Tom Schaller is over at TPMCafe , outlining the central argument of his book “Whistling Past Dixie: How Democrats Can Win Without the South.” It’s an interesting thesis – that in order to build a solid governing majority in the United States, the Democrats should stop spending time and effort on races in the South. It’s a theory that I’ve vacillated on over the years, myself. And whatever one thinks of Tom’s ultimate prescription, he offers some important insight that everyone interested in rebuilding the Democratic Party should consider. That said, Tom is just about the last person who should be delivering this argument.
How can I put it? Tom’s approach is like . . . sending Anna Wintour into Charleston, sending Ted Kennedy to Montgomery, sending Jessie Ventura to Washington, well, obviously, I can’t come up with the metaphor. So I’ll just excerpt something from TPM Cafe to illustrate the problem. Tom is responding to charges (specifically from Dave Saunders and Steve Jarding, two southern Democratic strategists) that politically abandoning the South is simply immoral – that is, we (as citizens, as Democrats) have an obligation to try and improve everyone’s lot, no matter where they might live. Tom says:
“A final point…I still cannot get Saunders, Jarding or any other proponent of recapturing the South to answer the simple question I raised in a recent American Prospect piece: How is it that working-class blacks and working class-whites living in the South who attend the same high school football games and restaurants on Friday night, run their errands at the same retail outlets on Saturday, attend similar (if different denominational) churches at the same rates on Sunday, and put their kids on the same public school buses on Monday, vote so differently come the first Tuesday every other November? Those who offer thundering, preachy sermons about the (im)morality of a non-southern strategy should first attempt to explain this seeming paradox without mentioning race. If they can, I’ll gladly sit down for their lectures; if not, perhaps their immorality objections ought to be directed at those whose votes are rooted in racial animosity.”
While Tom’s solution might well be the most efficient, he insists on wrapping it up in a bitter pill of condemnation and moral superiority that could make just about anyone choke.
(And speaking of choking, I was at the DailyKos convention session where Tom and Dave Saunders went head to head over this – I’ll see if I can find it on youtube (or get it up there, somehow). One of the most entertaining things I’d seen in long time.)
