The Southern Question, and other thoughts.

[jbutsz]

I see a lot of questions, presumptions, and even some bigotry about the Southerners who tend to vote for Republicans the likes of Bush. The deep South is, understandably, a frustrating enigma to Northerners and Liberals but the reverse is also true. We fear what, and who, we do not understand. One can argue that's our animal instinct in living color, however unpleasant it's manifestations. The voters are not your enemy, the powers that manipulate their perceptions are.

I was born and raised and currently still live in the deep South, Louisiana. I was raised in a racist home, in a racist community, in a racist state with a long racist history. When turning 18, Republican was the default answer when registering to vote at the DMV, because it was a rite of passage in social understanding as a white working-class male that "Democrats tax us to bribe poor Blacks with welfare for their vote." There is no doubt that racism remains a part of Southern life. That certainty breaks down when we begin questioning why it remains to this day, in the 21st Century, when we have more access to information about each other than ever before. Indeed, one would think there's no excuse not to understand each other in this day and age.

What I write below may not be "PC" but it is based on my observations and experience with the perceptions of the lower-middle and working lower-class of the South which typically votes Republican. As a confession, I used to be one before life experiences forced me into a deep and chaotic introspection; from there, I am learning how to think for myself and notice the subtle manipulations throughout our social fabric. I have since found feelings that could be described as "Progressive."

I leave out addressing the upper-middle and Upper classes below because they are much of the reason the following perceptions remain rampant in the South. I suspect this is true as it is the white upper-middle and Wealth classes who, in the South, build the feverishly-religious cash-cow churches that overwhelming support Republican candidates like Bush, as well as being the ones who have the money to disproportionately influence the local political scenes. The Church is like a business in the rural South; one Church of God a few miles away collects food and cash donations for the hungry and otherwise needy, tax-exempt, but if one needs to receive such charity they must have a "sponsor" who pays $10 to the church for that "charity." They are receiving tax-exempt donations but charging fourth-parties (sponsors) for distributing those donations to the needy.

Please keep in mind while reading further, I speak from the PERCEPTIONS I am observing in my Southern community. I write about the following perceptions so that you may perhaps better understand the mentality holding the perceptions and the influences contributing to them, as well as (hopefully) foster productive discussions on how to counter these perceptions, thereby offering these working-class southern voters a reason to leave the Republican party.

I can't promise I'll be coherent at all times, but here are the reasons the average working voter in the South votes with the likes of Bush for high offices:

They've been lied to by politicians like Bush and his Republican predecessors, convinced erroneously that the Republican party represents any interests other than their own, and the corporate pimps who employ them. Voters are encouraged to participate during election periods, and then forgotten afterwards. Wake up and vote, go back to sleep - until we start our first war that is. And, just in case they get curious at other times, there's Fox News to the rescue.

They've been told and demonstrated to that anyone with a "D" behind their name in high office will push for gun control. This is a Liberal issue that lends to the Southern perception that government is attempting to disarm the general population, an historically common tactic boasted by totalitarian rulers. Southerners enjoy hunting and deer meat greatly, but most of all they do not feel that the government, nor police, is capable of defending their home and family from intrusion and harm while it is happening, which makes the ownership of guns a right not taken for granted, especially in high unemployment and high crime areas. There is evidence in the media that the "siege mentality" is encouraged, this perception that there is always some evil coming over the hill. In addition, one can argue the premise that banning guns does anything to address the underlying force of violence in human nature. Southern Republican voters' relationship with the NRA can be explained in saying that, obviously, the NRA is fighting against the "abridgment" in any way of the Second Amendment protection of the right to bear arms that is feared to lead into eventual prohibition. Fear. My perception is that Liberals fear the exercising of this right by a population and culture they understandably do not understand (fear) and are at odds with politically, and that Conservatives do not understand (fear) why Liberals, who they are at odds with politically, want to abolish private ownership of arms. They do not buy into the premise that prohibition addresses or discourages violence any more than we buy into the premise that drug prohibition addresses or discourages use and abuse. Southern Republican voters instinctively do not trust government and professional politicians, especially a government attempting to disarm them, and therefore vote Republican based on the perception that Conservatives are anti-big-government and appreciate the need for a "last-defense" held in the private ownership of arms against a tyrannical government. Notice that Republican powers always claim and portray themselves to be "one of them," not just for them. The tragedy of this is that they are unaware that our government establishment elites now have such experience in controlling perceptions through corporate and media collusion, that totalitarian rule by force is no longer necessary. This perception of Conservatives being anti-big-intrusive-government is one that the Republican powers seed and encourage, despite the fact that Bush, and Reagan during his time, is presiding over the largest federal deficit spending increase in the history of the United States, as well as the biggest threat to and erosion of civil liberties via John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act powers.

They watched Clinton (read: "a Democrat") sign NAFTA, now apparently having the effect of selling American jobs down the river to Mexico, while opening the borders for foreigners to come and steal the jobs we do have left here - thereby driving down wages and benefits. Despite over 3 Million Americans losing their employment since Republican Bush was sworn in, they are told it was a Democrat signing NAFTA that has caused the exodus of jobs. I'm not sure that the WTO and it's implications are known generally, but I doubt it. There is no reporting here on foreign and economic policies and implications, of course.

They are told that Clinton (read: "a Democrat") weakened our military and intelligence agencies via budget cuts, that all Democrats want to trash the military and give it's entire budget to the welfare (read: "vote bribery") system. They are told this is what allows Arabs to blow up the World Trade Centers and terrorize the rest of the world. They are told Clinton had a chance to get bin Laden in the 90's but didn't commit to it, and that Gore in the 80's was against fighting terrorism (how, is never elaborated). And of course, they are told Reagan was the God of All Presidents past and future.

The Republican party has successfully laid the perception of blame for their voter's economic, social, and educational suffering on the Democratic Party establishment, by way of demonstrating that their "otherwise unnecessary taxes" are unfairly stolen by Democrats for welfare programs and, encouragingly, given to "unproductive blacks having babies left and right" - in return for their voting Democrat. They are told that if they were not taxed for this injustice, things would be great, they could finally get ahead if only they were not supporting unproductive Black women and their dozen or so expectedly unproductive kids. This perception is tremendously! seeded and encouraged by the Republicans here, more than any other perception, and observed evidence is paraded through private gossip at every opportunity as vindication of the reasons working class whites are suffering and can't get ahead. There is no class teaching this, but the effect is such that you'd assume there has to be! It's "understood" by early teens. This perception, while certainly enflamed, is not without some truth. Indeed, there are still welfare "abuses" here, or at least in my area, but it is unknown how widespread it really is in the South. For clarity, "abuses" seem to be defined as having babies merely for the sake of receiving more welfare income. My mother is a Labor and Delivery nurse, and was just recently told by a co-worker from another shift that a black woman patient was boasting to her friend that she's "had her fourth baby, ain't gotta work no more." Assertions such as these are never doubted for a second. In her 15 years as a nurse she's seen lots of what she perceives as system abuse in this respect. One observation of abuse spreads via gossip like a California wildfire, and with it, extreme anger and reinforcement of racism. It is suspected, now anyway, there are just as many poor whites "abusing" the system in this regard; they are undoubtedly the targets of Jerry Springer-type ridicule.
...
There is very high unemployment in my parish, with poorly performing schools and a joke of a community college (across the river in MS). There is no investment here, and any industry that comes looking for employees are chased away as by the local Wealth class ("Heritage Club") protecting their tourism dollars made by showing off their Antebellum homes, which employs very few people outside of souvenir shops. There is also a Casino here, which does not pay out anything, ever, and so is a vacuum for community money - and they want to bring in yet another Casino. Super Walmart has closed many small businesses, and is almost the only large retailer left.
...
On education: Working and middle-class whites are also told relentlessly that they are being taxed for "undeserving blacks" who have not made the grades, to go to college via affirmative action or minority quotas and public funding, while continuously changing majors to avoid accountability, while whites cannot get the same funding if their parents make over poverty income (but still cannot afford tuition), forcing poor whites into heavy debt via loans before they've even started. This is why working southern Republican voters are militantly opposed to policies like affirmative action. On this issue, my oldest sister claims she sometimes observes such pell grant abuse as a Professor of Nursing at Alcorn in MS. While abuses do take place, I'm afraid these isolated observations, shared with others, only lend to the perception that ALL poor blacks "work the system" in exchange for voting Democrat, or vote Democrat because they are given a system to "work." It is as "common knowledge" for whites here as the fact that earth is round. It is an issue for working and middle-class whites in the south and a perception that will not go away until credibly addressed; the Republican powers are certainly not going to, they are benefiting the most from it politically. In my opinion this issue is perhaps the most defining reason, next to gun control, that working class whites hate Democrats by default, and vote Republican; these are the perceptions I hear most in complaint of Democrat policies. Any Democrat who wishes to persuade working class whites away from the Republican party will have to get close to them on this issue, really listen to their concerns, and formulate a way to counter this perception both with reason and action. This issue is also why Southerners are knee-jerk against Universal Health Care suggestions; they feel it will mean more of their taxes are dumped into another welfare system for unproductive people to mooch off of.

They are also told that Social Security will be bankrupted by these "welfare programs."

As far as Women's abortion decision rights are concerned here, it seems to me that's an upper-middle and Wealth class (read: church builders) fight, using their monetary and status influence to legislate morality while building popular support for it by demonizing it through their congregations. Same thing for the War on Drugs.

(As a side, I've also observed a strong push for de-emphasizing symptoms of class struggle in recent years, e.g. school uniforms. Uniforms in public school seem a benign policy, one to "help the poor not feel bad from ridicule," but I'm unable to dismiss the lingering suspicion that it fails in creating equality but serves another ulterior purpose, or otherwise has a side-effect: desensitizing kids early on from noticing class/wealth disparity and struggles. It is my opinion that we do not help children adapt to the world by protecting them from the truth of our human condition, but rather, raise people ill-informed to address and confront our social struggles and injustices. This is the major problem I have with evangelical religious-morality, for example; it tends to discourage acknowledging and confronting the dark aspects of our human hearts, but rather, ignoring and condemning it as sin. I don't have a problem with religion itself, but I begin to when it seeks to punish those who do not agree. This sort of oppression makes it extremely difficult for one to truly "know thyself," let alone understand others. Entirely too simplified, I know, but it's beyond the scope of this writing to continue here.)

Finally, The Democrat Leadership has not countered these perceptions in any effective way in the South. For one, it's hard to credibly counter a perception you do not experience and understand for yourself; this problem is non-partisan. Ignorance and misconception will thrive as long as we fail to share ideas and facts about each other, with one another, to learn what really works and what does not, what is truth and what is not. The Republican powers have thrived because ignorance and misconceptions have not been opposed effectively and credibly. Considering this, it makes me SICK to hear people suggest deserting the South as a lost cause; who the hell else is going to counter ignorance?? That tactic would be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Eventually someone/party will, there is a market for truth after all; if the Democratic party won't unite to confront and oppose ignorance, misconceptions, and propaganda, then it should step aside for others who propose to, and aspire to represent the ENTIRE United States. Really, why else even call it a United States anymore at the point you consider half the nation a lost cause? If you wonder why people say "The South Will rise Again!" your answer lies in parochial establishment politics more worried about power than doing what's right (doing right wins in the long run, even if we don't get to see it).

