The Wall Street Journal published a front-page story last week reporting on the newest endangered species: White Southern Democrats. Just as they are rapidly disappearing in Mississippi, so are they from the rest of the South:
"The only remaining white Democrat in the House of Representatives from the Deep South, Rep. John Barrow, is in jeopardy of losing his job in November, which would mark a monumental shift in American politics.
In an stark realignment, voters in the Deep South have divided into an increasingly black Democratic Party and a mostly white Republican Party. Already, Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana are represented in the House solely by white Republicans and black Democrats. Georgia could join that list if Mr. Barrow, who is running in a district redrawn to include more whites and Republicans, loses in November....
Leaders of the two parties interpret the phenomenon differently. Republicans say white voters are increasingly voting Republican, turned off by what they say is the Democratic Party's growing liberalism. Democrats blame Republican leaders for redistricting actions that Democrats say are concentrating black voters in a smaller number of districts.
Redrawing voting districts has long been the prerogative of the party in power at the state level, and both Democrats and Republicans have routinely exercised that privilege over the years to gain political advantage. Republicans say the current changes in Georgia are based on considerations like trying to consolidate agricultural areas, not on trying to isolate the black vote...
The loss of centrists, combined with more racially divided parties that see the role of government in different terms, has implications for policy, contributing to the continuing paralysis in Washington that frustrates many voters. "The more dimensions on which you make it difficult for people to share a common perspective, the harder it will be to reach any compromise," says Eric Heberlig, a political scientist at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
The changes extend beyond the five states that make up the Deep South—Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina. North Carolina's state legislature just redrew congressional boundaries, with the likely outcome that four of the state's five white Democratic House members will be replaced by white Republicans. Missouri could see its congressional delegation include only white Republicans and black Democrats after the next election.
"Few heavily white areas, outside college towns and Whole Foods locations, are hospitable to Democrats right now," said David Wasserman, who follows House races for the Cook Political Report...
In Georgia, Mr. Barrow, who is 58 years old and has been in Congress since 2005, is trying to survive in his newly drawn district by arguing that Congress needs people like him who will reach across party and racial lines. Mr. Barrow says he is "as confident as you can be under the circumstances," because he listens to the people he represents.
A recent night found Mr. Barrow at the "Redneck Games" in Dublin, featuring such events as a cigarette-flicking contest and a horseshoe-toss using toilet seats. The next day he was making his case at American Legion Post 205 in Augusta, where roughly 40 veterans and family members complained loudly to Mr. Barrow that Congress is broken.
"We could spend all night talking about what's wrong with Congress, but I'll sum it up in a nutshell: Everybody is trying to pick a fight with the other side," Mr. Barrow said. "Folks come from very partisan districts. They get caught up in the herd instinct."
That is Mr. Barrow's pitch—that he isn't a typical partisan politician. It isn't an easy sell here in rural eastern Georgia, where highway signs for Mr. Barrow's leading GOP opponent, state Rep. Lee Anderson, highlight an ideological contrast: "Anderson—Conservative for Congress." Mr. Anderson was the top Republican vote-getter in a July 31 primary, but he faces an Aug. 21 runoff.
Whites, especially in the South, are increasingly voting Republican, while blacks continue to vote Democratic. In Georgia, Republicans get close to 80% of the white vote, while Democrats receive 90% or more of the black vote, according to Charles Bullock, a University of Georgia political scientist. In 1994, Democrats were capturing a similarly high percentage of the black vote, while Republicans were getting a little more than 50% of the white vote, he said.
"Race and party are now running very much co-linear" in the South, Mr. Bullock said.
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R., Ga.), who coordinates Republicans' national redistricting efforts, said Democrats are struggling among white Southerners because of the party's growing liberalism. "If you look at the head of the party—the president—and you look at [House Minority Leader] Nancy Pelosi and [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid, they are to the left," Mr. Westmoreland said. "So, that's where they're bringing the party to."
