My reaction is that this is bullshit. If Democrats want to win, they will have to run at least to the middle, and in the South they will have to run to the right of center on some issues. And I'm not sure I see what's wrong with that (until they start bashing gays or throwing civil rights out the window).

It's more complicated than the other-region liberals make it out to be. They completely and totally miss the fact that nearly every Dem win on Tuesday was a moderate Dem with very few exceptions. They are out of touch and leading Democrats down the road to ruin, and have been for two or three election cycles now.

And I'm tired of being written off by the liberal elite. Would it kill them to help us help move the South to a more progressive place? We need the help more than anybody else in the country, yet they are ready to give up on us, for what? A few votes in New York? This attitude is a complete and cynical abandonment of everything the Democratic party is supposed to stand for.

Look for a much better analysis by Chris Kromm at the Institute for Southern Studies in the coming days. I've seen it, I'm just not sure where it will run first.

The Democratic party should split into state or regional parties that can develop a character of their own. This would be especially worthwhile if splinter parties adopted regional names. A Southern Democrat party could form as a coalition of Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, Alabama, etc. Democratic parties. The addition of the word "Southern" on the ballot would be worth a chunk of low-information voters each election.

Left Coast Democrats in Alaska, Washington, Oregon and California could adopt the name Lefties, tripping conservatives who like to use the word as a general derogatory term, just like queers adopting "queer" has altered the way we talk about sexuality. New England Democrats could become Neddies, and the heartland can just keep "Democrat" unchanged.

It would broaden the dialogue and diversify the conversation. More than two solutions could enter consideration, which is critical for an adaptive system like a democracy to find optimal choices. Natural decision making depends on variation, but a duopoly constrains variation. It collapses a set to a point, breaking the adaptiveness a healthier democracy would have.

By splintering into regional, allied coalitions, the Democrats could improve the health of our democracy. They could break open stalemate issues and diversify the national conversation.

I'm a big fan of Digby, but I have no idea WTF the point of that post is and I'm not inclined to spend time figuring it out.

All the strategic noodling was well and good out in the wilderness, but it's time to stop the abstract wankery and get down to brass tacks. Stat.

The congressional Dems have a very brief time to get their act together and capitalize on this fortuitous turnover. Not only do they have less than 24 months total, the preznit campaign begins in earnest Jan. 1. And if they don't come out of the gate strong at the start we are (pardon my French) well and truly f#%@d for the duration. That leaves a couple of weeks to draft the next play.

There should be relentless focus along three or four themes at most; defining and refining them is the immediate task at hand. I think there's an emerging consensus that shoveling out the stables should be first and foremost*.

The Wingnuts are reeling at the moment. But given that they have no conscience or shame, it's not going to be very difficult for them to forget how badly they f'd up and get right back in the saddle.

They really don't have any interest in governing anyway, so Limbaugh and his ilk are probably being honest when they say they're relieved. As Monsieur Kerry might say, Ressentiment is their raison d'etre, after all. They will do anthing and everything to change the subject. The wicked shitstorm this way comes will be nothing like we've ever seen.

Get ready.  

* I read a recent interview with Pelosi - I think about five or six months old now - where she was bragging about the power she wields with her PAC warchest. This was after all the hubbub about unethical contributions. That doesn't quite fit the line she's feeding bloggers and it's gotta stop. This is one area where all us e-scribblers could be holding the line. I keep plugging the Sunlight Foundation, which has some great ideas.

I also disagree with Digby. Why "give up" on a large section of the "United States" of America? The South is a great land, as is the North, West, Southwest, Midwest (well I'm not so sure about Kansas), etc. We just need to keep talking and teaching. There is much to be said and much to learn. Let's not wait until an election to diplomatically discuss the issues. Let's start now towards a better South and a better America.

Don't get me wrong, I am not happy with Tennesseans after this election. I am just not ready to give up on change. Tennessee is rural, as is most of this great country. Rural American has proven again and again to go Red. I think we need to think more about the rural vote than just giving up on it.

I would argue that less interventionism on the part of the DC establishment would be a good thing.

And insofar as the Democratic strategy has been to adopt "third way" political pandering as religion, it's time to realize that you don't need to graft the southern template onto the rest of the country as dogma. The DLC didn't win this election nationwide. Neither did the DSCC or DCCC, although they desperately have been grasping for credit.

