Southern Retreat
In Jay Winik's magnificent history of the end of the American Civil War, April 1865, he contemplates the major decision that Robert E. Lee chose not to take, thus assuring the survival of America as a single country. The Confederate President, Jefferson Davis, driven from his capital in Richmond by Grant's Army, urges Lee to follow the example of John Mosby's Raiders, breaking his Army of Northern Virginia into small guerrilla bands of "bushwhackers" and retreat to the secure territory of Alabama and the Ozark Mountains. From there they could fight a continuous war of attrition and harassment of the Union occupation force, eventually forcing Lincoln to sue for peace and separation. Lee understood the potential for such a strategy, but it was not a vision for a country he wanted to live in, much less lead. And so he surrendered his army at Appomattox.
The Republican Party of 2008 has decided to take Jefferson Davis' advice and retreat to the deep South to fight a guerrilla war as the white people's party.
That could spell the end of the so-called Southern strategy, the doctrine that took shape under President Richard M. Nixonin which national elections were won by co-opting Southern whites on racial issues. And the Southernization of American politics -- which reached its apogee in the 1990s when many Congressional leaders and President Bill Clinton were from the South -- appears to have ended."I think that's absolutely over," said Thomas Schaller
, a political scientist who argued prophetically that the Democrats could win national elections without the South.
The Republicans, meanwhile, have "become a Southernized party," said Mr. Schaller, who teaches at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. "They have completely marginalized themselves to a mostly regional party," he said, pointing out that nearly half of the current Republican House delegation is now Southern.
Of course the guerrillas will find shelter in the right wing think tanks of Washington and the radio studios of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and their harassment of the Obama Movement will be rhetorical and not physical. But increasingly we will see the Republicans veer to the right and become almost irrelevant to the greater national dialogue. As David Brooks points out this morning, reform of the Republican message is years away because all the power rests in the monied think tanks and radio talking heads, who see themselves like the heroic bushwhackers of 1865.
But this embattled-movement mythology provides a rational for crushing dissent, purging deviationists and enforcing doctrinal purity. It has allowed the old leaders to define who is a true conservative and who is not. It has enabled them to maintain control of (an ever more rigid) movement.In short, the Republican Party will probably veer right in the years ahead, and suffer more defeats. Then, finally, some new Reformist donors and organizers will emerge. They will build new institutions, new structures and new ideas, and the cycle of conservative ascendance will begin again.
As for the rest of the country, we will get on with the business of the Green New Deal, excited by the possibilities of rebuilding our country, crippled by 30 years of neo-conservative economics.
It's true that the people who comandeered the term "conservative" have now managed to create an insular, regional, white people's party. It is not, however, true that they will remain that way. The idealogical shock troops for right wing extremism in America call themselves "conservative" and have absolutely no moral standards. They may well morph their rhetoric to expand their base of willing fools and have a resurgence if the Democrats allow them to do so.
If the Democrats don't move swiftly to paint these right wing extremists into a corner and keep them there, we will see them back on the stage within 10 years and back in power soon thereafter. They have virtually endless resources at their disposal thanks to the likes of wealthy, greedy, ideologically driven patrons like Scaiffe and others.
Unless we put them down they will get back up as they did after 1974 when the Democrats refused to use Nixonian corruption against them. Our side should not be foolish enough to think these people will go away or be content to be on the sidelines with their current set of issues and rhetoric. What they want is power not purity and they will stop at nothing to get it and keep it.
November 11, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
This almost seems like a state truer to 'nature' - they have made a terrible ruling party in that they run against government even when they're running the show.
The nostalgia world they think they want never existed. Was it before Nixon era integration bussing? Was it before 1965 and the voting rights act? Was it before Rosa Parks? Was it before Truman integrated the Army?
Because of their reactionary 'purist' streak, they are unlikely to reach out to hispanic catholics - even on their all important abortion issue. I was frankly shocked that they rejected Romney's Mormonism. I'm Catholic, but I find Mormonism actually more legit than the blatant charlatan-ism of Karismatic krischuns - yet they rejected Romney's apostasy - jeez, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
There's another, broader problem - a vicious pathology really - which is their voracious hunger for 'scary' canards. Ergo "Obama is a communist islam guy!" Children play pretend and make up scary campfire stories. The infantile Palin right has only ramped up this tendency of enthusiastic self-delusion.
