Party expedience, all three of the candidates ran away from that moment.  But don't be so foolish as to write it all off as "politics as usual".  It wasn't by any stretch of the imagination.

          by a gilas girl on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 11:08:43 AM PDT

          •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

            You seem to have missed the first part of my 'or' statement. I offered "pure politics" as one possibility, not the only one.

            It might not have been politics. You seem to be suggesting that Edwards was evincing a genuine emotional reaction. Which I find strange, since Dean had been making that point for months and months as has been documented extensively, so for Edwards to have his emotional epiphany on national television seems awfully convenient. In any case, even if I accept that, then what you're asking me to accept is that Edwards and others who are resentful of Dean-The-Mighty-Northerner are correct in their position that where you come from and what color your skin is matter more than what you say and what policies you espouse. As I said, I find that deplorable.

            I went to a couple of very fine educational institutions where I took undergraduate and graduate courses in things like women's studies and religious studies and other liberal arts (and also acquired a couple of technical degrees along the way) and where we talked at length about the complex, interlocking, interrelated issues such as gender, race, and class and how deep and weighty these things are. I've got bell hooks on the bookshelf right next to me.  I agree -- this is deep stuff. But, I also note that all of those ivory tower conversations have solved very few real problems.

            You can find fault with Dean's pragmatic approach -- fine. It's what I appreciate most about it him -- the problems this country faces are so deep and so systemic and we are heading in such the wrong direction that I think a heads-down executive problem-solver heading in the right direction (even if not far enough) is exactly the right antidote. I think it's about time we tried just slicing through the knottiness (as someone alluded previously), instead of dancing around filling up bookshelves worth of paper exploring the complexity and rarely actually accomplishing anything.

            You assume Dean believes these issues are "one-dimensional," I don't. What I assume is that he actually wants to accomplish something and make forward progress instead of suffering from analysis paralysis.

            As for "Dean-colored glasses," that's really not even worthy of a response. If I'd heard Edwards make his "people like you" remark before I knew Howard Dean's name I'd be just as offended. It's appallingly parochial from someone who wants to be a national candidate.

            by J from VJ on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 12:04:45 PM PDT

            •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

              In any case, even if I accept that, then what you're asking me to accept is that Edwards and others who are resentful of Dean-The-Mighty-Northerner are correct in their position that where you come from and what color your skin is matter more than what you say and what policies you espouse. As I said, I find that deplorable.

              No, that's not what I'm asking you to accept at all.  In fact, I believe that the only way to address this issue is to be MORE upfront about the racial dimensions and the way they are woven into other dimensions, enabling those of us who want to ignore them (in the South and the North and the Midwest and the West Coast and all the comfortable suburban homes where white folks have been trying to escape the question for 45 years)to do so.  Its clear that what Dean meant was "rednecks" both Southern and not Southern (plenty of pick-up driving, cf decal wearing white folk who vote R in his part of the country, the rust belt and the mountain west.) so I wish he'd just said that, then clarifed it with a context that demonstrated he understands how bloody complicated this all is.  His trying to simplify it is what got him into trouble, and claiming moral high ground over overt racism in a country that still functions with racial structures to this day is both condescending and a little disingenuous.  That's the problem the Democratic party has in the South, but with folks like me on the left, too.

              by a gilas girl on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 12:27:09 PM PDT

          •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

            It was clearly obvious that Edwards' reaction was emotional, not contrived

            Come now.  Dean's been using that same line in his speech for the better part of a year.  Do you really mean to suggest that neither Sharpton nor Edwards had ever heard it.

            No.  That is not at all credible.  Edwards had that line rolled up his sleeve, and he was just waiting for the right moment to use it.  Way to go, John.  Way to appeal to people's better instincts.  Way to rise above.  Or not.

            by KevinA on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 12:30:09 PM PDT

            •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

              Come now.  Dean's been using that same line in his speech for the better part of a year.  Do you really mean to suggest that neither Sharpton nor Edwards had ever heard it.

              Actually, I do believe that.  People don't follow Dean's speeches as closely as you guys do.  I'd never heard the line before and it was stupid/foolish/condescending in that presentation.  I'm told, however, by those of you who do follow the speeches more closely, that he normally contextualizes the line in a way he didn't this time, which made it more offensive.  In that case, an emotional reaction (which Edwards' clearly was, I don't think he's that good of an actor, frankly) is plausible.  

              Its not plausible to someone who has followed the Dean campaign for a long time, is used to the remark and who agrees with it, that it might offend (even if heard before) given the way it was presented that night.  But it certainly is plausible to other people.  

              That's the issue.  

              The other issue is a bigger one, that I outlined above, both Edwards and Sharptons "responses" are much more than politics at play, they represent two different threads of what it wrapped up in the issue.  And its important that those threads be unwound and examined.  

              I don't look at these things as simply about the election, the way most folks here do, that enables me, sometimes to see some things that often get overlooked in the shuffle to elevate and eliminate candidates.

              My point is simply that alternative explanations/understandings are in fact plausible.  And one doesn't have to "twist" in order to see them. The truth isn't always clear cut.  

              by a gilas girl on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 12:39:02 PM PDT

              •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

                Actually, I do believe that.  People don't follow Dean's speeches as closely as you guys do.

                We're not talking about "people" in general, we're talking about two of Dean's opponents in the campaign!  No, I'm afraid it's not at all believeable that Sharpton and Edwards had never heard that comment or that their "outrage" was genuine.

                by KevinA on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 01:07:41 PM PDT

                •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

                  No, I'm afraid it's not at all believeable that Sharpton and Edwards had never heard that comment or that their "outrage" was genuine.

                  While the first may be true (I doubt if Sharpton actually pays very close attention to his opponents stump speeches, and he doesn't have much of a staff to follow these things, so its plausible, but you seem certain that it isn't so no more discussion is warranted there), even having heard the comment before does not preclude a genuine angry response.  Which is what I have been arguing; the chances are just as likely that the comment did (or had all along) made Edwards angry.  It was pretty clear from his response (at least over the radio, which is where I heard the debate)that he was actually angry.  

