October 09, 2006

The New Southern Democrat

After throwing his support behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964, President Lyndon Johnson famously declared that his act had lost Democrats the South for a generation. Indeed, in Johnson’s beloved Senate, today only 4 of 22 Senators from the ex-Confederacy are Democrats. Yet, a generation has now passed and a new southern Democrat is emerging.

Representing a constituency with different values and ideals than Democrats from the Northeast or West Coast, the new southern Democrat is not a tree-hugging liberal. The new southern Democrat can be a fan of the Second Amendment. The new southern Democrat is not afraid to talk about faith and may not always endorse the full separation of church and state. The new southern Democrat is fiscally conservative, insisting on balanced budgets. The new southern Democrat understands that the majority of Americans would support bipartisan, moderate solutions to our nation’s problems, rather than extremist rhetoric from either side.

This election cycle, the new southern Democrat is embodied by Rep. Harold Ford, Jr., who is running to become the first Democratic Senator elected in Tennessee since Al Gore in 1990. With bounding energy and tireless work, Rep. Ford has turned what was once a double-digit deficit in a red state into an airtight race with several polls showing him leading Republican challenger Bob Corker. Unlike many national Democrats whose strategy has been to sit and wait for Republicans to screw up (with Republicans politely obliging), Ford has been proactive, asserting his positions in every county and striking a balance between his Democratic roots and the conservative leanings of his home state.

One would think Harold Ford’s surge would be cause for joy among Democrats seeking to reestablish themselves in the South. Instead, Ford has been consistently criticized from his left for being overly willing to take conservative positions in his effort to be elected. A group of local left-wing bloggers openly despise Ford, claiming he has abandoned his base and is no more than a Republican posing as a Democrat. What good is having a Democratic senator, these critics argue, when he acts just like a Republican?

These critics ignore the appeal and importance of the new southern Democrat. After all, it has been southern Democrats – Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton – who have led the only national Democratic victories since 1964.

Instead of welcoming a Democrat who is making connections with voters across the state and across the political spectrum, they would have a Democratic candidate who, unlike Ford, could pass their liberal-purity test. Unfortunately, that candidate could not be elected in Tennessee, providing Republicans an easy victory and a comfortable majority.

The Democratic party, including its most left-wing elements, should accept the reality of southern values and embrace pragmatic leaders, like Harold Ford, Jr., who are able to be both southerners and Democrats. The party is currently unable to compete in southern states, leaving Democrats at a major disadvantage in national elections. By enlarging the party to include the new southern Democrat rather than criticizing him for not being liberal enough, Democrats can shift not only the face of their party, but also the balance of power in the U.S. A strong coalition of conservative-leaning southern Democrats and more liberal Democrats from the Northeast and West Coast could reenergize a party still in search of direction.

The generation LBJ spoke of losing is now behind us and it is time for Democrats to get serious about competing in the South again. The future of the party – and the country – may depend on it.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

excellent insight into what Jr. stands for and why he might just win. It also gives one hope that this kind of coalition can retake control of the Congress.

Brian Kiel

Anonymous said...

Now is probably the best chance in history for the democrats to take some kind of progressive national stance, yet here you are advocating that they push more to the center so that they can be more "electable" and take power
and be indistinguishable from the other party. That is the strategy that gore took, (i mean, did you once, when gore was running for election, hear him talk about the environment?) that's what kerrry tried, and they both failed miserably. This seems like horrible advice to me, but i still love you.

Uneven Kiel said...

No. I'm not suggesting Democrats push more to the center. I'm suggesting that southern Democrats push more to the center and that Democrats generally accept the fact that southern Democrats cannot win on gay marriage, gun control, full abortion rights, and strict separation of church and state. It won't happen. I like the compromises that will be made between democrats and southern democrats a lot better than the compromises that are being made between democrats and extreme right-wing republicans. I'm also suggesting that by controlling Congress (even if it is with moderate, conservative-ish Democrats involved), Democrats will have more leverage to get progressive ideas out there and in the minds of people, ultimately pushing the country leftward - ideally to the point that, even in the south, progressive candidates can win statewide offices without having to "act Republican." That is where my thinking is, and I think Harold is a decent first step.

Assuming that Wellstone Democrats cannot win in TN, what is the alternative to Ford? Right now, the alternative is Bob Corker. And with that choice, I take Ford every time. I can understand you challenging the assumption as not being true, but if it is true, what other option is there? If the alternative is someone like Ralph Nader, I'd point out that votes for him in Florida in 2000 landed us the Bush administration - a vote for Nader may have been ideologically correct, but from a pragmatic standpoint, it was an absolute disaster. And at some point, pragmatism must prevail or ideologies will be discredited (as seen with the use of defamatory use of "liberal" lately).

Anonymous said...

i guess ford is a marginally better choice, but it's about like coke tastes a little better than pepsi, no real difference. I don't really think it's on the agenda of the large majority of democrats to control congress so they can get progressive ideas out there, i think it's their agenda to control congress so they can wield more power and control more of the money, but hey, i'm cynical.

Anonymous said...

So a vote for a self-described non-liberal, anti-gay, gun-totin', jesus freak is somehow going to marginally advance "progressive" causes? I'm confused. If Jr's strategy (I call it a strategy because I don't believe he's sincere) is successful, isn't it going to just point the way for other ambitious "Democrats?" And didn't Clinton (to cite the most recent and relevant example) govern mostly as a pro-business moderate? What progressive ideas did he drag along? I agree with scott on his point about power and money - he's one smart dude!