A Democratic Party with Southern Characteristics
Submitted by Bernie Quigley on October 15, 2006 - 11:26pm.
Bernie Quigley
Haverhill, NH
A Democratic Party with Southern Characteristics
Mark Warner’s decision not to run for President left a large hole in Democratic politics. Warner, born in Indiana and reared in Connecticut, brought a winning smile and a winning strategy to the campaign trail. He campaigned for his Virginia Governor’s seat at Big Top churches and at the NASCAR track, where Nantucket liberals fear to tread.
He may also have transformed contemporary Democratic politics. In Warner's tenure as Governor, Virginia can be seen as a Petri dish. Warner proved beyond any doubt that the South and all of the red states can be brought back home to the Democratic Party by a genuine, enthusiastic and sincere politician with excellent management abilities, who respected his fellow Southern citizens as he found them.
As Governor of Virginia and as a Presidential candidate, he abandoned the politics of confrontation and established a new model, reaching across the isle to create working relationships with Republicans and ignoring ideology and issues-oriented strategies which often alienated mainstream voters and filled Republican ranks.
In Iowa, Warner would refuse to enter into the politics of confrontation and polarization when reporters pressed him into positioning on the most contentious issues. He once answered, “97% of what I do is management.” Jim Webb, candidate for Senator in Virginia, said all his anger and contention fell from him after 9/11. It should everyone.
It’s a management thing. The Democrats need to understand. There is the essence of the new paradigm in Democratic politics, and although Warner has dropped out for the time being, the same management-based political model has been adopted here in New Hampshire with great success by our Democratic Governor, John Lynch. He faces reelection next month with 80% voter support. Three Republicans in New Hampshire state races have cited their support for him in their campaign literature.
It is often said up here that New Hampshire is a Southern state. Lynch’s election to office did parallel Warner’s in Virginia. Like Warner, who followed the ideological Republican George Allen in office, Lynch followed a similar Republican with cranky, eccentric ideas which were Republican political novelty a few years back. Here in New Hampshire, it washed out quickly after two years. Lynch followed with the new model. He does not represent a return to Northeast Democratic politics as usual. Like Warner, he brings an entirely new approach and brings perhaps a historical turning; a return to sobriety, good management, bipartisan cooperation and common sense.
Warner and Lynch bring good news for the Democrats. But the list of remaining Democratic Presidential candidates cited in an AP story about Warner’s decision not to run could bring the country to a crisis in 2008. Most are senators. None have serious management experience. Some are eccentric and inexperienced. Others have been mentioned recently simply because of their ethnic status or because they look good on a horse.
Of the three frontrunners suggested, only John Edwards does not entirely alienate the South, Texas and the Midwest. Wes Clark was not on the list, nor were any inspired or prominent Democratic Governors like Lynch, Mike Easley of North Carolina or Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania.
Warner had hired political strategist Dave "Mudcat" Saunders to help manage his Virginia Governor campaign and Saunders is partly responsible for beginning to return Southern people to their Democratic Party roots in Virginia. Shortly before Warner announced that he would not run for President, Saunders went to work for John Edwards.
Perhaps a new group should form today to rebuild the Democratic Party on the new paradigm which Warner, Saunders and Edwards are bringing to the Democratic Party: A new politics which would bring Southern, Texan and Midwestern politicians into the mainstream, and which would encourage and draft candidates like Easley and Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius; moderates and conservatives who have abandoned contention and culture wars in favor of cooperation, and who bring with them management abilities and expertise.
It would be a party with Southern features, and it would set as its goal the recovery of red states lost to Republicans.
I’d be the first to nominate my Governor for such a task force or committee to investigate. New Hampshire, in most approximations, is blood red in a sea of light blue. Wes Clark should surely share leadership on such a committee. As Marcos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos pointed out, with Warner out, General Clark is now the only outsider in range of the 2008 Presidential race.
And Clark is a paragon of Southern experience and character. He is a manager first and foremost, and he has been traversing the heartland tirelessly since the election, lending support to Democrats in the Ozarks, Alabama and Des Moines just these last few days.
Southern people go to church. Southern people respect veterans. Southern people are unpretentious and unassuming. Southern people care about family and friends. And so do my neighbors up here in New Hampshire and Vermont and so do people all over the country.
But such simplicity doesn’t seem to be pulling the press. The mainstream press is pretty well fixed, Hedgehog like, on the Hillary and the anti-Hillary thing; Warner being the anti-Hillary. They can think of little else.
The Democrats and the press which follows in their wake appear to suffer from visions and ideas whose historical time and purpose have passed, but whose aura still lingers on in the valleys. Virginia and New Hampshire have led the way to a critical turning in Democratic politics and Warner and Lynch represent that turning. The will and intelligence is available to awaken and bring the new paradigm to life. It’s just that the old coat is hard to shake off, especially because the press sees no other path on the horizon and continuously defaults to old ideas.