                  Did he use it for political gain?  Without a doubt, but I can't say for certain (as you appear able to do) that the whole thing was simply a ploy or an "attack". The anger could have been and certainly seemed to be genuine.  And it did not appear to be a canned response (otherwise he would have come up with a better one I have to assume; the guy's not stupid).  You appear to disagree and find that the only reasonable explanation is to smear Dean, or to pander.  You seem unwilling to even admit, grudgingly, that there could be anger there.  That the original comment from Dean could insult.  I'm only saying that in interpreting the event as such, there's a lot of other information that goes by the wayside, and that information is actually pretty useful.

                  There's a certainty around here that is so easily reinforced because so many people see things the same way.  That makes for a "self-evident" nature to things that aren't always as self-evident when you step away from the shared vision.  If I'm cranky, its because trying to explain this over and over again to the conventional field of vision around here has worn me down.  I don't have as much patience or a sense of humor about it as I used to, I will admit.  

                  I personally find that kind of certainty dangerous, so I will always challenge it, sometimes not so wisely.  Obviously many people take comfort in it.  I'm not going to argue with you about what is "obvious" because nearly everything you've described as obvious I can see a plausible and credible alternative explanation for.  It may not be true, that explanation, but it is certainly plausible and credible.  On the other hand, your obvious explanation may not be true either.  

                  by a gilas girl on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 04:14:21 PM PDT

          •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

            The main reason it was foolhearty is the reason Julia has suggested in this entry.  He is trying to wash over what really is the core and is thinking far too simplistically about race not just in the South but in the entire country -- a problem that liberal whites have had for a very long time

            I'm sorry, and I mean no direct offense, but this is complete bullshit.  He's not washing over anything.  He's attacking it head-on.   You and Julia seem to think that he doesn't get that racism is the core of this thing, and post after post, it seems to me your main evidence for this is that anybody who got it would know how foolhardy it is to bring it up and suggest that we might try to end it.

            You may think it's politically unwise to attack it head-on.  But that's a far different thing than not getting what "it" is.

            Dean has been talking about this from the beginning.  He's been talking about southern Republican racist strategies and their relationship to voting behavior from the beginning.  He knows what this is about.  He just doesn't (or didn't) agree with you and Julia that you can't try to address it out in the open.  Again, you may think that's foolhardy politics, but it's not evidence that he doesn't get that race is at the very core of this issue.
            

            by cdmarine on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 02:19:13 PM PDT

            •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

              He's not washing over anything.  He's attacking it head-on.  

              No, this is where I disagree with everybody on this thread, and probably on this site.  He is emphatically NOT attacking it head-on.  He is speaking about it less euphemistically than it is usually spoken about, but its not head-on.  Talking about economic issues eclipsing racial issues doesn't take up the subject head-on at all, its a diversionary tactic to make it be about something else because it is far too difficult to do it the right way.  

              While I applaud Dean's instincts to take up the issue, I blame him for doing it sloppily and half-heartedly.  He's doing it in a way that is comfortable for his non-Southern, non-poor, primarily white base.  That's not dealing with anything head-on.  The fallacy that Dean's approach has (and that many here share, it seems) is that racial issues and economic issues are AT ODDS with one another, rather than seeing the ways they work together.  Dean seems to be saying the racism would fade away if people just acted in their economic interests, without any attention to how the economic interests are still working in decidedly racialized ways.  

              Issues about the South and race are far more complex than "the South is filled with resentful white racists".  It is, but the way their r esentful white racism works is on several levels at one time.  His attempt is not head-on at all, because it refuses to acknowledge and understand how this works.  Otherwise he'd have developed a different approach.

              I don't agree with Julia that these folks are "hopeless".  I do agree that we waste time focusing on them.  I don't agree with Dean supporters that Dean is not pandering.  He is, but in ways no body wants to see, because it hits way too close to home. And I don't agree that he is cutting through BS.  I would grant you that his intentions are well placed, but I fear (and the reason it makes me so angry) is that with his not very thoughtful blundering and rather dangerous simplifications he will take the discussion down a path that makes it even harder than it is now to have the kind of difficult but necessary, "head-on" discussions we really need to have.  

              The only public person I've ever heard in the mainstream of US politics who has taken a head-on attack to this issue is Lani Guinier. It just doesn't happen very much, and perhaps Howard Dean is the person to begin the process, but if so, he'd better get a much more sophisticated understanding of what he is talking about in order to facilitate and negotiate the varying threads and the contradictory interests at play.  

              by a gilas girl on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 03:59:51 PM PDT

      •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

        You just did.

        I don't think so.  

        Of course there is a way of taking it out of context

        We all remember the exact context.

        "people like YOU" would clearly refer to an upper middle class white guy from a state with very little black-white racial history or social interaction.

        Which is precisely what Edwards meant.  Well, I guess it scored him some points in North Carolina.

        by KevinA on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 12:27:28 PM PDT

        •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

          We all remember the exact context.

          Obviously we don't sense there is some discrepancy between what he said in the debate and what he says in his stump speech (i.e. missing context, no?) but people keep arguing there's nothing new or suprising about what Dean said.  

          And to be fully honest, I do not remember the exact context of Dean's comment in that debate at this moment, I don't remember, for instance what the question was that raised the issue in the first place.  

          by a gilas girl on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 12:44:14 PM PDT

  •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

    Sigh. Where does one start?

    First, if we can't tell people in different parts of the country that they're doing something wrong, we've got a very big problem. Thankfully, we can do this and have done so at a few crucial periods.

    Second, Dean was referring to a self-selecting demographic. He was not referring to all southerners. There was disrespect or arrogance here.

    Third, to insist that the person you feel a natural sympathy for is also the person whose words were taken out of context, while the person you feel a natural (and regionally-based) antipathy for is also the one whose words were not taken out of context is, well, not credible. I'd let the claim that both or neither were taken out of context pass, but this is just lame.

