Tom Schaller, in his infinite wisdom, has repeatedly counseled us to "whistle past Dixie," basing this advice on recent election returns and trends in the South. His sagacity is once again noted by the Baltimore Sun in an article today titled "Advice for Democrats: Look Away."
Sitting here on vacation in NOLA, waiting to attend John Edwards' announcement tomorrow, I'm inclined to call this what it is--a red herring that will get us nowhere, and concede to the Republican Party an area which Democrats need to, at the very least, remain competitive in numerous House and Senate races.
I became acquainted with Tom Schaller in 1999 when I took a class he offered at UMBC on "The Congress." I disagreed with him on many issues then, but still respected him as a political observer.
I'm beginning to re-think that assessment.
I can't argue with Schaller's premise that the Mountain West is the new frontier for the Democratic Party, given the changing demographics and the recent headway we've made there. But the argument he's been trumpeting since his 2003 article, "A Route for 2004 That Doesn't Go Through Dixie," that we essentially write-off the South and focus on these newly competitive regions misses tbe bigger picture.
One of the primary reasons Democrats have lost significant ground in the South is post-1990 redistrictings which have increasingly favored Republicans. Winning back some power in a few State Houses (even if only splitting the balance of power by taking one chamber or a Governor's Mansion) will allow Democrats to prevent a one-sided partisan puzzle-piecing of Congressional and State Legislative districts which currently pack Democratic constituencies into an increasingly smaller number of districts.
There are large heavily-Democratic African-American populations in many Southern states who could, given more equitable district lines, tip many currently safe-Republican Congressional seats into the valuable "toss-up" category. If we want to preserve our razor-thin Congressional majority for more than the short-term, we've got to consider this. Does anyone think that the GOP could have kept it's 226-205 majority in 2002 without a sizable number of seats in the Northeast like Chris Shays, Jeb Bradley, Nancy Johnson, Jim Gerlach, etc.?
Furthermore, Schaller's apparent angst that the Democratic Party would dare entertain some views which do not rhyme with the predominant positions on divisive social issues like abortion and gay marriage are misplaced. I remember 1992 when PA Gov. Bob Casey was not allowed to give a speech, partly due to his position against abortion-rights, yet a pro-choice aide of his Republican opponent was given the podium.
Strictly enforcing party social doctrine is a GOP staple, and I'd like to think that we're better than that. Instead of building a party based on strict social ideology, much like Republicans did with the assistance of the Christian Conservatives, we should focus on a party which welcomes differing views while sticking to core values of societal responsibility and providing opportunities to the working class.
I haven't read Schaller's book, and I probably won't. I've got better things to do with my time and money. But I do take his argument seriously, despite the obvious flaws, because he's not alone (he's just the person out there peddling a book about it right now, and according to the article, attempting to become a well-known "public intellectual" or talking head). We, as a party, need to shoot this line of thinking in the ass right now.
As I sit here in the French Quarter, I wonder why some like Schaller believe we should leave our Southern brothers and sisters in the middle of the lake without a paddle. I, for one, am not willing to give up on handing them an oar.