Will He Set Their Fields On Fire?

Jesse Walker | June 16, 2005

The always entertaining Matt Labash profiles David "Mudcat" Saunders, who might be the redneck guru who teaches the Democrats how to win in the south ... and might merely be, in the words of one GOP strategist, "a Carville-lite act with a NASCAR twist, aimed mostly at neurotic urban liberal reporters who love the southern fried two-fisted-damn-Democrat'n'proud-of-it noble savage shtick." Of course, the options aren't mutually exclusive.

Comments

|6.16.05 @ 10:45AM|#

I guess he's not an honest, hardworking Red American, like Jonah Goldberg, Bill Kristol, or Rich Lowry.

Those crazy Dems, they're all rich Jews from New York, but they think they're down with real Americans from the heartland.

Of course, real Americans from the Heartland are all Republicans. I know, because David Brooks told me. He talked to a few of them while they served him his meals at a Bed and Breakfast.

|6.16.05 @ 10:52AM|#

This string of bizarre joe non sequiturs brought to you by Carpet Humping Man, official semierotic exercise program of Hit & Run.

|6.16.05 @ 11:06AM|#

Nuts to the south, it's a lost cause. Those dorks need to figure out how to win in the west, and win more of the midwest.

(Why is an inability to win in Alabama and Mississipi some horrible liability on the part of the dems, but an inability to win insignificant backwaters like California and New York no problemo for the reps? I mean in national elections?)

|6.16.05 @ 11:10AM|#

Uh, yeah, talking about "eastern establishment" political figures trying to connect with middle America is completely irrelevant to Labash's article. Good call, Josh. What could I have been thinking?

|6.16.05 @ 11:18AM|#

Good question joe. What in the hell does David Brooks have to do with anything?

Your post bears absolutely no relation to anything actually in Labash's article, and since it came four minutes after Walker's and I doubt you reload the Weekly Standard every five minutes, I'm assuming you didn't read it.

Maybe you should do that, and then you can come back and post a comment with at least a tangential relation to the subject matter.

|6.16.05 @ 11:22AM|#

I can imagine Joe explaining the joys of urban apartment living and mass transit and the evils of firearms and gas-guzzling four-wheel drive pickups to Mudcat. Let me go out on a limb here, Joe, but I do not think that when "Mudcat" talks about "hunting" he means looking for antiques in Georgetown.

|6.16.05 @ 11:26AM|#

You know what, Josh? The quote that Walker put IN THE DAMN POST appears in the article, too.

|6.16.05 @ 11:28AM|#

Maybe I'm confused now, is David Brooks a GOP strategist?

|6.16.05 @ 11:33AM|#

Why is an inability to win in Alabama and Mississipi some horrible liability on the part of the dems, but an inability to win insignificant backwaters like California and New York no problemo for the reps?

Because America has *always* had an anti-urban strain. It's built into the way we elect our President. And it's reflected in numerous comments on this board, such as the one by Jose above.

|6.16.05 @ 11:38AM|#

and might merely be, in the words of one GOP strategist, "a Carville-lite act with a NASCAR twist, aimed mostly at neurotic urban liberal reporters who love the southern fried two-fisted-damn-Democrat'n'proud-of-it noble savage shtick."

Why is the Left so images-centric? My moonbat friends, bless their little red books, can only speak in the tongues of social stereotypes.

I chalk it up to "tolerance" being the urban religion. I guess with tolerance as the holiest of holies, you have to go around and label everybody before you can dispense it. Funny to see the establishment Right pick up on it too.

|6.16.05 @ 11:42AM|#

Jose,

I'd probably lead with health care, schools, and Social Security.

Why would I talk about urban issues to somebody who lives in the country? The point of having an urban vision is to keep the country from being built over, not to build mass transit across Mississippi.

keith|6.16.05 @ 11:46AM|#

I chalk it up to "tolerance" being the urban religion.

As a Southerner living in New York, I can at the very least say that tolerance isn't extended to countryfolk, despite the continued preponderance of redneck trucker hats and John Deere shirts on urban hipsters.

|6.16.05 @ 11:55AM|#

Dems don't need the South. Kerry proved that. If the Dem candidate wins every state that Kerry did and adds Ohio to the mix. Then they can give the finger to the South. Kinda the way the Republicans have been doing to the Northeast and the West coast.

|6.16.05 @ 11:58AM|#

Mo,

Even without Ohio, a few pickups in the southwest would do the trick, too.

However, if you write off the South entirely, you're leaving a very smaller margin of error. You're also relieving the Republicans of the effort of defending their turf, allowing them to take the fight to the Dems' turf.

|6.16.05 @ 12:04PM|#

But Joe, that's the basis of Mudcat's lament: the elite Northeastern Republicans DO seem to connect with red blooded, red state, God fearin Middle America. Elite Northeastern Dems don't. So it doesn't matter that Jonah, Bill and Rich have more in common with elite Northeastern Democrats than with the aforementioned Middle America - the Republicans are picking up the votes, the Democrats are not.

(You probably won't find it funny, but I do - he's running a whole story arc on the intrepid Democrat anthropologists in deepest darkest Bubbaland. Of course, I'm a native of the Evil State.)

|6.16.05 @ 12:14PM|#

By concentrating on the presidential election most of these posters are missing the elephant in the room - How do the Democrats win the House or Senate if they give up the South and West? Sure, go ahead and keep your blue states and win Ohio. Then try to get a UN ambassador approved.

|6.16.05 @ 12:23PM|#

joe,
But isn't that what the Republicans have largely done in the solid Democratic states? Focus on the West, Midwest and the Northeast. The Dems strength in the South was largely due to historical reasons. Now that Republicans are the dominant federal presence, Democrats can use the distrust of the distant federal government present in much of the West to their advantage. Let's face it, the South, outside Florida, is pretty much a lost cause for the Dems. They're better off focusing their dollars and time in the Midwest and West.

Jack,
On the contrary, focusing on the West is key for the Democrats. The South is less important to them.

|6.16.05 @ 12:27PM|#

What I find more interesting to ponder is why African-Americans and Bubba's tend to be on opposite sides in Bubbaland.

|6.16.05 @ 12:38PM|#

Mo,

The Republicans continue to work hard in solid Democratic Great Lakes states like Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Also, there are a lot more solid Republican states than solid Democratic states as of right now.

|6.16.05 @ 12:39PM|#

Because America has *always* had an anti-urban strain. It's built into the way we elect our President. And it's reflected in numerous comments on this board, such as the one by Jose above.

One reason might just be that when the left tries to appeal to Southerners and "Country Folk" they always try to ham it up with the aforementioned southern fried two-fisted-damn-Democrat'n'proud-of-it noble savage shtick.

I'm certainly not a member of the Southern/farmland demographic they're trying to appeal to, but the "aw shucks" folksy populism of people like Molly Ivins, Jim Hightower, James Carville, and Dave "Mudcat" Saunders is more irritating than fingernails on a chalkboard.

|6.16.05 @ 1:30PM|#

Democrats seem to be obsessed with the notion that they aren't getting their message out effectively. It's obvious after such a long string of national defeat that the Democrats' beliefs don't resonate with the majority of the country. And as they are drifting even further towards becoming a Euro-style Social Democrat party, they will continue to lose. Which sucks, because there is no one to challenge the drift of the Republicans towards Big Government Conservatism. Are there actually any classical liberals left in the GOP?

|6.16.05 @ 2:03PM|#

Are there actually any classical liberals left in the GOP?

Amongst their supporters? Absolutely. Among their elected officials? No more than a handful at most.

I don't claim to know what the best strategy for the Dems is, but I would like to see a stronger second party in this country so we don't suffer the ills of hegemony. And I do have one observation about the Dems:

I think one problem with the Dems is that they know deep down that their platform isn't popular. Yes, joe, I know, you can trot out polls showing that when you go issue-by-issue the Dems allegedly command a majority. The problem is that when you stitch it all together into a package it just doesn't command much support. Maybe it's their style. Maybe it's cultural. Maybe it's that they do a bad job of assembling the pieces. But whatever it is, it isn't working.

Anyway, when I compare the vibe I get from Republicans with the vibe I get from Dems, the Democrats just give me a vibe like they know they're unpopular, while the GOP comes across as ambitious. GOP candidates touch third rails. Sometimes they get burned for it, but they're manly enough to go out and do it. Dems give watered-down versions of what the left would really like them to do. (e.g. They know that single-payer health care won't fly, so they talk about marginal programs.)

Sure, you can find plenty of instances where GOP candidates moderate their tone and hold back from endorsing their base's entire wish-list. But I still get this more confident vibe from GOP candidates, while the Dems know they'll have to compromise and they let it show in their speeches.

Now, joe can spin that as A Good Thing ("See, our guys are willing to compromise!"), and compromise is certainly a good thing in a system founded on the notion of checks and balances. But the way they present it they come across as embarassed rather than reasonable.

I don't claim to know the best remedy for it. Maybe they need to be bolder about the stuff they believe in. Or maybe they need a more popular platform so they can have genuine confidence. But whatever it may be, as long as they give that embarassed vibe they won't win the White House, or even a House or Senate majority.

|6.16.05 @ 2:04PM|#

How is the Democratic Party becoming like a Euro Social Democratic party. Hardly. The Dems would be the center right party in any Euro nation. Maybe not the UK, but on the Continent. Shit, Chirac's party and the German Christian Dems are to the left of the Democrats. The US does not have a left of center major party. We have an extreme right party and a center-right party.

|6.16.05 @ 2:11PM|#

"It's obvious after such a long string of national defeat that the Democrats' beliefs don't resonate with the majority of the country."

Every issue poll done in the last 10 years proves you wrong. Huge majorities in favor of universal health care, environmental protections, education spending, Social Security and progressive taxation. The only areas that Republicans win on are taxes and foreign policy.

I'm not saying that framing is everything, but it is clearly not the case that the Democrats' positions on their core issues explains their electoral losses.

|6.16.05 @ 2:14PM|#

thoreau,

I think you are right about the "vibe" thing, but that has nothing to do with their platform.

|6.16.05 @ 2:39PM|#

joe-

This debate is quickly going to become very nuanced, but I do think the platform has something to do with it. Why do they come across as ashamed if their platform is so popular?

I think the answer is that the platform is more than just the sum of its parts. Maybe the ideas are popular when taken individually, but when put together they add up to something that a lot of voters don't like. The message sent by that particular mix of programs is a message that, for whatever reason, not everybody likes.

Or maybe it has to do with the fact that, while the Dems might get a majority on a wide range of issues, they don't get the same majority on every issue. Since some people care more about certain issues than others, the GOP can split off voters who otherwise agree by emphasizing key issues that have appeal in the right regions. If key blocs of voters are willing to vote GOP over a handful of hot-button social issues, then the Dems' popularity on economics doesn't do them any good.

Anyway, I don't claim to know what the problem is. But they give a vibe of embarassment, and surely that has at least something to do with their stances. Why be embarassed if your package is really so popular?

|6.16.05 @ 2:40PM|#

Why be embarassed if your package is really so popular?

And yes, I know, I just set somebody up for a nice Clinton joke. Any takers?

|6.16.05 @ 2:58PM|#

thoreau, I'm totally cool with nuance.

I think the problem is that the sum of the parts adds up exactly to the sum of the parts. The overarching message is, "This is a list of good ideas." It's not "We'll make you freer, safer, an stronger," but "We'll make the government work better."

They're reaching for the tools, without actually explaining what it is they want to build. I think a lot of them don't even know themselves.

|6.16.05 @ 3:12PM|#

joe-

That's an interesting possibility. A few days ago in Salon the governor of Virginia said that Democrats approach the campaign with "Here are the programs." Republicans, OTOH, have a vision, a message. The Dems present various bureaucratic fixes that appeal to a range of constituencies, while the GOP presents Captain Flightsuit and talk about changing the world.

Which is not to say that just any old vision will do for the Dems. Some visions might turn people off, others might come across as phony. But the Dems do need a message that makes the platform greater than the sum of its programs.

Given some of the deep strains running through American society, it might not hurt if that vision incorporates some libertarian rhetoric. And yes, I know, libertarian rhetoric is totally incompatible with their platform, yadda yadda. But hey, if it works for the GOP President who ushered in the largest expansion of the welfare state since LBJ, surely it can work for the Dems as well. I mean, the dude talked about limited government in one breath, and in the next talked about prescription drugs and No Child Left Behind. How much more statist can you get?

And yet he won. Think about it.

|6.16.05 @ 3:14PM|#

the "aw shucks" folksy populism of people like Molly Ivins, Jim Hightower, James Carville, and Dave "Mudcat" Saunders is more irritating than fingernails on a chalkboard

I totally agree, which is why I think the Dems should focus their energy on urban areas and try to reach suburban areas. Rural areas are a total loss.

The reason Dems are losing nationally is both because the country is now becoming less urban (and more suburban and "ex-urban") and because rural areas have disproportionate strength in national politics.

|6.16.05 @ 3:22PM|#

Anyway, when I compare the vibe I get from Republicans with the vibe I get from Dems, the Democrats just give me a vibe like they know they're unpopular, while the GOP comes across as ambitious. GOP candidates touch third rails. Sometimes they get burned for it, but they're manly enough to go out and do it.