Part of the problem lies in history and geography. We are at a major historical turning come about by the shift in major economy from North to South. It hasn’t fully matured and manifested yet in the South, and the North, against all odds, refuses to let go.
The problem also resides in the very idea of liberalism. It has lost its true path and purpose over recent decades as a moral initiative and duty and become instead a posturing of public piety and a social style of identification and status (as one would identify with Starbucks or suburban soccer moms); one does not oppose global warming so much to protect the environment as to feel swell about protecting the environment and to identify with that position as "our kind" in polarization of those the swarty Others who are not "our kind" (NASCAR moms and Big Top Southern church goers).
I was raised and educated in New England and worked the most part of my grown up life in New York City. My father worked in cotton mills in Fall River, Massachusetts, and so did my mother’s family.
This is something the new people who come to the Northeast (like the Clintons) need to know about us: What you come here to seek no longer exists. The angel has passed. The spirit of enterprise which came here from Manchester, England, filling Fall River, Lowell, Massachusetts and Manchester, New Hampshire, with hundreds of quite beautiful stone and glass factories and millions of immigrants, left almost a hundred years ago. The cotton mills have gone South. My father was an electrician. He turned the lights out.
There is no New England as it is imagined to be by outsiders. Eric Sloane, chronicler of our old covered bridges, wood tools and great Yankee barns, said it passed in 1865. The old school Yankees, like the Bush family, all moved to Texas in around the 1930s. It is the same in New York. It passed away at the same time. James Thurber, the great cartoonist for The New Yorker in the 1920s is said to have written on the ceiling above the stalls in the building’s men’s room the words, “Too late,” for those who came after him.
Red state is destiny. The life force that was the Northeast dissipated before the end of World War II. As population moved South people moved South. Economy is moving Southwest now and population is still dropping in the northern New England states as it has been since World War II.
And as economy went to the South, so did political empowerment. A new cultural relevance emerged. The rise of the Christian Right, the roar of the NASCAR track, the sweet Tennessee and North Carolina Baptist choirs which have long been the mainstay of the Newport Folk Festival and even the popularity of Connecticut-born George W. Bush are evidence of a fundamental shift in American culture. And Otis Redding and Little Richard and Dolly Parton and Billy Bob Thornton.
The South has risen. It is strong. This cultural arc is exactly equivalent to the economic boom of the 1800s, which brought with it the rise of Irish popular culture which enriched New York, Boston and America in the late 1800s – John L. Sullivan, the popular operatic John Mccormick, and the great run of blarney in music, literature, the dance and Vaudeville hall and later, the big Hollywood movie screen.
The Northeast Democrats and liberal culture seem to be in denial of this.
What continually curses them is the illusion that although economy may have moved away, New York is still the center of information, opinion and influence. Certainly it dominates, but it continually fails them. Perhaps because the Northeast no longer centers economy, it yields so easily to narcissism and nihilism, the dark muse of the empty vessel. Power follows economy, and if the Democrats expect to go forward, they must follow power.
The Democratic Leadership Council came into being after Ronald Reagan won a landslide victory in 1984. The idea was to try to make the Democrats more like Republicans – Republicans with more fanciful hair, said one wag. It was a false and imitative effort and ended up alienating the large swath of America known today as red states.
What the Democrats should have done back then was ask themselves why the South, Texas and the Midwest had abandoned them in droves. Howard Dean said he wanted to go after those guys with Confederate flags on their trucks. We know what he meant and it was a good idea. It is exactly what Mark Warner had already done with grace, vision and aplomb, and it is exactly what the Democrats should do today. But a former Governor from Vermont, the Magic Mountain of avant-garde liberalism, cannot start that discussion and even the suggestion brought widespread alienation to the red states.
Nevertheless, the discussion should start and it should start in Richmond, Raleigh, Macon, Nashville, Austin and Dallas, Texas. Texas especially as it is the big place, and as New York was to the old industrial America of vast influence in the world between 1865 and 1929, so Texas is to the new economy and the new culture just very recently awakened and yet to reach full expression beneath the Mason-Dixon Line and west of it.
Only the South can fix this party to make it work again as the South made it work for the Republicans in the 1980s.
But Concord, New Hampshire, Haverhill, and Conway, our singular jewel in the White Mountains, should be talking and listening as well. It is a good fit for New Hampshire.
If you all fix it we will follow you. We have no place else to go.
I would argue that Texas doesn't qualify as the South as you define it. Texas is Southwestern, with much more in common with New Mexico than with Mississippi.
The West is the frontier for Democratic politics. Things are changing and have changed in the Rockies. The two columns of states consisting of New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Arizona, Utah, and Idaho are indpendent-minded and will vote for whoever strokes their independence. They vote for honest, sincere, hard-working, solution-oriented candidates irrespective of party. They have a tendency to throw out whoever is in power after a term or two.
For Democrats, the West is the New Frontier. Several of those states already have Democratic governors, and Colorado will have one after this year. Colorado turned both houses of the legislature, a Senate seat, and a Congressional seat blue in 2004 despite (narrowly) going for Bush.