I say as a human being, it is my obligation to help counter ignorance as well as I'm capable, no matter how futile it may seem. I see a big problem that is plaguing party politics and steel-rigid party platform loyalty: preaching only to their own choirs about problems and ideas. Liberals advocate liberal solutions to liberals, Conservatives advocate Conservative solutions to Conservatives. There is no real mediation between us all because in this era it's all about the money and power and who will get more of it - while not getting anything meaningful done, and certainly not making progress in improving the human condition. We are not behaving like a nation, but two countries disputing borders. We are becoming more polarized by the day, and that suits 'the powers that be' just fine; as long as we are warring with each other, we don't have time to notice that, in reality, we're all being screwed the same. That is The Great Deception.

Politics is the Art of Seizing Power; Diplomacy and Democracy is the Art of Negotiation for facilitating social cohesion, cooperation, and progress. It's my perception that the "Establishment" of BOTH camps, Republican and Democrat, are guilty of playing the Art of Seizing Power at our expense for so long now that we people living in the real world are suffering the horrible consequences of an ultimately unrepresentative and unaccountable government, thrilled just getting peanuts' worth of attention from those we elect, while the real threat of fascism grows as way of government for the future - fascism being perhaps the only way capitalism can survive or at least prolong it's cannibalistic and viral nature. No matter which establishment seizes power in this era, we move further away from true, sustainable progress for humanity. Our election-by-election priorities are myopic and corrupt. I feel this is true because with each election we collectively seem more "normalized" with the status quo and a government out of the people's control no matter who is elected; both camps intent on electing candidates that perpetuate this broken and ultimately unresponsive system by becoming more and more beholden to interests of power and money. We here are actively interested in our Government and feel that everything will be great again if our party will just win the next election, but when I step away from this online world I see that most out there feel helpless and hopeless or apathetic about their relevance to it all - even the ones who wake up to vote. If you need evidence to back this assertion, check the statistics on what percentage of eligible voters do not participate in their "Democracy." Last I heard that percentage was on a trend upwards in the long view.

Taking that long view, the last fifty years have especially seen one setback after another in Democratic government and confidence in it, our freedom, and the progress of humanity as a whole - each administration seizing and exercising more power for itself than the last, and each congress emancipating itself more from accountability to and representation of the People than the last. That entrenchment of power does not recede with a change of parties every two, four, or eight years, it gets passed along as if an inside tradition. Considering this, maintaining the status quo of power makes the erosion of individual power and freedom inevitable. Party power-politics are no less mob-rule than PACs and the army of corporate lobbyists in D.C.; in such an arrangement, half the people are always going to gain at the expense of the other half; in such an arrangement, it's only a matter of who's bending over and getting it this time around; in such an arrangement, equality, liberty and justice for all is a fantasy. That's the way it is, sure, but to me it looks insane. (On Edit: spelling)

This coming Presidential election is probably more crucial than any in decades as it will decide just how less we expect, from now on, to control a government now vulnerable to factional extremists. Getting Bush's administration out of power, no one here can argue, is priority number one; "Anyone But Bush" is the new mantra, that's just how bad it really is. I wish we could accomplish that AND, setting candidate preferences aside, vote for whomever stands for helping us get real, meaningful control over our government again - something we lost with the 20th century rise of "Corporate Personhood." That's what I hope for, meaningful change, working for real improvement of the human condition. If an extremist administration like Bush's can seize power, without immediate fundamental overhauls after his removal our government is weak and vulnerable enough for it to happen again at any time, and to even more extreme ideologues.

I'm not going to tell you which candidate would be best to support; naturally that's for you to decide, and I'm not so sure yet. However, I would like to ask you to consider these critical things I've mentioned which I feel tend to get drowned in party-power politics, in considering which candidate to support.

I'm not voting for wrestling power between two parties; I am disillusioned with it's effectiveness in real human progress. The stakes are high in this election, so I will vote against Bush in '04 no matter who gets nominated to face him, but in perpetuating party-power politics as it is, I fear we are all ultimately losing the biggest thing at stake: a government of and for the People. Make no mistake, We the People no longer control our government; the sooner that delusion is dispelled, the sooner we can take back our government. Whether we win or they win, the illusion of control by the People is maintained as long as we play within their parameters, by the established powers' rules. A choice between an "R" and a "D" or "G," or any other alphabet, is no real choice if they are all corrupt and only concerned with their own power and maintaining the establishment status quo; it's in our best interests to draft into candidacy at every opportunity, those who actively speak out against maintaining this farce of a choice between corruptions merely of different flavors. We must demand candidates of integrity and dedication to TRUE Democracy, to truth itself, and not settle for anything less. I'm not sure yet if there is a candidate running that can fit this tall order in '04. This problem of real choice being an illusion in our era can be illustrated by one example: it doesn't matter which American news company you tune into today, you're not going to get information that's in your best interests, because their best interests lies in not providing enough of it for you to truly make an informed decision on what yours is. Power is power - whether it's in media, politics, or money; to concede what you need and want is to let you retain your individual power, and that is certainly not in their best interests. In our era, it's a professional politician's job to use your power, money's job to buy it, and the media's job to con you into believing you really have it. Ignore this at your peril. We are far too trusting of our party leadership, even in this cynical age.

There's going to be a revolution within this country. A critical mass is inevitable with so many contradictions and opposing forces in our social, political, and economic society that are all increasing exponentially. The only questions are when, how, and by whom it is lead; the People, or 'the powers that be' in a definitive smackdown against them.

Once upon a time some people were forced into a revolution, rebelling violently against an unrepresentative power because that power gave them no alternative. Voting is not enough. If the Democratic PEOPLE do not stand up to the challenge of reclaiming control of and reconstituting the truly representative government that is critically necessary now more than ever, thereby accomplishing a relatively peaceful revolution, then I'm afraid a violent and chaotic one will be inevitable.

[La_Serpiente]

1. Good Lord

that sure was a lot to read.

Thanks for you very detailed analysis on Southern Culture and race relations. You really helped me understand what is going on down there.

This thread is a keeper.

You might want to post this tommorrow during the day as well. I think a lot of people would want to comment on it as well. There are not a lot of people up during this time.

Have a nice night.

:-)

[jbutsz]

26. Not even scratching the surface, really

I'm afraid fatigue cut a lot short, as well it becoming too long to read easily on this board. Have to start somewhere, though. :-)

Much of this has been building up over the weeks; for one, watching discussions about Dean's flag comment that stirred up so many Southern questions and flame wars.

[Karenina]

52. Man-o-man...

This thread makes my head hurt sooo GOOOOD!!! Brilliant, excellent, perceptive, informative, right on the money, turn on the lights... :kick:

Note to passers-by:

The post was long, some of the replies belows are too but I DO ENCOURAGE EVERYONE to take time and READ THE WHOLE THING. It is an eye opener and WELL WORTH THE IT!!! :think: :bounce: :toast: :bounce: :think:

[jbutsz]

54. Thank You

For your comments and the kick :-)

[southerngirlwriter]

2. Hear, Hear, Sir!

As a Southern girl, I salute you for your astuteness. I don't agree with you 100%, but you are, for the most part, exactly accurate.

The abortion issue is one area I think you've de-emphasized. I recently talked to my right-wing mother. She admitted that Bush is doing a piss-poor job. I talked to her about Howard Dean (BTW, I'd prefer Edwards -- I'm not a hardcore Deanite or whatever it's called -- I'm just being realistic). Went over some of his economic proposals. Explained how it could help her business and how his ideas could help her and my dad as they age.

She admitted that I was right and Dean would do a better job, but then said, "I just can't do it, Jess. I can't vote for a man who thinks it's okay to murder babies. You've never been pregnant; you've never felt a child kick in your womb. You just don't understand. I can't vote for a baby-killer."

She is VERY representative of her church (which is about evenly split, 50/50 between upper-middle class and the lower and lower-middle classes). She is VERY representative of our family.

Also, the idea of gay marriage is scary to her. I talked to her about Seigfreid and Roy. I said, "Forget for a minute that they're lovers. Just pretend they were good friends who'd lived together their whole lives. Did you know that, under many state's laws, Seigfried could NOT visit Roy in the hospital, or be considered his next-of-kin, to make decisions for him? Mom, no one is saying your church has to have gay weddings. But if we're really free in this country, they should be able to have their own ceremony or be 'married' at the courthouse, so they can use their own freedom to decide who their partner is -- that's not just an emotional term, it's a LEGAL one with specific rights and responsibilites."

She had a bigger problem with that one, but never once quoted the Bible at me, and actually discussed it rationally.

BTW, our whole family is from New Orleans on my mom's side. I am the first person in my family to NOT be born in New Orleans in at least eight generations (as far back as we have records to go).

[jbutsz]

9. On reflection,

I agree that I over-simplified some of these issues, especially abortion rights. It was probably laziness by that time after having pondered these problems for hours while writing.

I really don't have a clue what's best; I myself have conflicting feelings about it.

Around here, homosexuality is as alien as Martians would be, even among most non-conservative folks (well, except my best friend). There's just not much exposure to it here. We're only now getting accustomed to seeing interracial relationships, at least in my relatively isolated region, and even then you hear hushed remarks about it.

That's been my biggest complaint about growing up in Louisiana, how isolated we are here. It's hard to form an accurate picture of the world with such isolation.

About church class 'demographics', when mentioning upper-middle and upper classes I was referring to those who lead/build Churches here, not the congregation itself, which is of course a pretty even attendance by all classes in those I've attended.

I spent several teen years in religion and ended up feeling bitter and deceived, and even now still resent the social intolerance and prescribed morality it encouraged. My sensitivity to it is enflamed when religious powers seek to enforce their moral convictions on everyone (via legislation) and punish those who do not agree.

I don't like the thought of later term abortion in the absence of threatening complications, but I like even less the idea of government forcing my dislike upon others when I have no way of knowing for certain if my morality is best for the rest of humanity, however well-intentioned it may be. There is a saying, "The best intentions pave the road to hell." Through introspection I've come to greatly appreciate the dynamic process of discovering true morality through self-knowledge, even though it doesn't make the decisions any less difficult, and feel it is tragic when a religion or government or media seeks to hinder this process.

There are no easy answers, and problems arise when we try to graft others' moral convictions onto our own outlook without clearly seeing and understanding them both.

[jpgray]

3. I don't have time to read this tonight, but I'll be back tomorrow

Here's a kick in the meantime for a well-intentioned thread.

:hi:

[BootinUp]

4. ditto...got part way through, very interesting so far.

:o

thats a yawn.

[mitchtv]

69. bookmark this one

almost 8pm PST and time to check out the good general on 60 min.

[oasis]

5. a kick for the night owls

[guitar man]

6. Great Post

I read it all,don,t know how much I will retain,but will bookmark for later reference.

I was born in Alabama and raised in Oklahoma mostly,some in South Mississippi,so I know what you are talking about.we call it the "good ole boy" system here,some refer to the "Dixie Mafia" The government existing to preserve the status quo,to protect the interests of people born into certain families and to hell with the rest. Either take the crumbs that fall off our tables or get the fuck out is the attitude here. Then they were whining and wondering why we lost a congressional district due to young folks moving away,so they browbeat the population into passing a "Right to Work" law and promised it would fix all.Real progressive thinking! Jobs have left the state at a record rate since then.

The biggest problem we have here may sound like an oxymoron to a lot of people,but it's a fact of life in state and local politics in these parts are Conservative Democrats. We have some "D" state senators and reps. that make a lot of Northern "R's" look almost liberal. They make a lot of noise at each other at election time,but nothing seems to change in this state no matter who wins.

They have managed to turn Oklahoma into a low wage,religious-right wingnut armpit of a place to live.If I hadn't paid off my house last year(finally),I would be outta here on the next thing smokin'.

[jbutsz]

34. Moving away

Louisiana and MS (at least the town across the river) has seen nothing short of the exodus of young people. Very few young people stay here in my community; there's nothing to keep them there. We had one large industrial employer (IP) and it closed down this past summer.

Now the only industry left for the little people is healthcare, which has plenty of business in this "Certified retirement Community." The rest are small businesses employing anywhere from 1-20 or so people each.

The "Conservative Democrats" are examples of political survival. With no effective method of countering the perceptions I've written about, being a "Conservative Democrat" is about the only way to survive as a politician in the South. Further, they are from - born and raised - in the South; I suppose it is a bit of a stretch to expect them to be completely exempt from the perceptions indoctrinated throughout the South.

a low wage,religious-right wingnut armpit of a place to live.

I know what you mean all too well.. It is hard to live in such a place while having progressive feelings. I suppose that is why so many leave. I have tried to in the past but couldn't afford a move.

[Adjoran]

7. Wow, that's a lot to respond to

But it does address some concerns we can't sweep under the rug.

The Democratic Party has been around since Jefferson's first run in 1796.

No Democrat has EVER won the White House without carrying at least two southern states. Only one won with less than three - Clinton in '92, in a three-way race.

If we aren't thinking about which southern and border states can be won, we are just planning to lose.

The best chances are the ones which were close last time. We have a chance at winning Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas. Tennessee is an outside shot, and Virginia might be possible if Mark Warner is the veep. Border states West Virginia, Missouri, and Kentucky are possibilities. If we win four or more of the states mentioned, we win. If we don't, I can't add up to 270 electoral votes.

[jbutsz]

35. Engaging the South

It seems to me, thinking about Clinton (though I didn't pay much attention at that age), that the South responds to energy and vitality in a candidate in regards to their respective parties.

Politically apathetic Southerners have no illusions that the government represents them, but they do react to that energy and vitality - if for nothing more than the entertainment and novelty that someone important is talking to and about them.

Considering this, I wouldn't go into the South with a half-asleep candidate expecting to get a rise out of anyone, let alone win any of the Southern states. This is one of the biggest complaints about Gore I heard in 2000 around here; they thought he was "stupid" because he was so "stiff like a robot in his speeches and gestures," and "fake."

Now that Louisiana has a Democratic Governor (historically at that), it is definitely a crucial asset and definitely winnable with the right candidate - one able to engage the People out of their slumber.

[sandnsea]

8. Very powerful

And all true. And for alot of it, you could just put in another race and another part of the country, and repeat. Lots of problems in this land of ours. I wonder if we'll truly meet the challenge to change them.

[jbutsz]

38. Not limited to the South, no

It's not just a Southern problem but a World problem, a Human problem - as far as getting along without destroying ourselves.

The battle for truthful perceptions winning out seems bleak and epic in these times, but as a problem it's only as big as our reluctance to confront it head-on with a true heart. We'll find a way through it as long as we're willing to.

That said, change is scary sometimes, we don't know what form it will take.

A party/candidate that is able to credibly instill hope for the future, and a better future, already has the advantage.

[Classical_Liberal]

10. I agree, but we can''t deal with these conditions

by compromizing with them like the DLC does. We have to actually reduce the power of the religious right and to strengthen labor. That is much longer term then the next election. We have to elect a democrat to change these things, and that means in the short term using our money in tossup states, rather than deeply republican ones. We win then we fan out.

[jbutsz]

42. Compromises

Compromises are part of facilitating Democracy, but yes I do agree that under the conditions set by the established powers (of all parties), conditions which are out of Popular control, we cannot practice Democracy in any truthful way.

The DLC compromises not for facilitating Democracy, but to perpetuate their inclusion in a system controlled by entrenched, concentrated, centralized powers.

The Republicans will always have more money - and fighting state-by-state, in the long run, does not really threaten their power. If they lose an election, next time they will pump twice as much money into the states they lost last time around and the candidates most promising to whore for them.

We need to elect someone who advocates changing things yes, but someone who will also expose to everyone else why things should. We know why things need to change, and candidates know why, but the people we end up electing rarely tell anyone else why they should; it is a rare one that follows through. This is why things don't change, at least for the better.

I've always wondered why this is, why they say wonderful things during the races but rarely deliver.

Do they forget once in office?
Are they too busy trying to raise money for re-election?
Are they intimidated by other politicians pleased with the status quo?
Are they intimidated by overwhelming opposition?
Are they threatened in private, anonymously, to keep quiet or their children die?
Do they lose heart seeing most voters go back to sleep after election?
Were they the right candidate to being with?
Did they blow smoke up our collective ass just to get elected?
Did I judge their likely intentions correctly?

Whatever the reasons we must discover, to change things for the better will require a Popular uprising. If they don't get a hold of the economy and stop the job-bleeding, that uprising will happen more sooner than later.

[Eloriel]

46. Why do they fail to deliver?

Probably "all of the above," BUT you forget inertia. Not necessarily their inertia, but the inertia that is inherent in the system.

You elect individual Congresspeople, and they are up against the whole rest of the system. And make no bones about it, that "system" is huge, lumbering, conflictual, contradictory, and quite a bit like a steamroller going nowhere fast.

Not to give them an out, but it's true nonetheless.

Terrific essay. Thanks.

And welcome to DU.

Eloriel

[jbutsz]

65. Indeed

We've become so "normalized" to corrupt government with both parties that the term is now an oxymoron and way of life.

Considering this, it looks as if a thorough "house-cleaning" of politicians from every nook and cranny of government big and small, first of all, is the only thing that can stop that inertia.

It'll take a popular uprising to do that.

Thanks for the welcome! :hi:

[economic justice]

11. wow. That was truly very good.

Like someone wrote earlier, I don't agree 100%, but wow, that was pretty much on target. I believe that if we move forward with a progressive ECONOMIC agenda and work for justice as a CLASS we will be more successful than our current disaster of working within grouplets to advance the issues that make up the so-called "culture wars." I was born in the South, now live in the West, and believe that the Democrats insistence on emphasizing the myriad of social issues, as opposed to a progressive ECONOMIC agenda, kills us in the South. Thoughtful post.

[jbutsz]

43. We understand "broke," oh yes.

Even the hard-core Republican voters here admit that everybody had a job when Clinton was in office... :evilgrin:

Even if they have no idea how it all really works, the bottom line of Economics is something they all understand intuitively: whether they have job or not, and whether they and their children are broke & suffering or not.

That's a potentially decisive wedge if a smart (and brave) enough candidate can show them how Republican administrations force conditions that leave the little people screwed.

They know times get tough during Republican administrations but 1) they do not have time to connect the dots of motivations to policies to actions with that Republican administration because they are struggling to survive, and 2) they are told early on that the coming nightmare is the last Democrat's fault because they looted the treasury to bribe black voters with welfare programs, and this effectively kills investigation into why things are truly worse.

I do feel that a Progressive Economic agenda is paramount. In it's absence, grand welfare programs are necessary because the real people are not doing well - poverty skyrockets.

A Progressive Economic agenda should, for one, include massive funding for rebuilding and reconstituting our educational institutions while kicking beaurocrat status quo administrators out on their asses. Massive public works rebuilding our decrepit infrastructure would give everyone a sustainable job while education catches up enough to stimulate technological innovation that is now drowning.

It seems to me this was successfully executed before, called the "New Deal" yes? Shame that World War hijacked that progress...

Sometimes the tinfoil-hat-wearing dude in me suspects it wasn't an accident, especially when I read about Bush-type families, big Corporations like IBM, and World Banking powers colluding with the likes of Hitler up to and after all these wars. :tinfoilhat:

[Terwilliger]

12. kick

:kick:

[supernova]

13. Thank you for this

very thoughtful post, jbutsz.

A lot of what you say is true about the South, and it's something that not many non-Southerners understand or care to.

I am fortunate in that I where I live, although rural, is not that isolated. We have universities galore here so for the past century or so, people from all over and overseas have traipsed through here and affected the way we percieve ourselves. Having said that, it's not by any means perfect. We still have problems.

I don't know what the answer is. I'm thinking more and more it will be a bottom up revolution. It will be us party faithful in the trenches together with the disaffected from the system who will change it. I've felt for a while now that we were overdue for another 20s or 60s, a decade of social unrest and upheaval. And it needs to happen sooner rather than later.

[jbutsz]

66. They should care to - it's crucial.

Without addressing it there is no overthrowing the Wealth and Political Elites running everything now, even if we win the election in 04.

Their power lies not only in their wealth, but in the concentrated power gained from an a-political and perception-controlled population.

There are only two ways to change this order...

A) Counter the Republican propaganda by exposing it for what it is, while offering the middle and lower classes what they really want and need but are deprived of by their Wealth and Political rulers: education, good jobs again, and healthcare.

or

B) Wait for political and social chaos from economic fallout - letting the cards fall where they may.

I see many people here regarding the South as a nuisance where we struggle to win a certain number of it's States every election, but otherwise not all that important.

I disagree. The South will be the key to turning the tide in the long run. Breaking the Republican's grip on the white working classes of the South, which are appeased but unrepresented, is the only way I see to reduce Republican power in this country - by shifting a greater portion of electoral votes away from them within their stronghold. Without political power their money cannot save them; they depend on political power to build their Wealth through unrepresentative policy and legislation.

[Rowdyboy]

14. Central Mississippi, here...

You hit the nail on the head, friend. Wish every non-southerner on DU would read your piece. Its one of the best I've seen...

Hope to read a lot more from you.

[jbutsz]

48. Hey

Thank you.. Across the river from Natchez here. :hi:

[Lexingtonian]

15. this is long, but still inadequate

The deep South is, understandably, a frustrating enigma to Northerners and Liberals

Well, to my observations rural Northeners pretty much "think", experience, and are told much of what you describe. They are nearly as poor, but not nearly as exposed to violence or threats of violence to my knowledge. Another difference is that few have much real experience with black people. And lastly, and perhaps most importantly, they haven't been indoctrinated with Confederate ideology and apologisms. That is, until Rush Limbaugh made their kinds of bigotry seem milder and more excusable than they'd previously imagined.

Indeed, one would think there's no excuse not to understand each other in this day and age.

Yep, ask any Arab-American.

I leave out addressing the upper-middle and Upper classes below because they are much of the reason the following perceptions remain rampant in the South.

Take a look at Sherman's description to Halleck of four political tiers to Southern white society, about 80% of the way down (September 17 1863) in this chapter of his biography-

http://www.sonshi.com/sherman13.html

the Southern perception that government is attempting to disarm the general population, an historically common tactic boasted by totalitarian rulers. Southerners enjoy hunting and deer meat greatly, but most of all they do not feel that the government, nor police, is capable of defending their home and family from intrusion and harm while it is happening <....> There is evidence in the media that the "siege mentality" is encouraged, this perception that there is always some evil coming over the hill.

This is two things. One is that historically, the South was so rural (spacious) and provincially/clannishly distrustful (and abusive to percieved outsiders) that policing was ineffective, and public power was always so partitioned to serve the interests of the wealthiest that commoners recieved no effective personal protection- let alone reason to trust in either the police or in the courts in the region.

The "totalitarian rulers" bit is known to derive from the end of the Civil War, when the many bitter ex-guerillas lived in paranoia that the federal government was going to come and punish them for the slew of atrocious crimes beyond any military excuse they had committed during the war. Missouri, Kansas, and Appalachia were particularly horrible. A lot of these people took their families (or left them) and went West. The absolutistic individual rightist (mis)interpretation of the Second Amendment can be traced to the ex-Confederates that went to Texas after the war. The Wild West with its many rogues and murderers dates to the war and its ex-combatants also.

In addition, one can argue the premise that banning guns does anything to address the underlying force of violence in human nature.

True, this 'underlying force' has a substantial cultural and acculturational element to it. Y'all ain't exactly Switzerland or Tibet. The biogeographical conditions of the South have long been argued, and evidence from Indian days seems consistent with it, to lend it a fate of having many small selfsustaining, but overall material culturally quite uniform, clan-centered subsocieties that will be in constant competition and very intense, longlasting, jealousies with each other- the perfect conditions for unceasing clannish violence. (Much like Scotland, to which the South has long been compared.)

Btw, a look at Indian religious artifacts also suggests that the South has also had highly organized, cult(us)-centered, religions for quite a long time. The artifacts suggest these religions to have been based in the episodic extreme violence of the weather- the iconography points to hurricanes and tornados as the problem the practices and objects were to act against.

But the 'guns don't kill people' argument is largely a cop-out; the various kitchen knife arguments give it away.

"otherwise unnecessary taxes" are unfairly stolen by Democrats for welfare programs and, encouragingly, given to "unproductive blacks having babies left and right"
<Affirmative Action> On this issue, my oldest sister claims she sometimes observes such Pell Grant abuse as a Professor of Nursing at Alcorn in MS. While abuses do take place, I'm afraid these isolated observations, shared with others, only lend to the perception that ALL poor blacks "work the system" in exchange for voting Democrat, or vote Democrat because they are given a system to "work."

First of all, the one thing that bugs me throughout your post is the use of 'Democrat' rather than 'Democratic' as an adjective. It's a Republican neologism....

Black/white relationship matters get complicated in a hurry. One thing is that black life as a whole is more communitarian in ideology than white life in America, in which the myth of individualism persists. Secondly, the black population of the United States has not changed as a proportion of the national population since before the Civil War- it has held very steady at 14%. (The real demographic story is that the white population has nationally almost stalled since a kind of peak in 1985 at ~185 million, now ~190 million, while Hispanics and mixed race people have grown by more than 25 million in that time.)

As for abuses...well, the poor Southern white kid knows s/he will always be held to certain kinds of virtues which couple tightly to opportunities within the System. For blacks the reliability of the System is presently still problematic, and the coupling of virtue to opportunity will not seem as obvious or reliable. As for abuses, people who live outside the System tend to be naive about how it responds to them. The abuses you mention, premised on the idea that gratification of psychological neediness will not be punished, or that abuse of generosity will not be noticed, are endemic to other groups I have seen who come from chaotic repression and poverty. For example, most of the emigree Russians I have known made personal acquaintance with police, courts, the insides of jail cells, debt collection agencies, the import of credit report problems, and remarkable powers of the IRS within their first few years in the United States.

Finally, The Democrat (ahem, -ic) Leadership has not countered these perceptions in any effective way in the South. For one, it's hard to credibly counter a perception you do not experience and understand for yourself; this problem is non-partisan. Ignorance and misconception will thrive as long as we fail to share ideas and facts about each other, with one another, to learn what really works and what does not, what is truth and what is not. The Republican powers have thrived because ignorance and misconceptions have not been opposed effectively and credibly.

Well, you are correct on the whole. But let me point out a number of things that make it less easy.

For one thing, Democrats are not perfect on these subjects. There is real racism and some degree of beliefs similar to the ones you have written out among Democrats, even if it seems hardly to show at the ballot box these days. It shows up as hesitation to actively move forward, to argue our case, as willingness to 'compromise', as 'moderation'.

The second thing is that American identity has hollowed out culturally over the past two or so generations, so that a lot of Americans have constructed their selfperceptions- and thus political and psychological sense of identity- out of remarkably thin, extreme, and vain notions about the world/subsociety they inhabit. (Think of what, say, 'Christian' selfidentification means.) If you make known how deeply wrong some of it is, it gets 'taken personally' rather than as matter of group development. Not that I think the hollowing out is entirely a bad thing- the immigrant or settler ethnic identities are pre-Modern and have to go- but few know or see the almost hidden genuinely American culture that is in formation. But that is why the Flag is such a big deal these days, so badly needed by so many to drape over their sense of exposure and lack of substance to 'American' as they were taught it.

I will get to your essential point further down.

There is no real mediation between us all because in this era it's all about the money and power and who will get more of it - while not getting anything meaningful done, and certainly not making progress in improving the human condition. We are not behaving like a nation, but two countries disputing borders. We are becoming more polarized by the day, and that suits 'the powers that be' just fine; as long as we are warring with each other, we don't have time to notice that, in reality, we're all being screwed the same. That is The Great Deception.

I believe we are in the end stages of a recapitulation in the public arena of the Civil War, an incivil political conflict whose general beginning and ending in earnest are approximately 1989 and 2007. The True Believer commoners on both sides are the casualties, the activists the veteran foot soldiers. The thieving classes are greedily plundering safely behind the fray and the sociopaths are making sure every armistice gets broken in hurry.

Politics is the Art of Seizing Power; Diplomacy and Democracy is the Art of Negotiation for facilitating social cohesion, cooperation, and progress.

I tend to start with an operational definition of power as "the opinion that determines the action to take", politics as negotiating its subject, diplomacy as negotiating its object, and democracy as the ability of anyone's voice to directly influence the negotiation.

It's my perception that the "Establishment" of BOTH camps, Republican and Democrat, are guilty of playing the Art of Seizing Power at our expense for so long now that we people living in the real world are suffering the horrible consequences of an ultimately unrepresentative and unaccountable government, thrilled just getting peanuts' worth of attention from those we elect,

But do you really not see the equally strong frustration of these politicians with the People- even when you have just written a textbook description of the sheer hypocrisy and stupidity of the electorate these leaders have to deal with? Just look at the beliefs disparate with evidence, false analogies, misreading of the historical situation, and fear of any change for more accountability and representativeness! (The latter because they all know better government will ultimately demand they behave accountably and representatively too.)

while the real threat of fascism grows as way of government for the future - fascism being perhaps the only way capitalism can survive or at least prolong it's cannibalistic and viral nature. No matter which establishment seizes power in this era, we move further away from true, sustainable progress for humanity.

Well, let me assert that the nightmare will break and suddenly be the seeming orphan no one was parent to. Yes, the oldest part of the establishments of both Parties have to pass away, and so do a lot of aged reactionary voters, before much progress can be made. But don't forget that for many voters, their political and social upbringing was in the chaos of the Great Depression and war with Europe and Asia, and Jim Crow. Their grandparents fought the Civil War. Others were formed by the psychotic sensibilities of the middle of the Cold War. They grew up in madness, they have needed some of it, and so they vote for and get some of it. They consider it sanity and wisdom, it makes them feel in touch and superior.

So imho the present flirtation with fascism is maybe just another price we pay retroactively for our very imperfect immigrant society's and colonial social/economic/cultural system's past efforts to do good, particularly its engagement in the incomprehensiblities and gross evildoings of the Cold War. The American social and economic system preexisting WW2 did not survive the succession of WW2 and the Cold War intact, and all these people who oppose us suppose that clock of history can in some (or all) ways be turned back to 1941, or at least 1950, or 1960.


real, meaningful control over our government again - something we lost with the 20th century rise of "Corporate Personhood."

The corporation answerable only to its shareholders is the last great institution of colonialism.

I'm not voting for wrestling power between two parties; I am disillusioned with it's effectiveness in real human progress. <....> If the Democratic PEOPLE do not stand up to the challenge of reclaiming control of and reconstituting the truly representative government that is critically necessary now more than ever, thereby accomplishing a relatively peaceful revolution, then I'm afraid a violent and chaotic one will be inevitable.

I am happy to say that the story in the numbers is that nationally we achieved a socially liberal plurality in 1998 or 1999, a technical majority in that in 2002, and thus a Democratic Presidential victory with majority- a mandate- is possible in 2004. However, the support for the present corporatist-favoring economic arrangement ('economic conservative') lags social conservatism in their respective declines by twelve to fifteen years if I understand the numbers correctly.

So I think we will be spared the opportunities and catastrophe of large scale political violence. Corporations will continue to wield privileges and behave against the interests of society for a while to come, since too many people still fear to lose that dependence, though. I think we'll see more bad behavior, but the 2006 elections should give us the bargaining position- majorities in Congress not dependent on DINOs- to clean up things tolerably. Maybe the extortion of $1-2 trillion they have achieved is in the long run not too high a price to pay for the privileges they will be rescinding, perhaps permanently, in the next few decades.

Unfortunately, universal medical coverage is not workable until the medical technology revolution- with its constant cost escalation- dies down (around 2020, by estimates) and costs and services stabilize. Medical coverage is necessarily going to remain a tax payer subsidized brutal shell game that socializes costs in semi-hidden ways until then, which is the only way to run a system that is economically nonsensical but can't be discontinued without the social fabric tearing in a far more unaffordable way, where every economic player is trying to shift the costs to some other party. I'm sorry that that's the reality ahead that I glean from the evidence. But we'll get through it somehow.

The story with the South as I put it together is that the present oldest generation, wise or not and/or extreme or not as they may be, has to pass. The younger ones are more able to accept necessary change, though not necessarily willing. The economy will diminish a lot of the rural life-derived separatism/antiurbanism- the desirable jobs and job growth are all in urban areas these days and in the future, a depopulation of rural areas will clearly take place as agriculture continues to diminish. The jobs will demand more education and more contact with people from other classes and races, and a slow breaking down in the supposed distinctions follows. All books I have seen say that the South will be quite narrowly split politically for the foreseeable future (which is, a decade or so).

The unrecognized big news ahead is that the racial divide in the South will start changing in a decade or two as well. No one seems to be making the inference, but a rising Hispanic population in the South- and rather substantial migration into it from Texas and Florida seems inevitable- will start the black-Hispanic and then Hispanic-white marriage patterns that are already familiar in the Southwest and many Northern cities and Florida. That is when the South will actually begin to change, when a generation later all the regionalist mythology and doctrinaire racial and class divisions won't be able to resist reality successfully anymore. I've actually been musing about where the White Flight from the South will go when that day comes....

Anyway, this is horribly long and I have responded to few of your points adequately. To some extent I am merely expressing what amounts to excuses for the Democratic leadership, that is true. But still, I think the reality is that Democratic leaders don't think that enough of these perceptions you note can be changed among enough people in the South to change things fundamentally during the next few years by arguing their case. There has to be a strong demonstration of what the new generation of Democrats- the principled and modern kind that appeared in the Nineties, a full generation younger than Zell Miller- really is and does first. Then Democrats can go all over the South and say: see the New South and how we run it, it's a future you want to live in and can live with.

[jbutsz]

32. Alrighty then!

Wow. First of all, thank you for your time in replying here.

they haven't been indoctrinated with Confederate ideology and apologisms. That is, until Rush Limbaugh made their kinds of bigotry seem milder and more excusable than they'd previously imagined.

There is definitely some encouragment going on. Not very many are actually aware of Confederate history aside from "we lost," but the ones who are talk enough anger to make up for it. White males here are more "educated" by angry gossip than any educational institution. Rush and the likes of him stir and harness that anger, while directing it where they please.

Yep, ask any Arab-American.

Yes, it is tragic just how much misconception remains about each other. People like Rush pour salt on that tragic wound. We here do not have any exposure to Arab-American people, so there is perhaps even more racism of them than blacks if you can believe that, especially now that Bush is on an apparent crusade against Islam. Oh, yes Islam is generally considered a violent, extremist religion around here, but that is little surprising in a predominantly Christian and Catholic region.

Take a look at Sherman's description to Halleck of four political tiers to Southern white society

WOW! He is spot on! The First Tier...
"A civil government of the representative type world suit this class far less than a pure military role, readily adapting itself to actual occurrences, and able to enforce its laws and orders promptly and emphatically."

This leaves me speechless; he is describing for the South in 1863 our entire society and government right now.

The Second Tier...
"When the time for reconstruction comes, they will want the old political system of caucuses, Legislatures, etc., to amuse them and make them believe they are real sovereigns; but in all things they will follow blindly the lead of the planters. The Southern politicians, who understand this class, use them as the French do their masses-- seemingly consult their prejudices, while they make their orders and enforce them. We should do the same."

The South is almost entirely de-politicized, representative government is viewed as a fantasy; they know they are but fodder no politician really cares about. The only way anyone has been able to get a pulse out of the white South is by speaking to and enflaming their anger and helplessness. Nixon?

The Fourth Tier are the Confederate flag flyers in the South today. No future, no education, no concern for anything but beer and hunting - and extremely angry. Their minds are like a fortress, letting nothing in but what already fits the parameters of their prejudices. My brother was one before married life and children settled him down.

One is that historically, the South was so rural (spacious) and provincially/clannishly distrustful (and abusive to perceived outsiders) that policing was ineffective, and public power was always so partitioned to serve the interests of the wealthiest...

Spot on! That goes for today as well, it hasn't changed as there is still so much rural in the South between communities. We enjoy the protections that police do offer, but most feel it is their job to protect their family and community, and that having guns is the only power they have at all in real, meaningful defense from intrusion/invasion. And everyone "knows" the courts' judges are all corrupted by money.

The "totalitarian rulers" bit...lived in paranoia that the federal government was going to come...absolutistic individual rightist (mis)interpretation of the Second Amendment can be traced to the ex-Confederates that went to Texas after the war.

This is rarely conscious of course, a distrust of government and deeply ingrained memory that a government "not ours" can come and destroy us at will. When they hear "gun control," a thousand-million alarm bells go off in the Conservative southern mind though; that measure takes away their only real sense of leverage against a tyrannical government. The thinking follows along the lines of, "I know you are corrupt and don't represent me; as long as I have my gun, you can do what you do as long as you don't tread on me." Kind of like an "understood" contract between working class whites and their Wealth and Political masters.

True, this 'underlying force' has a substantial cultural and acculturational element to it. Y'all ain't exactly Switzerland or Tibet.

Stories of what Nazi German soldiers did to Gypsies and Jews and everyone else spread far and wide, of "The Singing Forest." This forest was a place where Nazis fixed hooks into trees, there hanging people alive just off the ground. Some died quickly, others lived for days and weeks - who knows who long but we all know one second is far too long. Those people screamed in agony for the rest of their lives on those hooks, so many that it was said, "The forest sings."

Violence and cruelty is in every human heart, we all have a singing forest inside; no human is exempt from it regardless of culture or sophistication. There are statistics that seem to indicate susceptibility according to region of the world where events and culture differs. I feel we are all leaves blowing in the wind; some of us are lucky to be in a place with not too violent winds, others are not and therefore the dark aspects of our nature live more closely to the surface.

...also suggests that the South has also had highly organized, cult(us)-centered, religions for quite a long time. The artifacts suggest these religions to have been based in the episodic extreme violence of the weather- the iconography points to hurricanes and tornados as the problem the practices and objects were to act against.

Throughout history everywhere this has been the only way to make some sense of the world around us, until science came along well enough to begin explaining things to lay persons. Science doesn't explain everything by far and I feel life is too complex for our minds to ever grasp everything, so this deferring to cults, religions, and superstitions to explain and attempting "control" our lives will probably remain a part of human nature. Who knows what we will consider archaic and barbaric understanding in the future though.

But the 'guns don't kill people' argument is largely a cop-out; the various kitchen knife arguments give it away.

It is my understanding that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" means that, if a violent human being were not holding that gun, the gun object itself is not dangerous. The premise sounds acceptably logical to me, though the argument is incomplete and debated further not with logic but perception, which is a merry-go-round when dealing with emotions. We experience a lot of violence even in our sophisticated and "civil" society, but the fact is we really do not understand violence well enough because we do not understand ourselves well enough; violence is not a thought and cannot be completely understood in thought, but lies in the realm of human emotion - which anyone with a crush on someone will agree, is not bound to logic and reason.

First of all, the one thing that bugs me throughout your post is the use of 'Democrat' rather than 'Democratic' as an adjective. It's a Republican neologism....

Keep in mind I was writing about perceptions. This is indeed the perception, that there is a difference between "Democrat" and "Democratic." Unfortunately, establishment politicians sometimes lend credibility to this; we really need to examine what Democratic really means in this age of corporate lobby and wealth-takes-all. Is it still Democratic government to debate interests when it is done so to benefit, primarily, Corporate America?

The average non-political or apathetic voter today does not view parties as representing a type of government each, but representing distinct special interests of which they choose the lesser of two evils. In other words, to these perceptions, "Democrat" does not always equal "Democratic" in deed/action/behavior - just as "Republican" does not always equal "Conservative" in deed/action/behavior.

I liked Clinton as a personality and the fact that he was such a successful Diplomat, and if I had no other choice I would certainly rather have him in office than someone like Bush ANY day, but even during the time Clinton was in office I was noticing that our government - as a whole - does not truly represent us even if a few politicians do, and if - as a whole - it does not truly represent us then it cannot rightfully be called Democratic, even if some parts and participants still are once in a while. It really doesn't have much to do with who or what party is in office each term; the system itself ceased to be representative and accountable to the People the days "Corporate Personhood," corporate lobbying, corporate monopoly of for-profit news media, and corporate "donations" to any political parties was born. Since then all politicians have been forced into (or enjoy) a game of political prostitution that is out of their (our) control. There are very few exceptions to this rule, and they rarely make a blip on the radar screen.

One thing is that black life as a whole is more communitarian in ideology than white life in America, in which the myth of individualism persists.

I do observe that black communities are more closely knit (communitarian) than white communities. Personally I envy this aspect of community and here's why: whites rarely acknowledge each other in their own neighborhoods, at least here, and seem to prefer things that way, sieged into our own homes away from the eyes of neighbors. For me there is something dysfunctional about this.

However, I don't envy what I can only suspect as the necessities or conditions of that more communitarian ideology. Whites here don't understand why, in black communities, "everybody knows everybody." I have even heard this discussed with condescending amusement! As if there is something wrong with it, or alien! I don't understand this about whites here...

As for abuses, people who live outside the System tend to be naive about how it responds to them.

No doubt. Just look at this, "Why don't you homeless bums get a damn job!!!" It never occurs to them that employers prefer hiring "socially stable" employees because his business is at stake, which feeds his family, which must come before altruism. We dismiss as injustices, much of what we don't understand about the complexity of how our social fabric is woven and responds to us. Short sighted thinking for sure, but not surprising considering that schools do not teach critical thinking skills (with exception of gifted/talented programs perhaps, for the highest performing students), how to examine information and media. In other words, how to think for ourselves. This is why I greatly value philosophy as an indispensable tool that is tragically missing from non-higher educational institutions in this country (public/children's schools).

Finally, The Democrat (ahem, -ic) Leadership

I do understand your objection. I have a problem right now casting a Democratic net over all of our leadership; currently I'm forced to evaluate it on an individual basis depending upon what he/she advocates and fails to advocate, and of course, what he/she has, is, and is-not doing.

There is real racism and some degree of beliefs similar to the ones you have written out among Democrats, even if it seems hardly to show at the ballot box these days. It shows up as hesitation to actively move forward, to argue our case, as willingness to 'compromise', as 'moderation'.

One problem I see is not unlike the same cult-of-personality the Republicans are guilty of with Reagan and Bush. In watching arguments on the merits of candidates, I've seen more debate on (what amounts to) whether he/she would play the best game within the rules, than whether their candidate of choice will break the rules - not only rocking the boats of concentrated power but capsizing them.

Defeating Bush is priority number one indeed, but we are all split into multiple camps-with-camp as to how best to accomplish this. There is no way of knowing for certain right now, aside from conjecture, which of the many candidates would or would not accomplish this and then serve the People's best interests afterwards. We know that we will unite after the nomination to support whomever against Bush, so that should be a secondary consideration rather than a primary consideration - in choosing whom to support in the primaries. In my view we still lose if we do not first decide who is best suited to help us get control of our government again. We did not lose control of our government when Clinton left office and Bush stole it; we lost control many decades prior, which has weakened it to the degree that Bush was now able to seize power illegitimately. There needs to be some serious, no-bullshit discussions about the likely intentions of each candidate.

The second thing is that American identity has hollowed out culturally over the past two or so generations, so that a lot of Americans have constructed their selfperceptions- and thus political and psychological sense of identity- out of remarkably thin, extreme, and vain notions about the world/subsociety they inhabit. (Think of what, say, 'Christian' selfidentification means.)

You might enjoy reading "Simulacra and Simulation" by Baudrillard, which was one work of philosophy that inspired the Matrix movies. Copies of perceptions with no original. The consumer media culture is largely responsible for this creation of self-images debased from reality. It can't tell you who you are, only what "you want to be." If you do not know who you are, you cannot make informed, free decisions on what you want yourself and the world to be relative to each other. The same goes for political decisions, such as which candidate to support for example. This is what I mean by, 'if you play by their rules, within their parameters, you can't win'. Finding out who you really are, which is a rare treasure and perhaps the most difficult human endeavor of all, is crucially important to finding out what is in your best interests and that of humanity as a whole.

If you make known how deeply wrong some of it is, it gets 'taken personally' rather than as matter of group development.

Agreed. I'm afraid to question Clinton most of the time; many here are as religiously loyal and star-struck to him as Republicans are to Reagan. To say, yes he played the game beautifully but perpetuated our decades-long problem of misplaced representation by not effectively addressing it, feels like a sin here and it shouldn't be. Most people refuse to believe, and dismiss as conspiracy, that the people we elect are not truly serving us. While signing token policies of appeasement for the masses, they are all playing a much bigger game that concerns only the elite, and one we have very little understanding of as we see no further than the next election. This is a non-partisan problem, it effects us all.

I believe we are in the end stages of a recapitulation in the public arena of the Civil War, an incivil political conflict whose general beginning and ending in earnest are approximately 1989 and 2007. The True Believer commoners on both sides are the casualties, the activists the veteran foot soldiers. The thieving classes are greedily plundering safely behind the fray and the sociopaths are making sure every armistice gets broken in hurry.

This is in the neighborhood of my own view. While busy squabbling over policies and who gets to drive the bus this term, the "thieving classes" are tending to their game. This is no accident, and the reason they have sought to control the media (information) we have access to, while effectively killing investigative agencies and journalism that could wise up and throw a monkey wrench into their affairs. They don't view it as a conspiracy to control our government and perceptions, but as an elite right of wealth; to them it's business as usual no matter who gets elected, because they see to it that we elect only those who will not cause trouble but keep the masses occupied.

We need to seriously study the techniques of propaganda to defend ourselves against this silent and stealthy manipulation. Say what you will about Chomsky, but that man understands this game better than anyone I've read aside from Gore Vidal. They've got us so busy with triviality, they no longer need totalitarian rule by force to keep us under control while they go about raping us and our children.

I tend to start with an operational definition of power as "the opinion that determines the action to take", politics as negotiating its subject, diplomacy as negotiating its object, and democracy as the ability of anyone's voice to directly influence the negotiation.

How can you be certain the opinion you use is true? If your opinion can be manipulated, how can you exercise your individual power in determining which action is best to take, informed and freely? Our opinions are manipulated into an "operating structure" that we presume serves our best interest because we presume they are "my opinions" but in my experience, and the Southern Question highlights this, our perceptions and opinions can be and are manipulated. We are not really assessing the validity of choices and making informed decisions between them, exercising "free will," if they are within parameters/rules we do not control. Who's to say any of our candidates are really running for us; who's to say they are all not "plants" by the powers that be or at least tolerated because they won't cause them trouble?

I find it unlikely they will allow much attention to be given to those who they know will not play the game, they who advocate putting power back into the People's hands - something the powers that be feels is decidedly dangerous to their affairs. We are convinced we have and use individual power by voting, but if I were in control of the media and money and all else relevant, and intend to maintain my power, I would not allow any element to play within it that threatens my power. This is the essential nature of power and survival. This might explain why certain candidates and third parties are not given any "airtime" by the media, or as little as possible - and even then distort and smear them so you won't listen and get any ideas.

But do you really not see the equally strong frustration of these politicians with the People- even when you have just written a textbook description of the sheer hypocrisy and stupidity of the electorate these leaders have to deal with? Just look at the beliefs disparate with evidence, false analogies, misreading of the historical situation, and fear of any change for more accountability and representativeness! (The latter because they all know better government will ultimately demand they behave accountably and representatively too.)

Indeed for the Republican party, this hypocrisy and ignorance of the electorate is a best-case scenario short of totalitarian rule by force as they are able to tend fully to their affairs. For a party and candidate intending to respond to the obvious need for meaningful accountability and reconstituting the representation that is lacking, it is a battle of epic proportions. The powers that be throw their entire wealth, influence, and institutions behind our opposition. That's why one man or woman or a few cannot do it alone. We have to enlist those strong enough to face it without fear, and at the very least those who WILL face it to begin with. Once we do that, then we can throw our collective weight behind dismantling corrupt structures and reconstituting them with better protections, and then get to work on how to improve the human condition.

Yes, the oldest part of the establishments of both Parties have to pass away

They won't go freely, and they have children who are bred to replace them and carry on the tradition. We will have to expose this power structure for what it is and dispel our delusions that the system, as it is today, really belongs to us. We have to stop hoping for a savior candidate capable of doing it all for us - he's not coming.

...and so do a lot of aged reactionary voters, before much progress can be made...They grew up in madness, they have needed some of it, and so they vote for and get some of it. They consider it sanity and wisdom, it makes them feel in touch and superior.

I had a talk with my dad about this. He and his generation (63) feel that war is necessary and acceptable, that it's always "defense" and that it usually winds up being the only real solution. But he also agreed when I said that's insane to anyone other than adults, and he suggested the world will be better off when his generation is long gone.

Others romanticize war as if it is noble and just, if even for that much reasoning. For armchair soldiers, much like the "Fourth Tier" in 1863, violence and conquering foes (real, imagined, or manufactured) is the only means for a meaningful identity. This is one of the worst manifestations of lacking self-knowledge. In a consumer media-culture society, with interests competing to tell you who to be, we are discouraged from discovering who we are. This problem will get worse and create more contradictions in the social fabric until a critical mass is reached, where it will implode and seed change.

So imho the present flirtation with fascism is maybe just another price we pay retroactively for our very imperfect immigrant society's and colonial social/economic/cultural system's past efforts to do good, particularly its engagement in the incomprehensiblities and gross evildoings of the Cold War...

Imho we are not merely flirting with fascism, it is here: Corporate power has effectively and unmistakably merged with Political power via politicians being beholden to Corporations for their political survival, which is no accident of course. The only question now is whether it will remain a part of "our" government through yet another century, which is of course whether we will respond to it's threat over our independence and liberty by removing it and prohibiting the vehicles it uses to corrupt our government.

The story with the South as I put it together is that the present oldest generation, wise or not and/or extreme or not as they may be, has to pass. The younger ones are more able to accept necessary change, though not necessarily willing.

Pretty much agree, but to truly counter the "tradition" of the South, it will require an infusion of education, a great wedge between the people and those powerful influences which isolate them from a greater, more accurate picture of the human condition and world. Our prejudices color and emphasize the symptoms of suffering in such way that they hide the causes. We see the symptoms of suffering and feel, "this is terrible, we must do something," but we do not clearly see and understand the causes. Until we do, we cannot effectively address suffering in a way that reduces it, and may even make it worse. This is why I feel that good intentions are not enough.

...I've actually been musing about where the White Flight from the South will go when that day comes...

If the historical apathy of politics in the South is any indication, they'll just complain, gossip, and go back to trying to feed their kids. Unless you mean the Southern wealth class. Hmmmm.. good question.

...the reality is that Democratic leaders don't think that enough of these perceptions you note can be changed among enough people in the South to change things fundamentally during the next few years by arguing their case.

Not in a few years no, that an impossible order, but we have to start somewhere and there is no gain by putting it off until the weather gets better. None of us know how much time we really have left...

Then Democrats can go all over the South and say: see the New South and how we run it, it's a future you want to live in and can live with.

"New South" is kind of catchy... I like it.

Thanks for all this good chat!

[mmonk]

16. The insipid charge

that runs through the south is the canard that democrats are weak on defense and that's why 9/11 happened and why we must have an aggressive foreign policy to remain safe. Democrats mean another 9/11. If we don't address that, we will lose.

[jbutsz]

36. Republicans' charge

That any and every cut big or small is a threat to their cash-cow and power, that any cuts are unacceptable no matter how much bigger it's budget gets bloated.

They use any cut a Democrat has made in the past to scapegoat any and every security threat and breach we face.

This is a huge problem that backs us into a corner. The Pentagon budget is incredibly porked with useless programs that don't work and perhaps never should. That money is not benefiting us, but rather the wealthy elite through their corporate contracts and stock dividends.

We need a strong military indeed, one that is more than capable of defending our borders and responding to threats such as aggressive offensive war (which they now have us waging) the likes of Hitler has made. The budget could be cut in half and still respond defensively to any threat against us or other countries, but politically in this new era it would be suicide to make any cutes in the absence of simultaneously exposing the power structures behind the military-industrial complex. And even then, it'll be a while yet before 9/11 fear has settled down enough to allow rational reevaluation of our foreign policy, which hasn't really been rational throughout the entire 20th century.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "aggressive foreign policy"?

[dbt]

17. DAMN, that was good!

It comes as close to explaining the South as anything I've seen in years! And I especially like this part:

"In our era, it's a professional politician's job to use your power, money's job to buy it, and the media's job to con you into believing you really have it."

Well done, jbutsz. Thank you!!!

:hi:
dbt
Little Rock

[jbutsz]

37. A start anyway

You're welcome! I'm glad it was helpful. :-)

With extended writing there's a risk of too much rhetoric and conjecture, I hope I kept them to a minimum at least.

[mmonk]

18. In N.C.

there isn't much white flight. There is a fast increase in hispanic population. That's what is changing the demographics the most. Also, on my street, there is only one other native born family. We have people from India, Japan, France, but most are from the northeastern U.S.. The bad news, they are voting republican too.

[jbutsz]

67. "they are voting republican too"

Any idea why that is, immigrants voting Republican?

[southerngirlwriter]

19. A Great Big KICK

:-)

[JohnOneillsMemory]

20. Great. Listen up Dem candidates. Class and culture warfare exploited by

Repubs is how they divide and conquer 'We the People.' Howard Dean was right about reaching out to folks with Confederate flags on their pick-up trucks.

The lie that there is a Free Market and Equal Opportunity and Justice for All is used to villify the have-nots.

The Master Race mentality that believes "you have what you have because of your virtue or lack of it" is a decidedly Republican/Capitalist/Fundamentalist attitude that money uses to keep the poor at each other's throats with racism and moral crusades against 'slackers, foreigners, perverts and Federalists.'

Excellent detailed explainer of these dynamics here.
KICK>!

[jbutsz]

60. I suspect

That Dean may see this grip on the Southern population by the Republican/Wealth elites is screwing us all. I don't know if he understands the real problems and elemental causes, but he's right in needing 'those people with confederate flag stickers on their trucks' to reconstitute the Union.

I'll be watching to see if he addresses it further, but I'm afraid everyone beating him up over it may be shutting him up for good about it. Hopefully other candidates start trying to understand and address it too. It's a tragedy to be so knee-jerk about the issue, because these people and this Southern problem certainly needs to be addressed, and quickly.

The Southern population knows that their government doesn't really represent them, but are told a how-and-why story that it's the Democratic party that is out to screw and marginalise them. As far as they know, the Republicans are in the ring fighting "for them" but it's just too big a fight to win while the "Democrats bribe people to vote, so nothing changes for us poor white folk." Also, because of the "Democrats keeping us down," no matter how hard they work they will not succeed; at least, that's what they're "told" by The Fat Finger pointing at the blacks and immigrants "mooching off my hard work."

Result: Effectively divided and conquered, indeed.

[Sparkle]

21. My eyes hurt!

But it was a good read. But if voting is not enough, what else is there to do?

[jbutsz]

24. More than voting

The Republican party is content with their voters waking up only to vote and rally around making war. They are content and thrive within a population only coming to life to vote and support war. The majority of their voters are not political in any meaningful sense, nothing even close to the activism we know.

That has to stop. A Democratic society cannot remain Democratic with a de-politicized population. Half the population is not enough for a Democracy. It will be a long struggle, but we have to each bring political life out of our hearts and minds and share it with others who are not - not only to engage them, but to discover what is really true in our own hearts and minds.

Telling people who they should vote for will not work; we have to show them why they should bother paying attention at all, and show them that their perceptions are manipulated and manufactured by a system that is ultimately screwing us all.

None of what we do as individuals will work effectively until we get the media out of private-wealth hands. We must have a free press. We have to get corporate cash away from our "representatives," taking the profit out of the political system so that the already-corrupt are not attracted to it.

We have to fiercely demand especially these two changes from candidates and accept nothing less, recalling every one who slips into office and refuses to represent the People who elected him/her, or none of what we do will be strong enough to overtake the opposition in effectively re-politicizing the entire nation.

We have to be "Tough on Politicians," and demand the government we want and hold them to it, rather than accept the government they propose to give us. Accepting what they give us to work with, rather than we setting the terms, is us playing within their parameters, by their rules. That's how we've lost control of our government to concentrated powers over these many decades.

[jbutsz]

39. Correction/Further

"None of what we do as individuals will work effectively until.."

We affect everyone we share ourselves with, even if we don't get to see the result of that sharing - whether it has been effective. So.. it was wrong for me to say the above quote as it is.

[jbutsz]

25. opps

Double-posted

[ACK]

22. Fellow Southerner living in Northern VA

I grew up GA.

My grandfather was a yellow dog democrat. He lived through the Hoover years. He always said to me, "Son, the Republicans only care about the rich."

I have never seen anything to make me think he was wrong.

It is dangerous to paint a region in such broad brushes.

Between a number of poor whites, women and black folks the democratic range of loss in the South is much smaller than other regions dominated by the Repukes.

It is dangerous to completely write the area off. Sure the evanglicals and the racists are not going to vote Dem. But enough of the South bashing those people might be a voting majority but not a true majority.

If anything, there are plenty of people from the North that keep moving in droves to the South and if a politician could persuade these people to vote against the bubbas especially in border states then a Dem victory is possible.

[jbutsz]

40. Ha, it took me a while to learn that one.

What's sad is that it's so obvious that wealthy Republicans only care for themselves, their business, and maintaining the position of these at the expense of others via pimping our politicians.

They argue that "everyone is free to pursue wealth." What I can't get my mind around these days is that, to aggregate wealth in an enclosed system with a finite amount of it, others must do without or less than he who concentrates it. So to pursue excess wealth, by definition, amounts to depriving it from others. And to do that, one must have a means of forcing others into such an arrangement, e.g. government.

Anyway, yes - dangerous policy to write off any state, though I do understand the need to concentrate money on close "swing" states. As long as money is a deciding factor, the Republicans will keep grip on much of the south or even pick up new states as they become more willing to pump even more money into elections - another advantage for them until we take money out of every orifice of politics.

[Blue_Roses]

23. born and raised in Louisiana

myself. Don't live there now, but my mother still does. Hope the new governor can do some things to change the "thinking" of the stubborn ones.

Louisiana will benefit from a Democratic governor, especially a female. This state is so impoverished and it's time to change that.

[jbutsz]

41. La.

I hope she can get some good things done as well. It will take a lot of courage, for anyone, to stir up this hornet's nest of entrenched Southern Republican power that is bleeding this state and others.

[Ripley]

27. Very interesting.

And long-winded!! ;-)

Living in Alabama, the biggest problems I see facing the south (and frankly the whole country) are the wealthy who have almost completely taken-over the media and the so-called "2nd Enlightenment" going on. Although you could argue that the wealthy are responsible for encouraging that return-to-God fundamentalism because it helps control the masses.

My family is from NC, but I lived in Ohio for a long time. It is frightening to me how quickly that Fundamentalism spread all over Ohio (not ever really a liberal bastion, but moderate) in the last 10 years. According to relatives and friends still there, they have the same issues that Alabama does, ie. wanting science textbooks to present Intelligent Design next to Evolution Theory and displaying the 10 Commandments in public places.

I agree with you that the Revolution is coming. The 3rd worldization (sorry, don't know the proper term) of America, especially in the South, combined with the increased Fundamentalism clashing with the progressive social movements and ethical questions brought on by new technologies and more knowledge being available through the internet will have to clash in a big way sooner or later. I suppose you could say we live in an interesting time, but I find it frightening and I am not too sure of the outcome.

Welcome to DU.

[jbutsz]

58. Media take-over

With Fox News leading the charge.. We have to get the media out of private for-profit hands. Before we can do that, we need a credible, investigative, non-profit media working in the mainstream to counter the media propaganda from every current mainstream outlet - they're all in collusion.

Yes I too see fundamentalism on the rise, and I don't believe the threats to fact and science-based education by faith-based ideology to be just a coincidence.

Your last paragraph highlights why I am trying to inform others about the Southern political problem; without driving a wedge between the Wealth-Class & Republican elites (I call them the "Management") and the Southern mostly-a-political population, a national disunion or even civil war in the future are not impossibilities.

Republican propaganda is arousing and employing that "them vs us" anger via 'soldiers' like Rush, Coulter, and "The No-Spin Zone" freak. For one, it serves to control perceptions, as well as being necessary to deflect and redirect anger (onto Democratic party) arising from "Conservative" policies that are screwing the non-Wealth classes all into poverty.

[starroute]

28. How much is politics and how much is simply a matter of identity?

Your post is long and thoughtful, with many details of specific issues and policies. But somehow what I take away from it is a far more general set of impressions about poor southerners.

-- They feel themselves to be an oppressed minority within the country as a whole.

-- They identify with their local elites. Rather than seeing them as the oppressors, they see them as part of "us" in opposition to an external "them" of Northerners and liberals.

-- They see local blacks as a fifth column for outside interests, an internal "them" being bribed to act as agents of the external "them."

-- Because of this primary us/them alignment, they are not prepared to make common cause with poor southern blacks, to accept the aid of northern liberals, or to welcome unionization.

-- Their separate identify is valuable to them, a source of pride and self-awareness. They are more afraid of losing it and being absorbed into the larger culture than they are of staying poor and backward.

-- Their churches and good-ol'-boy culture are both means of reinforcing this sense of separate identity. The defining issues are essentially lifestyle issues, centered around the self-sufficient nuclear family and reinforced by a patriarchal style of religion.

-- An impassioned defense of the bases of their lifestyle both subjectively cements their sense of their own identity and objectively wards off what are perceived as outside threats to that identity.

I'm not sure what the answer would be to that sort of self-reinforcing isolation, but I suspect it has to lie in a combination of economics and anthropology.

Specifically, I've read a number of things over the years which suggest that while women have a built-in, biological sense of self, men have to construct their identities on the basis of achievement. Economically constrained societies, in which in which the potential for achievement is limited, keep men in a permanent state of adolescence. This can be partly relieved by artificial us/them constructions of identity, but those tend to be bellicose, xenophobic, and ridden with sexual anxiety.

I'm probably thinking in these terms because I've just been reading some materials on New Guinean cannibalism, but the similarities between the men's-house culture of New Guinea and the good-ol'-boy culture of the South are striking. However, even if it's true that the problem is is more anthropological than political, the solution still has to lie in offering better economic options and a potential for meaningful achievement.

[jbutsz]

57. A very troubling question

It's impossible to know each and every element to this self-reinforcing isolation, but understanding enough of it to confront the problem in any effective way is and will be crucial to prevent what looks to be shaping up as national division. If it gets worse without being confronted, it is not impossible for it to lead to another civil war in the future.

The Southern/"Conservative" media heads are already arousing the same anger that opposed the Union during the last civil war - "them" vs "us"

About sense of self..
In the absence of adequate education, and the encouragment of introspection of feeling, self-identity can only be constructed through external achievement or ideology, "belonging."

Throughout history there's always been a "warrior class" (Samurai, for example) who forge their self-worth and social identity through violent conflict.

Education and a strong job-based economy are parts of that leverage yes.

[democratreformed]

29. Your neighbor to the north

Hi. I'm from Arkansas and I want to let you know how much I enjoyed reading what you have written. I would I could have put all this into words as eloquently as you did.

I also want to say that I do not find anything in what you have written to disagree with. IMO, your analysis of the South and our country as a whole was very perceptive and correct.

I cannot even diagree with you on the candidate issue. I have a candidate that I whole-heartedly support. I believe that he really is the person to help bring America back together and start our country on the right path. Still, I am not 100% certain of that. So, I will decline to try to push my views on you in that regard.

Today's times are very sobering times for me. I been through many failed institutions in my short life. The most notable one was as a teacher in the public school system, which I feel is a dismal failure. I left that system firmly believing that a complete breakdown would have to occur for it to be fixed. Little did I know that I would feel that way about my country in a few years. Like I said, it is very sobering to me. Most notably, it has impressed upon me strongly how much I DON'T know. It was a great shock to me to wake up and realize how stupid I, myself, had been for many years in many areas. All I can hope for is the best for America as a whole and, at least, the majority of its people.

[dbt]

31. Yo, democratreformed!

Hello from Little Rock. Looks like you have your eyes open, too!!!

:hi:
dbt

[jbutsz]

50. Hello my neighbor

Thank you for your comments!

Today's times are very sobering times for me...it has impressed upon me strongly how much I DON'T know. It was a great shock to me to wake up...

Kahlil Gibran (Lebonese Poet) wrote, "Your pain is the breaking of the shell that encloses your understanding."

Adversity has a way of doing that.. It's hard, but it's also how we grow - finding out what is true in the world, and who we are. If we are never exposed to adversity to our perceptions, we can never break our understandings.

Truth is a never-ending process; we can never rest if we want to know it. This is why I am equally critical of all politicians, candidates, and parties, as well as all problems and solutions and every piece of information passing through my mind.

Taking a step back from and watching it all like a hawk makes it easier to decide which are the truly important parts in developing a "bigger picture."

Indeed we must keep hope alive, but hope itself is not enough.

I hope things get better, I hope humanity's condition improves. I fear doing something about it, fear speaking out, fear writing; most of the time I want someone else to do it all for me. I fear opposition, but because we cannot see the ends of all things, I fear even more being wrong. I fear the consequences in fighting for or endorsing something, or someone, false or ultimately harmful.

There are no easy decisions; this is both our curse and treasure in being human..

[jpgray]

30. OK, I'm back--I mostly agree with you

On the (unchallenged!) contradictions given to those in the South, you are dead on. I have had friends in college who came from Georgia and other southern states, and you describe the mantra pretty well--take our guns away or otherwise control us, give our money to cheating blacks. It's a message that's hard to argue against when no one of any note in the Democratic Party gives any of it any words at all.

And your last few paragraphs describe perfectly why I want a Democrat in the white house, even if it only slows down the spiral, but at the same time I know we're still going downhill. It will be an interesting ride.

[jbutsz]

45. Unchallenged so far

To break the Republican's grip on the South it'll have to be challenged credibly and fearlessly, and that means understanding the truth of this deception in the context of Southern Conservative perceptions held by middle and lower class voters.

This is probably why no Democrat has been able to give any words to it in any effective way: lack of understanding it. Clinton's from the South and understands it, but I gather from the fact it wasn't addressed effectively that he had no intention of challenging the Establishment. Doesn't subtract from his success as a Diplomat and politician, but we need more than that to take back our government.

I would suggest opening up their willingness to listen first by hammering hard (without rhetoric or conjecture) that there is a great deception throughout the South as much and hard as they repeat their propaganda - emphasising the economic and educational aspects first of all...the why, how, and precisely where they are not truly represented by their party but appeased.

They know they are not represented and have no meaningful say in the current setup; they just don't know why and how.

[TexasMexican]

33. Final Solution.

So what is the Final Solution to the Southern Question?

LoL J/K

Just took a look at the title and something in my brain clicked with what I remembered from seeing on the History Channel.

[jbutsz]

44. Haha

:silly:

At least we are not advocating :nuke: like a certain Blonde or Radio Host is of anyone who disagrees.

[BurtWorm]

47. Excellent post!

Please send this to the mods as an article. There's a link on the front page.

[jbutsz]

49. Thank You

I sent an email to see if they're interested, and if so I should clean it up and integrate some of the elaborations in comments.

[brava]

51. Stone cold brilliant.

You've given me the insights and understanding I had been seeking for a long time about a region that had always been very opaque and mysterious to me. Thank you, I needed to hear this first-hand from a Southerner for it to be credible to me.

[dbt]

53. Welcome to DU, brava!

Enjoy your stay.

From a Southerner who also finds his native land opaque and mysterious!

:hi:
dbt

[jbutsz]

55. Southernnnnnnnessss

We're an odd region indeed.

We're known for our warm, authentic hospitality around here. Yet that severely contrasts what we're known for politically.

That goes to show there are two cliques here: the "management," and the population.

Drive a wedge of new understanding between them, and the structure of isolation imprisoning their minds will disintegrate. Mine did, just as soon as I began to think for myself. Our "management" here discourages that..

[jbutsz]

56. Glad it has been helpful

I wrote it stream-of-thought, so I'm planning to re-write for ease of reading and integrate some of the elaborations in comments.

[blindpig]

59. bravo!

hope i can do so well.
a carpetbagger from the former southern state of MD currently annoying the people of SC

[jbutsz]

74. Hello MD

:hi:

[jbutsz]

68. Question about Articles

Did you mean the "Articles" submission link/email in red at the very top of every page, or the Editorials and other Articles forum?

[Logansquare]

61. Excellent post--esp. on Southern ruling class

Like the ruling classes in every banana republic outside of this Union, they struggle to consolidate their wealth and power, and keep the working folks in a state of dependent fear.

If I remember correctly, Thomas Jefferson attempted to institute a law in 18th c. Virginia that would have guaranteed public education. It was shot down by the other planters. They could afford to educate their own children and saw no advantage in providing such opportunity to the poor.

[jbutsz]

62. "They could afford to educate their own children"

Your last paragraph highlights exactly, the Elite Southern mentality.

For them, anything that doesn't benefit them is not relevant, or a threat to what benefits them.

Really, it's the "let them eat cake" disconcern for the non Wealth-class population.

THAT is the biggest threat to Democracy today, because it is the driver for all of the harmful de-regulatory policies and corrupt politicans they purchase today, and they own the media which manufactures public consent or even support.

We're like sheep being led to the slaughter.

[IronLionZion]

63. So Dean has the right idea then?

about including white southerners because they need the jobs, schools, and healthcare too. But he's from Vermont/NY so do you think they will be prejudiced enough to write him off without listening to him? Bush pretends to be a Texan and it has worked to his advantage with Southerners. Maybe Clark can win them over.

[jbutsz]

64. As long as white southerners..

..are not credibly addressed with why they should abandon a party that does not truly represent them, the pretensions Wealth-class elites like Bush trot out will continue to work to their advantage.

The population knows subconsciously that their government is not representative, but wrongly believe the Republicans are their only hope; any candidate must show them otherwise, without rhetoric and conjecture but in their terms and words to convey that he/she truly understands their plight.

This means talking about the Southern population's lack in educational infrastructure, affordable access to healthcare for the everyone, and job-economy. This is the best way to get a foot in the door, and they are the most important issues to them. We only see the issues of gun control, religious agendas, and anti-abortion as being the most important issues because they are the only issues Republicans address to their constituency. This leaves economic and healthcare issues a "personal problem" not for politicians to fix.

A former General will appeal to the new fear of terrorism and the need for a strong military, but without a credible and comprehensive agenda to address what they are deprived of socially and economically, military and security (and the fact he's from Arkansas) may be the end-extent of a former General's appeal. He'll need to strongly emphasize his education in economics to the extent it's as important as his military career, as well as show them how he'll work to correct the situations if he's to convince them his education is any use to them.

[brava]

72. How do you think Kucinich would rate in the South?

jbutsz, do you think Kucinich has solutions that would speak to Southerners? It seems to me his plan to repeal NAFTA would connect strongly with workers, considering the devastating affect NAFTA has had on the textile industry.

[jbutsz]

73. Solutions, yes; exposure, no..

Media exposure.. most people construct their perceptions from mainstream Media, we doing so here online are a small minority.

First of all, the Media would have to stop marginalising him and demonizing those solutions. Of course, that's not going to happen as he is a candidate that advocates real, meaningful Democracy.

Then he'd have to have enough exposure to make him "relevant" or "electable," and thus be considered seriously - first of all by enough of his own party, the lack of which is truly sad, and second of all by the media.

What Kucinich has to say, what he is offering to help us do, is something no sane voter who wants Democracy, jobs, education, and healthcare could oppose at the ballot box.

The problem is that he's not allowed the relevance and credibility (via Media) to show people what he's really about comprehensibly. Even at debates he's considered more a nuisance, waste of air time, than a serious "electable" candidate - even by most of his own party. We know that's not true about Kucinich, but that's the perception manufactured by the collusive Media. Tragically, we've become so normalized to everything candidates like Kucinich is not: a Trojan Horse thieving all he/she can.

Also, in the absence of enough media exposure to communicate with them who he really is, I'm afraid those perceptions The Southern Question highlights will color him as another "damn Democrat" wanting to tax and give to "moochers."

This is tragic.. and why I feel we have to break the establishment's monopoly on mainstream for-profit Media, as well as mandate free, abundant and equal "air-time" for each and every candidate, as if ads and campaign speeches were public service announcements - and really, they are. If we really owned the press and controlled the government, we would already be doing this.

This is why I feel we have to draft and support candidates who will break and expose the rules we the People do not control, and demand meaningful change. Supporting them in the primaries sends a message to him/her and others like them, that there's hope and we need them - not to lose heart.

Dean is running on this real-Deomocracy platform, so I'm baffled as to why he is actually getting the media exposure and name-recognition. I don't watch TV so I don't get a chance to see what sounds here like a hurricane of energy in his campaign. It would help Kucinich to have that same sort of expressive energy to convey his passion about real, meaningful, progressive change.

[incontrovertible]

70. Jesus Christ, that was the most brilliant online dissertation EVER

I'm in awe, and I am not awed easily. THANK you, and my apologies, in advance, for the inevitable glue-huffing communist who'll bog down after paragraph three and start calling you a "REPUKE," because you're a Southerner.

My hat is tipped, my head is bowed. Well done.

[jbutsz]

71. Thank you for your kind comments

Your comments have convinced me to re-write it sans laziness. :-)

Some elaborations in these comments will be integrated as well.

Haha yes I've hoped that, despite my once being one as a teenager, it wouldn't discourage reading further - plus it is long-winded so I know many will pass over it. I'll have to try and streamline it too.

[jbutsz]

75. NOTICE

A re-written, cleaned up, and expanded version of this writing has been posted in the 'Editorials' forum.

[eblack101]

76. Good piece, I'll Pass It On

J. Butzs & Friends,

Congratulations on an interesting piece. Being a northern liberal, I can't comment on it's accuracy but only on it's verisimilitude which is excellent.

I'd like to suggest that you forward this piece to the Dean people, who run an official blog: http://www.blogforamerica.com/ . I think they'd be very interested in your piece, and possibly very interested in you. There's no question that they need to understand the South and working class Southerners a lot better than they do if they want (as they say they do) to discuss the racial situation in America.

It also might interest you to know that I picked up on your writing from lurking on a Yahoo site called: African Americans for Dean. For what it's worth (and I think it's worth a lot) one of their posters thought it was an excellent piece of analysis and recommended that it be read by the rest of their people.

As so many of them are southerners, I think that says a lot about the reality that you try to penetrate for us about Southern politics.

I also think that your piece would play well on another Democratic talk forum: http://deanissuesforum.com/6/ubb.x A new Dean talk forum that the Dean staff has intimated that they'll keep their eye on.

Whatever you choose to do, good luck to you, and thanks for the perceptive writing,
Sinderely,
eric blackstead

[newyawker99]

77. Hi eblack101!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast: