washingtonpost.com
Transcript
Outlook: Is the South Worth Winning?
Thomas Schaller
Political Scientist, University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Friday, November 14, 2003; 2:00 PM
Here's some advice for Howard Dean and all the rest of the Democratic presidential hopefuls: Forget about the guys with Confederate flags on their pickup trucks. Forget about their neighbors too. Thomas Schaller, a political scientist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, argues in this Sunday's Outlook section that the Democrats should defy conventional wisdom, give up the South and concentrate their resources and time in other parts of the country. There are other routes to the White House, Schaller asserts in his essay, "The Democrats Need a Non-Southern Strategy."
Schaller was online Friday, Nov. 14 at 2 p.m. ET, to discuss his article.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
________________________________________________
Arlington, Va.: While I agree the Democrats have totally lost the South, I disagree with including Florida in the Southern category. As I understand it, demographics in Florida are shifting to even more transplanted Northerners, senior citizens (those transplanted Northerns), and Hispanics. Since all those groups tend to vote Democratic, do you think Florida could still be in play?
Thomas Schaller: Florida is clearly the most exceptional state, for many reasons but mostly because it is exceptionally-unsouthern in its population, both the immigrants and the transplanted. so, if it had to qualify my argument by removing one state of the 12, of course Florida would be it. The problem is Jeb. Does anyone think that machine down there is going to get caught flat again?
_______________________
Rochester, N.Y.: Doesn't the strategy also depend on the candidate? If Clark somehow miraculously takes the nomination, the Democrats have a far more plausible chance than they do with Dean. Also, if the Democrats surrender the South, does that make it that much easier for the GOP to pour resources into MO, MI, OH, PA?
Thomas Schaller: All elections are candidate-dependent, of course. And in the longer version of this piece (it went to 5500 words at one point, as I've been writing it on and off again since June), I talk about the implications of this strategy. obviously, it sort of implies a non-southern nominee. but it doesn't imply a non-southern veep. Indeed, precisely because groups common to the south (e.g. the famed "nascar" dads) exist outside the south in places like central missouri, northern new hampshire, western PA or southern IL, having a southerner to swing the non-southern states is, in my view, the perfect combination. I think Edwards is the best candidate this year for veep, as he has great personal message, policy substance, and is charismatic.
_______________________
Snellville, Ga.: Our democracy is at extreme risk: How tragic it is to think that the Democrats might find it expedient not to address a whole region of our country. Moreover, the South is growing -- and is gaining more electoral power with each new census. Conversely, the electoral powerhouses of the North and East, like NY, OH, PA, MI, and IL although still strong, have lost electoral votes. Based on shifting demographics, this is likely to continue.
The president is to be the chief executive for us all and not addressing Southerners (who are increasingly multi-racial) is helping to Balkanize our beloved union -- based on demographics. Perhaps, what the Democrats need to do is to better define their mission and find the vocabulary and social skills to address old allies (white Southerners and Northern ethnic whites who now vote for GOP candidates) and embrace new voters (immigrants and young people). Also, the Democrats must better address African-Americans needs and not take this important block of voters for granted. For many African-Americans (including myself -- a black female) we vote for Democrats not because we are particularly impressed and happy with them, but we perceive them as the "lesser of two evils". As the black electorate becomes more sophisticated I see this loyalty abating.
Democrats must shift their paradigm and actively engage in better relationships with all regions and people in the United States. What the Democrats have is an enormous PR problem.
Thomas Schaller: Were McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, Harding, Coolidge presidents for all of us? Just ask old southerners... they rose to greet FDR because the northern-western GOP coalition that ruled America for 72 years from civil war to FDR did so with little attention paid to the south. Sure, that led to many of the south's intractable problems. But from a political-electoral winning calculus, it worked.
_______________________
Farragut West, Washington, D.C.: Isn't it possible that the Democratic party is in for long-term period of decline? The Republicans are busy consolidating power in all branches of government. Through redistricing, they'll make sure they have a majority in the house for years to come and President Bush might look vulnerable if there weren't so many clowns chasing after his job.
I'm a perfect example of what scares the Democratic party. I voted for Democrats almost exclusively until the last election. Now I see a party so empty of ideas I can't even fathom voting for another Dem.
Thomas Schaller: Oh, I think it's very possible. That's why the Dems need to stop thinking retrospectively. Santayana was right about those who fail to understand history being doomed to repeat it. But those who try to repeat history are doomed to fail! And by trying to cobble together the remnants of a North-South democratic coalition that worked great for 36 years from 1932 to 1968 is so outdated in its thinking it's almost appalling. Prospective thinking wins. Indeed, remember what FDR did: he took the solid Democratic south and figured out how to take those new northern immigrants (Jews, Italians, East Europeans, Irish) and convert the NE for the Dems into a coalition that ruled.
_______________________
Phoenix, Ariz. : If the Democrat presidential nominee abandons the South as you claim he should, how do Democrats prevent a loss of four Senate seats (Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, and South Carolina) they currently hold, but stand to lose in 2004? The loss of all of those seats would surely have a profoundly negative effect for Senate Democrats for years to come.
Thomas Schaller: This is a toughie. Obviously, there will always be downballot opportunities, and so my argument is intentionally conscripted (or was in the original, longer version) to say that Dems should fight the winnable or worthy fights down south. For example, those familiar with the Judis-Texiera analysis of progressive-centrist "ideopolis" growth will note that places like the research triangle in NC and Charlottesville, Va., are hopeful places for dems. But they are no foundation upon which to win statewide races or electoral votes.