To some extent, the Democratic Party has been captive to Clintonian politics. The problem is that once you remove Bill Clinton from the picture, it just doesn't work. Clinton is an exceptional politician. Yet, Clinton is not the absolute reference manual for how the DP can win into the future. A lot of people seem to forget this. The Clinton formula just doesn't work minus Clinton.

The Democratic strategy needs to be flexible, adaptive, and regionalized. There needs to be a continuing commitment from the DNC to The 50 State strategy. It has obviously worked better than "third way" politics nationally. But more than that, there needs to be a commitment to building a much stronger bench for federal candidates.

Keep in mind, too, that Tennessee is nominally D. D governor, D state house, 5 of 9 of the US Reps are D. But is it a Democratic Party like you'd see in Illinois or Maryland? No.

A big problem in Tennessee, I would offer, is that there is a single statewide office elected here, if you don't count the two Senate seats. That office is governor. The other positions are patronage positions. Lt. Gov. Wilder has held that seat since Reconstruction, it seems like. Jimmy Naifeh's lock on the House has been one big GOB barrier to institutional or structural change. Sadly, the alternative would be turning over the House to the Stacey Campfields of the world, and I can't even contemplate what sort of train wreck that would be. Another problem is the lack of women in office. Only about 14% of the elected positions in TN are held by women. Another is the 50% high school graduation rate that we have here.

So, if we want real political change -- we need smarter women running for statewide office. ;-) That's honestly the long and the short of it.

And we need to take the energy that we saw in turning out the vote and channeling that into taking back the DP infrastructure in the state. While I know that the GOP would take issue with Naifeh's agenda on principle, I would argue that Naifeh's agenda hasn't necessarily been our agenda either. How we engage that going forward is an important question to tackle. Inertia has not been our friend 'round here.

So, Digby is right about one thing: If the Yankees need to abandon southern conservatism in their own races, let them. It might help out nationally. But we still need to roll our own solution down here with national support. Abandonment clearly doesn't work. Witness the 2000 election.

____________________________

You can live a batter life, or a butter life. Or both, if you choose.

Digby has been on this kick since at least 2004. What he's missing is that divisive conservative issues are temporary. Sure, it's likely that a liberal Democrat will have trouble winning electoral votes in the deep south, but abortion and gay marriage are pretty much the linchpins of the evangelical/conservative alliance. And now that states are passing their own firewall amendments on gay marriage, and now that the national GOP is threatening to abandon its ultra-conservative platform, evangelicals may well start losing their shiny status in the eyes of political strategists.

Just as the Democrats can't win on the coasts alone, the Republicans can't win in the South alone.

...some Southern ideas can creep up here and take hold.

Barbecued ribs. Kentucky bourbon. Cajun & Creole cuisine. American literature. Jazz. Hell, rock 'n roll, fer chrissakes. Rock wouldn't exist without Little Richard (Macon, GA), Bill Broonzy (Scott County, MS), Muddy Waters (Rolling Fork, MS), Howlin' Wolf (West Point, MS), Professor Longhair (Bogalusa, LA), Koko Taylor (Memphis, TN), Antoine "Fats" Domino (New Orleans, LA), John Coltrane (Hamlet, NC), B.B. King (Indianola, MS) and the white folk who imitated them -- people like Elvis Presley (Tupelo, MS), Jerry Lee Lews (Ferriday, LA), Patsy Cline (Winchester, VA), Hank Williams (Georgiana, AL), Johnny Cash (Kingsland, AR), Wanda Jackson (Maud, OK), Carl Perkins (Tiptonville, TN), and Link Wray (Dunn, NC).

No blues, no Sun Records. No Sun Records, no Beatles. No Beatles, well, the world would be different today.

Hell, politically speaking, Johnny Cash is a case in point…

I know it pains a lot of people to realize this, but in his life, Cash was not a Republican. Still, the GOP rushes to claim him. They screamed mightily when Al Gore and Tim Robbins appeared at his funeral, as if it was some slight on the man's memory.

I wonder how many of these folks have ever listened to "The Man in Black." I mean, really listened to it.

Now, in no way would I rush to conclude that Cash was a flaming liberal. Far from it. I'm sure he was rather conservative. His politics, though, were populist and genuinely Southern.

I think other normative behaviors could be examined wrt the South and why the rest of the country, especially the North don't understand why the behavior must continue.

Isn't that the very nature of reactionary politics? Of conservatism itself? "Refusal to change, just because." Nostalgia for an age that never existed. People still buy that Margaret Mitchell line of bullshit down here, for whatever reason.

...the continued migration to the South/West and to the Coasts that is occurring in this country is going to push these notions, or at least ones akin, into places where they are not wanted for reasons that are by no means moral or even sensical.

Again, I think this is an attempt to graft DLC-style Clintonism onto Yankee Democrats and declare that one size must fit all.

Long story short -- and a point I don't think I've seen anyone here make -- this electoral cycle was unprecedented because it was a large-scale repudiation of neoconservative extremism. This isn't the same as "Republicans lost," but neither does it indicate that "Democrats won." This is not meant to trash the hard work that went into winning, or to discount the commitment to people-powered politics. It could be argued, however, that this was a singular win in "perfect storm" conditions. Let's be realistic here.

Remember, not only has Iraq been a simmering, continuous disaster, 2005 saw the wholesale devastation of vital American city, and it looked that for all intents and purposes that our government didn't give a shit. Congressional approval was at all time lows, and it would have taken nothing short of a miracle for the RNC to pull it out. It wasn't for lack of trying, for sure. It looked like they were going to drag Macaca the Cro-Mag past the finish line in VA and Talent didn't lag in MO until late in the game.

As a Democrat, it worries me that bright people like Digby are overplaying the hand we've been dealt here.

____________________________

You can live a batter life, or a butter life. Or both, if you choose.

Friends and I have been having a lot of conversation lately about what I personally perceive to be the chief reason Ford lost this thing: Tennessee Democratic insiders couldn't find their asses with both hands.

TN Dems at the local level routinely walk right into GOP traps. Case in point: The Tennessee state Senate voted that gay marriage amendment onto the ballot, and were it not for four Dems in the state House we'd have had an antiabortion amendment to match (without any exceptions for rape, incest, or life of mother). Need I remind you the Tennessee state Senate is held by the GOP, but with only a 1-seat majority, which means droves of Democrats voted for those amendments. Only to have the GOP demagogue the hell out of the gay marriage one, which forced our candidate to come out in support of it, which certainly cost him votes in Memphis and Nashville - the two reliably blue counties in this state, which together account for nearly 1/3 of the vote. Despite their weak choices in statewide candidates, Republican voters came out in droves to support that amendment.

Ford didn't help himself by refusing to force his idiot brother out of the Congressional race in Memphis and contributing to a public battle with newly elected Rep. Steve Cohen. But TN Democrats need to realize that in their race to co-opt Republican voters with conservative social issues, they are increasingly running the risk of alienating hardcore Democrats, and that risk is going to increase with time as more people move into urban areas in the state. I'm not saying folks need to run as liberals, but they do need to avoid handing Republicans branches to beat them with, such as lightning-rod social issue ballot initiatives.

We also need to start aggressively combatting the idea that only Republicans reflect Christian values; try suggesting that to Northern Democrats, though, and you'll get howls of protest. It mystifies me why none of them ever seem to remember MLK himself was a man of the cloth. You're starting to see some local Democrats reframe issues like poverty and education as moral issues, which I think is a winner, and I hope to see more of that type of rhetoric in the days ahead.

Andy's absolutely right about our need to elect more than one statewide office and to bust open the doors of the state Democratic infrastructure, so we've got a bench of candidates who offer something more than the same old good ole white boy collegiality to voters. Good luck prying the reins of power away from folks like Naifeh and Wilder, but listening to some of our state House and Senate members lately, I think this may be an idea the time for which has come.

It certainly didn't help that Nashville voters had to wait in line four and five hours in the pouring rain for the first time (another valid reason for Ford's loss), but I'm with Andy here too: Digby and others like him will badly mischaracterize what happened here, which will probably result in many missed opportunities. There's always a temptation to oversimplify complicated cultural issues, and in this case many people are also oversimplifying previous failures to capitalize on said social dynamics by Democrats. Many people would like to chalk all this up into simple racism and bigotry, and it could be many more election cycles before they figure out what's really happening here (Dems completely concede social issues to Republicans, hand them electoral advantages, etc.)

I wonder how they're rationalizing Virginia, which put the Dems over the top in the Senate, into being a Northern state. It's simply not true that Democrats can't win here, but the national Party needs to take a look at how state Parties are being run. It seems obvious that some sunshine initiatives are needed there too.