At least here in Colorado, party labels don't matter much. We vote for the right people with the right solutions.
If Democrats can hold the North, Northeast, and West Coast, compete effectively in the Midwest, and make an appeal to the Rockeis states, they'll win. But they won't win by concentrating on the Northern, Northeastern, and West Coast base. They have to go after the "new base" in the Rockies.
The Rockies can be "the new South." It's already happening economically.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
Hi Stan,
You said it better than I did, as I lumped the Rocky Mountain states into the "West," whereas you distinguished them from the "West Coast."
Yes, if the Dems can win the Northeast, the upper Midwest, the Rocky Mountain states, and the West Coast, then the South will be irrelevant. Which is, I think, as it should be....
Cris Brown
Hi Susan,
"I doubt that General Clark would agree with you ... that the South is irrelevant, or that it 'should' be."
I'm sure he wouldn't. That doesn't mean I'm incorrect.
I grew up in a southern household, and I still live in the south ... and I believe the Democrats should neither make nor even offer the kinds of policy concessions that would be required to win over "rank and file" southerners. In The End of Iraq, Peter Galbraith talked about the common Bush administration mistake of "angering our friends in a vain attempt to appease our enemies." That is precisely what the Democratic "Southern strategy" will do. We won't win over the mass of fundamentalist southern voters ... and we'll alienate the very people and ideas that are at the core of Democratic values.
Rather than seeking a "politics of inclusion," we should isolate and marginalize those Americans whose ideals and values are inconsistent with what America was meant to be and can be.
Cris Brown
I have heard General Clark say many times that
we should practice "inclusion". He has always
campaigned in the South, without offering
concessions. General Clark has NEVER advocated
"marginalization" or "isolation" of any part of
the country and I am ,as a southerner, disgusted
by this suggestion.
large group of voters on purpose!
I think that Bill Clinton is absolutely right when he says below “you can’t ignore those social, cultural values voters. You don’t have to switch on their issues, but you have to talk to them.”
If we can win even some of these voters who are disillusioned with the GOP and can see us as a being real alternative, then those extra voters can possibly turn an election in a country that is divided nearly down the middle!
Gen. Clark has always campaigned to try and unite all people talking about values and his faith!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10909406/
MEET THE PRESS
Transcript for January 22
Barack Obama, James Carville, Paul Begala & Mary Matalin
MR. RUSSERT: You have in the book comments, reflections, observations by former President Bill Clinton on election night of 2004 that I had never seen anywhere else. Tell us what he said.
MR. BEGALA: Yeah, this is something I’ve never done before and James has never done before, but I thought it was so powerful. I called him up at 11:30 on election night, as returns were coming in, and I was sure John Kerry was going to win. And I was just dead wrong. So I called him and I said, “Sir, what did I miss here? What did I get wrong?” And right away before the exit polling had been digested or anything he said, “you can’t ignore those social, cultural values voters. You don’t have to switch on their issues, but you have to talk to them.” He said, “You can’t go around and just ignore them. People are concerned about the moral direction of the country. We should be able to address that with equal credibility with the Republicans, but when you simply ignore it,” he said, “you’re going to lose.” And he used as a contrast on that night your first guest this morning.
He said, “Look at Barack Obama. He traveled around the state with his preacher and talked about a very progressive agenda but did it in terms of his faith and his family in a way that resonated with middle class voters in downstate Illinois who probably don’t have a lot of friends named Barack.”
Hi Stan,
I don't want a Democratic theocracy any more than I want a Republican theocracy. It's time to kick the theocrats -- all of them -- off the boat. It's time to take a stand, will the United States be a secular democracy or a theocratic democracy? We can't argue against theocracy abroad while we implement it (or pander to it) here at home.
By trying to appeal to white, southern, fundamentalist Christians -- an argument we will never win! -- we once again let the GOP set the agenda for political debate. It goes back to winning the skirmishes first, and a key skirmish is what ideas (and what kinds of idealism) "matter" in the U.S. government.
There is absolutely no room for white, southern, fundamentalist Christians in the Democratic party.
Cris Brown
You are implying that all white, southern, fundamentalists are equivalent to the Borg collective - that they have no minds of their own, no thoughts of their own, that they vote exactly as their pastors tell them.
The problem with this kind of attitude - of name-calling, disparaging, and ignoring is that it makes it oh so very easy for Republicans to hold on to these people - their wallets, their votes, and their loyalty.
Now, some of these people may not want a dialogue - some of them may believe that Democrats ARE the antiChrist. Fine, whatever. But engaging with them, talking with them, having dialogue is the only way to create change. How many gay-bashers stopped bashing when they find out that someone they love is gay? (Not all do, of course). Evangelicals are starting to be convinced about global warming. A lot of them do a huge amount of good. Does that starving homeless person care that a meal is provided by a liberal or a conservative? *I* sure wouldn't.
I don't think we should abandon progressive principles, but I do think we need dialogue on *why* we think the way we do. We have a lot more in common than we think.
As soon as the Democrats start throwing people out, though, I'm not sure I can be a Democrat - even though I'm a blue-state progressive.
Me too. I'm uncomfortable with arbitrary lines being drawn and only the people on one side are the "real" Democrats and nobody else is welcome. We need to be finding ways to get along with people who aren't just like us, not turning them into hardened enemies. It's not healthy in the big picture for the long term survival of the planet.
Sorry, Cris, it's not personal, but I can't go along with you on this one.
I've been reading this thread and all I can say is that you've really hit the nail on the head with this post.
You can't win a political 'battle' by ignoring the enemy, you have to engage them and work towards change. We can't cede another inch to the Republicans, and writing off a whole region is akin to giving up.
Sure, there are those that won't listen, but that doesn't mean that giving up is the best strategy, it means we just have to work harder.
Hi Phyl,
Yes, I know I'm flying contrary to the Wes Clark playbook here. Yes, I know that southern Democrats will be disgusted with the notion that we should marginalize them.
Too bad.
This country has spent the last 20 years pandering to a tiny slice of the American electorate: white, southern, fundamentalist Christians. White, southern, fundamentalist Christians are wrong on just about every issue of what it means to be "American."
Enough pandering to those whack jobs.
Cris Brown
It's been my experience that the majority of Clark's supporters did not 'arrive' in his camp by any means of mind control. Some of us actually do disagree with him on one issue or another. To imply that we are in lockstep, which you continuously do, is insulting.
To be *always* out of alignment with the General on his board however, is worthy of the question. What is your game? If you simply like playing devil's advocate, fine, just say so.
and btw, "pandering to whackos" is not a practice in which Wes Clark indulges... inclusion otoh, is.
"sorry you're disgusted...too bad"
...fascist is, as fascist does, mr. preznit
What a way to avoid answering the basic question, "Why are you here?"
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
Hi Stan,
"What a way to avoid answering the basic question, 'Why are you here?'"
If I'd seen this question asked of anyone else -- and not immediately after I challenged yet another use of "But General Clark said X" as an argument -- I'd consider answering it. As it stands, the question just comes off like defending hero worship.
Look, I like Wes Clark. I think he's the best the Dems have to offer, and by a wide margin. But I don't agree with as many of his opinions as most people here seem to.
And I damn sure don't take "But General Clark said X" as an argument for X, but only as an argument that General Clark did, in fact, say X. One poster went so far as to say "General Clark's word is truth," as if he were somehow Pope Clark. I find quotes like that -- and the lack of challenge to them by other posters -- very disturbing.
If you want to disagree with something I say, give reasons. "General Clark said" isn't a reason. It's simply an appeal to authority, and that's precisely the sort of pseudo-logic we're having to fight in the GOP.
Cris Brown
That makes sense. I don't think any of us willy nilly agree with every word out of Clark's mouth. But whenever I find myself disagreeing, I look deeper to make sure I haven't missed something. In other words, if I disagree, I worry about it a little and challenge myself to make sure that my disagreement is something I truly believe after learning as much as I can about the issue.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
To date, all that I've heard from you here, on the General's board, is your opinions: you find the General's speeches boring and/or you take issue on some level, with every single one of his policies.
My question was legitimate. Sooner or later someone was bound to ask.
If I missed you at some point enthusiastically supporting Wes Clark, well then, my sincere apologies.
Sybil,
"To date, all that I've heard from you here, on the General's board, is your opinions ... If I missed you at some point enthusiastically supporting Wes Clark, well then, my sincere apologies"
Like I said: I think for myself. And thank you for demonstrating, quite clearly, that you (individually) don't welcome that here.
Cris Brown
The operative word is "active." We are active in the sense of promoting Wes Clark as a candidate for United States. We go out, put on our Clark gear, and use every excuse, valid or lame, to bring his name into any conversation we have. We have become Party officials and committee members because down the road we want to be Clark delegates to the [Denver] DNC convention in 2008. We want to recruit others to our cause.
Being an "active" (probably proactive is a better term) supporter, we defend his positions. If you're suggesting that you're the only one here who thinks for him/herself, you're very, very mistaken. But as active supporters, we sometimes put aside our private thoughts in the interest of promoting Clark's potential candidacy.
It's not a "my candidate, right or wrong" attitude. People have quit the movement over things Clark has said. But those of us remaining have been able to reconcile our private thoughts with Clark's positions because we agree to a level exceeding some threshold of acceptability.
Sometimes, Cris, I think that if Sybil or a couple of others averred that the sun rises in the east, you'd argue just for the sake of argument. This isn't a Socratic exercise in philosophy. It's a political campaign whose stakes couldn't be higher or more important.
There are ways to challenge one's thinking that aren't so off-putting, by the way. Asking a few innocent questions of people with whom you disagree, to draw out and clarify their thinking, is much more effective than the quasi-insults you employ.
And now back to our regularly scheduled programming.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
God love you, Stan!
