There's been a lot of discussion about whether or not Democrats should 'write off the South,' arguing that Southern states are - at least for the foreseeable future - red states. This is being debated regarding the upcoming elections in KY, LA, and MS, but it is a broader debate which probably would do for some sustained reflection.
Cut to the chase: Yes, Democrats should write off the South.
Ok, here's why. It seems to me that, among other things, Republicans have become more successful not by being the 'big tent' party of Lincoln, but by being some combination of socially conservative, religious, and fiscally conservative. Their success seems to be in part because they have become
more ideological than less (ok, someone will come back with Ahnold or Pataki, or any number of moderate R's. You are full of it - these people are marginalized from the mainstay of Republican party politics. If you don't believe me, ask yourself where
any of these folks have been in the past 5 years.)
The South, for now, will simply make the Democratic party less, well, Democratic. If Miller and Breaux are any indication, that seems like a reasonable statement.
Now, don't give that complete b.s. about how Democrats hate the South. Zell Miller is so full of shit when he notes:
"Once upon a time, the most successful Democratic leader of them all, FDR, looked south and said, 'I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill clad, ill nourished.' Today our national Democratic leaders look south and say, 'I see one-third of a nation and it can go to hell.'"
Democrats don't wish ill on the South. Let me say it again, so that people with shit in their ears can hear me. Democrats don't wish ill on the South. Non-Southerners do not all think that everyone south of the Mason-Dixon line is poor and stupid, or that culture only emanates from NY and LA.
Here's what I do think:
People from the South have been convinced that government is bad and social progressivism threatens their way of life.
Evidence #1: People in Alabama, which ranks among the absolute worst in money spent on schools (and school performance, surprise surprise - we don't know what makes schools good, but we do know that starving them of money will always make them bad), voted not to re-structure their tax laws in order to improve their schools (AL ranks near lowest in tax revenues collected and highest in 'earmarked' monies for tax revenues, providing no flexibility for gov't spending). They voted it down by 66-33%.
Evidence #2: Strom Thrumond, Jesse Helms, Trent Lott
What do I learn? Southern states are incompetent to vote in their own economic interests. Southern states are willing to accept any number of racially polarizing and socially unconscionable political leaders. Is this the 'big tent' you want for the Democratic party?
So come on. Be reasonable. Democrats are as likely to win in the South as Republicans are likely to win in California. Yep. They sometimes do. But they win despite their party affiliations, not because of them. So until you show me a Southern state which is willing to elect a progressive Democrat who is proud to be a Democrat, I say good riddance. We will get our majority without you. And you richly deserve what you get. If you agree with Zell and think Democrats see 1/3 of the nation and it can go to hell, what do you think Republicans think? That they'll make your lives better? Get real.
