Centerfield

The Democratic Party has two alternatives: either it's a 50 state party or it's a regional party, then a local party, then a historical party like the Whigs. The “better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven” attitude I've seen lately is immature and unproductive.

Wasn't it just two Presidential elections ago that a Southern Democrat performed well in the South? The Senate candidates did very this year on the back of support for Bush, but if the Democrats where to nominate someone with Bill Clinton's politics and a little bit of his spunk, I don't see why the South cannot go back. Aren't there Democratic Governor's in North Carolina, Louisiana, and Tennessee, and didn't Democrats just barely lose statewide in Georgia, Kentucky, and Mississippi. It is a little soon to be writing anything off.

What's so hard to understand about the south? They're like the north in many respects, just a little more conservative, a little more religious, and a lot more distrustful of paternalistic big government for multiple historical reasons. That latter is the big one the democrats can't weasel out of, the desire to be free of know-it-all carpetbaggers. And I'm not talking about content, I'm talking about what a candidate's demeanor and spin on the issues transmits. Democrats need to not come across as carpetbaggers.

Consider Al Gore and John Kerry in the context of looks like a carpetbagger, sounds like a carpetbagger, acts like a carpetbagger.

I've driven though the South once, spending nights in Stuggart, Arkansas, Tupelo, MS, Atlanta, and North Carolina. Spoke to several East Indian motel owners. Didn't get much sense of the country, though northern Mississipi looked extremely downbeat to me.

I also had some southern roomates once, and we had a big misunderstanding that led to them kicking me out (they said I was too judgmental; I think they didn't like that I didn't drink with them). I've found that southerners can be extremely friendly, but it's a mistake to assume that means they have your interests at heart. New Englanders are gruff, so if they treat you nice, they mean it.

Others are welcome to contribute their contrasting cultural observations.

I think the Democrats must compete in the border and outer South--Kentucky, West Virginia, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana. I don't see much future for them in the traditional Solid South, which is becoming solidly Republican.

Rick,

I grew up in Tennessee and I think you are being a bit unfair to southerners. Southerners are very friendly and I agree it is sometimes hard to tell how genuine the friendship is. But I don't think they have some sinister hidden agenda. In general, southerners are less confrontational than northerners so you see less overt hostility than you might see in other places.

From a political standpoint, there are several aspects that I think make the South unique. (I acknowledge that a lot of the following is overly generalized.) Southerners are extremely sure of their place in the world and, therefore, often not open to different points of view. This feature is accentuated, I believe, by the fact that education is not nearly as central to the southern world view as it is in other parts of the country. That's why people in the South don't care that much if their schools are bad. They just don't see that education per se is that important. Religion plays the role in the South that education plays in the north. As a result, southerners have ane extremely conservative view of the world. (And, I should stress, this is obviously not true of everyone.)

Politically, the South has changed even from the 70s or 80s. The South has always been extremely conservative socially--exemplified, obviously, by the years of Jim Crow. What has changed is the elimination of what used to be a substantial element of economic populism. There used to be plenty of southerners who resented corporations and Wall Street and were thus open to the kinds of economic policies that Democrats used to advocate. However, as the region has developed, this economic populism seems, for the most part, to have vanished. Instead, you now have an extreme anti-statism (possibly relating to efforts by the federal government to desegregate the schools, but I think it's not fair to attribute it simply to racism). Three things seem to resonate in the South: sports, religion, and business. Southerners, I believe, trust corporations much more than they trust government.

This obviously makes it difficult for Democrats to break through because of the very close identification of southerners with the policies and ideas of the GOP. Moreover, unlike other parts of the country, the South is much more homogenous politically--the article mentioned that both parties were competitive in the 80s, but for the most part, the South has always been pretty much of a one-party region; originally Democratic and now Republican.

And I'm afraid it's getting worse. The combination of anti-statism and religious fundamentalism is driving the South off the deep end IMO. As much as I like the South in a lot of ways,it's starting to scare me. Alabama is classic. From the furor over the Ten Commandments in the courthouse to unwillingness to pay ANY additional taxes to improve a wretched school system to failure to repeal Jim Crow-era statutes, this is a state that seems to be living firmly in the 19th Century. Yet because of their pro-business policies, the southern states can survive and even prosper.I think it's sad.

As a moderate Democrat, I fear that the South is becoming a danger to the rest of the country because the extreme conservatives that the South sends to congress with some regularity is hurting the cause of centrism and moderation.

I don't think the Democrats can or should simply write off the South. There has to be a voice there for moderation even if it is not immediately successful electorally. Obviously, though, John Kerry Democrats are not going to work in the South. But we have to try to encourage moderates, whether Democrats or Republicans in the South. I wish I knew how to do it.

Rick,

A native New Yorker and a Californian have little in common except for the fact they may have voted for the same candidate in 2004. The same is true of the South.