You are so right! Thank you. You have expressed how I think many of us here feel!
Coming in late to this party, but I can't help but express that I agree.
I hope anyone who shares common progressive goals will be made to feel welcome here. I have had my share in past months of people who have been harsh to me because I do not agree with them but I still post at times because there are some who still do agree with me. I had good experiences with all of the Clark supporters I knew in the 2004 campaign.
There has been some division of thought among Clark supporters since then because some do not feel that Clark will run, some are supporting others, etc.
If that's all we were interested in, Rob, we'd be at some of the 8000 other places with the same objective. This one is different. In case you haven't noticed, the "Wes" in "WesPAC" stands for Wes Clark, not Kos, not DU, not MyDD, and in particular not Robwire. This is Wes Clark's site and that's why we're here.
Why are you here?
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
WesPAC is for others than General Wes, too, for now. Depends on the issues.
According to law, we must be. It's pretty evident that there are messages and blogs here that are for candidates that General Wes has not come out for. Especially for state/local offices.
If and when General Wes declares that he will be a Candidate, then we have to go back under the financial and legal stuff that the FEC requires for Candidates. (certian limits on financial contributions limits, reporting requirements etc.)
Clearsky
General Wesley Clark supporter since 2001
If this site is trying to be open the administrators need to make that more clear. It turns people off including myself when attacks are made against people who do not instantly agree they want to support a Clark candidacy if he should run again.
The House and Senate candidates who are supported by Clark (and some of them post here) have supporters who backed other candidates in 2004 and will support other candidates in 2008. It needs to be made very clear that everyone is welcome.
As long as there is respect for what he is trying to do and a basic willingness to roll up your sleeves to help out.
Speaking for myself, if you wouldn't support Wes Clark for President I would look at you like I would look at a three headed alien :p
It seems so clear to many of us that Wes Clark is the OBVIOUS choice that we're dumbfounded by those who don't see what we see.
But believe me, there are many people who LIKE the General a lot, and see him as a GREAT VP or Secretary of State, and ya know what? These people are NOT our enemies and we shouldn't be treating them like heretics. Maybe in time they will see what we see. Maybe not. Absolutely not, if we drive them away with our demands.
* * * *
I think a lot of the time that is also a matter of being commited to another potential candidate so you're absolutely right. It's on us to make the arguments, present our best reasoning, and treat every question as if it were the first time it was asked.
OK Then I will only look at you like I would look at an alien with 3 heads for now on :D
I'm afraid some of us are getting a little too intense, with the stakes being as high as they are. Let's all try to remember that there's strength in diversity and that we're on the same side here, without requiring that we be in lockstep.
Wes himself says that this is not about him. We are not a cult of personality. We are individuals who are concerned about the future of our country and have gathered together around more or less the same set of ideals.
Of course we are all here because of Wes Clark's leadership, and most of us have faith that EVEN IF HE DECIDES NOT TO RUN FOR OFFICE AGAIN, he will lead us in the right direction for fixing what needs fixing in our country.
MOST of us, I would dare say, HOPE that he will run. We can't, however, DEMAND that everyone who crosses our threshold share our dream.
I started a new thread on this because I think there is a serious need for clarification. I really do hate to see anyone "turned off" against Clark, Wespac, or any Democratic House and Senate candidates by some of the things that have been said here.
We all have the common goal of trying to save this country and that is what is the most important thing.
Clarification Needed On The Purpose Of CCN
Clark is not a candidate and this is not a candidate site. This site is paid for by Wespac. All of the people who support Wespac and the various candidates that Clark campaigns for are not supporters of the Clark presidential campaign from 2004 and many support other candidates for 2008. As we have seen from various recent diaries candidates for various races post here as well at times.
Unlike the Yahoo groups this is a public forum like DailyKos and other Democratic sites where a lot of people post who may share common interests such as getting rid of the neo-cons who have destroyed our country but who may not agree on who they will support for 2008. Many who supported Clark in 2004 (especially many who are longtime Clinton supporters) will support Clinton in 2008 and others will support Feingold, Edwards, etc. and some will support Clark if he should decide to run and some will contribute to multiple Democratic candidates.
There is no litmus test that anyone who posts here has to be a Clark supporter.
I would bet a fair amount of my own money that 90-95% of the people here are here ONLY because of a potential Clark presidential run. If you think we're here and out and about campaigning for progressives and Democrats under the Clark banner for any other reason, you're deceiving yourself. All you seem to want is more hits at your own, private website.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
I would think that your statement "I would bet a fair amount of my own money that 90-95% of the people here are here ONLY because of a potential Clark presidential run. If you think we're here and out and about campaigning for progressives and Democrats under the Clark banner for any other reason, you're deceiving yourself. " would be completely contradictory to the thoughts of Gen. Clark and Wespac and he would be the first to say so. Gen. Clark is definitely not campaigning for people and telling them he is only doing so because he wants to run for office again. He makes it very clear that he is doing so for the good of the country.