    Fourth, yes Julia, many of us understand that poor and working class, even middle class whites sometimes feel that affirmative action is threatening to them, and see blacks as competition rather than as comrades. The key is to get them to STOP thinking like that. If you give up, you might as well give up on liberal politics.

    by jd in nyc on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 03:29:32 AM PDT

    •  Ugh

      I meant there was NO disrespect or arrogance here.

      by jd in nyc on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 03:30:49 AM PDT

    •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

      Third, to insist that the person you feel a natural sympathy for is also the person whose words were taken out of context, while the person you feel a natural (and regionally-based) antipathy for is also the one whose words were not taken out of context is, well, not credible. I'd let the claim that both or neither were taken out of context pass, but this is just lame.

      I'm sorry, I couldn't make heads or tails of this. What are you talking about?

      Fourth, yes Julia, many of us understand that poor and working class, even middle class whites sometimes feel that affirmative action is threatening to them, and see blacks as competition rather than as comrades. The key is to get them to STOP thinking like that. If you give up, you might as well give up on liberal politics.

      Do you think that it is possible to get them to stop thinking like that by simply exhorting them to do so while at the same time continuing to uphold affirmative action?

      Look: there ARE unreachable people on this point, and Confederate flag people are the unreachables. The fact that Dean did not seem to understand that, and worse, that he thought there was some way that an ECONOMIC solidarity argument could reach them, is what made him look so foolish down here.

      by Julia Grey on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 03:45:33 AM PDT

      •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

        Look: there ARE unreachable people on this point, and Confederate flag people are the unreachables. The fact that Dean did not seem to understand that, and worse, that he thought there was some way that an ECONOMIC solidarity argument could reach them, is what made him look so foolish down here.

        And yet, it's been done before.  Go figure.

        by cdmarine on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 03:49:05 AM PDT

      •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

        I'm sorry, but you're wrong about the fact that "the Confederate flag flyers are unreachable".  The Democratic party's whole modern success strategy in the South has been to build a coalition between the local African-American population, the growing Latino population, and poor whites-- many of whom do fly the Confederate flag.  As distasteful as it is, a lot of the people flying it don't understand (or openly deny) the racist connotations of it.  They think it stands for rebellion, for identity, or for a jab against "PC culture".  Again, that interpretation is stupid and wrong, but it's widespread.

        Now you're RIGHT that some people are incredibly economically racist.  And you're right that all of these people are unreachable.  But not everyone who calls up the mythology of the rebel flag-- especially in something as minor as a bumper sticker-- is a member of that population  is to lump a lot of undeserved people into the group.  That would foolishly mean giving up on trying for a great number of winnable votes.

        And before anyone goes insane saying "what do YOU know about the South, Chicago boy", please keep in mind that I grew up in conservative Central Florida.  Florida's Democratic party had a coalition including poor whites for quite some time, in fact you could make a case that they formed more of a basis for Lawton Chiles long reign as Governor than other minorities did.  They turned out well to support Bob Graham and Bill Nelson, and made sure that McBride got the Democratic gubernatorial nomination over Janet Reno.  And yeah, my high school parking lot had its fair share of Confederate flag emblems, but I know for a fact that a number of those guys ended up voting for Al Gore over George W. Bush.

        by ChicagoDem on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 07:07:52 AM PDT

        •  Another point

          The Deep South is the region with the most widespread government investment.  You have the highest per capita expenditures on welfare, jobs programs, and Medicare in the South.  Contrary to GOP propaganda, much of the recepients of these programs are poor whites.  Add in the cost of maintaining military bases and it's easy to see why Federal spending often looks like taking taxes from the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast and pouring them into the Deep South... which then goes on to elect people who whine about how high the taxes are.

          There's a reason why many of the Republicans in places like AL, MS, AR, LA, FL, and GA focus on cultural rather than economic issues: cultural issues are much easier to sell.  Telling poor whites "I want to cut your Medicare" is going to get them angry at you, even if they do have a Confederate flag on their bumper sticker.  If you can get a Republican in the South to stop ranting about God, guns, or gays long enough to admit that he wants to dismantle the benefits his constituents depend on you've gone a long way to winning the election.

          by ChicagoDem on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 07:26:03 AM PDT

        •  Confederate Flags in Ireland

          As distasteful as it is, a lot of the people flying it don't understand (or openly deny) the racist connotations of it.  They think it stands for rebellion, for identity, or for a jab against "PC culture".

          I was surprised by the number of Confederate flags I saw in Ireland, or more specifically, County Cork. At the All-Ireland match, for example, a lot of them were being waved. I'd see them up in stores in Cork City too.

          There are two reasons:

          1. Cork's county colours are the same as the Confederate flag.
          2. Cork is known as the "Rebel County." (Michael Collins is from Cork, for one example.)

          But I doubt many people realize the racist connotations that the CF has and what it means in the US.

          by Aexia on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 07:52:43 AM PDT

        •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

          And before anyone goes insane saying "what do YOU know about the South, Chicago boy"

          I can hear John Edwards now!

          by KevinA on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 12:31:20 PM PDT

  •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

    Oh, okay, now I understand.  Because Edwards is "from the south" we can forgive him and say that everybody took what he said out of context.  But, because Dean is "from the north" we cannot extend him the same courtesy.

    Thanks for clearing that up!

    by Len on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 03:41:48 AM PDT

    •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

      Because Edwards is "from the south" we can forgive him and say that everybody took what he said out of context.  But, because Dean is "from the north" we cannot extend him the same courtesy.

      By George, I think you've got it!  This is just like the school of thought that says we must always run Southerners for the Presidency because Yankees will vote for Southerners but the reverse is not true.

      by KevinA on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 04:21:50 AM PDT

      •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

        This is completely non-PC but as far as I'm concerned the South can go to hell.  I know this is generalizing, but whenever anyone speaks about the "South" as a block it's also generalizing.  It seems like the South at once believes it is so hard and put upon (usually as a result of their own stupidity) and at the same time develops this arrogant attitude that "only a Southerner deserves to be President".  

        As far as I'm concerned the best thing that could happen would be for the Democratic party to find a way to tell the whole South to kiss off.  I know this isn't fair to the reasonable people who live there, but what can I say: it's not fair that people live under dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, but if the people there don't solve their problems, it's not up to us to do so.  

        by Asak on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 05:57:38 AM PDT

    •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

      False parallels again.