Which strikes me as being the complete opposite of how things were in the late 80's through the mid 90's.

It seems like vibe-wise, the Dems and Reps have swapped places.

|6.16.05 @ 4:14PM|#

Thoreau said:

I think one problem with the Dems is that they know deep down that their platform isn't popular. Yes, joe, I know, you can trot out polls showing that when you go issue-by-issue the Dems allegedly command a majority. The problem is that when you stitch it all together into a package it just doesn't command much support.

And Joe retorts:

Every issue poll done in the last 10 years proves you wrong. Huge majorities in favor of universal health care, environmental protections, education spending, Social Security and progressive taxation.

I report, you decide.

|6.16.05 @ 4:23PM|#

It's almost as if Joe doesn't actually read what other people write. But that would be silly, because reading comprehension is part of his planning job.

|6.16.05 @ 4:26PM|#

I was responding to Chris O, not thoreau. thoreau's post hadn't hit when I wrote my post, kmw. It's called cross-posting, and it happens pretty frequently.

|6.16.05 @ 4:36PM|#

I can see that now. Oops, sorry. My bad. I guess I'm the one jerking the knee.

But Thoreau's right, something is just not working with todays donkey movement.

|6.16.05 @ 7:34PM|#

I totally agree, which is why I think the Dems should focus their energy on urban areas and try to reach suburban areas. Rural areas are a total loss.

The reason Dems are losing nationally is both because the country is now becoming less urban (and more suburban and "ex-urban") and because rural areas have disproportionate strength in national politics.

I don't follow. It sounds like you're saying the Dems should just get out of the game.

|6.16.05 @ 7:45PM|#

Eric-

I think he's saying that the emphasis should be on turnout in urban areas and swing voters in the suburbs. Which is pretty much what Kerry tried to do in 2004, and Gore in 2000.

The question is whether the same thing needs to be done only better, or if something different needs to be done. The demographic numbers suggest that the same thing needs to be done only better. The question is how. And I think the answer is that the Dems need to stop coming across like they're embarassed about something.

|6.16.05 @ 10:43PM|#

Thoreau and Joe, this I think is what people meant when they said they voted for Bush because of "moral values" -- not that Kerry was for gay marriage and probably free love as well but that at least Bush comes across as standing for something and Kerry, well, doesn't. At all. Nor do the Democrats generally. (Not being George Bush doesn't count. Nor does attachment to one's own political career.) But the Dems seem to have taken that "moral values" message to mean that they now have to talk about how, like, Howard Dean set foot in a church once, or something, and maybe hang the gays out to dry for awhile. It's embarrassing to be a Democrat at this point, it really is.

|6.17.05 @ 2:15AM|#

not David-

I agree. Bush comes across as having something behind the policies.

I read an article in Salon today about how the Democrats are going to dig in their heels and be a real opposition party liked the GOP was in the 1990's. That's nice and all, but the GOP did more than just shut down the government during budget stand-offs. They had the Contract With America. Yes, the promises were broken, but the promises were at least made, and when made they added up to more than the sum of their policies.

When you look at winners in US political history there's usually a Big Message. FDR had the New Deal. Reagan talked about Morning in America. Clinton felt our pain and came from a place called Hope. Newt Gingrich had his Contract With America. And Bush was the Compassionate Conservative.

Not all of those guys were big winners, but they were winners nonetheless. joe can point out that Bush only won by 3% as a wartime incumbent, but Bush can point out that he's still President and Kerry is still a Senator.

If, in 2006, all that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid can say for themselves is that they torpedoes some legislation and blocked some judges, they will lose seats. They need to explain their opposition with some coherent theme.

Or, failing that, they need to hope that the GOP does something so incredibly dumb that they shoot themselves in the foot. Even then, politicians are more likely to suffer for their mistakes if somebody else takes advantage of those mistakes. If the Dems can't do any more than stomp their feet and bluster about how outrageous it is, while the GOP sends in some smooth-talking heads to explain that this minor indiscretion does nothing to undermine their efforts to make America safer, freer, stronger, and more prosperous, well, we all know who will win.

|6.17.05 @ 3:33AM|#

Good title for the post, Jesse -- I don't think Flatt & Scruggs ever did Set your fields on fire but Bill Monroe certainly did. What the hell, Flatt & Scruggs were probably in Monroe's band when he did it, I'll give you ten points.

What, you don't know what the hell I'm talking about?