Mr. Westmoreland pointed to South Carolina as an example of how racial polarization can be overstated as a political force. He cited the recent election of Republican Rep. Tim Scott, one of two African-American Republicans now in Congress, in a South Carolina district dominated by white voters. Nationwide, there are 42 black Democrats in the House, the vast majority of whom are seeking re-election. On the Republican side, in addition to the two black incumbents, a black candidate from Utah is running for House this fall.
The shifting picture has touched off a debate about whether the 1965 Voting Rights Act, meant to protect minority power, is now limiting the influence of African-American voters.
Some black leaders and other Democrats complain that GOP leaders who control many state governments are eliminating some of the biracial districts that once elected white Democrats. Republicans say the Voting Rights Act leaves them few options. They say the law forbids diluting minority voting power, thereby encouraging the creation and protection of majority-black districts to ensure that African-Americans' voices are heard.
The effects on the state level are also striking. Blacks are now being elected in impressive numbers to state legislatures throughout the South—but almost always as part of a shrinking Democratic minority, so their power is limited. Fully 298 black legislators in the broader South are in the minority and just 15 are in the majority, according to David Bositis, senior researcher at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a think tank that aims to increase the political participation of African-Americans.
"It gives them a seat at the table but nothing to eat," says Dick Harpootlian, chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party.
In a floor speech during Georgia's redistricting fight, Democratic state Sen. Jason Carter accused the GOP of dismantling mixed districts to create black and white ones, then inaccurately claiming the Voting Rights Act gave them no choice.
"You want to turn the Voting Rights Act on its head and turn it into a tool of racial division instead of the tool of reconciliation that it is intended, and was always intended, to be," said Mr. Carter, former President Jimmy Carter's grandson.
Republicans say they are only doing what the Voting Rights Act requires.
"When you have to protect the majority-minority districts, then that leaves everything else" more Republican, said GOP state Sen. Tommie Williams, who helped lead Georgia's redistricting effort. "My opinion is the Voting Rights Act has hurt the Democratic Party."
The changes have enhanced the influence of minorities within the Democratic Party. Today, 64 of the 190 House Democrats are minorities—just over one-third—while 12 of 242 Republicans fit that category, according to Mr. Wasserman. He predicts that minorities and women will account for more than half of all House Democrats for the first time after the next election.
Because whites and blacks often disagree on the role of the federal government, the shift may be fueling the ideological battles between the parties. In a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, 77% of African-Americans said the government should do more to solve problems and meet people's needs, while 44% of whites felt that way.
The numbers were even more stark on President Barack Obama's health law. The poll found that 67% of blacks consider the law a good idea, compared with 29% of whites.
For decades, Democrats dominated the South, a legacy of the Civil War era. But in the 1980s white Southerners began migrating to the GOP as a more comfortable philosophical home. Those who stayed Democratic formed a bridge between the two parties. Today, they are pushing hard for a compromise deal to cut the deficit....
In 2010, Mr. Barrow easily defeated his Republican opponent, winning 57% of the vote. But changes to his district will make it more difficult for him to hold his seat. Georgia Republicans last year removed Democratic parts of Savannah from his district and replaced them with GOP-leaning areas around Augusta.
The district's black population fell from 42% to 33%. Mr. Obama won 55% of the district vote in 2008. Precinct voting records suggest that he would have won only 45% of the district as it is now drawn.
Mr. Barrow is given to folksy sayings such as "You need to have a cat at every hole," meaning it is important to defend against every eventuality. In an interview in his office, Mr. Barrow said the South is full of centrist voters who favor his style of pragmatism, but that both parties' insistence on creating heavily partisan districts squeezes out candidates who reflect that.
"The future of our country is people who can reach across party lines and who can reach across racial lines," he said. "If you can't do that, you're not going to be very good at representing this country down the road."
Mr. Barrow frequently deviates from Democratic orthodoxy. He opposed the 2008 bank bailout, Mr. Obama's health law and the cap-and-trade energy plan. He was one of 17 House Democrats to join with GOP lawmakers recently in voting to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress. Mr. Barrow supports gun rights and opposes gay marriage, but is something of an economic populist. "That's what I think old-time Southern Democrats used to be," he said..." Article
Sunday, August 12, 2012
A white Southern Democrat. What's that?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
Was this written 20 years ago?
