Words that don't appear in this article about Thomas Schaller's South: "Virginia" and "North Carolina."

As I said (again) yesterday, the South is not monolithic, and Schaller's thesis seems to apply best to the Deep South, not "the South" -- and the NYT article questions that logic, too.

Even particular states and regions of the South are not uniform in their politics. It's a truism that NC and VA should be divided east/west, not north/south; the Piedmont and Southside are very different from Eastern NC and the Tidewater. Factor in the DC burbs and the urbanized I-85 corridor from Raleigh to Charlotte, and Schaller's map needs some serious redrawing.

I understand that Schaller is talking about crafting an electoral majority that is not based on historical Democratic strength in the South, not advocating the abandonment of the whole region. His math may make some sense, but his plan is overbroad. The Dems should fight in all 50 states, and expect some successes below the Mason-Dixon.

Comments

[Alan Cone Bulluck]

As long as Northern Virginia and the DC suburbs continue to expand, Virginia is sure to become more Democratic. Outside of presidential elections, Va. is no longer a "Red" state, and you can argue it hasn't been for some time. Southwest VA is solid Democratic, as is the Hampton Roads area and NoVa. One would only have to launch a grassroots effort in the counties south of Charlottesville and Richmond to maybe reverse the Republican trend in 2008.

[Kirk Ross]

Amazingly testy, that Professor Schaller--and very proud of his passing his comps at Carolina.
Here's the link to the part of column on the book, scroll down to his flame in response to the Indy.
http://www.exileonjonesstreet.com/2006/10/12/twc-winning-without-books-about-winning-immigration-auditing-poll-wrap/

Had been thinking the better of responding to his letter about what an idiot I am. He might be right.
Based my stuff on his TPM posts. Links are in the column. Check 'em out for further back and forths.

[The CA]

Schaller makes the same incorrect assumption about Harold Ford as others made about Harvey Gantt- that is to say that part of the reason he lost in the south is because of race. That is a convenient excuse, but doesn't explain why Jim Hunt lost to Helms or why white Democrats lose races in the south too. This isn't to say that there weren't some bigots out there who wouldn't give Ford a chance, but I think that is a very small number.

You are correct that Democrats can be and are competitive in the South, our state is a prime example. However, in any statewide election, those that win are not liberal Democrats. Ford came very close to winning because he is a fairly conservative Democrat. Gantt lost because he was a liberal Democrat, not because he is black.

As a conservative, I like Ford quite a bit and his party label was a lot less important to me than his politics. I didn't like Gantt because he was too liberal, and if anything has been shown about the south it is that liberals can't win statewide. The only effective 50 state strategy for Democrats would have to include conservatives, which may not please the blue state Dems because these conservative Democrats don't always follow the party line as was demonstrated during the Reagan administration.

It isn't really about blue and red as much as it is left and right. There are conservative Democrats out there and conservatives of either party will vote for them if they are the better candidate and don't sell out their ideology to please the party line.

I must have missed Schaller's "map" in the article. I agree there is a partisan difference between east and west in North Carolina, but I think this is largely symbolic. Even the I-85 corridor you mention has a mix of conservatives (Coble, Hayes, Myrick) and liberals (Watt, Miller, Price). The most eastern of North Carolina politicians aren't liberals. They are conservative Democrats. So while it is true that there is a blue/red divide in the east/west analysis, it is more nominal than substantive.

[Ed Cone]

"Red and blue" are definitely reductive, but "left and right" are, too. An economic populist or liberal, for example, might be more socially conservative than a free-market libertarian.

There is a conservative ideological base that defines itself and others in fairly rigid terms, but there are a lot of folks who just don't see themselves or the world through that lens. That may make them "liberals" to the conservative ideological base, but not necessarily in their own self-assessment. My sense is that the definitional authority of that base, ascendant for a generation, is on the wane.

The role of race may well be overstated in some elections, but it's hardly dead. Helms played to racial tensions throughout his career, including the "Hands" ad against Gantt.

The divide between east and west in NC and VA predates modern party lines by centuries. It includes, in the broadest terms, Anglo-Saxon v Scots-Irish, planter v farmer, agriculture v industry, and so on. It's the reason Guilford County and points west had to be forced to secede at the point of a bayonet.