_______________________
Millbrae, Calif.: By party line, how does the South breakdown by income and race?
Thomas Schaller: I am not a census-data guru, so I cannot really answer this question directly. But what I would suggest is going to the site for the Tax Foundation. The did a recent report where they looked at how each state does in the national redistribution of federal dollars, which of course move from states with higher average incomes to lower ones. So, some poorer states get $1.30 for every federal tax dollar they send to DC; richer states may get back only $.80 for every dollar. And guess what? My memory of the numbers may be off here, but something like 15 of the 17 poorest states went for Bush, and 11 of the 13 richest went for Gore. Yeesh! That means those who are receiving the most federal dole are voting for the candidate who cuts programs and taxes on the rich, and those who pay those taxes are voting for the guy who is not going to cut them. Neither group is voting in their own interest, but at least the wealthier citizens are voting more nobly, in my view.
_______________________
Bowie, Md.: It's impossible for me to think of Southern politics without thinking in terms of racial and religious divisiveness. Does 9/11 and the Iraq invasion basically solidify the President as someone "who's showing those people who the boss is?"
Thomas Schaller: The Pew Center just released a major poll. I have not read all of it, but I've read summaries and the details reported widely in the news the past few weeks. And what they learned is that the most traditionalist and militaristic states are in the South -- which means, in my view, the hardest to convert back from Bush to Democratic column. Remember, my argument is about efficiency and economy of scarce resources: You have to spend where the expected returns are greatest. And the south isn't the place.
_______________________
Gaithersburg, Md.: We hear often about the "New South." Are you suggesting it's a myth, and that religious and racial divisions are just a fact of life there to which Democrats should simply surrender?
Thomas Schaller: I have lived in the south. Granted, in two college towns: Tallahassee, Fla., and Chapel Hill, N.C. but i lived on the fringes of Frenchtown in Tallahassee, which is as poor and destitute as some of the toughest neighborhoods of SE washington. In Chapel Hill, by contrast, I lived in Chatham, not Orange county, and chatham is a mixed-race but almost uniformly rural, poor county. Not much is changing in these parts, I can assure you. But the New South exists, sure, in places like Atlanta and Charlotte and Orlando. But these new economic centers, once you get outside the african american strongholds and college towns, look like the sorts of places that elect, well, elect people like Newt Gingrich -- from the Georgia suburbs. The new South votes the same way the old south did, only more so Republican.
_______________________
Alexandria, Va.: For too long, the national Democratic party has let the South shape its policies in a futile effort for its candidates to win Southern votes. If Democrats were to decide to ditch the South, do you see more liberal national candidates on the horizon?
Thomas Schaller: No, I do not. Another part of the longer version my post editor and I had to leave on the cutting table addressed the issue of whether a non-southern strategy implies a leftward lurch for the Democrats. It doesn't. Too often we get trapped into thinking all politics and issues fall on a single, left-right dimension. they don't. 21st century issues don't fall along 20th century political dimensions. can you tell me what somebody's position on school choice is based on their position on prescription drug benefit for medicare?
_______________________
Belle Mead, N.J.: I never thought that you could win the presidency without winning in the "South." This article opened my eyes. But, shouldn't the Democrats at least put up a semblance of a fight to tie up some of the formidable resources of the GOP
Thomas Schaller: Several people have asked this questions. Start with this fact: any amount subtracted from a ratio yields a wider ratio. If GOP has $240M to spend to Dems $160 (a 3:2 ratio), and Dems gamble $40M in south to "keep the GOP honest" but Rove counters with $40M to play it safe, what's the result? GOP now has $200M to $120M, a wider, 5:3 ratio to spend elsewhere. Unless DEMS are certain that $40M will yield something, spending it is a waste and counter-productive. and the more you spend, the wider that ratio becomes. Pitchers never throw a fastball to a fastball hitter who can't hit the curve just to "keep him honest." until he learns to hit the curve, you send him a steady diet of curveballs. the fastball to keep him honest ends up over the fence.
_______________________
Stanhope, N.J.: What about the "big if"? What are Dean's chances in the blue states?
Thomas Schaller: Look, Dean and every other candidates' chances in the "big if" states could be tough. If iraq and the economy break his way (and given Bush's life story, when hasn't something broken his way?) nobody can beat him. If Dems are losing the MDs, MAs, NYs... it's over anyway. I think there are gains in those blue states to be made to solidify narrow wins in 2000 in places like OR, NM, WI, IA.
_______________________
Dallas, Tex.: Everyone keeps saying Democrats are to blame, but aren't Southern voters shutting themselves off by continuing to side with only one political party? Everyone is always talking about the big tent, but if the Democrats employ a non-Southern strategy, aren't Southerners risking being caught on the outside looking in?
Thomas Schaller: Yes, they are. And that's exactly where they were for seven decades following the civil war. Look, the impolite way to put this is that the South is the region behind the rest of the nation; the polite and perfectly legitimate way is to view it as the region that puts the brakes on the rest of the country. it is the most traditionalist region, scholars and pundits and pollster all agree. So I guess your question devolves into this one: Does the country, or the Democratic party, want to be progressive, temporally-speaking, or status-quo oriented? There are legitimate arguments for moving forward quickly; indeed, the Constitution was written to prevent just that. But there and problems to moving too slowly, too. Just ask the 40 percent of American children who live below the poverty line. That's 2 in 5 in the wealthiest country the planet has known. Does that sound like a future-oriented country to you? And the irony is that poverty in the south is still very problematic.
_______________________
Continued>>>>>>>>> |