November 11, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
you forget to mention that Mosby was a fookin IDIOT. Sherman had just burned a swath, 60 miles wide, from Atlanta to the Savanna, and then march unapposed from Savanna to Richmond. Grant had just ousted Lee from the last remaining stronghold of the confederacy, and was chasing him to the death
the confederacy was thoroughly defeated, and the Union was completely united
mosby's guerrilla war would have resulted in the death of every southern white male over the age of 10, within 2 years
if you're gonna contrast mosby and Lee, you should be clear about where mosby would have led the confederacy
and in today's political climate, the guerrilla political strategy the repuglitards seem to be on will have the same result
NOT A SINGLE REPUGLITARD IN ELECTED OFFICE, ANYWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES
ever notice that you don't see many Whigs or Federalists around these days ???
November 11, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Follow the money. Republicans will have far less graft to pass around in the coming few years, at least, and that's going to have a salutary effect on the loyalty of a lot of their cadres.
November 11, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
"ever notice that you don't see many Whigs or Federalists around these days ???"
Course not! They're all hanging out in the Democratic Party.
November 11, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is mildly disgusting, but utterly unsurprising - surveying the rubbish heap into which last week's election tossed the GOP - that David Brooks would describe foes in a future battle for the soul of the Right as "moderates" (like himself?) and "traditionalists" like Sean Hannity?!!! Hannity is a moderate the way a hand grenade is a discriminating judge of character. The battle is between shifty, sleazy neoconservatives, like Brooks, and paleoconservatives, who are the real "traditionalists" of the Right.
As long as “traditionalists” allow themselves to be marginalized by the Right’s neoconservative wing, they deserve their cold comfort in the wilderness. As long as neocons are allowed to define paleoconservativism, they contain it, emasculated and subdued.
And to rub salt in the wounds, this definition of “traditionalism” is fabricated by late-comers to the table, who know and care nothing for the Right’s guiding principles of limited government and personal reponsibility, of sober finance and disavowal of war. By neoconservative lights, traditional American conservativism is degraded as the stuff of racism, proventialism, isolationism and backwardness. The brave new world is liberal at home and hawkish abroad; David Frum and Rahm Emanuel spring from the same pod on those points.
The “traditional” Right is apparently so lame that it’s completely suckered by these smooth-talking empty suits. To the extent that is true, then not only the Right, but also the country itself suffers. America is degraded by two useless wars and a financial system looted from the top. These are the brainchilds, this is the legacy - for the most part - of the neocons, and it happened because no effective battle was waged against them, no effective alternatives were proffered. This couldn’t be done by the Left; its ideas didn't work. By holding on so relentlessly to its silly founding myths, the Left has rendered itself utterly irrelevant and foolish - now pot-headedly wondering if Obama is “black enough”. The Left is comic relief and nothing more.
Obama's victory was not a victory of the "progressive Left". It was a victory of "moderate" America, the middle-of-the-road voters wisely suspicious of ideology and radicalism from either pole. He's not the Progressive President. He's not the Black President. He's the President. Period.
Get over it!
Now, the battleground for conservatives, in their coming, unavoidable civil war, is known and familiar. Yes, neocons still have money and the mighty forces of the media on their side - but it’s a media corroded by its own credibility meltdown. Can anyone, seriously, refer to Brooks’ New York Times as the American “newspaper of record” without erupting in caustic laughter? This "liberal" bastion helped shill lies for the Iraq War, and sat on news of domestic surveillance "for our own good". There was a nation before the New York Times, and there damn well will be one after it's flushed down the toilet and forgotten.
For the soul of their party - their party - paleos have to take names. Kick ass. Be Americans, dammit. Grab it back, or wither in the poor house with the rest of the forgotten, forsaken and dispossessed.
And die there.
November 11, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The left's ideas didn't work? It was the left that fought for civil rights, voting rights, and educating children that "all men are created equal" includes women and minorities. If the left is beating a dead horse, you might politely tell them to stop but don't tell them that the horse didn't win the race, because it did!
Eventually you "change" folks are going to figure out that real change requires real risks and the perseverence to continue to fight knowing that your fight may only be won long after you are gone.
November 11, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was a big left-wing idea that created the conditions by which Obama is The President. If the left had its way this could have happened sooner (had Henry Wallace been President). If the right had its way we'd still have segregation.
November 11, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bless you Tigger for mentioning Henry Wallace's name!
November 11, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think reports of the death of the Republican Party are a tad premature. Think about California, which went to Obama 61% to 37%. California's prop 8 is the giveaway on how fragile this victory was and how difficult it is to read or administer. So, I wouldn't be too hasty to consider a repudiation of Bush a repudiation of much else. I'm sure Obama himself doesn't.