Redistricting is the issue. Always has been, always will be. It swings both ways. Just try and find out what comprises Ward 3 in Jackson - it will amaze you.
The downfall of the recent polarization is the destruction of centrists and the rise of polar opposites.
The real loss under polarization is the rich dialogue of opinion that is being harangued by the "I am right" attitude of both sides.
:Do not tread on me" is not lost on me.
There are some areas of the South where redistricting has hurt white D's but mostly it's a lurch to the left by the party, shadowfax is right, no big news there.
The sad thing is that in MS, the GOP has actually kept Bennie Thompson in powering by listening to MS-1 and MS-3 stalwarts say put all the blacks in MS-2. The party here could have all 4 districts if they had pushed...maybe in the 2020 census we'll figure out how to actually wield power.
It is not a good thing to have only 2 political parties, one white and one black in Miss. This should make it possible to have a 3rd party that could represent both black and white voters.
Democrats = Tax and spend, waste of resources, dumbing down schools, give away of money and resources to those who can work but won't, entitlement, baby killers, supporting allowing illegal immigrants to live however they wish in this country with no accountability and the list goes on. They are not the democrats of old. I know that many blacks in MS would vote for Obama even if he killed their family himself because he is black. Take him out of the picture and they would still vote democrat because of many of the reasons stated above. Not hating, just telling the truth.
6:46 am, I think the same is true of some of the whites who vote Republican.
The irony is that once upon a time, the Republican party was the party of blacks.
Even more ironic is that blacks have been as non-inclusive as whites once were to them.
It hasn't worked well in the rest of the world to divide in racial or religious groups, but as 9:21 pm advocates, it's all about wielding power, not about good government or freedom and equality of opportunity. And, you know you're nearly there when you make no bones about it.
If you have to oppress other groups or spill a little blood to get power, you can justify it by seeing them as inferior, lesser humans. It's worked that way for centuries.
In another century ,or maybe less the way things are going, we can ditch democracy altogether. We can have our own one party system with Norquist, instead of Putin. You'll need someone who can really wield power. Or, we could have a theocracy like Saudi Arabia .
Of course, at some point, Evangelicals and Catholics and Jews will have to battle out the details like in centuries past.
It's that vying for power thing we humans love to do.
7:28, you make power sound like some malignant thing that's only used to oppress. Power is a necessary ingredient to government, and once you have it you should wield it carefully. In this case, I believe it's irresponsible to draw Congressional districts like we have, but deals among the Congressmen made it a simple rubber stamp decision for the legislature this year. The only common interest that the people in District 2 share is that most of them are black and poor. The power the Mississippi Congressional delegation might have to solve some of the problems of those people is diluted when they have only one representative working on their behalf, assuming that particular representative is actually working on their behalf and not his own. Three east/west lines drawn across the state would give the Delta region four representatives in Congress, but that would probably mean that the majorities on both sides would decrease, something none of our Congressmen want. That's the kind of power everyone should endeavor to wield - power sufficient to do the right thing.
Don't feed the trolls Bill.
7:28 made perfect sense from the perspective of many. Disagreeing with Bill-Whoever doesn't make him a troll. 8:32 has succinctly and perfectly demonstrated the negative power of a short sentence to diminish another, thereby (8:32 thinks) blowing the opinion out to sea.
My opinion (worthless as it may be) is that 8:32 was closer to reality and 'Bill' was closer to a pipe dream.
I'll assume you meant 7:28 was closer to reality, SF. Maybe he is, but I have to respectfully disagree with you. I realize that neither scenario - 7:28's or mine - is going to happen, although mine is probably more likely than his. However, my point was simply to reject his assertion that "power" and the necessity to wield it when you have it is somehow bad. That's the way government works. You win elections and you get to implement your agenda. Call it power or whatever else you want, I get tired of people - and you are sometimes one of them - who continue to rail against anyone who happens to be an elected official as if all of them are corrupt. There are many who are using their "power" for good. Redistricting, which is the context wherein Hayes made his original "power" comment, only happens every ten years, and it's incumbent on the majority party to set the lines in a way that will benefit the state. We had a chance to change Congressional district boundaries and we failed to do it. In other words, the Republicans failed to use their "power" to improve things in Mississippi. I agree with that assessment. The people of District 2 deserve better and no one in any district is entitled to a "safe" seat. I think the discussion of power was expanded from what Hayes originally intended.