I post here because I supported Clark in the draft and campaign and I have supported Wespac. I am supporting as many House and Senate candidates as I can which is supposed to be the purpose of Clark's efforts. I try to post articles that may be of interest to those on this board who may actually want to pursue progressive ideas (which apparently is a tiny minority based on what you are saying).
The bashing of anyone who does not agree on this forum and other Clark forums reflects very, very poorly on Gen. Clark's efforts. If Clark supporters want to require a litmus test of anyone who posts that completely contradicts everything Clark has said for the past several years about being inclusive.
Let's see...what were the last 3 Democrat Presidents?
Bill Clinton - Arkansas
Jimmy Carter - Georgia
Lyndon Johnson - Texas
===
Not sure, but there might be some sort of pattern. OK, let's try to correlate with Republican Presidents:
George Bush - Texas
George Bush Sr - Fake Texan
Ronald Reagan - California
Richard Nixon - California
===
Maybe some pattern reinforcement there also.
Good luck winning the Presidency with the electoral votes from New York and Massachusetts.
Taking even a medium-term view of 25 years, projections are that Florida will add 9 electoral votes by 2030, Texas will add 8, and Arizona will add 5 at the expense of New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Massachusetts and Michigan...so the Democrats had better get a handle on these shifting demographics.
This points to something I might call the "Arnold Effect".
If the candidate is of a party in the minority of a state, then that candidate is trusted a little more, I think. Perhaps because people think, "Well, if that guy survived in hostile territory, he must have really passed the test."
In many cases this is true, good character transcends many other considerations. In some cases it is not true, the bad character was simply pugnacious enough not to fall before the time came.
One thing I will add though. If you think California is going to support a party that places the South at the head of the family table...your crazy.
After the 2000 energy crisis, this Iraq war, the dot.com bust, Randy Cunningham selling us out and Al Gore losing because the Floridans couldnt keep their story straight you really have to be living in some kind of fantasy world to think that the South's main export to California, the Aryan Brotherhood, has earned them any regard.
In the early 80s we had a saying in California, "Welcome to California, Now Go Home". That attitude is partially still in effect, I think. I know many native Californians that were ready to go to war with Texas in 2001 before 9/11.
I don't want to alienate any Southerners who read here, but please, don't pick fights. And for God's sake, don't tell Californians that the South is their great salvation. I couldn't think of an easier way of losing the support of the biggest Democratic voting body.
Regards,
Donald C. Lindsay
Atascadero, Ca.
Kerry looked to be about as NorthEastern as it gets. But although the economic interests of the NE and the West Coast are similar, they are not identical.
It is a simple formula really. It is all about a very simple, unspoken but mutually understood statistic. Federal tax income. States like California and New York pay more money into the Federal Government then they get back in goods and services. Midwestern and Southern States get more dollar value in goods and services than they pay into it. So what is the balancing factor?
Soldiers. You give us the money, we will give you the soldiers. I know this looks crass, and overgeneralizes things and doesn't give true credit to the patriotism of our serving military, but those values which contribute most to young people volunteering are inculcated the most vigorously in the Midwest and South. It is a bitter pill to swallow for some, but it's the truth.
Why did the Republicans do so well in 2004? The War. Without the war, there would have been no Republican surge.
When the United States is less polarized, we transcend this kind of dealing, but during this past 4 years, the fact has been so large in our consciousness that it has passed beyond even questioning it. The current debate over National Security and who does it best will settle upon these lines again, NorthEast/West and MidWest/South. It's economic. If the Federal money flow were reversed, then the reverse would be true, but that so far has not happened.
Regards,
Donald C. Lindsay
Atascadero, Ca.
http://www.nemw.org/taxburd.htm
Texas gets 0.98 return per dollar, Florida gets 1.01
Table shows that tax return is more a factor of population, with less populated states getting disproportionate share
I told you I was painting it with an oversized brush but the fact remains and the co-relation is no accident. Now compare that with the statistical graphic map at the head of this thread and find the reason why party votes tend to fall along the lines that they do. Democrat voting states want to be able to say what their money is being spent on. But, alas, in the shrinking, isolation-bound worlds of some, these statistics are less than meaningless. Key numbers to extract from that page:
0.89 Northeast
0.88 Midwest
1.19 South
0.98 West
Thanks for the reference, BTW.
Regards,
Donald C. Lindsay
Atascadero, Ca.
Don't forget Eisenhower, born in Denison, Texas, the father of the new saeculum (post-war period). It was the Californians, Nixon and Reagan, who developed the Southern Strategy. Political scientists consistently look at this as a racist-tinged attempt to court the "ethnic group" of Southern whites. I think Nixon simply looked at the emerging demographics and the ascending economic trends. They point in the same way. The three virtually unanimous Presidential elections since post-war - Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan - were all expanding conditions of red state. If Senator McCain runs against Senator Clinton, that will seal the deal once and for all and the Democratic Party will have gone the way of the Whigs. That is why we need a red state strategy.
hence the wheels falling off the wagon in subsequent discussion.