I'd post more, but I don't want to hand a roadmap to our Republican friends. Email addy in prefs is good.

Shifting the focus off of slavery as the one central issue regarding secession is revisionist and, in my opinion, apologist for the actions of a few radical southern elites.

Oh goody. Another revisit to the Civil War as to the reasons why all Southerners are racists and Democrats are bound to lose. I just can't wait. Gaaaah.

From the best blogger on the planet:

I should mention that I am also taking this time to retool alicublog for the Democratic era. Previously I let a lot of things slide because there was no point in paying attention. When John Bolton was muscled into the Ambassador's post, for example, I felt no need to question the decision: under the rule of Republicans run amok, that made as little sense as protesting the decision of Dracula to suck the blood of virgins, on grounds that their blood should instead be extracted by mad scientists who would then breed them with monkeys to produce a race of supermammals (the moderate approach).

Now I have to proceed as if the worst possible outcome is not a foregone conclusion.

That's what I meant to say.  Let's get wonky, homies.

We also need to start aggressively combatting the idea that only Republicans reflect Christian values; try suggesting that to Northern Democrats, though, and you'll get howls of protest. It mystifies me why none of them ever seem to remember MLK himself was a man of the cloth. You're starting to see some local Democrats reframe issues like poverty and education as moral issues, which I think is a winner, and I hope to see more of that type of rhetoric in the days ahead.

EleanorA, I completely agree with absolutely everything you say until this part. "Northern Democrats" (including me, although I'm a southerner) believe that embracing Christian values is fine *as long as you embrace Christian values.* Jimmy Carter did this, and despite his born-again status he's a hero to true liberals everywhere. John Edwards does this, and he's also well-regarded by many. Barack Obama, unfortunately, only "talks about" his faith and so ends up being regarded as a self-important gasbag who's too focused on a presidential run to shut his yap and get down to business.

Case in point, and then I'll be done: the recent torture/detainee act was a perfect opportunity for folks like Obama and Harold Ford to say "torture is immoral and as a Christian I can't vote for it." But they didn't (although Obama voted 'nay' anyhow), and we "Northern Democrats" are seriously left with the impression that "Christian values" are the stuff of stump speeches and are not really part of the equation when it's actually time to do something. And by the way, I am very glad to hear that local Democrats are walking the talk, and I would vote for them in a heartbeat. Because even though I'm not a Christian I care as much about morality as anyone.

More thoughtful analysis of Whistling Past Dixie here in a post entitled, "Harold Ford & the South, Big Tent & 50 State Strategy."

[Whistling Past Dixie is] a rather remarkable book though, using statistics to make the case that Democrats can win a majority without the south. And that's probably true, but it's Schaller's first recomendation on "The Path to a National Democratic Majority", that Democrats define the south in the most denigrate ways, to run against the south for an enduring majority, that is morally and strategically wrong.

The obvious correlation here, to which Schaller's himself draws the comparison, is what the Republicans have done to northeastern liberals. And now, Schaller argues, it's time to turn the tables and do to the south for the conservatives, what they have against liberals in the northeast on the national debate.

In contrast, what makes the 50 state strategy so important and strong, is that it changes the paradigm that the Republicans have created in the last 4 decades. For Democrats to try and turn the table on them, using the same method, leaves me lacking. There's no reason to denigrate the south.

As Schaller writes, the Republicans make it a point that it's liberals in the northeast, not the northeast, that they are attacking (just as Bush & Rove point out that its not Democrats' patriotism that they are attacking when they make treasonist-like accusations against Democrats). Obviously, that is a Big Lie, and Shaller would acknowlege the distinction is cya rather than substantive.

Ford ran a terrific campaign, especially if you are a Big Tent Democrat that wants to win in the south. But beyond Ford, we have a strong base of African-Americans & a growing base of Latinos in the south, and pockets of progressives, and they are already combining forces in places in the south to win at the city and county level.

... We can hope [racism] goes away, and work toward that goal through education, but we can't ignore it in the meantime. We still have work to do in the south (and everywhere) to get rid of racism, and frankly, and it's the Democratic Party's work to do. The national Democratic Party has an historical obligation to win the battle of ideas in the south, and to opt out of that, or to run against it, would constitute a moral failure.

____________________________

You can live a batter life, or a butter life. Or both, if you choose.