A Yankee's Screed
I'm a hardliner.
Lyndon Johnson was right, when he noted the cost of the Civil Rights Act was the South. One way or another, that is still true. I watched the transformation in my lifetime. I am not surprised.
Since FDR's election in 1932, Democrats and Republicans have exchanged names and most roles. That turnover is now complete. Democrats now represent the former "Wall St Republicans" - the moderate business community - and Yankees generally. Democrats also represent the urban West, formerly a Republican stronghold.
Republicans are based in the Confederacy, and have come to rule with the help of allies in the rural States. Republicans are updated and revised DIXIECRATS, founded by the late Strom Thurmond.
Since 1976, the influence of the South on our government has increased. Now, with the Bush Administration, the South is dominant. Washington is, indeed, a Southern City.
All of this makes me feel oppressed. Here's why.
Un-Southern
What Southern Democrats apparently cannot see is that the Democratic base is now in the North and, lately, the coastal West. Us Yankees have tolerantly suffered the Southern point of view for a long time, at least since Jimmie Carter's election. Then, with the DLC and Clinton, that view became dominant. I feel this is the tail wagging the donkey.
I grew up in New England, and lived my adult life (so far) in northern California and, occasionally, Oregon. While I have all kinds of religious friends and relatives, I am not religious. We don't talk about it; I feel "godtalk" is crazy and offensive. I've always assumed women are equal to men in every way, and I don't place them on any pedestal. I've also assumed people are people; I just don't care about race, ethnicity, etc. I've never agreed with the ultra-capitalists: there is a definite need for regulation and oversight.
The society I prefer is "flat," equalitarian in most respects. What makes it interesting, rather than the boredom of total equality, is personality. That is something each person has to develop. And, that is why I am interested in "who are you?" rather than where you were born, where you went to school, what do you do (your job) and to which clubs do you belong?
All of that is about as far from the South as you can get.
Gary Wills' Lecture
A Gary Wills lecture was re-run on CSPAN last week. He discussed the role of the South in our government since the beginning. His main point is just this: the South has had an undue influence on Washington since the beginning.
The South would not accede to the Constitution unless the North allowed slavery. Moreover, slaves were counted as 3/5 of a man, thus giving the South more Congressional seats than they were otherwise entitled. In the wrangles over slavery that continued until the Civil War, little by little slavery and the rights of slaveowners were extended.
South Carolina seceded from the Union because of Abraham Lincoln's election. The rest of the Confederacy soon followed. It was intolerable to the South that someone unsympathetic to the South was elected President. This, despite Southern control or, at least, veto power in Congress and many agencies of government.
The North and former slaves ran roughshod over the South during Reconstruction, but that did not last long. It was Andrew Johnson, a son of the South, who survived impeachment by the radical Republicans (the Northern abolitionists), who relieved the South.
While the Civil War resulted in the abolition of slavery, not much really changed in the South. The Southern influence came back in the post-Civil War period, and increased for nearly 85 years until Brown vs Board of Education and the Civil Rights movement.
The South has almost always had more than its fair share of influence in Washington. In that, it was helped by Constitutional provisions giving each State two Senators, and by a "good old boy" system of selecting Congressional delegations. Today, the South dominates the Federal government and excludes effective representation of other regions and points of view.
The Cause
Despite military and economic defeat in the Civil War, the South never gave up. To this day, Southerners fervently believe in The Cause.
The Civil War changed little in Southern society, except to increase the resentment of whites and persecution of blacks. Southerners learned that actual revolt and secession was not feasible, but that subversion was practical. Thus, Jim Crow.
Southerners complain about "judicial activism," mainly for two reasons. First, the Warren Court intruded into Southern culture by ending Jim Crow. That was a major disruption of the traditional Southern class and caste arrangements. Second, the modern Courts imposed Constitutional views that reject the Confederacy, which was, after all, the resurrection of the Articles of Confederation.
Southern politicans have worked hard to get around these Yankee impositions. Block grants are all about "devolution," the transfer of power to the States. Vouchers are all about avoidance of integrated public schools; i.e., schools in which the classes and castes are all mixed up. (Discrimination goes far beyond racism.)
States' Rights is the latest version of the Confederacy. It is the determination of the South to have its way, no matter what, and without compromise.
All of these things, and more, are The Cause. Rebs whoop and holler about The Cause, and their God's chosen leader George W Bush. Surely, the South has arisen.
But, I cannot abide that.
Political Complaint
Democrats are not going to win the Confederacy this time. Almost everyone says that. It also seems very unlikely Democrats will win anything in the SAGEBRUSH States.
I've endorsed Dr Dean, even though I am considerably to the left of him. One of my reasons is cultural: at last, someone from the NORTH is in charge.
More importantly, now is the time to recognize what has happened: the permanent turnover of the parties and role reversals. The way to do that is to say and do what we believe, what is expressed in the Democratic platform.
Now, if Democrats don't believe in that platform, if what they believe is the Southern way - the Republican way, then maybe it is time for me to quit the party. In that case, maybe it is time for a third party that represents the non-Southern part of the country.
Somehow, I cannot believe I've been that stupid and deluded all this time; that being a Democrat is being a somewhat reformed Southerner.
I've supported Democrats because I live the way I described: no caste, no class, no priests and no history. And, that is what I want to proclaim LOUDLY in this election. There's a reason for those items in the Democratic platform. It's about the government helping common people, not promoting the rich and influential. It's about equality, not preferred cultural and religious arrangements. It's about science and reason, not voodoo and shamans.
I'm sorry about these intemperate remarks. It's just that I am really tired of hearing about saving the South, and just do it their way. I have heard that literally for decades.
What about us Yankees? How about doing it our way just for once?
Political Reality
The fact is, for the first time, Democrats are going to have to win an election without the South. Call it "The Yankee Strategy." This is a major departure from the past, as many Southerners have pointed out. This is also the reason for the despair of conservative Democrats, because they reject such a change.
The crux of this election is whether we are going to continue doing things the Southern way, or start doing them the Yankee way. Most of the "Republican Wing of the Democratic Party" are Dixecrats, and they are shocked by this sudden expression of Yankee values. I guess they're going to have to show their true colors very soon, like Rep Ralph Hall.
Politicians don't like forced choices. The preferred mode is "compromise," smoothing things over and pushing the garbage into another room. But, in this election, for me, push has come to shove back. I'm about 64; I'm tired of waiting. I haven't much time left for waiting.
These days, I am thinking like the Goldwater conservatives of 1964. What's the use of winning a Pyrrhic victory (Bush lite)? If we lose, it will demonstrate the need to dig in and fight harder. If we win, we will have won something worth the candle. Either way, I won't go quietly.
Democrats' winning the 2004 election will be an historical watershed. The odds are against it, but, if it happens, it will confirm a historic political "realignment" has taken place in the United States. The realignment is not a change in the North:South confrontation; that axis has been a political constant since the beginning.
The "realignment" would be that, for the first time in 40 years, Washington will be run by the North and its ally, the urban West.
That's what I desperately want to happen. If it does, then we can worry about reforming the South.