I haven't written anything about Yearly Kos yet, because I've been busy and furthermore, I'm still processing what happened.
But I'd like to start a discussion about some of the issues raised in a panel about the importance of the South in U.S. politics. For those of you who did not attend the panel, it featured Tom Schaller, Mudcat Saunders, and Joe Trippi. The moderator was Jerome Armstrong.
Below the jump you will find a summary of both major arguments, but what I'm interested in seeing is a discussion of the pragmatism and importance of involving the South in the electoral calculus for the next few presidential cycles.
Come on in an' sit a spell.
At Yearly Kos, the Southern Politics panel was one of the more interesting and least discussed parts of the whole convention. Before I rehash the major arguments, let me say a few things in the name of full disclosure, as well as lay out some basic premises.
I am a Southerner. I am a fifth generation Floridian, and while I appreciate the person I have become as a consequence of my development, I am not "proud" of my southern heritage. I didn't choose where to be born. I've lived other places, and frankly I don't think my southern "culture" is superior to any other regional distinction.
There is a distinct Southern culture. This is self-evident to me. Of course you will find Volvo driving, latte drinking, tattooed freak shows in every Southern city, just like you'll find SUV-driving, Wal-Mart shopping, megachurch attending suburbanites in every blue state. We are necessarily working with generalizations here, but there are things about Southern culture that non-Southerners (damn Yankees) don't always understand.
Regarding presidential politics, I just want to win. I'd love to see the Democratic ticket do well in the South. I think it would be fantastic. But you know what? I'm 25 years old. I don't remember the New Deal and Great Society years. I don't remember FDR, JFK and LBJ. All I know is that I'm sick of losing. I deplore the possibility that without Ross Perot, we lose 9 out of the past 10 elections. I don't care where the electoral votes come from, I just want to win.
__
So, at the Yearly Kos panel, Tom Schaller and Mudcat Saunders gave us a spirited, entertaining, and revealing exchange. In my view, Joe Trippi did not add much to this panel, in spite of his quite excellent work elsewhere. Jerome Armstrong didn't do a lot of "moderating," but that is fortunate, beca, use this was a fun panel to watch.
Tom Schaller, author of Whistling Past Dixie: How Democrats Can Win Without the South contended that our best bet is to move resources into more competitive states in the midwest and mountain west to shore up some electoral victories, then govern according to our princples and win Southern support over time. Tom did not spend a lot of time chronicling the realignment of Southern conservatives to the Republican Party but the best and most conclusive survey of that topic I've yet seen is The Rise of Southern Republicans by Earl Black and Merle Black. Tom guided us through a fair amount of relevant survey data and historical analysis showing that we are not likely to make significant inroads in the Deep South in the near term. I heard Tom say that he would love to win the South, but with limited resources, we would increase our chances of winning by allocating our resources elsewhere. In fairness, I think others may have understood him to say that the South is unimportant or irrelevant. I have generally agreed with his position and was rather shocked at the audience's hostility.
If Tom brought the rational argument, Mudcat brought the emotional one. Mudcat Saunders, coauthor of Foxes in the Henhouse: How the Republicans Stole the South and the Heartland, and What Democrats Must Do to Run 'Em Out, began his rebuttal by saying something along the lines of, I don't care about your facts and figures but "You can kiss my rebel ass."
Mudcat went on to argue that Democratic emphases and proposals, particularly on economic issues, should naturally resonate with Southerners, even Southern white conservatives. Mudcat spoke favorably about the Edwards campaign, a campaign I personally judged as "Right message, Wrong messenger." He went on to explain that we need to stop sending the message that we've given up on Southerners and really begin engaging them in a more vigorous and culturally-sensitive way. Mudcat won audience support further by making several memorable cracks, including a jab at the Christian right that went something like this: "We need to expose them for that they are, hypocritical sons of bitches." On the question of religion and politics, he said something like "We need to keep God out of our politics, for Chrissakes."
During the Q&A period, which incidentaly I found rather unhelpful in all the panels, several questioners lambasted Tom for suggesting we should try to win without the South. Now, I'm not here to start a war, but I would like to go on record with my opinion and urge others of you to do the same.
I think we need to win. Right now, I don't see the value in investing heavily in the Deep South during the 2008 presidential cycle. I'd rather shore up victories in places like Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere, and try to flip Ohio and Florida (which I would argue is only marginally part of the South and is becoming less Southern each day). Depending on the ticket, we can make a good faith effort in Virginia, North Carolina, and perhaps even Arkansas.
Final thought: The question, "Can we win without the South?" is not a matter opinion. Obviously, we can. It's a mathematical question. The question, it seems, is "Should we try to win without the South?"
What do you folks think? Take the poll. Y'all come back now, ya hear?