NC Dems in general are more conservative in many ways than national averages, or at least stereotypes of those averages, if only because they tend to like guns and have lots of conservative friends and neighbors.

[The CA]

The new word is "progressive". That will last another 10 years or so until it's true meaning is dissected and revealed (quasi-Socialist), then the Left will refer to themselves as something else. Otherwise, you make some valid points.

[Ed Cone]

A lot of Americans seem to like things you may deem "quasi-Socialist."

The Bush admin's attempt to remake Social Security and disinterest in health care access may have been catnip to some folks, but also may have been critical to dismantling the GOP majority.

[Jim Caserta]

The notion of planning a strategy without the south sends a bad message to southern democrats, and moderate democrats around the country. The south (not even including VA) sends four democratic senators: FL, LA and two from AR. 40% of the 138 representatives are democrats, compared to only 27% of the 94 seats in the northeast being republican. If anything, republicans have given up in the NE, and if they could get up to the 40% the democrats hold in the south, they would gain 13 seats - a big chunk of the democratic advantage.

Planning a message without the south would be giving in to a "litmus test" Democratic party. This would alienate moderate voters in places like FL (my parents being two of them), PA, and OH - states that gave the winner less than 52% of the vote in 2004, and less than 51% in 2000. Those are key states to any presidential election strategy.

Planning w/o the south also sends a bad message to low-level grass-roots activism. I can't do much to affect a senate or house race in AZ or the other states Schaller suggests targeting, but I can do something to help Jim Webb, or Heath Shuler, or Brad Miller. A strategy that says we don't need the south, says to me, and people like me, that "we don't need you."

I'm not stupid and can crunch the numbers, but Schaller needs to realize that messages like the one in his book, are messages to lots of individuals, and individuals are the ones who build campaigns and get out and vote.

[Jim Caserta]

Not everyone shies away from the term liberal. As I see it, liberal means for the most part "leave me alone".

Public education is one of the key principles of Marx. A bunch of his others stink, but education is one that few will argue against.

[Laurie]

The appeal of labels is that you don't have to take the time to get to know people as individuals. Convenient.

[The CA]

"A lot of Americans seem to like things you may deem "quasi-Socialist."

Yes, they just don't want to admit it, especially if they are running for office, so they shun labels being applied to them to keep what they really stand for hidden from public view as much as possible. Today it's "liberal", it's moving to "progressive", and after that it will be something else- just don't call it what it is. Say you're running for office as a "quasi-Socialist" and see how far you get. Instead, use the term "liberal", and then when they figure out after 10-15 years that it means "quasi-Socialist", shun the term and use "progressive". Then after 10-15 more years when they figure out that also means "quasi-Socialist", come up with a new word to disguise the truth from voters.

The appeal of labels is that they usually accurately describe belief systems that people are trying to keep hidden. Why is it that conservatives aren't afraid to admit who they are but "liberals" run from the label? Instead, we get a lecture on the use of labels by people who label others all the time (see below paragraph) which is designed to discourage the use of labels as applied to the Left so they can remain palatable to the electorate. Liberals lose elections. Liberals know this. This is the real reason they don't like the label, not some phony "but I'm an individual" argument. Of course they are. Everyone is. That doesn't mean they aren't also liberals. They don't bitch about being called Democrats, do they? That doesn't seem to effect their individuality, but somehow calling them "liberal" does? No, the real reason they don't like the term is because it is a position outside of the mainstream and translates into another word beginning with "L"- Loser.

Of course, the label thing is a one way street. It's okay to use terms such as "right wing conservative", "religious right", "neoncon", etc. Just don't call the hard left what they really are- quasi-Socialists.

[The CA]

"The Bush admin's attempt to remake Social Security and disinterest in health care access may have been catnip to some folks, but also may have been critical to dismantling the GOP majority."

Oh, but we're not done yet on Social Security...

[The CA]

Jim, what do Heath Shuler, Jim Webb and Brad Miller have in common besides a "D" next to their name?

[Jim Caserta]

Webb & Shuler are candidates I had been pulling for. Miller was more an anti-Robinson candidate for me.

How about not rubber stamping republican agendas? Or serving as a check to presidential power?