We may view regional differences through the lens of the media but there are exceptions like the first Democratic, female, lesbian sheriff of Dallas. Some of those ole boys had to have voted for her. BTW, she's Hispanic too.

I suspect you have more in common with one of your southern roommates than with a British.

As a native and liberal Virginian, I find the Dem's current attitude of the south nothing short of demeaning. I have felt nothing but embarrassment as my conservative friends have to defend their intellegence while liberals just stick thier own noses up in false superiority, especially as we see consistent violence in Iraq and displeasure worldwide.
I have a sadistic glee that Bush won, just because I'm sick and tired of my side's arrogance. The Dems are just as resposible for supporting the war and the tax cuts and now they want to act like they are innocent victims. Instead of protesting Bush's election (which I personally consider more of a fashion than political belief), why don't they support local and state Dems?

They must continue to fight it. There are enough minorities, poor, and whatnot who have relied on the Dems in the south for years. There is enough money in the South via the good ole boy network. It would not be reasonable to just pack it in and concede a portion of the country.

To further clarify what I conclude from my own personal experience with Southerners, I don't conclude that all Southerners are jerks because my former housemates were. My former roommates really went out of their way to be extraordinarily polite and helpful when I first joined them. I also noticed them being polite to others, and then screwing them behind their backs. Then, they did it to me. Their being jerks was not uniquely Southern. But the false front of politeness they seemed compelled to present was something I've never seen in other jerks, so I attribute it to the way they were raised.

On the other hand, while I don't get Southerness, I do happen to like country music, NASCAR, and football. These are definitely minority tastes where I live. I never thought of them as political choices, but I definitely take crap mentioning them. There are obviously many football fans here in Superbowl Champion NE Patriots country, but they tend to be more working class. I frequently hear things like "you seem too educated to like football." I keep my musical and stock car racing preferences in the closet.

Rick,

Intellectuals tend to like baseball more than football. Are the people that say that to you Red Sox fans? In Washington, DC, everyone likes the Redskins regardless of party or degree.

Yes, being a Red Sox fan is perfectly PC. Also, Fenway Park is right in Boston, while the Patriots play in the suburbs--indeed almost in Rhode Island.

As a Southerner and a Democrat, I'll never understand why the Democratic Party doesn't understand that Govenors make the best candiddates. Bill Clinton was a very successful moderate Democrat and he was from the South. I believe the Democrat's will have a much better chance of taking the White House back on a Warner (Democratic Govenor of VA) and Bayh (Dem Senator from IN) this would be a great ticket both are members of the DLC (as was Clinton) The Democratic Party will win some southern states with this ticket

absolutely not!

Rick, you like to stir things up. ;-)

Some of your Southern observations are valid. But, your experiences on this blog and in the world since your "housemates" days should be enough to give you a better perspective on this part of the US.

If Dems give up on the South, they may as well pack it in. The key is to run convincingly to the right on social issues, defense, etc. I think it can be done without pandering to bigotry.The Dems need a running dialogue with the South, not just at election time. It's been over a month after the elections and the "true believers" still won't give up on the Red Hate. It's a dumb strategy if they want to take back the White House.

"I don't understand them" won't work.

"I feel your pain" might work.

Jamie, You are absoluting correct. For the democrats to gain gound in the South they have to move to the right on some issues. Defense, pro family issues, gun control ( I am from the South who goes hunting this is an important issue with me) and an open dialoge on abortion, just to name a few. The Democrats can make ground in the South, but they have to talk "Southern"

There is a disconnect between the Democratic Party's self-adulation as the 1-Nation party, and its inability to resonate with so many Southern voters. I don't think the party should write the South off by any means, instead, it should look at it a little more strategically.

I think the great problem of the DNC is that it lives on a 4-year cycle, where it shows up for a presidential election, and then leaves for four years. The kind of work that the national party needs to train itself to do is the kind of work that state level Democrats around the country are starting to be successful at. By looking ahead generationally, and instead of focusing on the presidential election cycle, the DNC would be better off trying to revitalize the party at the state and local level. Resources and organizational skill would be one place to start; but more importantly is letting the locals begin to articulate what it means to be a Southern Democrat, and then building from there. Showing up in town every four years for a presidential contest, to then lose the state to the GOP, to then ignoring the state for the next four years is a surefire losing strategy.

It's not the South's fault necessarily. Partly the problem is that most of the political talk and most of the distribution of power in the South still reflects race politics; just more subtlely. The GOP's success is built on keeping Southern politics locked into that cycle. Just like it absorbed Strom Thurmond, the party absorbed the Dixicrats. It speaks the code that panders to the closet racism while simultaneously evoking the Jacksonian conservatism that obscures the racial reality. The Democratic Party is the party that can articulate the problem and evolve the region beyond it. The Republicans need that status quo to maintain their power. For Democrats to write the region off is to accept that political reality as inevitable and permanent, and no political reality is inevitable and permanent.

Winning at the county and state levels is the place to start doing that.