New at Reason

March 28, 2007

Are Democrats giving up on the South? Is the West the new swing region in American politics? What does that mean for libertarians? Dave Weigel aims to find out.

Comments

|3.28.07 @ 1:30PM|#

I like the analysis. Sod-all chance that the GOP will actually follow such advice--at least on a national basis. Western Republican candidates would be more likely to adopt a more libertarian stance, I'd say.

lunchstealer|3.28.07 @ 1:53PM|#

The solid-red-ification of the South certainly does seem to be likely to have the effect of starting to slowly marginalize the region. Once the GOP is completely assured of their support, the battlegrounds will move to the midwest and southwest, and maybe culturally un-southern Florida. The South's going to be a kingmaker in one party only, and have no influence at all on the other party. Even that kingmaker status will wane once the kings they make start seeming too out-of-touch with the rest of the country. This will mirror the Northeast's waning kingmaker status with the Democratic party. Just as the Democrats haven't had a northern President since 1960, I could see George Bush being the last Southern president from the GOP. And given that he's only sort of Southern, and no previous GOP candidate has been even remotely southern (his poppa was even more faux southern than Dubya) I really see Southern Political power waning fast.

All the breathless hysteria over a 'permanent republican majority' is going to seem like a laughable load of bollocks in 10 years' time.

Edward|3.28.07 @ 1:56PM|#

It means as much for libertarians as everything else does. Zip.

|3.28.07 @ 2:00PM|#

Quit shilling for Idaho, Weigel!

|3.28.07 @ 2:04PM|#

"Senators like Mississippi's John Stennis, a Democrat whose 41 years in Washington produced the John C. Stennis Space Center and the John C. Stennis Lock and Dam..."

Not to mention the USS John C Stennis, a rare honor given by the Navy to those who have shovelled the most money into the sea.

Way back in the 1980's, when Thatcher was routinely shellacking the Labour Party, there was talk of Labour become not just a class-based party, or a regional party, but a party that could only muster a majority in one class in one region, ie, the "North." That's pretty much how I peg the current version of the GOP. I used to despise "big-business" Republicans; now I'm nostalgic for them. The current strategy of fostering hate to "turn out the base" makes me want to puke and it's heartening to see the rest of the country tiring of it as well.

|3.28.07 @ 2:11PM|#

I don't think that the Democrats are losing the south because of disatisfaction with Democrat policies... so much as the knee-jerk bigotry against southern culture by the leftist elite.

Ashish George|3.28.07 @ 2:17PM|#

Maybe a move away from a fixation on the South in national politics will also inch us away from this absurd idea that that's the only place where you can find the real America. As that dolt Tom Wolfe put the conservative take on geography and demographics, "Most of the meaning in America lies in between the coasts."

Uh-huh, right. And most of America's neuroses too apparently...

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=8971

By the way, I'm from North Carolina and I still find this annoying.

Ayn Randian|3.28.07 @ 2:19PM|#

oh no! Doesn't everyone remember what happened the last time the South found itself politically irrelevant?

|3.28.07 @ 2:25PM|#

I don't think that the Republicans are losing the north because of disatisfaction with Republican policies... so much as the knee-jerk bigotry against northern culture by the rightist elite.

Guy Montag|3.28.07 @ 2:25PM|#

The name is already starting to fade a little, like that of an actor who hasn't starred in anything bigger than a TV pilot for years.

LOL! Is Fred that big of a threat to the Democrat wing of the Libertarian Party that every mention of an election must include a swipe at a successful campaign lawyer who happens to be an actor too?

|3.28.07 @ 2:28PM|#

LOL! Is Fred that big of a threat to the Democrat wing of the Libertarian Party that every mention of an election must include a swipe at a successful campaign lawyer who happens to be an actor too?

And I though that was a reference to Jeff Goldblum.

|3.28.07 @ 2:28PM|#

Doesn't everyone remember what happened the last time the South found itself politically irrelevant?

Do you mean succession? Well if they try that again, [Pee Wee Herman Voice]I say we let em go.[/PWHV]

|3.28.07 @ 2:32PM|#

It's secession. If it had been succession, we'd all be speaking with a drawl now.

Maybe we should secede, though I'd prefer some sort of libertarian-motivated secession, this time around.

|3.28.07 @ 2:39PM|#

Pro,
Yes of course. I never correct typos when my meaning is still clear. Separate comments to correct a spelling error are a real pet peeve of mine. I wish others would follow my example, and just let it alone. Most of the time I don't even notice until it's pointed out, and then I'm annoyed...

Oh, uh got a little rambling there, sorry.

So you don't think there was any libertarian-motivation the last time around?

|3.28.07 @ 3:17PM|#

Guy: I think you're the only person that thought of Fred Thompson. Everyone else was thinking of Dean Jones.

Not that you're overprotective of that particular non-candidate or anything.

|3.28.07 @ 3:19PM|#

The basic problem with the Democrats "writing off the South" is that while the Democrats can conceivably win without carrying a single Southern state, they probably do need to win at least some socially conservative Southern-*style* voters in places like rural Missouri and southern Ohio.

|3.28.07 @ 3:20PM|#

Warren,

Yes, I think they were, in many ways, much more libertarian than the Union--especially in the smaller central government sense--but there was that whole slavery thing. The Confederate Constitution has some good provisions, as well, from the libertarian perspective.

Incidentally, no more hating on the South, or we'll cut off your food supply during the winter.

I usually don't comment on poor w/c or grammatical mistakes by others unless I can make a joke out of it. Then I have no restraint.

Guy Montag|3.28.07 @ 3:27PM|#

Not that you're overprotective of that particular non-candidate or anything.

Me? Overprotective of the greatest possible candidate for President since Ronald Reagan? Oh, I think you are exaggerating :)

Grotius|3.28.07 @ 3:34PM|#

Ayn Randian,

Actually, the problem was in part that they found themselves too politically relevant. A lot of the blame for that can be laid at the feet of the 3/5ths compromise. Consider that lots of historians have pointed out that the election of 1800 would have gone for Adams if slaves had not been counted in the apportionment of EVs.

|3.28.07 @ 3:49PM|#

Here in Alabama the shift might be an indication of the apathy of black voters.
Oh yeah, and the white folks in the white baptist and white methodist churches tend to vote for republicans because the party claims family values which allows the folks to justify their racial hatred.

Homosexuals are the new niggers in the eye of the southern baptist convention. and the republicans are willing to hate on them. Thats just good politics.
The blacks dont vote and the whites vote for hate here in the south.

|3.28.07 @ 3:59PM|#

There is one obvious problem (from the Democrat's perspective) with the idea that the Democrats should give up on the South - it's the fastest growing part of the country in an absolute sense, and they would consign themselves to political irrelevance should they give up on it.

I will try to present my info in a table, but I don't think the Reason server allows that.

|3.28.07 @ 4:09PM|#

I don't think that the Republicans are losing the north because of disatisfaction with Republican policies... so much as the knee-jerk bigotry against northern culture by the rightist elite.

Nice try, but no... Republicans are definitly losing the North because of their retarded policies.

|3.28.07 @ 4:14PM|#

No, it didn't like the table.

However, these states: AL, AR, FL, GA, LA, MS, NC, OK, SC, TN, TX, VA grew by 1,426,247 in 2004-05, while these states: AK, AZ, CA, CO, HI, ID NV, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY grew by 895,787.

Fastest growing states

|3.28.07 @ 4:29PM|#

Rex Rhino,

I like!

BakedPenguin,

The more relevent number is electoral votes. If the Dems lose most or all of the states in your first list, how many of the rest do they have to get to win? It's still gonna come down to the FL, OH, PA swing states (or whatever the next batch of swing states is going to be).

|3.28.07 @ 4:56PM|#

de stijl - yeah, I realized that, but it doesn't change the basic idea. Although reapportionment won't effect any changes for 2008, after the 2010 census, the % of electoral votes the South has will only increase.

The states I listed as Southern currently have 155 electors, a figure that will only increase. Giving up on them means having to get 75% of the remaining 280 electors to win. This is not impossible, but it certainly sets a high hurdle.

Grotius|3.28.07 @ 5:14PM|#

BakedPenguin,

Well, some of that would be off-set by Democratic dominance in much of the Northeast.

|3.28.07 @ 5:21PM|#

Writing off the southern states isn't a viable option for either party. Especially when Florida is one of those states. Which, incidentally, has a significant "Southern" population.

|3.28.07 @ 5:54PM|#

Well, some of that would be off-set by Democratic dominance in much of the Northeast.

They are definitely using states like MA, CT, RI as a base.

My previous post was incomplete, as I lumped in Florida with "Deeper" Southern states. As Pro Lib points out, Florida does have a big "Deep South" population, along with a large Cuban population that both tend to be heavily Republican.

However, a lot of the increase in the states population is an influx from Northern states - which means Florida may start leaning more Democratic. Even if the Dems start ignoring much of the South, they would have to be suicidally stupid to ignore FL.

|3.28.07 @ 6:44PM|#

I can see writing off much of the deep south, but not Arkansas, Tennessee, Virginia and Florida.

|3.28.07 @ 6:46PM|#

Schaller is wrong about the midwest. The midwest isn't consistently Republican, but it is sufficiently socially conservative that an attempt to consolidate the Dem base by becoming more socially liberal would probably send it back to Republicans. The national-level politics in the midwest is largely defined by a balance between consistently Democratic urban areas and socially conservative but somewhat economically populist rural areas. That's why states on the west side of the midwest like Kansas ("Intelligent Design") South Dakota (abortion ban) that have less urban population tend to end up with more conservative social policies at the state level. Moving to the left on economic policy won't really help the Dems in the midwest, since they're already fairly close (probably slightly to the left) to the point of broadest appeal there. This means that the midwest will continue to be a swing, with it going to whatever party happens to be fucking up the least at the time.

|3.29.07 @ 1:54AM|#

I live in North Dakota. For social conservatism and out-and-out Bible thumping, this place would give any of the Southern states a run for their money.

Guy Montag|3.29.07 @ 9:48AM|#

Perhaps I missed it, but the prince of the Democrats finally moved to the South. Not sure where his other houses are, but interweb inventor and friend of the earth, Albert Gore, Jr. has a house in Nashville. Perhaps some of you have heard of it?

Now that he is there maybe Rosie, Baabs and their friends will follow?