Shuler & Webb are pretty close ideologically, with Miller being more liberal. But, how much do Arnold, Guiliani & guys like Allen and Santorum have in common?

[The CA]

I could start by saying they are all against higher taxes. But I also never said I supported all of them, did I?

[Jim Caserta]

Health Care:

America is truly facing a health care crisis. Over 45 million Americans are currently living without health insurance -- 27 million of those are working Americans whose employers do not offer insurance. Even more unforgivable is the fact that over 10% of American children lack the essential health care coverage they need to grow up healthy and strong. That must change.

Every American deserves accessible and affordable health care. And we must make certain that EVERY child in America can see a doctor when he or she is sick. We need action in Congress, and I will address our health care needs on every level. I will start by fighting to increase funding and awareness for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) so every child has the chance to grow up healthy.

Social Security:

Since its creation on August 14, 1935 under Franklin Roosevelt, Social Security has offered a defined and secure benefit that has kept millions of seniors out of poverty. This contract between the generations is inarguably the most successful social program ever implemented in the history of the United States of America.

Those stances seemed agreeable to 54% of NC11 voters.

[Jim Caserta]

As for Allen and Santorum, advocating lower taxes, even in the face of record deficits, wasn't enough to gain them re-election.

[Ed Cone]

The labeling thing is a game a lot of people aren't playing, no matter how often you insist that you get to make the rules.

Most people don't fit into those neat little pigeonholes. They agree on some issues and disagree on others.

Candidates and parties that build coalitions win.

If you tell people that your opponent is a quasi-socialist, you might scare people for a moment.

Then your opponent says that the label means he or she favors a reasonable social safety net, and that you don't, and you lose.

That's how labels fail. A lot of folks who would say they oppose socialism, and see themselves as conservative in many ways, aren't going to vote against a program they value because someone slaps a harsh name on it, or them.

[The CA]

So I don't suppose I'll ever hear the terms "right wing", "conservative", "religious right" or anything similar from you again, Ed?

No people don't fit into every criteria- but who sets the criteria in the first place? Generalizations are called that for a reason- they aren't completely accurate, but they are accurate in general. Not every Democrat supports the entire party platform but they still call themselves Democrats. Why do liberals run from the label of "liberal"?

[The CA]

...And I don't recall Bush or anyone else in Congress calling for the abolition of Social Security. Anyone who says they are is lying. Further, young people aren't buying into that notion anymore and before long, they will be the dominate voting force.

Like I said, it isn't over.

[Jim Caserta]

Schaller responds, part I, II, III.

[Jim Caserta]

I should have said responded, not responds. His posts are from October.

[The CA]

Schaller is generally right in that the West is a better area for Democrats to make gains than in the South. Yes, Democrats can win down here, but are they the kind of Democrats that the party on the national level can rely on in key votes? Probably not. Most of them are Reagan Democrats elected by Reagan Democrats. The liberals, like Brad Miller and Mel Watt are in districts that are gerrymandered to elect liberals (zero sum to elect Republicans outside the district).

But we're really talking statewide, and North Carolina has not elected a liberal to a statewide office that I can recall. Edwards is the closest thing, but he didn't campaign as a liberal- he merely legislated as one once he got in, and we all know what happened to his poll numbers after that.

Easley isn't a liberal. Hunt a little more so, but still much more of a moderate when compared to Democrats nationwide. Roy Cooper, ditto. Elaine Marshall, same thing. Even if these people are liberals at heart, they don't govern that way because they know that is a ticket to defeat in the South.

[Ed Cone]

There was a car commercial on local radio that promised the dealership to be 'conservative on price but liberal on service.' The terms are not absolute values. A problem with labeling systems is that people use them not for descriptive purposes but as a means of controlling debate.

The word "liberal" was successfully turned into a negative, not because people hate actual liberal policies like, say, social security, but because definitions were cherry-picked so that "conservative" designated "good stuff that I believe in" and "liberal" means "anything I wish to denigrate." It was a very effective and deliberate framing effort, but I do think it's running out of steam.

I'm not a big labeler. Go back through 10 years of columns and 5 years of blog posts and I don't think you'll find a lot of sweeping references to "conservatives" or "liberals", or even to Republicans and Democrats as fixed groups. I tend to focus more on issues and individuals. I find fixed divisions are often inaccurate and calculated to win arguments, not describe reality.