That there is some sort of "Concession" of "Democratic values" when talking about the "Southern vote" doesn't make sense to me.
I think that issue for issue it's not about goals but it's about process and the use of reason to determing best course of action. So the basics of it comes down to who is best to appeal to these folks in their language and with understanding of their tradition.
Take abortion for example, find me one human being that thinks abortion is great. Everyone hates that there are conditions where abortion is favorable, but it's the condidtions that need to be focused on, not abortion itself. It always blows my mind when someone uses the term "Pro-abortion", that's ridiculous to me.
Health care is terriby out of hand cost-wise. Noone in the US that makes normal wage can stand even a minor health calamity without financial disaster soon following, or the loss of educational opportunity for their children.
So anyways, I think it's HOW these things are addressed that causes friction. And after that, it's the process that needs the focus of debate, because all in all, goals are more often than not, the same for everyone.
And speaking for myself, anyone who ponders leading the United States and remotely considers ignoring the South, The East, The West, whatever can .. what's the phrase.. "Bite me" :)
Anyways, my one cents :)
Utah and Idaho? (irrespective of party?) part of the Democratic base? What are the odds of that ever happening?
...well i suppose we can wish
...fascist is, as fascist does, mr. preznit
No senators or former senators
No northeastern Dems
No failed presidential or vP candidates (failed in the since of actual outcomes not in terms of actual votes)
No dynasties
Southern, progressive, strong on national security, international dipomacy. Diplomatic as well as political experience.
That leaves Wes I believe.
I am in the South and I think it is important to understand why the South became GOP. The GOP strategy in the South in the 60's started out based on one issue - race. Over the years they have expanded that to include gay bashing, religion bashing, immigrant bashing, social program bashing, phony patriotism, phony terrorism, and various other "social" issues that center around fear and hate. Those issues work just as well in any state as they do in the South so long as the GOP can create a bogeyman to "hate". Carter, Clinton, and others have had some success in showing how those things are anti-American, anti-democracy, anti-Christian, etc. and that is the direction the Democrats would have to go in the South. I was glad to see that Clinton spoke up about immigration in Nevada this week, he stopped short of calling it thinly veiled race baiting but at least he can recognize what it is.
The Democratic governors in the South during the 70's and 80's who had electoral success Carter, Chiles, Clinton, Winter, Mabus, and many others addressed the issues directly and did not try to become like the GOP. Democrats can win putting together coalitions but they will not win many of the hardcore GOP voters who vote solely based on hate and fear.
Hi Rob,
"Over the years they have expanded that to include gay bashing, religion bashing, immigrant bashing, social program bashing, phony patriotism, phony terrorism, and various other 'social' issues that center around fear and hate. Those issues work just as well in any state as they do in the South so long as the GOP can create a bogeyman to 'hate.'"
Exactly. And those arguments play in the South -- far more than in any other part of the country -- because white, southern, fundamentalist Christians are ...
... STUPID.
Southern, fundamentalist Christianity actively opposes and mistrusts education and those "ivory tower elites" who manage to learn more than "If the Bah-bull say-uz it, Ah buhleeve it, and thay-ut settles it." As a worldview, it rejects science, reason, and any non-faith-based approach to looking at any issue.
I've lived with these morons all my life. The Democrats cannot win them over, and we shouldn't try. Rather than racing the GOP for the scummy end of the gene pool, we should maybe consider that the Enlightenment was a good thing, focus on the majority of Americans who think that, and spotlight the difference between the two.
Cris Brown
red state/blue state malarky. The thinking behind the myth has led the Dems to defeat by ignoring approxiately half the voters in this country. To say a state is red ignores that fact that there are also a helluva lot of blue voters there, as well. Right now, the Dccc is ignoring many dems that actually have a chance, but they're in red areas so they won't cough up any $$ support. This is insanity. And unfair.
I'd also like to add that not all Christian fundamentalists live in the South. There are tons of congregations in the Midwest, CA, and virtually every other state. The problem is to convince them that we are all AMERICANS and need to work together to solve our problems. I think some of the evangelicals are coming around slowly, as they realize the nightmare problems that the Bushies have put us in, but we need to provide reasons for us to UNITE and actually become, again, the UNITED STATES of AMERICA. I think Wes Clark has the most integrity, qualifications, and where-withall to accomplish this in 08. No one else even comes close.
Why?
donjo,
"I'd also like to add that not all Christian fundamentalists live in the South. There are tons of congregations in the Midwest, CA, and virtually every other state. The problem is to convince them that we are all AMERICANS and need to work together to solve our problems."
Why?
What good have those fundamentalists done for the U.S.? For the past 25 years, they've held the country hostage, browbeating anyone who dared to think. They have Rush Limbaugh (and the rest of talk radio). They have the mainstream media (though they'd claim otherwise). They have the GOP (Kuo's claims to the contrary notwithstanding).
