The Solid South No More

Donald Lambro of the Washington Times has penned an article dubbed Dixie Democrats consider Dean too liberal to win. He spoke with various Democrat functionaries in the region, asking them about their perceptions of Howard Dean and other issues regarding the success (or lack thereof) the Democrat Party seems to have in the land of cotton.

The article's worth a read on the whole, but I've picked the remarks of two people to comment upon. First up: Representative Susan Westrom of Kentucky, who is the Kentucky State party chairman.

"The rural South is not progressive, as far as social issues. They are deeply faith-based on moral issues. They look critically at anything that can undermine the social fabric of their community," Mrs. Westrom said.

Ahem. You Marxist gasbag, of course we're not "progressive".¹ Who in their right mind would want your progress? Good Christ, woman! We look critically at anything that can undermine the social fabric of our communities, and you say that as if it's a bad thing. Maybe some of us aren't too excited about living in hellholes like New York City, or Washington, D.C., both places that are "progressive" as far as social issues. If we wanted life your way, we'd move! Plain and simple.

Once upon a time, I'd be willing to bet that this whole country was deeply faith-based on moral issues. The innate denseness of this intellectually-stunted fool shows another reason why Democrats of the new type are continually running into problems in the South, at least to my mind. They go to some MoveOn-sponsored conference, get their head full of "progressive" ideas, and come back to Kentucky, Virginia, or somewhere else, and say "I'm from Washington and I'm here to help, you racist, sexist, homophobic slobs! Now, all your lives are belong to us!" And then they wonder why the Republican Party wins offices it's been shut out of for decades.

Next up is Mississippi State chairman Rickey Cole:

"I understand the point he was trying to make, but I don't know if he knows exactly how tall an order recruiting those voters would actually be,"

He's talking about Howard Dean and his now-infamous statement (apparently retracted) that he wanted to be the candidate for the guys with Confederate flags on their pick-up trucks.² The problem for Democrats is that they've built such a patchwork of single-issue interest groups (i.e. the anti-gun people, the rainbow flag/pink triangle types, the abortionists, et cetera) and have relied on them to such an extent that it is difficult for Democrats to expand into new markets, if you will.

For the Democrats to recapture their once-solid Southern majority, they will need to reject both the unrealistic/unattractive "progressive" wing and retool their Democratic Leadership Council. This will probably happen sooner or later; if Howard Dean digs a big enough hole, it could be as soon as 2005. The question is, "What will happen after that?" From their perspective, Democrats probably need to reverse what they did post-1968, when the nomination process was changed to the point that George McGovern was able to claim their nomination in 1972. (And of course go on to get absolutely crushed by President Nixon, woo hoo.) Tinkering with their primary system might also help. Admittedly, these are all structural reforms , but if properly implemented, that might allow the Democratic establishment (and frankly, the Democratic silent majority) a chance to nominate someone like Richard Gephardt or Joseph Lieberman.

If I was a Democrat, I'd be voting for Lieberman or Gephardt---probably Lieberman. He's about the only one I'd really trust at the helm of the nation. (Gephardt would be survivable and Kerry might not do too much damage---being veteran politicians, they're not going to get too wild. Edwards, being a member of the plaintiff's bar, is immediately suspect. I've already made my displeasure with Clark clear, and I'd never trust Sharpton, Braun, or Kucininch in the Oval Office.)

Anyways. I've rambled enough in this. There's more to say about the Democratic primary structure, but not in this post.

1 Once upon a time, "progress", like many other words, didn't carry with it a sinister tone. The Chesapeake & Ohio Railway even went so far as to incorporate into a major slogan of theirs, "C&O - For Progress". The thing is, they were for a stronger economy, money in their coffers, and better delivery of consumer goods. The C&O wasn't for the Democratic version of "progress", which usually involves a lot of money being spent for no gain (except to public-sector employees' unions and the like), rends asunder the social fabric, and generally trashes whatever it touches. Republicans and everyone else are left holding the bag whilst the Democrat chides us for being whatever the opprobrium of the day is.

2 I wish John Kerry or someone would say that he wanted to be the candidate for the guys with neon light effects on their cars, the guys who have hydraulic kits fitted to make the car bounce. You know, the "bling bling wing" of the Democratic Party. Admittedly, I'd be more interested in seeing if someone could get away with making that kind of statement about anyone else than lower-class white men.

Tip of the Wisconsin hat to the folks at Lucianne.com for bringing this story to my attention.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 07:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 895 words, total size 6 kb.