Obviously there is some value in labels, but often political labels work better describing behavior rather than predicting it -- a person who votes against gay rights and abortion rights and affiliates with national and local religious groups that hold the same positions may be considered part of the religious right, but someone who is devout and personally opposed to those behaviors while believing that government should stay out of people's business might be harder to classify.

Sam, your need to taxonomize seems compulsive. People who don't do what you want are identified as "hypocrites," or members of a shady blogger's cabal. People don't oppose Bush's botched war because it's been botched, they oppose it because they are "liberals." And like the guy at a party who says with complete confidence that "everyone cheats on his taxes," meaning he cheats on his taxes, you simply cannot believe that everyone else is not playing the same game.

[John Burns]

Webb, Shuler and Miller all campaigned on responsible use of tax moneys, a populist economic agenda which ensures that workers are not forgotten in trade negotiations or tax policy, and a call for Americans to remember that we all have a common purpose and common interest in making this nation, and its government, work for all of its people, instead of a moneyed few.

That, and they were all running against corrupt idiots.

[John Burns]

So, to Sam, any Democrat who wins can;t possibly be a liberal. That's convenient, ain't it?

[The CA]

"a person who votes against gay rights and abortion rights and affiliates with national and local religious groups that hold the same positions may be considered part of the religious right"

Similarly, a person who favors gay marriage, abortion rights, higher taxes, more government programs and affiliates with national and local political parties and organizations that hold the same positions may be considered liberals. That wouldn't be a hard classification at all.

I think that's fair, don't you?

A person is referred to as a liberal for a reason. You completely ignored my statement about the applicability of generalizations- while going on to cite one yourself. It it clear that you simply don't believe that any categorization of people on the Left is appropriate, general or not.

Liberal does not mean "anything I wish to denigrate". It describes a philosophy that generally requires little personal responsibility of an individual either socially or economically.

You can try to make this about me, and the fact that you don't agree with my analysis. I am not suprised. Nobody turned "liberal" into a bad word. It accurately described a philosophy that dominated the Democrat party for 30 years. It was only when Democrats realized that the public wasn't buying that philosophy, that they decided to run from it and decry the use of "labels". Ask Mondale. Ask Dukakis.

Now, they are trying to fool people by taking the same philosophy and repackaging it as "progressive". Or otherwise discourage the use of any labels to describe their beliefs (like you are doing now) so that people won't know what they really believe. It's a Trojan Horse strategy. People won't buy that either.

And John, I never said that. I did say that in the South in statewide elections, that is the case- or if they are truly liberal personally, they don't govern that way because that is a ticket to loserville. If I'm wrong, please tell me where with examples.

[The CA]

People who do hypocritical things like get outraged when a person they oppose politically makes a slur but look the other way and ignore it when someone of their own political ilk does the same thing is why I call them hypocrites, not because they don't do what I "want them to do."

Your need to deflect any criticism of how you do things and what you believe and turn it into an indictment of me seems compulsive.

[Jim Caserta]

Democrats have chosen not to ignore the south and embrace a range of views - they now hold about 40% of the House seats. Republicans have ignored the Northeast, often with contempt, and it shows - they now hold only 26% of the seats. Democrats would be wise not to follow Republican mistakes.

[Jim Caserta]

I consider myself liberal, but in no way would say that I espouse "a philosophy that generally requires little personal responsibility of an individual either socially or economically."

[Ed Cone]

Liberal does not mean "anything I wish to denigrate". It describes a philosophy that generally requires little personal responsibility of an individual either socially or economically.

Hilarious.

I'm a big believer in personal responsibility for individuals, socially and economically. So by your definition, I'm not a liberal. Except when I am.

[The CA]

It's easy to say you believe in such things while at the same time supporting politicians who advocate policies that do otherwise.

Big government is there to protect people from the consequences of their own actions and choices. The bigger the safety net as you claim, the more hedonism you can engage in with little consequence. Personal/economic- it's all related. You want the liberty- you just want someone else to pay for it when you screw up.

[Ed Cone]

That is not at all how I view the role of government, or how I make my personal or political choices. Again, you are defining the views of others, even when those others tell you that's not what they believe.