And now Dems are being lectured lest we exclude them? Why? In case their tender egos might be damaged that anyone dare not bow to them?
Puh-leeze.
Cris Brown
I guess, according to your theories, we should then just kill them all. They do live here and have every much right to their beliefs as you do, as skewed as they may or may not be. Although, for some reason, you seem to think yours is the only one that counts. This type of thinking is just as bad, if not worse, than the hate spewed by the neocon nutcase religious right, because I think you seem to have a brain - but no heart. Or would you prefer that we start to hang a star of David or some other religious symbol on them?
I don't appreciate your condescending, arrogant tone. Puh-leeze.
Why?
This is a very interesting topic. I live in Ohio and I am a Pastor at an Evangelical Church, and yes I am a proud Wes Clark Democrat. Many Evangelicals are coming around, but the vast majority still think the Republcans are the moral party. However I have been working with other Evangelicals to educate them and many have been turned on to Wes by our efforts. Here is our basic saying, we are not red or blue black or white, we are all created in Gods image, and we our all Americans. We live in the greatest Country in the world, God loves us all the same, God embraces the sinner not the sin. All ground is level at the foot of the cross, and Yes God loves those in the homosexual life style. The Bible is very clear about taking care of the poor, not favoring the rich, and taking care of all of God's creation(EVEN THE ENVIROMENT).
And lets not forget about the hot button abortion, first let me say no one is for abortion like the Republicans try to say. Democrats are for a women's right to choose, I have never spoken to a women who has had an abortion who is proud. In fact most are very sad and wish they had not, but lets look at why most women have to have abortion.
Most have no medical benefits or a high paying job, thank the Republicans for both, some are raped and some just do not want the baby. We feel in all these cases that abortion should be rear, safe, and available. We also feel that the Church should not hide behind the Republican party on this issue, that the only way to prevent abortion if for the church to show all these lady's the love of Jesus. As a Christian I can not change any other person, because I am human, however I belive God can.
This is not me trying to push my feelings on any of you, please do not feel offended, This is what we believe, and this is why we all support Wes Clark and The Democrat Party.
We are making a difference in this election in Ohio and we
will in 2008.
Tony Campolo has become one of the most liberal evangelicals and has had a lot of success with showing that Christianity is not about hate and violence.
Yes your are right on the money its not and thats our message too. There is a place and time for a just war, and Iraq is not it. There should never be any hate from Evangelicals or for that matter anyone.
I'm reading John Adams by David McCullough right now and I keep coming across things I want to share with you all. This post is inspired by the book and I think underscores how we've gotten to this point.
May the spirit of John Adams and our other brilliant foundingfathers shine through and take hold in the men and women leading our country.
I honestly feel and believe General Clark lives this spirit. This is what it will take to bring this country together. The fundamentalists will always go their own way as they always have. It matters not where they live -- they are everywhere. A fundie is a fundie is a fundie and they will be marginalized no matter where they are once people of common sense and intelligence see/hear a truthteller.
The Repubs have done a brilliant job of dumbing down the populace. They have used every means possible to undercut and get around our Constitution and I think having ignorant, unthinking constituants was the first step for them to be able to worm their way to where they are today. It makes me wonder how many of the unbending, unthinking fundies are undereducated?
The following is Section II of Chapter 6, from the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, written by Adams, who wrote it in a "burst of inspiration, the words 'flowing' from his pen. 'I was apprehensive that criticism and objections would be made to the section, and particularly that the 'natural history' and 'good humor' would be stricken out.' To his surprise and delight, the whole of the paragraph passed intact, and, as he also noted, 'unanimously without amendment!'"
Wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties; and as those depend on spending the opportunities and avantages of education in various parts of the country, and among the different orders of the people, it shall be the duty of legislators and magistrates in all future periods of this commonwealth to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them, especially the university at Cambridge, public schools, and grammar schools in the towns; to encourage private societies and public institutions, rewards and immunities, for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and a natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and frugality, honesty and punctuality in their dealings, sincerity, good humor, and all social affections, and generous sentiments among the people.
Another article in their constitution:
No man, nor corporation or association of men have any other title to obtain advantages or particular and exclusive privileges distinct from those of the community, than what arises from the consideration of services rendered to the public... the idea of a man born a magistrate, lawgiver, or judge is absurd and unnatural.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right. - Hunter/Garcia
Hi Bernie,
"Red state is destiny. The life force that was the Northeast dissipated before the end of World War II."
If this is true -- and I don't for a moment believe that it is -- then we really are on a dead-end track toward theonomy and the end of the Great American Experiment in democracy.
Frankly, I'm tired of hearing about how bloody important the south is. They've sure managed to convince everyone of it, but it's pure hype. I happen to agree with those theorists who say the Democratic Party should run on an "anti-Southern" strategy, appealing to Northern and Western voters and expressly shunning the Bible Belt. Only then can we pull the "soft" (i.e.: libertarian) Republicans away from the theonomist "NASCAR wing" of the GOP.
Cris Brown