I tend to agree with Bill's thoughts but 7:28 made a good point or two. Look, the notion that the two or three congressmen got in a room and cut a deal is natural...it's just not right. If we've got to have this silliness, I'd much more favor having some help for the Delta this way...since what we've done is guaranteed one black seat why don't we have one seat for a black that is anyone statewide as long as you're an african american and then run on our PSC/DOT/Supreme Court lines. That way, you've got fair representation and, quite frankly, the chance of two black reps. (central district). That is fairer to the citizens of the state than the system we have in place. Bennie's made no bones about the fact he could care less about the white folk in MS-2. Life is much worse there than when he was elected in 93 (I know he's not only the one to blame, just the major part)...I know it sounds weird, but at least everyone has a voice in the peoples house...even blacks in the northeast, central, and south part of the state.
"They say the law forbids diluting minority voting power, thereby encouraging the creation and protection of majority-black districts to ensure that African-Americans' voices are heard."
There's a word for these enclaves that contain a high percentage of a specific ethnic group. I am surprised African-Americans don't recognize a "ghetto" when they have constructed one around themselves.
I think for 40 years the main problem has been that the party activists in both parties are the driving force behind the primaries, and you end up in many cases having to decide between a far-left nut case vs a far-right nut case. Depending on a large number of local factors we end up lurching violently from far-left to far-right periodically, with no long-term perspective in evidence, no long-term plan, and no apparent influnence by the majority of sensible people who do not occupy either fringe.
As charles Barkley said "People have been voting Democrat for 50 years and they're still broke".
On the nosey, both 11:22 and 11:27. Barkley will still vote for Obama, though...
Thank you , Bill. You're right. I did mean that 7:28 was closer to reality than you were. Both opinions are valid and important. That they don't agree, doesn't mean one is from a troll.
That you 'get tired of' certain opinions does absolutely NOTHING to make your opinion more valid. I don't expect you to agree with that since you've twice now told us that your opinion is valid and more valid that that of 7:28.
Your scenario, as posted @ 8:16 is anything but connected to reality. I'm sorry you disagree. But, it is what it is. And I'm discouraged that you often 'get tired of my posts' that you think rail against elected officials. I admire many of them and have been one myself. Have you? Not counting the neighborhood architectural committee.
I admire many of them and have been one myself. Have you? Not counting the neighborhood architectural committee.
Why does it matter?
What you're making is a not-so-veiled appeal to your own authority in order to augur your opinion of elected officials as somehow more informed than Bill's.
Doing so is a logical fallacy.
Carry on Shadowbore.
Why has everyone so polite here now "respectably dis agree", "i admire", "im sorry". I leave for a couple of months and this turns into the All England Club.
Shadowfax is the troll.
Come on, Shadowfax. I didn't say I get tired of your posts. I said I get tired of people who accuse any and all elected officials of being corrupt at every turn, and you do that from time to time. I don't get tired of your posts - on the contrary, I enjoy the discussions you generate. Although we often don't agree you always present a well thought out position and I respect that. Neither did I say that my opinion is any more valid than anyone else's. I simply believe that there's more of a chance of us getting east to west lines in our Congressional districts than there is that the people of America will abandon the republic in favor of Grover Norquist. I'd be surprised if you didn't agree with me, but maybe you don't. Frankly, it's an academic discussion because neither scenario has a chance of coming to pass, but I was just trying to make a point.
You're right - I haven't even been elected to anything beyond my high school student council and the MRA school board, which isn't exactly a public office. I wish I had, and maybe someday I'll have the courage to run for an elected office like you did. Should that somehow restrict my right to defend - and criticize - public officials?
Unlike many on this blog, I have never posted the first negative thing about you as a person. I admit I'm at a disadvantage - you know who I am but I don't know who you are - and I make a nice inviting target because I don't mind stating my opinion. We can disagree on this - we've disagreed before and we will again - but there's no need to get personal.
I have no clue who you are and don't care to know. All I know is your first name appears in blue and I don't know how to stamp my posts with a neat icon like Kingfish does. I admire the crown and fish, which reminds me of sipping a little Crown at Bennies fish fries and I've attended two.
I think I've commented negatively about Lynn Fitch and maybe Wayne Dowdy, both deserving of my disrespect. And I may have commented negatively about T-Bone Tyromes and Harvey. But, I'm a fan of Mayor Mary, the Madison County Sheriff, our DA, most republican legislators and even George Flaggs. Other than that, I can't be concerned with what Flannel Gary @ 1:00 pm thinks.
Shadow, set up a google profile and use whatever jpg or png for your profile pic. Then when you are logged into google, you should be able to use your icon when you comment under your screen name.
Bill," absolute power corrupts absolutely" and benign despots are awfully few and far between in human history.
So ...yeah...too much power...particulary a de facto one party system scares the hell out of me.
And, I know you know this and ought to have just a few moments of concern about the possibility some of your Tea Party allies usurping traditional GOP authority.
You're too much a loyalist to own up here, but I'm pretty sure some of those folks scare you too.
Nothing like some gratuitous fear mongering about the Tea Party.
Ohhhh, scary Tea Party.
Way to go!
Well, the Tea Party scares the hell out of me, and I've voted Republican (mostly) for almost 40 years. In fact, they scare me considerably more than the *libruls*.
To borrow a phrase I once heard, "Tea partiers are counting the dollar bills that poor people contribute before counting the dollar bills of the rich people". WTH?
And why are the mostly poor people in Mississippi voting against their own self interests?
Razor
Well then run like hell Razor RINO with your fraidy cat tail between your legs. The Tea Party is coming, the Tea Party is coming.
"To borrow a phrase I once heard, "Tea partiers are counting the dollar bills that poor people contribute before counting the dollar bills of the rich people". WTH?"
That makes absolutely no damned sense whatsoever! Which I suppose explains Razor and his awkward political confusion.
6:26, I don't think we'll ever have a single dominant party without a minority party with enough presence to keep them honest. Politics just swings back and forth too much. I'm not sure we won't have a succession of one term Presidents and switches in majority in Congress just because the American people have become impatient and want immediate results from their elected officials.
You're also right that I'm more of an establishment Republican who hasn't been actively involved in the TEA Party movement, although I have many friends who are. However, I give the TEA Party credit for energizing the right and putting us back in control of the House. Their passion for what they believe doesn't scare me. The people they elect, even the ones who identify with them the strongest, are still in a room full of other Congressmen and legislators who have to work together to get things done, so it quickly becomes impractical to take some of the more extreme positions that some of their voters might want them to take. No TEA Party Congressman has gone to Washington and gotten letters from home urging him to back down a little, in other words. It's hard for an extremist to bring anything back to his district or get support for any of his legislation, so even if they start out hard core they usually soften it a little for practical purposes. So to answer your question, no, I'm not worried that the TEA Party might take over our government. I hope they continue to do just what they're doing - put an honest set of values out there from which to hold our representatives accountable and keep working the trenches to get good conservatives elected to public office.
I have no inside track on what letters any tea party official has or hasn't received from home. I doubt any legislators receive letters from home asking them to back down and change the behavior that got them elected in the first place.
Wouldn't we be better off with a room dotted with tea party folks than a room dotted with the angry loudmouths of the democrat party. Imagine a few more Wasserman-Shultzes or a few more Barney Franks or just one more Maxine Waters. Folks of that ilk do nothing for the mutual accomplishments of pragmatic objectives. Show me a tea party candidate whose mission is to obstruct and stand in the way of every piece of legislation that comes forward.
Wasserman Schultz makes Hilary Clinton look svelte.
Shadowfax, that was my point. The practical considerations of lawmaking keep legislators, left or right, from being as hard core as their extremist supporters want them to be.