[Jim Caserta]

It's also easy to throw around buzzwords like "big government", "hedonism", and accusing people of wanting someone else to pay for it.

[The CA]

When did this become "Ed, you are a liberal"? I thought this subject was about voting in the South and how Democrats who run as liberals can't win. I am defining a political philosophy that loses in the South. You can call it whatever you want. Most people call it liberal except for liberals who don't like the label. That is the subject, not your policy positions on every issue.

[The CA]

Yes, Jim, I found it quite easy. Now perhaps we can stick to the subject as to the Democrats ability to win statewide in the South.

[Jim Caserta]

How about wanting someone else to pay for things, as applied to the federal budget. The federal government accumulating debt is effectively setting up a system where future generations pay for government programs of today. The deficits of the past 5 years are very much based on the Bush tax cuts, which had a moving target of a goal. How is that being responsible?

[John Burns]

"It's easy to say you believe in such things while at the same time supporting politicians who advocate policies that do otherwise.

Big government is there to protect people from the consequences of their own actions and choices. The bigger the safety net as you claim, the more hedonism you can engage in with little consequence. Personal/economic- it's all related. You want the liberty- you just want someone else to pay for it when you screw up. "

Ridiculous. What you deride as a policy encouraging "hedonism" is in fact a policy, or a working theory of social relations, that encourages collective responsibility. I am responsible for making sure the kid down the street doesn't drown playing in the creek. I am responsible for keeping an eye on my neighbor's house when she is away. We are all responsible for those who need our help. Call that socialism if you want, but you are misdefining the word. Last time I checked, no prominent Democrat was demanding government ownership of the means of production.

We are, however, more comfortable having our lives affected by people we vote for, instead of corporations. I have often said, if I'm going to get screwed, I want to be able to vote for which guy is going to do it.

On the other hand, I think J.K. Galbraith best descrived the ideology we label "conservatism":

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”

[John Burns]

Bringing it back to the subject at hand, the SOuth is ripe for a Democrat who campaigns on economic justice, populism, and intelligent expenditures of taxpayer dollars. That agenda has been buried by the Republican's unconscionable and, frankly, hypocritical, use of hot button religio-social issues, ever since the Nixon campaigns in 1968 and 72.

This past election, one can only hope, was a breach on that wall. If progressive, yes LIBERAL, populism can win the NC-11, it can win anywhere.

[The CA]

"The deficits of the past 5 years are very much based on the Bush tax cuts, which had a moving target of a goal."

Wrong. We have increased our revenues since the tax cuts, just like we did under Reagan. The deficit has largely been cause by the cost of the war, not declining revenues because revenues aren't declining.

John, who is "collectively" responsible for abortion? Who is "collectively" responsible for drug addicts and the cost of their treatment? Who is collectively responsible for transmitting STD's or AIDS? Who is collectively responsible for someone having child after child that they cannot pay for? Who is collectively responsible for someone's decision to drop out of school? These are individual choices with individual consequences the costs of which should be borne in large part by the individual. I am not against any safety net, but a much less intrusive one that relies less on others and more on the person who put themselves in a crappy situation to begin with.

I agree with you on the corporations thing. The GOP learned that corporations can't vote. Of course, the Democrats are in bed with corporations just as deep, so your allegience will be put to the test.

I take it that I am supposed to accept your definition of conservatism while rejecting my own definition of liberalism? Or is it that it is okay to define conservativism, just not liberalism? The truth is that liberals have to lie about who they are and what they stand for or they lose. It is one big con game. Read today's USA Today column which is all about "liberals" (the term is used to describe them in the article) and how the Democrats will have to maneuver around them now because it's too close to 2008. In other words, we only need to fool the public for two more years, then we can show our true colors.

Story here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-11-21-democrats-advocates_x.htm

Further, John you are just plain wrong in your theory that the GOP wins in the South because of Jesus and gays. That shows a limited understanding of and exposure to conservative ideals outside of the incessant rantings attempting to portray all Republican's as Jerry Falwell clones. There is a strong libertarian faction and secular faction that far outnumbers the religious right faction.

It isn't the Republican's who "buried" the Democratic platform you speak of- it wasn't buried- it just hasn't existed since JFK.

