Political realignments in the US tend to be painful things. Forty years ago, the US entered a period of political dealignment – one that fractured the New Deal coalition, that shattered a great many assumptions about politics and policy, that broke the American consensus about the role of government. For a very long time – beginning in 1993 – American politics was dominated by Southerners – it seemed that every leader had a Southern accent of one variety or another.
That changed – spectacularly – beginning in 2007 as California and Nevada provided the Congressional leaders and then in 2009 when Barack Obama was inaugurated President.
Kevin Drum noted that the first time since Reconstruction, the South, as a region, is largely locked out of power at a national level:
In other words, for the first time since Reconstruction, the South will be almost completely shut out of national power. There are still a few liberal Southerners who belong to the Democratic Party, of course, but the reactionary, traditionalist South is, for the time being, nearly powerless. They will not control anything, their caucus is a discredited rump, and their influence will be negligible. There is no reason to fear them or to care what they think. Their power to filibuster, itself guttering and only barely alive following the 2008 election, will be all they have left.
I’ve written extensively about his book, but this is exactly what Thomas Schaller predicted in Whistling Past Dixie. Essentially, the long dealignment that created the ascendant Republicans of the last generation is giving way to a new political alignment in which the Northeast, the West Coast and the Midwest create a generally progressive governing coalition that leaves the conservative South politically isolated.
How this plays out at a national level is already visible in yesterday’s healthcare vote – the South and the Mormon corridor strongly against the new majority. Still in its early stages (and thus far badly managed by overly cautious leadership), this governing coalition is demonstrating an ability to create progressive policy. Coming from an era of brutal, bloody Southern dominated politics, these progressive leaders are inclined toward caution; as they gain confidence, and strengthen the governing coalition, I think they’ll become more assertive and craft better policy.
In the meantime, the predominantly Republican South faces a painful period of political exile:
“I want my country back,” has become a conservative-populist rallying cry. They have not truly lost their country, but have seen a wild swing of power north and towards the coasts. It won’t last, either. But it’s a painful reality right now for a region that once revelled in separatism, then dominated the country as a whole for an oddly long stretch.
I realize I’m ridiculously optimistic, but I think the Mormon corridor states will reconcile more easily with the new political majority than the deep South. Perhaps most importantly, Mormonism (whatever its faults) is also a strongly communitarian faith – a faith that values not only community but that insists each of us has a role to play in strengthening community (it’s a value that is often at war with Mormonism’s emphasis on the isolated nuclear family). The communitarian impulses in Mormonism are extremely strong. Progressive politics is about strengthening the community as a mechanism by which to defend individual rights. I think Mormons will find a comfortable home in this progressive majority.
I also think that the cultural conservatism of Mormonism is a different flavor than the cultural conservatism of the South. Southern sytle cultural conservatism is fueled by evangelical/fundamentalist Protestantism – it is fire-breathing, angry, passionate and slightly paranoid. Mormon fueled cultural conservatism, by contrast, is calm, careful, dispassionate; Chris Buttars, for instance, is the exception and his notoriety comes from his differentness within the state legislature. Buttars’ passionate, angry conservatism stands in stark contrast to the cool, dispassionate style of many of his colleagues, who don’t disagree with him on specific issues but who find his histrionics a distraction. They’re use him without really liking him or his methods.
A far better example of Mormon style conservatism is found in Michael Waddoups and Greg Bell – the sort of politician who would not be out of place in the Soviet Politburo – effective apparatchiks, deeply pragmatic, masters of legislative intricacies who are preternaturally given to the politics of caution, deeply distrustful of any kind of reform that might upset the status quo; committed, but not angry. Equally, I think its instructive to look at the history of Mormons and African-Americans. Almost as soon as the church changed its policy concerning African Americans and the priesthood, it was as if the church had never institutionalized racism. Mormons have an astonishing ability to make peace with changing realities.
My instincts tell me the Mormon corridor will become a focus of massive efforts over the next few years. Colorado is already moving strongly to the Democratic column. Arizona was a swing state when native son John McCain wasn’t on the ballot. Utah, Idaho and Nevada already have Democratic representation in Congress; it’s an easy move from the current weak Dems to real progressives.
Bear in mind, it’s been a few years, but Utah at one point sent real Democrats to Congress and had a real Democrat for our governor.
#1 by Richard Warnick - November 8th, 2009 at 10:51
I’d have to say “progressive leaders are inclined toward caution” would be a massive understatement. I’m still wondering how many of them are really corporatists.
IMHO the plan was to produce crappy corporate-friendly legislation, citing the alleged need for bipartisanship (even though nobody outside the Beltway care about bipartisanship).
But then the GOP became the Party of NO. Democrats either had to pass corporatist policy and take the heat for it all by themselves, or else veer in a progressive direction. But the energy and health care bills are still very corporate-friendly if you check the details.
#2 by Glenden Brown - November 8th, 2009 at 13:14
Richard – Yeah, I was trying to positive. I think there’s a deep disconnect between America’s political leadership and the American people. I’m working on a post about it but it’s not anywhere near ready yet.
#3 by Cliff Lyon - November 8th, 2009 at 17:42
I had a thought today Glendan that may be of use for that post.
Like no other generation, we have seen change. Phone dials to Skype blah blah blah.
The Conservative America argument is rooted in a past and the influence of a generations that saw little progress by comparison.
From forever before and a hundred years after, the Founding Fathers did not know progress and a much of the generations behind us, managed not to adapt to progress.
Today’s Conservatives are the last of the “refuseniks.” They refuse to accept progress. They are desperate and holding on to a quickly disappearing reality.
Unfortunately, they cannot be helped anymore than Fundamentalist Islam will survive and ward of western-ism.
They will not change, they will simply die off.
#4 by Glenden Brown - November 8th, 2009 at 20:34
Hey Cliff,
I think the Refuseniks – like the Luddites or Know-Nothings – are going to be with us in one form or another for a long time. From a policy standpoint, the challenge has always been to balance the obvious need for reform with the profound distrust of any kind of reform from the refuseniks. As I see it, people who are in full fledged “no change” mode may have the wrong ideas, but they’re not dishonest – they really do fear the effects of reform and change and technology. I think it’s one thing to respect that fear without allowing it become the dominant force in society.
#5 by Larry Bergan - November 9th, 2009 at 00:31
G. Don Gale, an old and respected voice in Utah for as long as I can remember did an excellent and tough opinion piece the other day about the unfortunate demise of talk radio.
The comments section was filled with losers falling all over themselves to call Gale a dirty liberal. It’s amazing how intolerant some people around here can be of somebody’s opinion, but over all, I think things are changing back to a more civil dialogue since Obama has been elected and the old “we’ll smoke em’ out of their caves” mentality fades.
I wish Gale could use his influence at KSL to get rid of Hannity.
#6 by Larry Bergan - November 9th, 2009 at 00:33
Oops. Forgot to link to Gale’s article.
#7 by Dwight Sheldon Adams - November 9th, 2009 at 12:00
Glenden, Cliff–
We can’t ignore the inherently changing nature of even the “no-change” crowd. They’ve been around forever, but just think: those darn Romans were once afraid of the scourge of Christianity! The unwillingness of the static thinker has always existed, we just have a new version of it, in a new brand, packaged, sealed, and consumed by the millions who think they’re doing what’s always been done–drinking the original Kool-Aid, if you will. Cherry flavor, perhaps?
The reactionaries are a great example of this, simply because they all want to go back to a time that never existed in the first place. The Constitution Party creates a mythological America of the ever-noble Founding Fathers, which somehow persisted unchanged by technology, geography, and demographics through 1959, and which has since been modified (aka “corrupted”) by liberal media, shampoo commercials, intellectuals, post-Truman liberalism, Graeme Frost, communists, rock bands, “European-style socialism,” French-cut green beans, progressives, hair styles, visual art (which used to be so demure!), Harry Potter, collective populism, new coffee flavors (but not the Starbucks business model), and the invention of spray-paint. They’d include supply-and-demand in there (considering that it created most of those things), but such economic mechanisms can’t be attributed with cultural change.
One part of me suspects that the fictionalized version of America that reactionaries sell as our unblemished past is so labeled simply to grant it the credibility successes of the past have earned. In my deeper self, I know that these people, by and large, are genuinely deluded; they are unwilling to accept anything less than the idyllic perspective of America (prior to today, anyway) and its effect on the world; they are uncompromisingly incapable of seeing both positive and negative; they are unable to understand that, as our manufactured environment has changed, so has our political reality. They want a thing that can’t exist in the context of modernity.
The source of this problem, I believe, is largely a vicious combination of identity politics and the fear of being uncomfortable. So many of my friends who have espoused this idea–of reforming backwards or returning to an age when the economy and morality were both on the up–just so happen to be the most financially or culturally comfortable people I know. I think they see a world around them that doesn’t service their lifestyle (which is, in their mind, irreplacably linked to their culture), and it makes them fearful. And why not? If you’re precisely where you want to be, why would you want to change, even if your vision of your position in life has been hand-crafted and handed to you by your employer and the ideology that supports him? If you like your neighbor, why would you want him to move out and a new one move in? If you like your family doctor, wouldn’t it disconcert you for him to retire and be replaced by a barely-balding 30-something?
No average person will ever be so comfortable that they can’t find the minority in themselves–not in a country this large. But they will likely find comfort in the faction they live in, and tie it to a larger ideology. When you’ve been convinced that your self-interest can only be served by one of two men, you’re going to find identity with them. If that person is in power, good for you. If not–change is afoot! When change comes, cultural comfort is likely out the window, and for some people, any sense of sanity goes with it.
It’s ironic to me how many people have aligned themselves with groups that don’t share either their self-interest or the finer points of ideology. How can a Christian tie himself with big business without some cognitive dissonance? Yet, aside from those who simply ignore the doctrinal points that might cause internal conflict, and those who ARE big business, it seems like the internal conflict is preserved indefinitely and directed at external ideas and groups; e.g. the Christian directs the animosity generated internally by the abuses of the wealthy and of corporations at the poor and the educated. Socially-conservative Republicans feel rage, all right–they just can’t figure out where the economic half of it is actually coming from. For more on this perspective, read “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” by Thomas Frank.
Most of the “Refuseniks,” I believe, are simply taking one route to self-interest. It just so happens that they feel culturally and/or financially comfortable right now, while the pro-change crowd do not. Nevertheless, there’s something purer and greasier in all of this mess–ideology, rear your ugly head! Why battle with reason and dialectic when you can simply create a culture war, criminalize the government, and oppose the other side as the enemy of goodness and right? “Don’t oppose the President! The enemy is in Iraq,” they said, at least until a Democrat became President. Isn’t it strange how the government wasn’t all bad, both Republican and Democrat, for the last 8 years. Then a Democrat’s elected and everybody has to go.
Of course, there’s also the martyrdom syndrome side to this. I have come to believe that the Refuseniks see themselves in an ultimately losing battle. They have no hope of defeating the other perspective, so they instead wish to slow it down as much as possible for as long as possible. It’s quite ironic that this idea is constantly espoused in conservative media–that of the helpless, powerless, lose-lose Republican “majority”–yet these enormous bursts of misguided populist pride burst forth whenever they win a concession, gather in large groups, or hear Bill O’Reilly gripe, Sean Hannity shout, or Glenn Beck weep. Their rhetoric goes back and forth between “Liberals are so powerful we can never beat them! THAT’S how much control they have over the persecuted majority!” and “We’re the majority! We can win this thing, because the sacred Constitution gave us the power to!” And, lastly, this argument couldn’t be complete without referencing the all-too-common tendency by American political groups to promote majority rule when they are the majority, but denounce it when they’re not–whether as a tool of the mind-controlling media elite or as mob rule, it is the same. Right now, being the minority party, Republicans are holding up that beautiful beacon of spitefulness. It’ll be our turn to, eventually. Let’s just hope, at that time, we can change the way the “no-change” crowd works.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#8 by Glenden Brown - November 9th, 2009 at 13:48
Dwight,
Some of the dynamic, as you pointed out, is a fear of losing what you’ve got if reform happens. After the last 8 years during which middle class families actually lost ground economically, there’s tremendous and valid fear that any reform will be harmful; better to hold on to your widow’s mite than risk losing it.
A number of writers have pointed out the glaring hypocrisy of the teabaggers and similar groups – they couldn’t bestir themselves during the Bush years to worry about government spending and the minute a Democratic administration takes office, suddenly government spending is the end of the world.
#9 by Glenden Brown - November 9th, 2009 at 14:01
Okay, so further thoughts Dwight -
This notion of a mythical golden which had none of our problems is a very popular one – not just with a certain brand of patriots but with a particular type of religious person as well. In some sense, the teabaggers and 9/12ers and so on, are the American version of religious fundamentalists; the dynamic is similar – believing that people in the past were smarter than we are and that we are the lesser children of greater parents, we are the fallen descendants of the Founding Fathers in the same sense that today’s Christians are the fallen descendants of more faithful and wiser parents. The belief in the lost golden age has nothing to do with actual history – it’s about looking backwards.
#10 by Cliff Lyon - November 9th, 2009 at 14:06
Dwight,
Very incisive insight. You are where I was in 2003 when it looked like Bush would win re-election. I immersed myself in human zoology and came out clear.
Its tribalism.
When you say, “The source of this problem, I believe, is largely a vicious combination of…”
or “It’s ironic to me how many people have aligned themselves with groups that don’t share either their self-interest ”
Its not poor logic for them, its tribalism over logic.
Thus, when you conclude;
“Let’s just hope, at that time, we can change the way the “no-change” crowd works.”
…I say they will never change. They just die.
Example, the southern white racists didn’t change when Jim Crow was abolished, they just changed tactics. They are just as racist as before but as they die out, they are replaced also by tribal children and so goes the vicious circle.
#11 by Larry Bergan - November 9th, 2009 at 20:54
I’m always hoping that Utah can shrug off the bull crap they feed us about our undying love of everything Republican because it makes us look foolish. If you thought my last comment was off topic, you’re wrong. The south has the same problem we have. Their politicians make them look stupid.
Here’s an interesting song from the south entitled “One Great Mornin’ (The South’s Gonna Rise Again)” Just click on “listen here”; although not the best musical performance in history, the lyrics are remarkable. It’s not what you’ll expect from the title.
We little people from Utah could unite with our southern brothers and sisters and take back what has always been ours; a constitutionally sound society and United States.
#12 by Larry Bergan - November 10th, 2009 at 19:32
OK, I admit it! The drummer isn’t Ringo OR Pete Best, and the singer is fairly illiterate and doesn’t sing any better then Neil Young, but he sure has character.
My favorite story about Johnny Cash is that his singing coach told him not to change anything.
#13 by brewski - November 12th, 2009 at 21:19
I’d take Keith Moon over both of them.
#14 by Larry Bergan - November 13th, 2009 at 02:17
I would say all drummers are underrated. Without a perfect back beat, your band is toast.