      The two situations are not parallel.  The fact that everyone is looking for parity doesn't make them parallel.
      

      by a gilas girl on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 10:54:54 AM PDT

•  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

  Julia,

  While I don't agree with you on candidates, this was a great post.

  Thanks...

  by Bob Johnson on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 03:13:26 AM PDT

•  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

  THIS is an interesting POST. After reading IT, I now have an UNDERSTANDING about racial issues in THE SOUTH that I previously found incomprehnsible.

  Thank you for this THOUGHT PROVOKING piece. It reminded ME OF another piece on THIS site about the THING with the PEOPLE and the ISSUES. Someone had ANOTHER piece about this STUFF that you WOULD probably ENJOY as well. Let me GO find a LINK.

  by Chris Bowers on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 03:16:27 AM PDT

  •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

    ...the hell?

    by Julia Grey on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 03:25:20 AM PDT

    •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

      he's making fun of you.

      by jd in nyc on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 03:33:52 AM PDT

      •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

        Too bad. I kinda liked him before.

        by Julia Grey on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 03:56:20 AM PDT

    •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

      a snarky post, I believe.  Best to ignore.

      Let me instead, thank you, for putting into words what has been gnawing at me since this whole flap began.  I don't agree with your conclusions necessarily, but in articulating this you've raised an issue we are all better off for, after having taken a look at in this way, smart as**s like the above aside.

      Thanks.

      by a gilas girl on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 11:29:14 AM PDT

  •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

    Is There Some thing AbouT youR writing hAbits, perhaPs? (i buried paul).

    by squiddy on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 03:25:27 AM PDT

  •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

    Not that I really think the content is good, per se, but you deserve the rating to make up for the unwarranted troll rating, and for the humor ;)

    by justinb on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 03:34:56 AM PDT

  •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

    hey, i like how that looks.

    .

    by niner on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 04:40:19 AM PDT

  •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

    Robert McElwaine, step away from the keyboard at once.

    Your cover has been blown.
    

    by Felix Deutsch on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 05:47:50 AM PDT

•  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

  As for the emotional appeal of middle class tax cuts (for couples with children, us single middle class people don't count I know) - the emotion in question is selfishness. "I want my money even if it bankrupts the country for future generations, even if we are fighting terrorism, even if troops are in Iraq."

  by bigbay on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 03:18:01 AM PDT

  •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

    Yes, I agree with you, selfishness is the emotion.

    With all the other things Dean is going to have to fight in this election, do you REALLY want to have to fight one of people's most difficult-to-overcome personal motives, too?

    It also isn't the best policy. You need to gradually ease back on that particular economic brake if you don't want middle class consumer spending to do a swan dive.
    

    by Julia Grey on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 03:29:56 AM PDT

    •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

      Yes, actually. I want Dean to engage it head-on.

      by jd in nyc on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 03:32:37 AM PDT

      •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

        Yikes. You guys really are suicidal.

        (Insert Kool-aid joke here.)

        by Julia Grey on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 03:50:33 AM PDT

        •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

          Not suicidal, bold.

          No one will be asking struggling families to give up a warm meal for a balanced budget. There will be no real monetary sacrifice demanded of the lower-middle class. For them it's almost all tax shifts, with new benefits to compensate for the very modest costs.

          by jd in nyc on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 04:13:01 AM PDT

          •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

            It's the middle-middle class who vote the most, who best understand their tax situation, and who were most likely to have gotten $400 per kid in the mail last summer.

            I know you want to think the best of people. I know you want to believe that you can appeal to everyone's better angels and that you can trust Americans to think logically and to follow complex arguments about future tax and budget problems. But I don't believe you can. I especially don't believe you can trust them that way when they are going to be in the middle of a nonstop parade of media assaults, true and untrue, from Karl Rove.

            Don't give the Bushies any ammunition you don't absolutely have to give them. Total rollback of the tax cut is ammunition is not something you absolutely have to give them.

            You can -- and perhaps should -- attempt to do it once you are elected, just don't make it a platform plank!

            by Julia Grey on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 04:27:56 AM PDT

            •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

              $400 isn't going to make or break anyone.  You want to know why the economy was spurred on by those tax cuts?  Because people blew them on more crap they don't need.  People didn't spend that $400 on food.  All the average person in this country does is work, and spend and spend and spend.  They don't save money, in fact they go into debt on their credit cards.  They don't know how to reasonably manage their financial situation, by and large.  

              Even assuming that $400 saved someone from going under: if you're teetering that close to the brink of bankruptcy then nothing's going to save you.  

              by Asak on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 06:01:09 AM PDT

              •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

                yes there are some who spend unwisely, but it's more likely people are forced to rely on credit cards to make ends meet because wages havent kept up with inflation since nixon.

                by niner on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 06:49:11 AM PDT

            •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

              Hmmm... 49% of all US taxpayers received <$100 in tax cuts in 2003 (according to citizens for tax justice). Of that 49%, the average tax cut was $19. In the southern states, the percentage is closer to 57%. Middle class americans did not get $400 tax cuts. What we did get was higher property taxes, higher tuition costs for our kids in college, and in many cases, a higher sales tax rate.

              by dpk on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 11:38:27 AM PDT

              •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

                excellent point: people didn't get a tax cut, they got a check from the government.

                Buying votes anyone?

                by a gilas girl on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 11:42:26 AM PDT

      •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

        Yes, actually. I want Dean to engage it head-on.

        Agreed.

        I'd like to see the entire Democratic Party and the entire US middle-class engage it head-on, but it isn't going to happen in my lifetime.  I'm also skeptical about Dean being the kind of politician who would engage it head-on, had he been he would have framed his CF comment more carefully and directly.  
        

        by a gilas girl on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 11:26:23 AM PDT

    •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

      Either those tax cuts go, or the country does. You want a liar, might as well stick with the one you already have.

      by sagesource on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 03:33:41 AM PDT

      •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

        Short and sweet.

        by Asak on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 06:01:46 AM PDT

    •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

      It is a question of policy.

      Dean will simply not implement new health care programs unless there is money to pay for it.  Hence the repeal of the tax cuts.  