[Bubba]

"The deficits of the past 5 years are very much based on the Bush tax cuts, which had a moving target of a goal. How is that being responsible?"

No, the deficits of the past five years resulted from growth in spending.

Have we not discussed this before?

Key point:

"One thing would seem certain: Raising the tax rates on capital gains and dividends would be a formula for choking off the expansion and reversing the stock market climb. Until now, the Democrats in Congress have in unison sanctimoniously charged that the government can't afford the price tag of making the tax cut permanent. But, of course, all this new fiscal evidence points to precisely the opposite conclusion: that we can't afford not to make the tax cuts permanent."

Plus, the numbers here tell a significant story.

Even the New York Times is in grudging agreement, even though they put their usual negative spin on it.

[Jim Caserta]

Looking at constant yr 2000 dollars revenue for 1999-2005 are: (numbers in Billions)
1999 - 1874.9
2000 - 2025.5
2001 - 1946.1
2002 - 1777.8
2003 - 1667.0
2004 - 1712.5
2005 - 1898.3
Between 200-300 BILLION/year of debt from years 2002-2004 is due to decreasing revenues. The tax cuts were financed through deficits. The deficit numbers quoted almost always include the large social security surplus - a tax that is not progressive and that all workers pay.

Bush's original stated goal was to return the surplus to the people who earned it. How long did that last?

Sam, just because religion does not motivate you does not mean it is not an important factor in many people's political decisions and who they vote for. Both Bubba and Sam, it seems like taxes are the #1 issue for you? Deficits don't matter, and you don't want to spend $ on social programs to help people who got caused their problems?

[Roch101]

"The deficit has largely been cause by the cost of the war, not declining revenues because revenues aren't declining." -- CA

If only.

Since 2001, even with record low inflation, U.S. federal spending has increased by a massive 28.8% (19.7% in real dollars)—with non-defense discretionary growth of 35.7% (25.3% in real dollars)—the highest rate of federal government growth since the presidencies of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson.

[jimcaserta]

Total spending 2001-2005 10Trillion
Total revenue 2001-2005 9Trillion
1 Trillion in debt accumulated. Any plan to pay it back?
29% growth in spending from 2001 translates to 5.2%/year. Not a good number either, but it is a more realistic assessment. Factoring for inflation, spending growth from 1999-2005 was 3.8%/yr. Factoring for inflation, revenue was about the same (1.2% higher) in 2005 as 1999, but took a major dip, bottoming out in 2003 - 11% lower than 1999 levels and spending increased every year.

There is no free lunch. Advocating tax cuts and increases in spending only creates a problem for the future.

[Bubba]

"Between 200-300 BILLION/year of debt from years 2002-2004 is due to decreasing revenues. The tax cuts were financed through deficits."

No.

You can't make that conclusion from the raw data.

[Jim Caserta]

So inflation adjusted revenue did not drop 11% from 1999 to 2003?

[John Burns]

Roch - you win.

[Bubba]

"So inflation adjusted revenue did not drop 11% from 1999 to 2003?"

What state was the economy in during the majority of the period?

What's the time lag between policy implementation and policy results?

[Jim Caserta]

There is zero lag between instituting a tax cut and seeing revenue decrease. A tax cut instanteneously causes a deficit. When are we projected to get back into surplus to pay back even the first year's accumulated deficit?

From 1999-2003, Inflation adjusted, GDP grew about 3%/year. Assuming roughly constant revenue as a percentage of GDP, federal revenues would rise by a similar amount.

[Bubba]

"Advocating tax cuts and increases in spending only creates a problem for the future."

Not according to Greg Mankiw, who suggests it may be a progressive thing to do.

Excerpt:

"Because budget deficits shift taxes forward in time, they benefit relatively poor current taxpayers at the expense of relatively rich future taxpayers. If reducing inequality is a goal of policy, shouldn’t budget deficits be applauded?"

[Bubba]

"There is zero lag between instituting a tax cut and seeing revenue decrease."

You missed the point. Your "cause and effect" analysis is focused on too narrow a time frame.

Tax cuts do not instantaniously raise revenue. They require time to produce the results in their chain of effects.

The tax cuts helped the nation out of the post 9-11 slump and the Clinton recession.