November 11, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a repudiation of the DLC theory that the only winning coalition is one that appeals to the bubba vote. There are different ways to win on different issues. You might not win the Catholic vote on prop 8 but you might well win it on universal healthcare. But you won't win on universal healthcare if you assume that it's a "left" issue and no coalition can be built to enact it.
November 11, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
IMO, an area where grassroots/netroots Democrats can work to keep marginalizing the Republicans is voter registration and election day reform.
I think the SC decision on Indiana's voter ID law stopped pre-emptive action against it. They would not acknowledge prospective harm (ie., we think this law will harm civil rights because ...). Now, isn't it possible to start a new action based on retrospective harm? Here are instances where civil rights have been hurt by this law. One huge difference would be the new administration working to overturn the Indiana law instead of to uphold it.
For election day reform, fighting for optical scanners would be a start. Then fighting for equal distribution of voting machines across a state instead of having far fewer machines in poor neighbourhoods. The ACLU action in Virginia may have been started with a view to getting this to the SC as an equal rights issue.
Even though running elections is a state responsibility, maybe it would be possible to have a federal law setting minimum standards for the number of voting machines available for a certain number of voters?
Another area to work at is electing of Democratic Secretaries of State.
Simply working to create a level playing field will either give the Democrats a natural advantage for the foreseeable future or make the Repulicans realize that their vicious negativity and flouting of the basic principles of democracy are now facing the law of (rapidly) diminishing returns.
November 11, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
We seem to be on a binge of grandiose prophecy here at TPM. I understand the basis for it, I think: The ascendence of President-elect Obama seems fraught with nearly-Shakespearean portent. At a pregnant moment like this, only the most deeply wise and restrained commentators can avoid the urge to take a gander for themselves at the entrails, and try to describe for us what they see there.
The honest truth (of course) at this point, is that no one knows. To forecast even a basketball season 12 months out is hard, but perhaps dimly possible - given a little luck, and a lot of hard work and study. Three years out? Can't be done - even in something as simple as basketball.
I call your reluctant attention to the PRESENT lonely, 30%-approval White House occupant: Is it only 6 years (nearly to the day)that he came out of the mid-term Congressional elections touted as another Reagan? Inspiring serious talk in some circles of his addition to Mt. Rushmore? The inspired leader of an historic political realignment? Yes it was - it only SEEMS much longer.
Time spent in a futile effort to forecast the future is time wasted. It makes a lot more sense to stop editorializing about where we're going, and start NOW to pick-up our feet and take ourselves there.
November 11, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh egads, watch out, reality-based person, you'll get a party pooper label. :-)
Dare I say it: change, it happens to candidates using the change campaign motto, and it happens to candidates who don't. Lessee, from Heraclitus (Everything flows, nothing stands still) to Asimov (The only constant is change, continuing change, inevitable change, that is the dominant factor in society today)....
November 11, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The above was meant as a reply to one_wilson's comment @ 3:26 PM, and not the main post.
November 11, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
test
November 11, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pursuit of the 'southern strategy' is precisely what has brought the once respectable GOP to such dire straits. Pander to ignorance, bigotry and intolerance long enough and it will infect you. And that is also why McCain lost. He seriously could have won but he pandered to exactly the people he already had in his pocket. They would never have voted for a highly educated liberal leaning black man. Why his campaign chose to waste their time energy and money on them is something I don't understand. I have a pet idea that is entirely without support or proof, but...perhaps the Dems planted the seed of doubt in the GOP minds that their 'base' might not vote for McCain because he wasn't rightwing enough. If true it'd a brilliant maneuver.
November 11, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally off topic but... Anyone know what the specifics are for putting an avatar up? I've tried different file types and sizes and none will save. Can't find any info on the site about it. Thanks!
November 11, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are racists and religious fanatics in the deep south, just as there are in New York City. I live in NYC today, but have roots in the not-so-deep South. In truth, I resent the holier-than-though attitude represented in every attack I see on the South. It is true that ignorance abounds there, but graduation rates are poorest in urban centers, the heart of the Democratic demographic. As an ex-Baptist I still recollect an occasional bit of Biblical wisdom... such as this little bit, "You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother's eye." It is true that southerners have faults and even that the Republican party has mired itself into those faults, but I wonder whether too much regional bravado might expose more Democratic faults than it does improve our ability to govern. The worst racists I ever met were in New Jersey and the home of the KKK is in Ohio.
November 12, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink