A strange thing is happening in the South. When Don Cazayoux and Travis Childers won their special elections in, respectively, Louisiana and Mississippi, the Republicans complained that they they ran as Republicans. This wasn’t strictly true. They ran as pro-life, anti-gay marriage, anti-immigration candidates. That made them seem like Republicans. But they also ran against the war and they ran against corporate welfare, and they ran against free trade agreements. They ran on increasing federal funding on infrastructure and education, and they ran on nixing No Child Left Behind. On many issues they were fully in line with the Democratic Party, and on some they were more in line with the Progressives than the Blue Dogs.
On Tuesday there was a startling upset in the Democratic primary for South Carolina’s senate seat (held by Lindsey Graham). Lawyer Michael Cone was expected to win, but he lost by a thousand votes to an unknown airline pilot named Bob Conley. The election was so close that they will do a recount. But, assuming Conley wins, we’ll have another candidate that falls roughly into the Cazayoux/Childers mold. And it could spell trouble for Lindsey Graham. Here are some of the issues that Conley is running on.
- Putting an end to predatory loans.
Energy conservation and alternative energy development.
End the occupation of Iraq and bring the troops home.
Punishing corporations and companies that use illegal immigrant labor, closing down our borders, and restricting even legal immigration. No ‘amnesty’ bill.
No new free trade agreements.
No more Wall Street bailouts.
Remove many of our troops stationed overseas, starting with South Korea.
Pass Sen. Webb’s GI Bill.
Here’s some more:
Conley, a North Myrtle Beach Democrat who voted for Ron Paul in South Carolina’s Republican presidential primary, says he believes his opposition to abortion rights, belief in marriage between a man and a woman and opposition to illegal immigration strike the right chord for voters here.
“I can grab a significant portion of the pie that would otherwise not vote Democrat,” he said in a recent interview.
Conley should know. He unsuccessfully ran for the Indiana Legislature as a Republican in 2000. Even though he voted for longshot Paul, Conley says he walked away from the Republican Party years ago out of frustration over trade and immigration policies and the Iraq invasion. He says his Catholic background has given him “sanctity of life” views that apply equally to fetuses and innocent Iraqis and contends the GOP does not own traditional Christian values.
“That party can go to the devil,” Conley said. “There’s a big myth out there that there aren’t pro-Life Democrats. In the South generally, but especially in the state of South Carolina, you can’t go out and attack traditional Christian values, traditional Christian morals and expect to carry the day.”
There’s plenty to like and plenty to dislike. And there’s no sugarcoating the racial element in this new Southern populism.
Conley refers to likely GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain as “Juan McCain,” for advocating last year’s failed immigration bill that would have provided a path to citizenship. He calls Graham McCain’s “Mini-Me.”
But just when you are feeling totally repulsed, he comes at you with this:
He’s also critical of Graham for being a cheerleader for the invasion of Iraq and what he calls the continued occupation.
“The American people are paying for this occupation. We have corporations who are just milking this cash cow,” Conley said. “This occupation has to end.”
He believes the military should determine how to pull out responsibly, while the administration talks with leaders in Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran to “ensure a full out bloodbath doesn’t erupt” when U.S. troops leave.
“That’s their back yard. They should be the folks who are taking care of what’s going on there,” he said. “How would we feel if Communist China invaded Quebec?”
I’m less interested in Conley as a candidate than I am in this new brand of Southern Democrat. Conley doesn’t have the money to seriously compete with Lindsey Graham and he won’t be getting any help from the progressive blogosphere with his attitude towards Latinos, women, and gays. But as a strictly political matter, he has positioned himself to maximally contest Graham’s seat. He’s running to Graham’s right on immigration, just as Graham’s GOP primary challenger did. He neuters any advantage Graham might have on social issues. And that leaves him free to go after Graham on economic populism and our failed foreign policies. It’s a recipe that just won the Democrats two House seats in blood red districts.
What’s interesting about this is that these candidates are not in the Blue Dog mold. They are definitely not in the New Democrat mold. They take pieces from each faction of the Democratic Party and some from the Republican Party. If enough of them are elected they will probably form their own unique caucus.
They are capable of creating a great amount of mischief, particularly if they form an essential part of our working majority. But if they are essentially padding to a center-left immigrant-women-gay friendly working majority, they will probably be a net plus because of their economic populism and anti-imperialism stances. On many issues they will be better allies to the Progressives than either the Blue Dogs or the New Democrats. And they’ll provide much needed cover for Progressives on issues like free trade, national security, and the Drug Wars.
As uneasy as these politicians make me on some core issues, their emergence as Democrats shows that the Democrats are poised to be the ruling party in this country for some time to come. It’s almost a reemergence of the New Deal coalition, with the North being the anchor rather than the segregationist South. The elements of xenophobia are all too evident, as well as the basic social conservatism of the region. But this isn’t the Jim Crow south. It’s still disturbing, even alarming, in its hostility to Latino immigration and immigration in general. But we lived with much worse during most of the 20th Century, and we’re living with it now in the form of the modern Republican Party.
These are fascinating times. Next year we’re going to be living in a much different country than we’re used to. It will probably be more familiar to the people that lived through the 50’s and 60’s, where Democrats dominated even as they were badly divided on some of the most pressing issues of the day.
What do you think?
Also available in orange.
If that’s the best we can get from SC to replace Mimsy Graham, and it helps us get the 60 votes needed in the Senate for most of the important issues, so be it.
If you were a woman, parent or partner of a woman who’s rights over her own body were and are being stripped away and at greater risk everyday because of the acceptance by democrats on base political grounds of anti freedom of choice democrats now inundating the party, you just might not feel that way.
To me, there is something very wrong and disturbing about any man saying so be it when their own human rights are not at risk.
That gets to the root of the problem.
Yet, part of why I wrote this is to get people to start thinking about this new phenomenon in a new way, and not in the context of a divided government that we have all come to assume is the natural order of things.
We’re a long way from being inundated with anti-choicers. In the Senate we have Ben Nelson and Bob Casey and maybe one or two more anti-choice Democrats. In the House there are are maybe a dozen or so. Maybe fifteen.
But that number could definitely grow this November. The thing is, if it does, it will grow in the context of the Dems gaining 5-10 pro-choice Senators and up to 40 pro-choice House members.
Instead of seeing this as increase in anti-choicers in the party we should see it more as a collapse of the GOP brand of social/fiscal conservatism. In percentage terms, I don’t see the party as emerging more anti-choice than it is today. But it will have several more anti-choice members.
How can you say that the party will not be more anti-choice than it is today when it’s already more anti-choice than it was 2 years ago? How many of them does it take to become a bloc with real power to sway legislation? If the blue dogs are any evidence of how a small group can influence voting trends then I’d say even one more is already one too many.
Like I said, this is and should always remain non-negotiable. I think you and anyone who doesn’t oppose this shift is playing with fire. Fire that will burn people who are not you.
I’m specifically saying that in percentage terms I don’t see the caucus as being more anti-choice.
Off the top of my head, I think every Democrat running for Senate is pro-choice except for Conley and Ronnie Musgrove and Erik Fleming of Mississippi. I don’t know who will be ultimately nominated in Tennessee and Georgia, but they could be anti-choice.
Other than Musgrove, they are all real longshots to win election, and if they do they’ll be part of a much larger pro-choice class.
In the House, we’re looking at 70 competitive seats and we less than 10 anti-choicers in that group, all of which are third or fourth tier candidates. That means if they win they’ll be part of a much bigger wave.
I know it’s playing with fire. I’m not supporting any of these candidates. But it’s happening. It’s a formula that seems to work in the current political environment. It’s a realignment.
Hiow does it work when it works against the largest voting demographic in the deomocratic party, women?
Didn’t you vote for Casey? Isn’t a vote a declaration of support?
I have to get to work.
I did vote for Casey. I railed against Casey and worked for his primary opponent. But I wanted to make sure Santorum lost by the maximum amount possible. If you want to call that support for Casey, you can. I call it something else.
I understand what you’re saying booman however this to me is the same sort of ‘triangulating’ that you hate so much about the DLC/Clintons.
Glad you’re back and one of your pictures is now on my desktop where I can gaze at it with no little amount of envy.
As I read your snippet, the Anti-immigration “gun” is aimed at the employers. If that’s the tact, it’s not as bad as leaving the employer scott-free and blaming the immigrant.
A little known fact: The McCain/Kennedy Immigration Reform left the employers free of any obligation for back taxes on FICA for the years they had taken advantage of the worker. But the worker, of course, had to pay his/her back taxes. McCain never fails to pander to his lobbyist base.
I think you have to live in the south, and truly be a southerner to understand what is happening here.
There are many bridges being built between so called party members, that are being forced upon them by the people living here.
People here are like most, sick and tired of the policy that has been shoved down our throats by the far right Pugs.
If they want to stay in office, they have to move towards the center more, and take the voice of the people to halt the coporate control. For there are far more of us in the lower ranks, than the greedy upper.
The mass of imigration is here in the south, and most have witnessed, and been highly effected by such, in as much as we have less rights/privilages than those whom have imigrated here.
I for one, and know many more, who are sick and tired of hearing that the poor southern white boy will not work, ABSOLUTELY not true. They have been forced out of jobs for the greed of the coporates who will only hire the cheaper labor. It is more of a solidarity among the working class to stand their ground against losing a life style, for corporate greed.
I own a construction business, and know for a fact who will work, with skills, and integrity for craftsmanship, and who will not.
You have to be here, to understand what’s happening.
It’s about time to build more bridges, that can turn the tides of the plague of greed that has consumed the population.
It has nothing to do with racism, or anti-imigration, it is more about survival, and fairness to the working class.
Something that has been traded for greed.
The fat cats can praise fair trade all they want, and will as long as it is in THEIR FAVOR….imagine that.
The scales have been tilted too long, and we need to put some weight back on the low side ; )
peace, equality, for all
It will probably be more familiar to the people that lived through the 50’s and 60’s, where Democrats dominated even as they were badly divided on some of the most pressing issues of the day.
What do you think?
America today is not the same country I grew up in during the 60-70’s. I can’t wait for sane government.
for some time. I’m an economic populist, but I also believe in the inherent worth and dignity of all people. And a big part of that for me is the ability of a person to
a.) Be safe and secure in their own body – and to be healthy in it
b.) Make their own choices
c.) Have the education, tools and knowledge to decide what is best for them and their families. And that education, the tools and the knowledge should be science-based, not faith based or designed to politically appeal to a sub-group.
As democrats we seem to be building majorities and promoting candidates that may not (or definitely are not) women and family friendly. We’re falling back into the old trap of good old boys and frat house humor.
The brouhaha in Minnesota over Al Franken’s sad attempt at humor in Playboy and his rape jokes are one aspect of that culture and mentality that seems to increasingly becoming part of democratic party culture.
Matt Stoller had an interesting article a couple of weeks ago called Needed: A Kickass Woman Politician Archetype where he challenges the prevailing archetype of the kick-ass nail eating populist – see Jim Webb. But Matt’s been strangely quiet on the whole Al Franken issue – except to call out good progressives like Representatives Betty McCollum and Keith Ellison for not wholeheartedly backing Franken.
Crystia Freeland, the US Editor for the Financial Times wrote an interesting column entitled: Have the 2008 Campaigns revealed anti-woment sentiment (subscription required)
This is getting to be a long comment, I may need to do a diary. This is an issue I’ve been thinking about and struggling with for quite a while as a party activist and former officer.
But one last thing – Ya wonder why Hillary supporters – especially older feminists are pissed off?
Please do write a diary about these issues.
I wonder why there is so little, even no alarm when Obama himself says things such as, paraphrasing,
having an abortion (should be ending a pregnancy) is a decision a woman must make in consultation with her doctor, her family and (most disturbing of all) her pastor.
I understand playing to the demands of any particular audience as a practical political device but, as we’re told, “words matter”, and these words are a radical shift away from the traditional democratic bulwark erected to protect our sisters, wives, partners and daughters. So yes, feminists and all women are more than justified in their anger at this trend, at Obama’s playing word games with their lives, and worst of all, the complete betrayal of them by the party because of the direction it is now taking.
These are non negotiable rights.
what’s wrong with his words there?
You’re upset that he would suggest that a woman facing an unwanted pregnancy would consult her doctor, her family, and her spiritual advisers?
Setting the language bar a little high there.
That seems like a perfectly reasonable assumption about any medical procedure.
He didn’t say would. He said should. Words matter. It is a woman’s choice who she seeks counsel from. It’s never okay for any man to say who they should consult with. Religion, imo, should never be a part of any conversation from government in any proclamation of shoulds.
Also, though he shouldn’t have gone there to begin with, he didn’y say spiritual advisor. He said Pastor. This, outside of freedom of choice issues, is a narrow and exclusionary choice of a word when the U.S. has followers of myriad religions that aren’t led by christian pastors. You might think this is nitpicking but he is supposed to be the bearer of a higher and more inclusive standard. He should be very careful in how he communicates to everyone.
This seems to me to be a riff on Jesse Ventura’s statement vetoing a 24 hour waiting period in Minnesota back in 2001 or there abouts.
Best pro-choice statement I ever saw. He stood with his wife at his side on TV and said the above, but with a couple of slight differences:
1.) he mentioned doctor first
2.) then family
3.) and then said: If she so chooses, her minister.
Now remember – Jesse’s in the religion is the opiate of the masses camp, while Obama is a church-goer. That could account for their differences in language.
I fall into the camp of I think (and emphasize) think Obama knows what he’s doing. He has (and has had) tremendous hurdles in front of him and there are places where he needs to tread cautiously. Emphasizing the role of family and religion as part of the choice “issue” is a natural fit for him.
I also fall into the Booman camp of watch who his advisers are and who he’s bringing with him. It’s very interesting. Go check out Axlerod’s bio if you haven’t already and also Axelrod’s parent’s background. Veeeerry Intreeesting…
I think we have too many of them already for my comfort. Any more will merely move us back to being brood mares for the state.
Sputterers make the world go round :o)
Return of the Dixiecrats?
(Disclaimer; I’m a 60-year-old Southerner whose politics are quite a bit to the left of the Democratic mainstream-think Greens or Kucinich w/o the UFOs. I see Obama from my vantage point as a moderate centrist.)
Let me see if I understand this. We are celebrating a new coalition, the return of my region to the fold as it were. This coalition is achieved by opening the back door to xenophobes, homophobes, racists and sexists who want to deny a woman the control of her own body. This is acceptable presumably because we can find – if we look real hard – a couple of issues that allow us to call these people “populists” and they are willing, at least for this cycle, to wear the label “Democrat”.
Supporting Ron Paul justs ups the “maverick” factor to help us steal Johnny Mac’s thunder. And the ethnic slurs are fine ‘cuz he’s directing them at the guy we’re agin’, too. I need someone to explain to me how this is different than the strategy pursued by the Republican Party in the South since 1968 or Strom and the Dixiecrats in ’48.
But we lived with much worse during most of the 20th Century, and we’re living with it now in the form of the modern Republican Party.
No, you didn’t. I’ve lived here most of my adult life and I can tell you that if you put this assclown down in 1955, he’d be a loyal and honorable member of the White Citizens Council. This guy is running as a Dem solely because he’s smart enough to figure out the Republican tag is poison this cycle. And he’s just the kind of guy that will cross back over as soon as it’s safe.
Accepting folks like this into the fold is what I would expect of the Clinton “third way” Democratic Party. Their guiding principle was anything it takes to get re-elected – no bedfellow too strange. I thought under Obama’s leadership this was the year things were supposed to, you know, change.
Hey Phil, I’m not celebrating anything. Look at what I wrote and see if you can find a hint of celebration. I’m reporting, not celebrating.
OK, you’re reporting. Notice I said “we” and not you. And by “we” I mean the party and their apparent willingness to let guys like this wear the label.
But there’s no doubt that the Louisiana and Mississippi elections have been celebrated as harbingers of a new majority (and you say so yourself). While it’s nice at first blush to rejoice in turning a red district blue, at close examination, it looks more like a Republican victory under a different label.
Things like being against the war aren’t enough to tip the balance. I live in the 2nd TN district. John Duncan, Jr, is my Congressman-for-life. He voted against the AUMF in 2002 and as recently as 11 April of this year called the war “unconstitutional, unaffordable and totally unnecessary”. But on every other issue, he’ll vote in ways that are an anethma to a liberal. These new DINOs are no different.
Let me explain in a little more detail: by accepting these folks we’ve started a whole junior league of anti-choice “Democrats” who will move up in the ranks. Don’t scoff- here in Colorado we elected an anti-choice Dem (Ritter) for Governor. Everyone made the argument that so long as the state dems don’t send him a bill outlawing control over your own body then he won’t sign it.
Who do you think he will mentor and support?
We’ve got a statewide amendment that just made it on the ballot which would declare fertilized eggs fully human.
When we accept these assaults on the rights of women we create an atmosphere of it being acceptable. Over time it becomes more so, just as letting a male worker get away with nude pin ups can start a much more severe atmosphere of sexual harassment.
Also, a number of women are getting mighty tired of being held hostage to certain candidates because of this issue of bodily soverignity. When we allow anti-choice dems to proliferate we keep them/us on knife’s edge.
Tehanu,
I hear you. I allude to living in the South most of my adult life in my post. The exception was living in Denver from 1993 to 1998. Different in some ways; in others, not so much. Outside the PRB and Denver itself, things descend into right-wing nutjob territory pretty quickly.
If these are the kind of folks we need to be in a majority, I’d rather hold onto minority status a while longer and work harder to get true progressives in coalition.
Phil-
Part of the point of my post is that we probably won’t need them to have a majority. We have a majority right now and it relies on Ben Nelson and Bob Casey. Come November, we won’t be relying on Ben Nelson and Bob Casey for our majority anymore.
Of course, the danger lies in both the proliferation theory and in the potential for them to become a swing vote down the line.
And that same Governor and the democratic majority aggressively oppose statute of limitations reform in cases of childhood sexual abuse.
And- to sputter on- let me remind you that Salazar voted for Alito, knowing full well Alito is cool with strip searching 10 year old girls without warrants.
There’s plenty to like and plenty to dislike. And there’s no sugarcoating the racial element in this new Southern populism.
Most southern Democrats are blacks, women, or both. If you are not for us, you are not a Democrat, or at least, not one I would like to vote for.
At least, not the South I came of age in in the ’60s. As the late and wonderful Molly Ivins said, if you’re a white Southerner and a liberal, you got there on one path and one path only, and that path was race. One we figured out they were lying to us about that, we just assumed they were lying to us about everything else. Molly was right.
I’m not saying that all the ills have been cured. The entry we’re responding to proves that. But the 2000 census showed that the only region with a net gain in African American population was the South, and it was unrelated to birth rate. A “reverse migration” was in effect with African Americans moving to – and in many cases returning to – the South for better jobs and better living conditions. And that was inconceivable in the South of my youth.
While I know I’m a minority down here, I am a male who consistently has supported and voted for candidates who advance the cause of both civil and women’s rights.
thanks BooMan. Great analysis as usual.
a lot of commenters above seem to think you’re endorsing this movement rather than just reporting on it. It’s an interesting and potentially important political development.
I’m not happy about an influx of anti-choice homophobe Democrats, but we have too many who are good on those issues but pro-corporate and pro-war.