Ok, friends and compatriots, how many times have you heard this:
Zell Miller recalled in his book that when FDR was President, he looked South and said, "I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished." In this day and age, states Miller, "our national Democratic leaders look south and say 'I see one-third of a nation and it can go to Hell.'" That pretty much sums it up.
(oh, let's name names and say, per availability heuristic, hmjsj is the latest in a long list of them)
This makes me nuts.
What I want to know really is, how exactly does this statement possibly stand on its own, despite its pithiness? I am just so tired, dog tired, of this statement. And here's why. If you were just to say the latter part, that national Democratic leaders see the South and say it can go to hell, then maybe he is correct. Maybe.
But pairing it with FDR makes the argument particularly specious. What do you think, that national Democratic leaders don't push for increases in the minimum wage? Or access to heath care? Or better social services programs? Honestly. Who do you think is in charge of the congressional agenda? What programs are national Democrats advocating that would be great for poor people in San Francisco but not poor people in Atlanta? Repeating Zell Miller's statement is just stupid. It is worse than stupid. It is taking a mis-used brush and using it in a mis-used fashion to mis-label the problem.
What is really ironic is that whereas FDR looked at the South and said, I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished, Republicans look to the South and say, we can continue to keep unions out, to keep schools underfunded, to keep industries that pollute the environment and profit from the vast resources of an abundant South, and people won't do shit because we are the party of God and Family.
Whew. Give me a moment to step down off my high horse. I just really want to know, how are national Democratic leaders acting in ways that are detrimental to the poor, ill, and homeless of the South? You think Dean, or Kerry, Clark or Gephardt, any of those yokels, take your pick, all are aligned against the disadvantaged, compared to, say, oh I don't know, GWB? Someone really want to make that argument?