Most of you who frequent dKos know that, while I am an erratic poster, one sure way to get me to post is disparge my native South or write it off as a lost cause for Democrats. Over at
Democratic Underground, Jordan Helmes has penned a lengthy yet perceptive essay on the South and its Democratic future.
Helmes is from small-town, rural Louisiana which is quite different from the mid-sized,suburban East Tennessee city where I reside. And yet it isn't. While the themes and approaches ascribed to Republican operatives by Helmes aren't practiced as overtly here, that doesn't mean they aren't here. We all know what they are - the twin prongs of race and religion.
An excerpt that cuts to the chase:
Finally, The Democratic Leadership has not challenged these perceptions in any effective way in the South. For one, it's hard to credibly challenge perceptions you do not experience or understand for yourself - a difficulty that is non-partisan. Ignorance, misconception, and fear of each other will thrive as long as we fail to share perceptions, ideas, and facts about each other - with one another - to learn what works and what does not, what is truth and what is not. The Establishment elites, whose policies are demonstrated as not being in the People's best interests economically and socially, have thrived because the ignorance, misconceptions, and fear they depend on have not been opposed effectively and credibly.
Considering this, it makes me personally sick to read people's suggesting a desertion of the South as a lost cause. Pardon me, but who the hell else is going to counter ignorance and propaganda? This proposed tactic of lost-cause-desertion would be a self-fulfilling prophecy, and frankly, sounds like one Karl Rove himself would approve of. In a void, some other party will aspire to offer meaningful opposition eventually; there is a market for truth, after all. If the Democratic party does not clean-house of it's political complacency and collusion - and unite to confront and oppose ignorance, misconceptions, propaganda, and fear - then it should step aside for others who propose to, and aspire to represent the entire United States. Why else even call it a United States at the point you consider half the nation a lost cause?
As far as the South's importance for future progressive efforts, Helmes offers the following.
I see many people regarding the South as a nuisance where the struggle to win a certain number of its States is the center of every election, but otherwise not all that important. I disagree. The South will be the key to turning the National tide in the long run. Breaking the Republican's grip on the working-classes of the South, who are appeased but unrepresented, is the only way I see to reduce Republican power in this country.
Which is what I've been saying all along.
So what about 2004 and the South?
Getting Bush's administration out of power is priority number one; "Anyone But Bush" is the new mantra, that's just how bad it really is. It would be ideal to accomplish that and, setting candidate preferences aside, vote for whomever stands for helping us get real, meaningful control over our government - something we lost with the 20th century rise of "Corporate Personhood." ... However, in perpetuating party-power politics as it is, I fear we are all ultimately sacrificing the biggest thing at stake: a government of and for the People, and with it our freedom.
So if we can't change the process for '04, it is imperative that we do so immediately after dispatching Bush to Crawford, lest we fall prey to another extremist seizure of the people's government.
I have long thought that the candidate best positioned to do this is Howard Dean. I still think that if the hat trick is to be pulled off, Howie's the boy to do it. But Helmes makes it very clear how much work must be done. It's a lot. And it may be overly ambitious to try and accomplish it by 2 November, 2004. But we can begin the effort and make noticable changes.
I'd be interested in other candidates' supporters reaction to Helmes' essay and their opinions on how their candidate can best address Helmes' points. Here's a chance to say something positive about your candidate on an issue very important for the future of the Democratic Party.
Please know that I (and other Dean supporters) are well aware of Howie's shortcomings and vulnerabilities. So let's try not to turn this into another Dean/anti-Dean thread. While I support Howie, I am truly interested in how Kossovars think other candidates can address what, for me, is a seminal issue. Who knows? You may even get me to rethink my support.