      There is much more the fed gov't can do to put more money in your pocket than cutting taxes, and if we as Dems limit the debate to taxes we are ceding ground we don't need to.

      by Mary Mary on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 02:45:35 PM PDT

  •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

    it's tempting to assume the worst about people and overestimate their level of selfishness.

    but recent poll didnt bear that out. there was a wsj poll which found majority support for repealing the bush tax cut in order to fund the iraq effort.

    and if people didnt care about runaway deficits, perot would have never gained any traction.

    by niner on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 04:47:33 AM PDT

•  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

  it is a freakin' PIPE DREAM to believe that Confederate flag types will ever see their economic interests coinciding with those of blacks of the same class.

  Well, they did during FDR, and they might have for Robert Kennedy.  But I really find it odd that you acknowledge the deep-rooted racism among white Southerners, and simultaneously excoriate Howard Dean for trying to get past it and appeal to the Bubbas on the basis of economic self-interest.

  And that is what Edwards was saying, in code, when he spoke of us not liking to see Northerners coming down here telling us what to do.

  Dean doesn't get what?  Racism?  And Edwards does get racism?  And Edwards is the better man for speaking on behalf of the racists and telling Dean to shut his mouth?  Huh?

  They're a series of bloodless logical problems

  Yup, I hate it when people use logic instead of demagoguery.  I hate it when people attack problems logically instead of appealing to people's worst instincts as Edwards and Sharpton did in that debate.  That really sucks.

  by KevinA on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 03:26:44 AM PDT

•  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

  I believe Dean is trying to disarm the usual racebaiting crap by focusing on the idea that blacks AND whites all want affordable housing and medical care, and access to good public education. The Repubs have habitually set these groups at each others' throats, to the detriment of all, by instigating class and racial resentment.

  I believe what Dean meant was that the pickups and gun crowd have nothing to fear from him, he's not going to be taking anything from anybody. He wants everyone to have what they deserve. Housing, Healthcare, Education.

  by squiddy on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 03:30:39 AM PDT

  •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

    The one thing Dean needs to add to that equation (to Julia's point) is jobs.

    The Republicans have used this strategy not only in the South, but also in the industrial Midwest, and, to some extent, in California.

    In Michigan, for example, many of the small manufacturing plants and machine shops that once made parts for cars (door handles, brake pedals, mirror housings, etc.) have been closed as the work was "outsourced" to Mexico, China and elsewhere.

    These were good jobs for uneducated people.  Jobs that provided a halfway decent living for families where education ended at high school or before.

    The Republicans have presented themselves (disingenuously) as the party that protects jobs (for whites) by severely limiting immigration, for example.

    It's a simple race-baiting argument that has worked for them.

    If I was Dean or any Dem, I would link the items you mentioned (healthcare, education, housing) with jobs or at least the creation of some kind of jobs creation program for rural industrial America.

    That's the way to win white voters from these areas.

    That's why I liked the gist of Julia's post.

    by Bob Johnson on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 03:39:48 AM PDT

•  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

  We are so over the confederate flag thing.  Dr. Dean has apologized, and has stated several times that he should not have used that particular analogy.  The way is was taken was not the way he was thinking when he said it.

  What does he have to do, have "I'm sorry" tatooed on his forehead?

  by Len on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 03:37:23 AM PDT

  •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

    Obviously Dean supporters are not over it, since they keep lambasting Edwards and Sharpton for their behavior rather than looking at the whole of the situation.  

    Julia's point, to be fair, was less about the CF thing than it was about the Dean position, campaign point.  She's suggesting a way that it might be reframed.  The cf thing was to illustrate a larger point, I believe.

    by a gilas girl on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 11:36:20 AM PDT

    •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

      Obviously Dean supporters are not over it

      Who started this thread?

      by KevinA on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 01:09:20 PM PDT

•  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

  Let me guess... you're not from the South, are you?

  Dean needs to hone his message, but i think it'll sell... convince the white working class vote in the South that the reason they're losing their jobs isn't affirmative action (the great GOP bogeyman), it's heartless corporations shipping their jobs overseas. It can work because:

  1. It's true.
  2. It's easy to explain with sound bites.
  3. Southerners hate being robbed by heartless business interests. It's just rude.

  I see this message shaping up already. Six months from now, it'll be polished like a jewel.

  by Radical Middle on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 03:38:41 AM PDT

  •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

    Number 3 is key, and is what has been missing from the Democratic party for a long time.

    by a gilas girl on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 11:37:37 AM PDT

•  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

  Julia, I agree with you that Dean seems to be oblivious of some of the impact of what he prescribes.. but he's a doctor.  He knows the medicine won't taste good but he also knows you need to take it.

  Or is there a position in your examples where Dean is on the wrong side?  I don't see it that way.

  It's patently obvious that poor white Southerners have been cutting off their noses to spite their faces.  What other remedy is there for it but to advise them to stop it?  It's absolutely foolish!

  Anyway, I've been living in Northern VA for a few years now, so my finger isn't dead on the pulse of the Southern man's attitude anymore.  But going a few years back I remember having these very conversations, not in code either.

  Maybe Dean could do a better job of articulating the fact that racism is not in anyone's interest, but I just don't know that there is another solution to that particular problem.  Unless we are supposed to do like Edwards and pretend we don't know it is there..

  by Sidhe on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 03:38:42 AM PDT

•  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

  Hey Julia,

  Try to tone down the Dean bashing.  Seriously. You are not going to convince anyone with the hyperbole.  I think there are legitimate criticisms to be made about Dean (and you make valid points), but your post screams DEAN SUCKS!!  

  Anyway, I agree that racism is one reason people vote against their economic interest.  See Digby here.  I also agree that Dean's comments sound condescending.  Some of Dean's supporters miss the point by arguing that his comments are true.  They are true, but it does more harm than good to say such things aloud.  Take, for instance, Dean's "God, gays and guns" comment. It sounds awfully condescending - and fits perfectly in the stereotype of the patronizing liberal - to claim that he knows the real issues that matter to people, that he knows what their true interests are.  He may, but he shouldn't say so.  

  In any case, try to make your criticisms more constructive.  That will be more effective, and since Dean may very well be the Dem candidate next November, we better hope that he can hone his message.  

  by johnny rotten on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 03:38:51 AM PDT

  •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

    Some of Dean's supporters miss the point by arguing that his comments are true.  They are true, but it does more harm than good to say such things aloud.

    So, what you really want is a John Kerry?  Because that's what you get if you take Howard Dean and change him so he "keeps things to himself".  The reason people like Howard Dean is because he says it like it is, he doesn't BS or bandy words.  It comes as a total package, you either love him or you don't, you can't have it both ways.  

    by Asak on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 06:06:28 AM PDT

    •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

      It comes as a total package, you either love him or you don't, you can't have it both ways.

      Well, as somebody who finds his policies problematic but likes the savvy of his campaign, where does that leave me?  

      Things do get a little rabid around here in the Dean support sometimes.  Tempered support and a little skepticism, even of the candidate you support is never a bad thing.    

      by a gilas girl on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 11:41:17 AM PDT

    •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

      I respectfully disagree.  I understand that Dean has a reputation for being a straight talker and that this appeals to many of his supporters.  But I don't agree that it is all or nothing.  He needs to use a little more discretion sometimes - discretion can be as much a virtue as straight shooting.  It is a matter of balance.  I certainly don't agree that straight talking should excuse saying stupid things.  

      by johnny rotten on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 03:08:58 PM PDT

    •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

      And in any case, your argument really misses my whole point:  Dean's comment comes across as horribly condescending.  Dean can still tell specific voters why they should vote for him without insulting them in the process by claiming he has a better understanding of their true interests than they do.  

      by johnny rotten on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 03:19:49 PM PDT

•  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

  And that is what Edwards was saying, in code, when he spoke of us not liking to see Northerners coming down here telling us what to do.

  Please tell us all precisely what Dean told Southerners to do. As in, "Dean told Southerners to do X." Please supply X.

  by DavidNYC on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 03:40:36 AM PDT

  •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

    Dean told the bubbas to pull their heads out of their asses and recognize that voting with the R's was making them poorer and more vulnerable since they don't care about exporting their jobs or making sure their kids can afford to go to college.

    Only problem is Bubba is easily fooled and believes the story that liberals gave his job to someone of color and raised his taxes and that's why he's poor.  Not to mention liberals are destroying his "way of life" = code for White A.S. evangelical Protestants in charge, everybody else head for the back of the bus.

    Fortunatly, the South is no longer dominated by this crowd although they make up a significant voting block as bumbling Max Cleland found out.

    by HiD on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 05:05:49 AM PDT

  •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

    Dean told southerners to stop being stupid  racists morons and pay attention to their own best interest, something he can see better than they can.

    Would that fit into "X"?

    by a gilas girl on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 11:44:03 AM PDT

    •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

      Dean told southerners to stop being stupid  racists morons and pay attention to their own best interest, something he can see better than they can

      Ah.  Please provide the quote where he said that, because I'm sure he hasn't said anything remotely like that in a year's worth of campaigning.

      by KevinA on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 12:35:32 PM PDT

      •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

        Have you read this thread?  

        The question that was asked was about perception, that's what the "X" is. That's what I was responding to.

        Your question is an inappropriate request in the context of this thread.  

        Besides, I don't follow Dean so closely that I quote him, so on any thread I'd never be able to apply that.  Which is why I rarely engage in threads where people throw quotes around.  It doesn't bring very much to my understanding of situations, since I'm looking at bigger or slightly off center pictures from the rest of the folks.  

        Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not a quoter, I travel in perceptions.    
        

        by a gilas girl on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 12:49:30 PM PDT

        •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

          Your question is an inappropriate request in the context of this thread.

          Not really, my question was a device to demonstrate that you are reading things into Dean's comments that are not there.  Like "stupid racist morons."

          by KevinA on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 01:16:37 PM PDT

        •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

          Nope - my question was not about "perceptions". My question was about what exactly did Dean tell "Southerners" to do. You haven't answered that question satisfactorily.

          by DavidNYC on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 01:54:49 PM PDT

          •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

            Then I misread the question, my apologies.  Much is said between the lines, and even more is heard there.  I thought that's what we were discussing, not what Dean said, but what Dean said that would give play for particular interpretations unless he made his position much clearer, something he did not do.

            by a gilas girl on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 03:47:18 PM PDT

            •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

              That's precisely my point - anyone can "interpret" Dean's remarks based on whatever motivates them. That doesn't make those interpretations better - if anything, it makes them weaker. You claim Dean meant X. Okay, that's fine - but unless you can show that Dean said X, or actually prove that Dean did in fact mean X, then yours is simply an opinion, not a fact.

              by DavidNYC on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 05:45:39 PM PDT

              •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

                Then, sorry, but your point didn't make any sense in a thread about perceptions, which is what Julia's post was about.  If you want to go strictly by the letter of the words spoken that's fine, but its not how anyone I know short of a technical savant interacts with language.

                Again, I must have completely missed your point, because if I had I would have never posted at all, its such a truism as to be meaningless to me.  Of course people interpret based on experiences (less so than motivations) and contexts that differ across people.  The point was how people not already predisposed to give Dean the benefit of the doubt might/do (in some cases) interpret the remarks, and even more so, why not paying attention to that fact is somewhat arrogant because it implies your interpretation is a universal "truth" rather than [also] a specifically located interpretation based upon experiences, (motivations, possibly, if you insist on including that) and contexts.

                by a gilas girl on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 11:03:50 PM PDT

                •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

                  The point was how people not already predisposed to give Dean the benefit of the doubt might/do (in some cases) interpret the remarks

                  Right. And "how these people might interpret Dean's remarks" seems to be the province of pure speculation, or at least, wildly contradictory evidence. Any assessment of how people might interpret Dean's remarks must be done very cautiously. It is just as grating and arrogant to state without qualifications that "Dean's remarks will be interpreted as X," unless you have very solid, verifiable evidence to back a particular point of view.

                  by DavidNYC on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 11:17:10 PM PDT

                  •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

                    I have some verifiable evidence, because I have spoken with my family and friends in my home town who interpreted exactly this way (as I feared they would and hesitated to speak with them after the debate because those conversations are always difficult and tedious and annoying and everything else that talking politics with people who are diametrically opposed to your worldview always is).  That's not to say that everyone does, but that the framework I'm suggesting is rooted in some kind of experience that is as valuable as a Dean supporter's experience that Dean's a trustworthy fellow, who doesn't really make mistakes.  The point to my mind isn't to find "the" right interpretation of the comment, but to really pay attention to the vast array of responses and reactions and see what is coming from where.  I don't mind the Dean supporters' interpretations, just their insistence that they are "the True ones", with no congnicence that they are, in fact, rooted in a deep support that doesn't leave a lot of room for people who don't fit into that category.

                    But I did seriously misread your post so my original comments regarding it are moot.

                    by a gilas girl on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 11:25:38 PM PDT

•  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

  The reason you don't get this is the same reason Howard Dean is ALSO totally tone deaf on this issue in the South. It's what Edwards and Sharpton couldn't say out loud, but every Southerner knows: the guys who put Confederate flags on their pickup trucks do it in large part because they believe that black people are being UNFAIRLY given "their" jobs by the Democratic party, who are, they believe, dictating the elevation of race over every other consideration in hiring.

  He doesn't get this?  Are you kidding me?  This is the reason he says this stuff.  This is the whole farking point of the flag comment, and anybody who'd been listening to his campaign all along would know that.  He wants Nixon's southern strategy to end, and it never will so long as Democrats continue to refuse to deal with the big, fat, fucking, racist elephant in the living room.  It's about damn time we had another FDR willing to show poor whites and poor blacks that they have a lot more in common than not, and willing to buck CW saying such a coalition is somehow so frightfully unnatural and impossible that we shouldn't bother.

  Can he do it alone?  Nope.  Can he even be successful in starting us down that path?  Probably not anymore, now that Sharpton and Edwards have chosen to score short-term political points from him, rather than use this as an opportunity to open an honest dialogue about race in this country.  I don't know how successful he would have been had this not happened.  Maybe not at all.  Who knows?  But at least he had the steel balls to go there.

  Does he get it?  He gets it a hell of a lot more than you give him credit for.  Jesse Jackson Jr., who has written quite eloquently about this very subject, seems to concur.

  by cdmarine on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 03:46:43 AM PDT

  •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

    If that's the whole point he is saying it, then he is saying it badly: it can't be reduced to simple economic interest and until he understands that he'll never be able to engage the way that racial coding and baiting racially based fears and structures (i.e. the US economy, still) run through US politics.  

    To simply talk about it economic terms won't fix the problem.  He had the opportunity to do it right, but that would entail calling out his white middle-class supporters as well.

    So while his head may be in the right direction, its he fundamental understanding of offsetting race/racism with economic interest that is flawed.  You have to come at it with a three-pronged approach, and he's trying to single-issue it into an economic discussion.

    by a gilas girl on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 11:49:57 AM PDT

    •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

      it can't be reduced to simple economic interest

      Do you have a problem distinguishing between a statement of the end goal and a statement outlining how one gets to the end goal?

      that would entail calling out his white middle-class supporters as well.

      HE DOES.  REGULARLY.

      And despite your eagerness to forgive Edwards and Sharpton, it's total bullshit to posit that they don't know that.  They damn well knew he'd been talking about this stuff all along.  It's their job to know what the other candidates are saying.  There is no way in hell they hadn't heard his stump multiple times.  They damn well knew what it was he was talking about.  This wouldn't have BEEN an issue at all, however, if they hadn't acted as if they'd never heard such a shocking thing!  Was the comment in the newspaper article in question poorly delivered?  Perhaps (as reported, anyway... we have no idea what else he actually said to that reporter, do we?).  But that's a FAR different thing than what Edwards and Sharpton chose to accuse him of.  I'm sorry, but those two chose to score short term political points off him because they saw the opportunity.  They lied, as far as I'm concerned.
      

      by cdmarine on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 02:39:45 PM PDT

      •  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

        As far as you are concerned, they lied.  

        That's simple enough.  And very certain.  

        I've been dealing with politics of race and racialization for a long time.  I've found that very little is certain in any kind of tangible fashion, since so much of it takes place in the lived spaces between categories.  I don't believe they lied about being angry.  

        And no, Dean does not really push his own supporters to take up these issues.  I know it feels like he does, but there's very little pushing, he's simply walking out with them to the point of comfort and stopping there.  That's not opening up anything new.

        Very few people push liberal upper middle class white people to do so (except rabid right wingers whom we all manage to dismiss, quite rightly, as race baiters).  The Dean campaign, like much of the professional liberal ngo sector can't even admit that its "white".  (Or has only begun to deal with it and does so in the framework of "reaching out" which still implies a white-centric world view, or?).  The reason the right wing demonization of "liberals" works is not simply that its followers are stupid racists (some very likely are) but because it picks up on a kernal of truth or genuine experience and explodes it.  You can't counter such a tactic with the same tactic (finding one kernal of truth and building on that); you have to take up the various strands of true experience that run through the issues (some of them contradictory) and recognize what binds them all together.  The Edwards and Sharpton responses are indices of that, much more so than they are political ploys.  If Dean is the smart guy I think he is, he'll pay attention, not in order to pander but in order to learn, because his so-called "head-on" approach is neither head-on nor likely to work in the long run.  

        by a gilas girl on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 04:25:09 PM PDT

•  time marches on

  those people will forget that because this generation didn't lose their jobs that way, they grew up with it, and they watched Starsky and Hutch just like the rest of the country so in fact, at one point you will find it forgotten, and probing it is the only way.  Doesn't really seem to be backfiring on him.

  Consider that he doesn't have to do very well since these guys already hate Democrats as you said, anything at all can't lose them.  And the Democrats understood Dean's point in the end, even if they didn't like it or think it "looked good", it looks fine.

  And I think there might be one or two southerners worried about the plants moving than about losing the menial jobs a generation ago.

  by pyrrho on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 03:47:31 AM PDT

  •  replying to myself !?

    yes.  One more thing, I'm not from the South nor do I understand the south.  But this is a National election, we are talking To the South.  You can't expect us to perfectly understand you.  Washington doesn't perfectly understand me either.  So what?  These parts of the country have to try to understand.

    I'm kind of sick of the idea that Southerners with always prefer to vote for a Southerner.  Is the South some sort of paradise or something?

    by pyrrho on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 03:49:24 AM PDT

    •  Re: replying to myself !?

      I agree that the party shouldn't be beholden to the South and that Southern Democrats in the party have too much power overall, but I don't agree that the South should be abandoned/dismissed, nor do I agree that watching Starsky and Hutch reruns will make us all one happy racially serene nation.  Plenty of people not in the South, living in very comfortable middle class suburbs watching their Starsky and Hutch reruns have the same notions that minorities are just stealing all of us productive, moral and hard-working white folks blind and that the Democrats are helping them do it. Its just laced with a whole lot more history (giving it more space for rationalization) and much more overt resentment in the South.  But if you can deal with it in the South, then you can deal with it in the rest of the country.  Another reason why paying some attention (but the right kind) to the South is a good idea.  

      by a gilas girl on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 11:54:58 AM PDT

      •  Re: replying to myself !?

        sorry if it seemed that I might want to abandon them (or maybe you are refering to that common sentiment which is motivated by thinking of the South as a lost cause)... I'm not a Dean supporter (but I guess I'm becoming one?) per se, but I do support his engagement of the south.

        The point of Starsky and Hutch is that this whole nation shares a crappy TV-synchronized culture... I think it's more likely the kids in the south know who Homer Simpson is that they know why they are supposed to still be mad about reconstruction, or that Lincoln was a republican.

        I want to pay attention to the South, but I don't want to deal with "you ought to understand me and my history"... maybe you ought to understand MY history, I say to the south.  And we'd BOTH be right.

        I guess the Starsky and Hutch example is chosen for it's base pedestrian value, it's tv-ethics, it lacks a sense of history.  This is a fault of TV and of Americans, but there is a bright side if it means forgetting being bitter because blacks are being treated like humans.

        by pyrrho on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 05:28:52 PM PDT

        •  Re: replying to myself !?

          maybe you ought to understand MY history, I say to the south.  And we'd BOTH be right.

          I would agree with this.  But I would also point out that the South does already understand the "non-South history".  If your history is another minority history that's not part of mainstream cw US history, then yes, by all means, we all should as well, and the South is probably worse on this count than other regions (except possibly in the area of African American history, which surprisingly is taught -- and has been for a long time going back to my own childhood -- under the auspices of both AAHistory and local history.  But that's another post, sorry to digress).  

          The point is simply as the regional "Other" to the rest of the country, The South (as a whole) and individuals who are educated there, have a dual knowledge of history, just like any other category of folk who are another kind of "Other" also have this dual knowledge.  Its not always overtly spoken or even recognized as a knowledge they have, but if you examine closely enough it is there.  That is what accounts for so much of the Southern "defensiveness", I would argue, its rooted in that double knowledge, knowing the dominant's history and how the Other's is made sense of within that.
          

          by a gilas girl on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 11:09:47 PM PDT

      •  the other thing

        is that the South has a pretty well understood culture.  It might not be a deep enough understanding.  But you know what, it's a lot more complete than the National Consciousness about, say, North Dakota's culture, or Arizona's Culture.

        I think it's time for the South to understand the northern culture a bit more, and why a northern liberal worker doesn't mind working with African Americans.  Isn't that what Dean is trying to explain... "look, you have economic and personal interests right?"

        by pyrrho on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 05:32:35 PM PDT

        •  Re: the other thing

          I think it's time for the South to understand the northern culture a bit more, and why a northern liberal worker doesn't mind working with African Americans.  

          my post in response to your above post addresses this I think. The mistake non Southerners often make is to assume that Southerners don't understand northern culture when in fact they must.  Whether they understand it fully is a valid question, but unlike non-Southerners who can mostly dismiss the South with the assumption that they don't need to understand it, the same can't be said.  And I think they also understand that just as many Northern workers don't work with African Americans (look historically to the ways industrial unions also played the race card in order to organize) but talk about it in fundamentally different terms than "racism".  Look to the way that many suburban white dems jumpt to liberal republicans when black political leadership gets too strong in a particular region (a point made very well upthread by someone whom I can no longer remember now). And again, Dean may think that's what he's trying to say, but my point is and always has been, if that's what he's trying to say, he's wrong, because he doesn't fully understand the phenomenon he's trying to counter or doesn't fully want to face it.  But I don't actually think that that is what he's trying to say, I think he's actually trying to say that race isn't important anymore, that what we need to focus on is class.  And this, I think is as dangerous an idea as is the Republican tradition of race-baiting and racial coding in their anti-government campaign strategies.  I could be wrong, because its all perception, and I was told on another thread from this post that perceptions don't matter, only actual words, so your perception of what Dean is trying to do is as worthless and as susceptible to motivations and interpretations as mine.

          Sorry, I shouldn't take that out on you, but I'm kind of cranky after engaging in this same argument about once a week for the last two months.  

          by a gilas girl on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 11:19:16 PM PDT

  •  replying to myself !?

    yes.  One more thing, I'm not from the South nor do I understand the south.  But this is a National election, we are talking To the South.  You can't expect us to perfectly understand you.  Washington doesn't perfectly understand me either.  So what?  These parts of the country have to try to understand.

    I'm kind of sick of the idea that Southerners with always prefer to vote for a Southerner.  Is the South some sort of paradise or something?

    by pyrrho on Tue Dec 02, 2003 at 03:49:32 AM PDT

•  Re: What Dean Doesn't Get

  While as a Southerner I almost completely disagree with this entire post, there is one statement that's worth looking into, the fact that Southern whites believe the Democratic party is favoring minorities over poor whites.

  Some people want to argue that Southern whites vote Republican because they're still pissed about integration and they'll never get over it.  That's crap in my opinion, but race is important in a different way.  What liberals don't realize in predominantly white states is that affirmative action plays hugely against the Democratic party in the South, because it's seen as trading one set of victims for another.  What you get is very poor whites struggling to put food on their table, asking why minorities should get extra help just because of the color of their skin.  My own personal opinion, is that making affirmative action class based rather than race based wo