947 and Shadowfax: Razor RINO here. It's not *awkward, political confusion*: it's understanding the pure bs of tea partiers thinking the answer to all of societies woes can be corrected by merely cutting all government spending, regardless of any particular program’s merit, or not. And that doesn’t seem to you to be more than a little antithetical to the needs of the average Mississippi voting constituency, (mostly white and mostly uneducated)? To get there we'd of course have to overlook the historical passions of poor white people of the South wouldn’t we?
And exactly who is financing the “grass roots” message machine?
Good sir(s), I'm not confused at all about their stated intent, but I am confused at the mind-set of intelligent people, including apparently yourselves, that endorse such idiotic hypocrisy.
Additionally, it appears to me, that most of the tea partiers are also, for the most part, faithful members of churches that claim to espouse Christianity, but not necessarily the virtues of taking care of the less fortunate or improving life for the average person. And let’s review the even the less religious Constitution they state they are wanting to restore, you know, the one that has that whole statement“…form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare…”, just so long as I don’t have to pay for these societal benefits in the form of taxes? I especially don’t remember the latter being a part of the Constitution.
And I’m the one confused? Not hardly.
Razor,
You are most assuredly the one confused. I've been a conservative Republican my entire life. Your confusion is obvious. You assert that the tea partiers espouse cutting all government spending.
You should stop right there and assess what your true issue is. When one has to employ logical fallacies to justify their position, then one is most assuredly confused, or dishonest. One that is for a limited government used to be both liberal and conservative. Only progressives want an increased roll of government and both Republicans and Democrats have grown largely progressive.
It's also telling that you choose to use the preamble to the Constitution, that thing that's simply a statement of the intended purpose of the Constitution to follow, but seem to leave out the most significant part. The part that seemingly would be the central focus as to why the United States was formed - "...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
Likely most telling is your complete misunderstanding of the Constitution itself. The Constitution is not a list of things the citizen has to pay or not pay. I'd suggest you read one of the actual amendments to the Constitution that states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Bill. 8:37 am, you are both every eloquent and if the Tea Party actions in office was limited to the objectives you both describe, I wouldn't find them scary at all.
I'm for a limited, streamlined, efficient use of resources and clear lines of effective authority by government and frankly in any economic and organizational entity.
But, the Tea Party has taken on rather a lot of social issues and has put forth candidates that I do find scary. Demanding to resurrect a committee on un-American activities here in MS would be one example. Condoning and encouraging the birthers would be another.
And, it is hardly limiting government to insist government intervene in women's health decisions, in the ability of adult individuals to decide with whom they would form a monogamous relationship, and to allow government to support and impose religious beliefs on those who aren't religious. That is incompatible with Libertarism and Conservatism.
But, more disturbing is the Tea Party's recent moves that are attenmpts to limiting voting by reducing poll hours and making getting a voter ID difficult for those who cannot drive by limiting the times one can do that.
That no one is " writing the Tea Party asking them to back off" is a poor argument if accurate ( but I doubt it). Were one to assume that comment is accurate , one has to account for gerrymandering of districts, but more importantly assume Don Quixote has many new devotees. I can't think why one would waste their time when an unwillingness to compromise has been part of the Tea Party mantra.
I would remind you both that Mississipians, particularly women spoke loud and clear on the Parenthood Admendment. That has not prevented Tea Party legislators from beginning to implement it piecemeal. THAT'S SCARY.
I respect those who joined the Tea Party for the reasons you both state. I strongly believe that it has been a mistake to embrace, in the name of having an " energized base" the extremists...particularly the racists and religious zealots and those who wish to dismantle government rather than streamline government.
I suggest you look at Iran and Egypt and Russia to see how, how a people who only wanted good government and a moral and ethical society can end up with neither. And, please note how the rational leaders of those early movements are no where to be found.
Bill, historically in this country we have successfully avoided a one party system. But, the safeguards that have allowed that to be true are disappearing. When the Fourth Estate is owned and dominated by one party and when the judiciary becomes politicized so it is dominated by one party...both of which is happening...it's a one party system. The balance of power no longer exists. Add the attempts to control voting and it's really scary.
20 counties will determine this national election. That should worry everyone.
Post a Comment